4) Claim the GPL is invalid. Distribute Samba Anyways. Claim that IBM copied derivative trade secrets into samba and that they own samba. Sue Samba for theft of IP (see SCO AFPS). Watch their stock go through the roof. Make millions selling their inflated stock.
BZZZT! And thank you for playing! Here's your lovely parting gift.
1. To use GPL covered software you have to agree with the GPL. 4. If you disagree with the GPL you are not allowed to use the software.
From the GPL:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
(emphasis mine)
To DISTRIBUTE GPL covered software, you have to agree with the GPL. GPL is a distribution license, not an EULA.
You mean there's still one place on the net where they haven't figured out how to tie all your demographics together??? They should fire their marketing team!!!!
Used to be, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." Now, not only do they know you're a dog, but what kind of dog food you eat, and what kind of dog porn you like (french poodles?)*.
If you look at the security bulletin, it was issued on 16 July. The fix has been out for a month, and my work machine (XP) was installed on the same date via Windows Update.
While I love to bash MS as much as the next guy on SlashDot, this isn't news.
Good evening and welcome to the Money Programme. Tonight, on the Money Programme, we're going to look at money. Lots of it. One film and in the studio.
Slashdot Mirror
Given Darl's history, they'd go with:
4) Claim the GPL is invalid. Distribute Samba Anyways. Claim that IBM copied derivative trade secrets into samba and that they own samba. Sue Samba for theft of IP (see SCO AFPS). Watch their stock go through the roof. Make millions selling their inflated stock.
Me too...
User #247481
Machine #131561
1. To use GPL covered software you have to agree with the GPL.
4. If you disagree with the GPL you are not allowed to use the software.
From the GPL: (emphasis mine)
To DISTRIBUTE GPL covered software, you have to agree with the GPL. GPL is a distribution license, not an EULA.
Most homeless shelters are privately funded. Why the fsck should the gov't have the right to ask this info?
Who releases singles? I haven't seen a single since the days of '45s!
The other classic example was the original PC-AT MFM controller.
IIRC, they originally tried (slave mode -- the only available thing then) DMA, and in general, it was faster to pump the data out by hand.
Anybody going to go?
We will greet the infidel GPL dogs from IBM with shoes!
Pi = 0x3.243F6A (hex)
= 03.11037552 (octal)
, no matter how improbable that was
Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.
You mean there's still one place on the net where they haven't figured out how to tie all your demographics together??? They should fire their marketing team!!!!
Used to be, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." Now, not only do they know you're a dog, but what kind of dog food you eat, and what kind of dog porn you like (french poodles?)*.
* Except on Friendster, apparently.
Well, Here's one for Win9x/NT/2K/XP.
The video drivers were userland code in NT3.x. They moved them into the kernel for speed in NT4 (and later).
Well, it's anecdotal, but a guy at work, with a clean XP system just BSOD'ed in the ATI driver.
When does SCO put IBM on "Double Secret Probation"?
It would be interesting to know whether (say) the ESA had been trawling through my sites.
Why are you worried abou the European Space Agency? Do you have bootleg blueprints of the Ariane 5?
Precisely! WTF was wrong with "Hammer"????
Which would you rather say:
"I'm running an Opteron(tm) at 2GHz", or
"I'm running a Sledgehammer(tm) at 2GHz"?
No contest.
Has the ugliest website I've ever seen
Has really annoying registration
Didn't they claim that the entire 2.4 kernel was in violation?
The source to the 2.4.13 kernel is here.
Ahhh... I see the difference. You're absolutely correct, AC though you may be.
They *DID* put it on Windows Update. On 16 July.
A lot of people didn't install SP3 because they had the "All your system are belong to us" license. They fixed that in SP4.
If you look at the security bulletin, it was issued on 16 July. The fix has been out for a month, and my work machine (XP) was installed on the same date via Windows Update.
While I love to bash MS as much as the next guy on SlashDot, this isn't news.
Good evening and welcome to the Money Programme. Tonight, on the Money Programme, we're going to look at money. Lots of it. One film and in the studio.