Downloading from Napster/Kazaa/et all is not illegal in and of itself.
However, if you discover that something you downloaded from there is covered by copyright, and you then keep it, then and only then have you committed an illegal act.
A friend of mine put a 3.4 MB text file on Kazaa under the name of some Brittany Spears single, and tagged it as an MP3. Downloading that, even though it had the same name, was not illegal. Neither was uploading it.
Of course, he's doing this because he wants to be sued by a knee-jerk responding RIAA.
Re:important safety tip!
on
United Nuclear
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Egon: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light. Ray: Total protonic reversal....
Actually, if you read the article (What? on Slashdot?!?) you'll see that Microsoft's final offer didn't come in soon enough to be reviewed by the Munich Council's tech/contract experts, and that they didn't take the offer seriously.
Such would be unconstitutional, as it would be a violation of due process. Just because he has done the same, does not make it right to violate his rights.
Those actions that you mention only in one case (UNTAET, after the rampage had ended) were in the context of the U.N. It is very instructive to look at the ideology and politics of where the "invitations" came from for U.S intervention and compare them to every other invited incursion in U.S history.
And did you actually look at what the rest of them were? I doubt it.
I specifically quoted rescue missions, humanitarian aid missions, etc for a reason.
However, as others have said, the fact that they then didn't immediately pull their Linux release hurts them somewhat.
It's like discovering you can opt out of a spam list, not opting out for another few months, and then complaining you still got spam for the months between the times you learned about the opt out, and actually used it.
If there is something in SCO code that has a copyright notice, it has to be either a SCO copyright notice or someone else's copyright notice. (For the purposes of this, anything that SCO has rights to will be a considered to be an SCO notice.)
If it is an SCO notice, then it should be very easy to find in the Linux source. Then we know what it is.
Alternately, it is someone else's copyright notice. And if the copyright notices match, then it is code that was put into both SCO's and Linux's codebase. If it were a GPL copyright notice, then SCO is guilty of bringing code into their codebase without releasing it. I can't really believe they would be that stupid.
Therefor, the notice must be for something that SCO thinks they have rights to. Whether this is AT&T or Novell derived stuff or something else, we don't know yet.
The project then becomes thus:
1) Identify all copyright notices in the Linux codebase. 2) Eliminate all code sections with GPL notices, as that can't be in the SCO codebase (again, unless they are really stupid). 3) Tabulate all remaining entries, and determine when and how they entered Linux. If necessary and possible, contact the contributors. 4) Post the results, send links to the world.
and, 5) Profit from the fact that SCO is driven into the dirt.
If someone, call them X, duplicates a work, and I get X's permission to use "their" work, completely unaware that it is duplicated , then if/when the lawsuits start flying, I may not be held liable.
This is because, while copyright falls squarely in a court of law, the penalty phase may be (and commonly is) done under a court of equity.
SCO claims there are multiple instances of copyright violations. SCO said these include: NUMA (Non Uniform Memory access) a mechanism for enabling large multiprocessing systems, RCU (Read Copy Update) (and) SMP.
Now, according the position paper put together by ESR, SCO's OpenServer doesn't contain NUMA and has crappy SMP.
The question then becomes, if SCO has these things, where did they get them from?
Well, you have been given 2 data points, and from extrapolation a bunch of others (the under 1000 feet >= 150 MBit part).
Given that signal degradation is usually either a logarithmic or squared dropoff (depending on how your professor explained it/what scale you use), you should be able to plug some numbers in and maybe even get close.
I doubt it, tho. There just isn't enough (read: any) data on the midrange response.
I don't know... probably somewhere between 4 and 150? It's just a guess, you understand, but I can't see the speed going up between those two distances...
It's also why big businesses like Microsoft are terrified of a serious test case that might establish a precedent that EULAs have no legal weight because of the way they are set up.
So what's to stop a bunch of us here from writing a software package, selling it to another/.er, and then filing suit, to get a precedent set against EULAs?
The fundamental principle is that SCO does not want it revealed what code in Linux is in question. Since that code is already public knowledge, if they let you publish information "obtained from other sources" you can basically publish the relevant code.
So what would stop someone who saw the "infringing" code from publishing the rest of the kernal, etc, except for what they saw?
Since they haven't published anything that they were shown by SCO, they aren't in violation of the NDA.
It would then be a simple job to determine which portions were missing, and then call SCO's bluff.
Or if you are in cities such as Atlanta, Los Angeles, and, I think, New York, where you need the area code even if you are calling a friend one house away.
Slashdot Mirror
Right... saw the end, parsed the whole thing wrong.
.sig for possible reasons. :P
See my
associated in fact although not a legal entity
And since SCO is a legal entity, RICO doesn't apply to them.
Downloading from Napster/Kazaa/et all is not illegal in and of itself.
However, if you discover that something you downloaded from there is covered by copyright, and you then keep it, then and only then have you committed an illegal act.
A friend of mine put a 3.4 MB text file on Kazaa under the name of some Brittany Spears single, and tagged it as an MP3. Downloading that, even though it had the same name, was not illegal. Neither was uploading it.
Of course, he's doing this because he wants to be sued by a knee-jerk responding RIAA.
Egon: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Ray: Total protonic reversal....
Actually, if you read the article (What? on Slashdot?!?) you'll see that Microsoft's final offer didn't come in soon enough to be reviewed by the Munich Council's tech/contract experts, and that they didn't take the offer seriously.
I know I'm responding to a troll, but...
Such would be unconstitutional, as it would be a violation of due process. Just because he has done the same, does not make it right to violate his rights.
Those actions that you mention only in one case (UNTAET, after the rampage had ended) were in the context of the U.N. It is very instructive to look at the ideology and politics of where the "invitations" came from for U.S intervention and compare them to every other invited incursion in U.S history.
And did you actually look at what the rest of them were? I doubt it.
I specifically quoted rescue missions, humanitarian aid missions, etc for a reason.
Too bad you missed it.
Who in the hell asked the US to "be the world's policeman?
Recently?
Liberia.
Within the last few years?
Mozambique (Operation Atlas Response).
Timor (USGET and UNTAET).
Venezuala (Operation Fundamental Response).
Turkey (Operation Avid Response).
Kosovar (Operation Allied Harbour).
Central America (Operation Strong Support).
Kenya & Tanzania (Operation Resolute Response).
That just takes us back 5 years to the middle of 1998. Do some research of your own.
There's a chance a few of them have said the SCO suit caused them to accelerate their Linux plans.
After all, 'change' in this case doesn't have to mean that it is a bad change.
If you want it gone for good, "Run" the following:
RunDll32 advpack.dll,LaunchINFSection %windir%\INF\msmsgs.inf,BLC.Remove
True.
However, as others have said, the fact that they then didn't immediately pull their Linux release hurts them somewhat.
It's like discovering you can opt out of a spam list, not opting out for another few months, and then complaining you still got spam for the months between the times you learned about the opt out, and actually used it.
Right, but follow me here.
If there is something in SCO code that has a copyright notice, it has to be either a SCO copyright notice or someone else's copyright notice. (For the purposes of this, anything that SCO has rights to will be a considered to be an SCO notice.)
If it is an SCO notice, then it should be very easy to find in the Linux source. Then we know what it is.
Alternately, it is someone else's copyright notice. And if the copyright notices match, then it is code that was put into both SCO's and Linux's codebase. If it were a GPL copyright notice, then SCO is guilty of bringing code into their codebase without releasing it. I can't really believe they would be that stupid.
Therefor, the notice must be for something that SCO thinks they have rights to. Whether this is AT&T or Novell derived stuff or something else, we don't know yet.
The project then becomes thus:
1) Identify all copyright notices in the Linux codebase.
2) Eliminate all code sections with GPL notices, as that can't be in the SCO codebase (again, unless they are really stupid).
3) Tabulate all remaining entries, and determine when and how they entered Linux. If necessary and possible, contact the contributors.
4) Post the results, send links to the world.
and, 5) Profit from the fact that SCO is driven into the dirt.
Not quite.
If someone, call them X, duplicates a work, and I get X's permission to use "their" work, completely unaware that it is duplicated , then if/when the lawsuits start flying, I may not be held liable.
This is because, while copyright falls squarely in a court of law, the penalty phase may be (and commonly is) done under a court of equity.
I checked Windows Update today on a lark...
:)
Quick! Somebody port Linux to a sparrow so we can stay ahead of the curve!
Today songbirds, tomorrow fur bearing mammals!
The word you're looking for is "contingency".
Yeah, but he claimed ninjas were out to get him.
SCOs claims are much closer to pirates, and we all know pirates are cooler than ninjas.
The above link
Now, according the position paper put together by ESR, SCO's OpenServer doesn't contain NUMA and has crappy SMP.
The question then becomes, if SCO has these things, where did they get them from?
Well, you have been given 2 data points, and from extrapolation a bunch of others (the under 1000 feet >= 150 MBit part).
Given that signal degradation is usually either a logarithmic or squared dropoff (depending on how your professor explained it/what scale you use), you should be able to plug some numbers in and maybe even get close.
I doubt it, tho. There just isn't enough (read: any) data on the midrange response.
I don't know... probably somewhere between 4 and 150? It's just a guess, you understand, but I can't see the speed going up between those two distances...
It's also why big businesses like Microsoft are terrified of a serious test case that might establish a precedent that EULAs have no legal weight because of the way they are set up.
/.er, and then filing suit, to get a precedent set against EULAs?
So what's to stop a bunch of us here from writing a software package, selling it to another
Or am I missing something?
The fundamental principle is that SCO does not want it revealed what code in Linux is in question. Since that code is already public knowledge, if they let you publish information "obtained from other sources" you can basically publish the relevant code.
So what would stop someone who saw the "infringing" code from publishing the rest of the kernal, etc, except for what they saw?
Since they haven't published anything that they were shown by SCO, they aren't in violation of the NDA.
It would then be a simple job to determine which portions were missing, and then call SCO's bluff.
Or does that make too much sense?
Hey, they didn't say that they would pass the security audit. Just that they would do one.
Or if you are in cities such as Atlanta, Los Angeles, and, I think, New York, where you need
the area code even if you are calling a friend one house away.
Just off the top of my head, data encryption.
.Net), so I may be completely off base here.
I certainly wouldn't want to transmit unencrypted SSNs, credit card numbers, or passwords.
IHNPW.NET (I have never played with