if the GPL wins, and the court conclusion is that anything with GPL code in it is GPL, then business will be very scared indeed. I may be able to open-source all my employers products by slipping in a few lines of some-GPLed routine. yikes!
This sounds like FUD from Microsoft if I've ever heard it!
You can not force your employer's code to be GPL by merely incorporating GPL code into it.
This has happened before. The FSF website even discusses this eventuality. The copyright authors of the code could sue your employer for copyright violation for putting the code into your employer's product in violation of their license, but that does not make the employer's product become GPL.
In any case, there is nothing extraordinary to fear here. Putting anyone else's code into your employer's product, in viloation of the license is most likely to get your employer sued.
What do you think would happen if you stole some Microsoft code and put it into your employer's product? Let's say, you get some "shared source", and in blatent violation of the license, you put it into your employer's code? They / you will get sued.
What do you think would happen if you stole, say, Apple's code and put it into your employer's product in violation of Apple's copyright, without authorization (i.e. a license)?
So why is the GPL to be especially feared? In fact, the GPL authors are much more likely to be reasonable. You can probably settle with them easily by removing the GPL violation and apologizing.
SCO has shipped these products for many years, in some cases for nearly two decades, and this is the first time that IBM has ever raised an issue about patent infringement in these products.
Ahh! So SCO admits publicly that the infringement, and therefore damages, have been accumulating over many years!
The book Big Blue goes into all this. It is an extremely interesting read. A bit dated now. Everything Microsoft is today, IBM was in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
This brings up an interesting question in my mind.
IBM has clearly intentionally released code under the GPL utilizing those patents. Under the GPL we are free to use and modify that code provided that if we distribute the code we do it under the GPL.
First, I think the IBM patents claimed are unrelated to GPL'ed code. But to address your interesting question....
If you have patents that are incorporated into a program that YOU release under the GPL, then you automatically grant a license to use the patent to users of the GPL program, and works derrived from the program.
This does not stop you from being able to enforce your patents against other works NOT derrived from the GPL'ed program you released.
After all, Microsoft has got a pretty firm hold on the burecrats in charge.
When you've got them by the balls, you don't need to hold all that firmly.
Re:Check out Internet Mail 2000
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 1
Maybe ISP's should charge users for each outbound SMTP connection they make? I'd happily pay 10 cents per email I sent if it would reduce the amount of SPAM I received. It would only cost me a couple of bucks a month too at the rate that I send email..
Do you suppose the ISP that is owned by SpamCo, Inc. would actually charge its users the fee?
So, just copyright your stream of mouseclicks into the Microsoft IDE. They're your clicks; you invented them.
There are an almost infinite number of mouse clicks and keystrokes that could lead to exactly the same result.
First, you can re-order many steps.
But secondly, many mouse clicks are to a sensitive rectangular area, like a button or drop down menu pad. Take the number of pixels of the first rectangular button, times the number of pixels in the second rectangular button, and this is the unique number of mouse clicks that have exactly the same effect of clicking button 1 followed by button 2.
If you really could get rich as a spammer, then everyone would be doing it. It would be too good to be true. Sort of like free P2P music. Everyone would be doing it.
If they had millions, there are far more effective ways to advertise whatever legitimate product that people are buying in such volume as to make them their millions. Or were you referring to millions of Iraqi Dinars?
Go over to
OOoForum.org
, go into the Macros and API section and read what people are doing.
Go over to
OOoDocs.org
, they also have a Macros and devlopment section.
You can write StarBasic code directly into OOo documents. You can write programs in Java to drive a running OOo, even on a different computer. (For example, a Java program on, say, Windows, telling an OOo running on Linux what to do.) You can write components in C++ or Java or Python.
The Python UNO bridge is new. I haven't tried it yet. I believe you can do anything with Python that you could do with Java or C++ in OOo. StarBasic is limited in that you cannot create new components, it lacks sophisticated data structures, and you can only embed it within documents. The other languages cannot be embedded within documents (yet). I'm hoping to someday be able to embed Java classes or Python within an OOo document, just like I can with StarBasic macros.
Be sure to download the SDK. Read the documentation, especially the developer's guide. The first big learning curve is to understand UNO. This is pretty much a prerequisite for everything else. Once you do though, you're on your way.
Oh yeah, on languages that can access OOo. If you're on Windows, you can use Windows Automation. This means you can access it from, say, Visual Basic. I have seen OpenOffice.org programmed from Visual FoxPro.
when your boss tells you that his brother-in-law's nephew is a phone contractor, so you'll be using whatever he installs.
Using a rule based rewrite system (in Lisp) to simplify such relationships, wouldn't this reduce to simply "when your boss tells you that his nephew is a phone contractor..." ?
Actually, I'm not sure that you can. [agree to a EULA].... both the GPL and all those click-wrap/shrinkwrap licenses are not binding
This must be fixed. We must have protection of Intellectual Property. If I can't sell my rights, and I can't even give them away, then the only solution remaining is that I must pay to have my rights taken away. The only questions remaining are: (1) how much, and (2) how soon can this be incorporated into the new EULA?
What ever happened to exercising some civility and making the assumption that people and corporations do make honest mistakes and will typically try to fix the situation when such a mistake is pointed out.
What planet are you from? Let me give you some background. Corporations make mistakes. Individuals commit crimes. An example of the former type of mistake: Oh, we booked $4 Billion of loss as if it were $4 Billion of profit. Ooops. Sorry. Example of the latter type of crime: you picked up an envelope with a sewing pattern out of the trash and had the gall to think you could sell it, or even posses it?
This could be an interesting test of the DMCA. It has stood up a lot but how well can it stand up against itself?
You simply do not understand legal theory.
The DMCA is used whenever a corporation doesn't like something that they want to sue for. (e.g. refill ink cartridges, selling a discarded sewing pattern envelope found in the trash)
The underlying legal principal at work is that corporations can do no wrong. Only individuals can. Especially when the business model or corporate profits are at stake. Or if you say something they don't want you to be saying.
Since we have two corporations fighting here, and since they both call dibbs on the DMCA weapon, they both must win. There must be some way to word a press release in such a way that two losers come out sounding like two winners. (I just don't speak weasel well enough to know how it is done.)
MS's legal staff occupies 2 whole buildings. And they have nothing to work on.
Perhaps this works like government. It can get bigger, but never smaller. Like once you open a can of worms the only way to re-can them is to use a larger can.
If this is true, then the completely ineffective antitrust trial may have been counterproductive. It gave lawyers something to do, and grew Microsoft's legal department.
On the other hand, maybe they do have something to work on. Seems like we haven't heard our daily gossip about SCO yet. So I thought I'd bring it up.
[Microsoft vs. Stac Electronics....] but [MS] were definitely found guilty of patent infringement.
Are you sure it wasn't Copyright? My (mis?)understanding was that Microsoft literally copied parts of the binary of Stac's software in order to "share" it with all users of the next version of DOS. Or perhaps it was to "add value" to DOS so more people would upgrade? But it definitely was so that there would be no remaining reason to buy from Stac, thus destroying them.
Whether Microsoft perhaps thought that copying someone else's binary into their own product might be against the law was obviously secondary to the fact that they thought they could bankrupt Stac and drag the suit out long enough to just make them disappear. And countersue for $14 Million.
Slashdot Mirror
if the GPL wins, and the court conclusion is that anything with GPL code in it is GPL, then business will be very scared indeed. I may be able to open-source all my employers products by slipping in a few lines of some-GPLed routine. yikes!
This sounds like FUD from Microsoft if I've ever heard it!
You can not force your employer's code to be GPL by merely incorporating GPL code into it.
This has happened before. The FSF website even discusses this eventuality. The copyright authors of the code could sue your employer for copyright violation for putting the code into your employer's product in violation of their license, but that does not make the employer's product become GPL.
In any case, there is nothing extraordinary to fear here. Putting anyone else's code into your employer's product, in viloation of the license is most likely to get your employer sued.
What do you think would happen if you stole some Microsoft code and put it into your employer's product? Let's say, you get some "shared source", and in blatent violation of the license, you put it into your employer's code? They / you will get sued.
What do you think would happen if you stole, say, Apple's code and put it into your employer's product in violation of Apple's copyright, without authorization (i.e. a license)?
So why is the GPL to be especially feared? In fact, the GPL authors are much more likely to be reasonable. You can probably settle with them easily by removing the GPL violation and apologizing.
SCO has shipped these products for many years, in some cases for nearly two decades, and this is the first time that IBM has ever raised an issue about patent infringement in these products.
Ahh! So SCO admits publicly that the infringement, and therefore damages, have been accumulating over many years!
The book Big Blue goes into all this. It is an extremely interesting read. A bit dated now. Everything Microsoft is today, IBM was in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Big is not always bad. Look at GE.
On the other hand, abusive combined with monopoly is always bad.
Open sourcing all the IP rights to Unix would certianly not be in Microsoft's interest.
It seems like any significant non-MS OS is Unix.
It would be a good thing for everyone but MS if all possible future IP issues with any Unix-alike were completely eliminated.
I'm sure IBM has not forgotten how MS stabbed them in the back over OS/2.
This brings up an interesting question in my mind.
IBM has clearly intentionally released code under the GPL utilizing those patents. Under the GPL we are free to use and modify that code provided that if we distribute the code we do it under the GPL.
First, I think the IBM patents claimed are unrelated to GPL'ed code. But to address your interesting question....
If you have patents that are incorporated into a program that YOU release under the GPL, then you automatically grant a license to use the patent to users of the GPL program, and works derrived from the program.
This does not stop you from being able to enforce your patents against other works NOT derrived from the GPL'ed program you released.
Your program is a clear violation of the DMCA.
Actually, IBM litigated until the United States Government ran out of money, which should really give SCO pause!
This is true, according to the book "Big Blue: IBM's use and abuse of power".
Baxter finally dropped the suit (Regan adnimistration) due to "lack of merit". Lack of merit? Then why did they spend 10+ years litigating this?
After all, Microsoft has got a pretty firm hold on the burecrats in charge.
When you've got them by the balls, you don't need to hold all that firmly.
Maybe ISP's should charge users for each outbound SMTP connection they make? I'd happily pay 10 cents per email I sent if it would reduce the amount of SPAM I received. It would only cost me a couple of bucks a month too at the rate that I send email ..
Do you suppose the ISP that is owned by SpamCo, Inc. would actually charge its users the fee?
So, just copyright your stream of mouseclicks into the Microsoft IDE. They're your clicks; you invented them.
There are an almost infinite number of mouse clicks and keystrokes that could lead to exactly the same result.
First, you can re-order many steps.
But secondly, many mouse clicks are to a sensitive rectangular area, like a button or drop down menu pad. Take the number of pixels of the first rectangular button, times the number of pixels in the second rectangular button, and this is the unique number of mouse clicks that have exactly the same effect of clicking button 1 followed by button 2.
Is a Microsoft flavor of Linux coming?
Wouldn't it be the government's job to protect us from such a threat?
So the RIAA should sue me for not liking St. Anger?
You've got it all wrong. Typical slashdot zealotry.
They aren't going to sue you for not liking it.
They are going to sue you for not paying for it.
Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.
that was worth millions to 'em.
I am skeptical that spammers have millions.
If you really could get rich as a spammer, then everyone would be doing it. It would be too good to be true. Sort of like free P2P music. Everyone would be doing it.
If they had millions, there are far more effective ways to advertise whatever legitimate product that people are buying in such volume as to make them their millions. Or were you referring to millions of Iraqi Dinars?
So, what kind of developmet does Open Office allow?
Read all about it. api.openoffice.org udk.openoffice.org
Go over to OOoForum.org , go into the Macros and API section and read what people are doing.
Go over to OOoDocs.org , they also have a Macros and devlopment section.
You can write StarBasic code directly into OOo documents. You can write programs in Java to drive a running OOo, even on a different computer. (For example, a Java program on, say, Windows, telling an OOo running on Linux what to do.) You can write components in C++ or Java or Python.
The Python UNO bridge is new. I haven't tried it yet. I believe you can do anything with Python that you could do with Java or C++ in OOo. StarBasic is limited in that you cannot create new components, it lacks sophisticated data structures, and you can only embed it within documents. The other languages cannot be embedded within documents (yet). I'm hoping to someday be able to embed Java classes or Python within an OOo document, just like I can with StarBasic macros.
Be sure to download the SDK. Read the documentation, especially the developer's guide. The first big learning curve is to understand UNO. This is pretty much a prerequisite for everything else. Once you do though, you're on your way.
Oh yeah, on languages that can access OOo. If you're on Windows, you can use Windows Automation. This means you can access it from, say, Visual Basic. I have seen OpenOffice.org programmed from Visual FoxPro.
When there is only one big media company, then they won't need to sublicense.
Now just what would you call it?
What if they only DOSed the satellite during the commercials?
Replace obnoxious commercials with something less irritating, such as Cowboy Neal running around naked.
I hate it when people make links on Slashdot to Amazon, and have their affiliate ID embedded in the URL, without bothering to mention it
Perhaps the slashcode could change the affiliate ID to that of Cowboy Neal?
3. Done
Didn't you mean...
3. Profit!
when your boss tells you that his brother-in-law's nephew is a phone contractor, so you'll be using whatever he installs.
Using a rule based rewrite system (in Lisp) to simplify such relationships, wouldn't this reduce to simply "when your boss tells you that his nephew is a phone contractor..." ?
Actually, I'm not sure that you can. [agree to a EULA] .... both the GPL and all those click-wrap/shrinkwrap licenses are not binding
This must be fixed. We must have protection of Intellectual Property. If I can't sell my rights, and I can't even give them away, then the only solution remaining is that I must pay to have my rights taken away. The only questions remaining are: (1) how much, and (2) how soon can this be incorporated into the new EULA?
What ever happened to exercising some civility and making the assumption that people and corporations do make honest mistakes and will typically try to fix the situation when such a mistake is pointed out.
What planet are you from? Let me give you some background. Corporations make mistakes. Individuals commit crimes. An example of the former type of mistake: Oh, we booked $4 Billion of loss as if it were $4 Billion of profit. Ooops. Sorry. Example of the latter type of crime: you picked up an envelope with a sewing pattern out of the trash and had the gall to think you could sell it, or even posses it?
This could be an interesting test of the DMCA. It has stood up a lot but how well can it stand up against itself?
You simply do not understand legal theory.
The DMCA is used whenever a corporation doesn't like something that they want to sue for. (e.g. refill ink cartridges, selling a discarded sewing pattern envelope found in the trash)
The underlying legal principal at work is that corporations can do no wrong. Only individuals can. Especially when the business model or corporate profits are at stake. Or if you say something they don't want you to be saying.
Since we have two corporations fighting here, and since they both call dibbs on the DMCA weapon, they both must win. There must be some way to word a press release in such a way that two losers come out sounding like two winners. (I just don't speak weasel well enough to know how it is done.)
MS's legal staff occupies 2 whole buildings. And they have nothing to work on.
Perhaps this works like government. It can get bigger, but never smaller. Like once you open a can of worms the only way to re-can them is to use a larger can.
If this is true, then the completely ineffective antitrust trial may have been counterproductive. It gave lawyers something to do, and grew Microsoft's legal department.
On the other hand, maybe they do have something to work on. Seems like we haven't heard our daily gossip about SCO yet. So I thought I'd bring it up.
[Microsoft vs. Stac Electronics....] but [MS] were definitely found guilty of patent infringement.
Are you sure it wasn't Copyright? My (mis?)understanding was that Microsoft literally copied parts of the binary of Stac's software in order to "share" it with all users of the next version of DOS. Or perhaps it was to "add value" to DOS so more people would upgrade? But it definitely was so that there would be no remaining reason to buy from Stac, thus destroying them.
Whether Microsoft perhaps thought that copying someone else's binary into their own product might be against the law was obviously secondary to the fact that they thought they could bankrupt Stac and drag the suit out long enough to just make them disappear. And countersue for $14 Million.