"In closed source software, the only way to find software is to pound on software hard and look for problems. You are going backwards from effect to cause, and you can never actually look at the software."
I guess the "you" you are refering to is the user, not the programmer. Closed source teams can examine the code, of course, so testing is not the only option.
Any paper that concludes that one method is "always" better than another is almost certainly wrong. Be happy slashdotters, you can get away without reading the article this time.
Any license or contract that is presented by one party in a take-it-or-leave-it manner to a second party is quite obviously protecting the interests of party #1.
In the case of the GPL, if it's to my benefit I should be able to say "Thanks for your generous offer to protect my interests through the GPL. Your really being too generous and I must insist that I take your code without agreeing to it. It just wouldn't be right to take advantage of you in this way".
"Any reasonable judge is going to think the most just outcome is for IBM to stop the infringement (if they did and if they can), not to cause IBM to pay SCO a windfall."
Typically, that's not the way things work. SCO claims that they lost money due to the infringement so it makes sense that they would be compenstated for it.
Look at MS. Most of the people on Slashdot didn't want MS simply to stop their illegal practices, they wanted them to be broken up, fined etc. Sun is still suing MS even though MS has produced no new version of J++ in years (J++ being their original complaint).
So, the general principle is that merely stopping the actionable activity is not sufficient restitution.
Believe it or not some people use Java for reasons other than hating MS. Some people use MS for reasons other than disliking open source.
Having said that, I do note that you are perpetuating the myth that Java runs on "any OS/hardware combo". This is untrue of any language but I suspect "C" comes closer to achieving it than Java.
Gee, even my corrections are moderated as "Troll".
It doesn't bother me though. Calling people names is one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book. It usually follows an argument that strikes too close to the truth.
"Yeah, sure. We'll get right on that. (In case you missed the sarcasm, eighty lines of code is a friggin' needle in the haystack!"
Ah, but your forgetting the "many eyeballs" theory. I'm not a big believer in that theory, but many open-source advocates are.
My point about "why should SCO bother" was that it's pointless to present proof to people who won't believe it proves anything anyway. Linux advocates should have established early on what they considered adequate proof. Then they wouldn't look like they are in denial now.
"The code, including line numbers, filenames, and the whole sourcefile from UNIXWARE it is based on."
It sounds to me like your definition of "enough" is everything. In any case, the Linux community should now do what they should have done from the begining, establish what they consider to be adequate evidence (as you have done, however unrealistically) and stick with the defintion.
So first SCO is at fault for not showing any evidence. Now that they have, the claim is that they can't prove the code is theirs. If the Linux community wasn't going to accept code as evidence, why ask for it in the first place?
In your post you are asking why this code, that you don't believe is valid evidence, be made public. Why should SCO bother? Besides, copied or not, you already have it. Just look in the Linux source.
Re:SCO still packs a punch?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
It seems like an unlikely scenario, but if there is a conflict between a patent and a license I don't think the license would always win. It would depend on the particulars of the case, I imagine.
Re:What was your question, exactly?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
The original post I was commenting on suggested that were was no IP associated with Unix, which is different from what you're saying.
By the way, keep in mind that Apple sued MS over Windows when there was no issue of trade secrets, patents, or copied code. Lotus sued Borland over Quatro keystrokes and again no trade secrets, patents, or copied code was involved.
Re:What was your question, exactly?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
What "he" are you talking about. Read the original post I was commenting on.
Re:SCO still packs a punch?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
That's a nice theory, but most companies aren't going to knowingly violate an IBM patent. Holding the patent is an implied threat. If you can actually find an IBM quote that says they won't enforce their patents unless you sue them first, I'll believe it. Of course, IBM's lawyers would never allow it.
Re:SCO still packs a punch?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
I think you meant IBM would destroy SCO, not the other way around? In any case, a company's officers should do what's best for their shareholders, not indulge themselves. IBM is not like Sun or Oracle, to them it's business, not personal.
At IBM, it's also not about philosophy. They see Linux as just another way to sell hardware, nothing more.
I believe IBM holds more software patents than any other company. If they were really serious about being open, they would release them to the public.
They made a deal with Jack Valenti - they told him they would give him a big part in their next project: Star Wars Episode VI. He's going to play the emperor.
Re:SCO still packs a punch?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If by the phrase "There is no way IBM can be taken down here" you mean SCO would lose it's lawsuit, then why would IBM want to buy them?
Buying SCO is a low probability if IBM were worried about losing the lawsuit, it has a 0% chance of happening if IBM is confident it will win.
Re:What was your question, exactly?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
The question was why should a knock-off get more IP protection than the original? It's not a legal question so much as a fairness question.
As far as trade secrets are concerned, I think the critical questions are if the "secret" was derived by others completely independently of those that signed an NDA and if the legal owner of the secret took all the proper steps to protect it. I doubt that the fact that the secret was illegally dissemenated many times would weaken the case. Rather the contrary, I would expect.
You seem to think that SCO is out to destroy Linux. It looks to me like they're trying to make money. If they can prove their case against IBM (I'm not saying they can) they're going to make big bucks. As long as they get their money, they won't give a F*** what happens to Linux one way or the other.
Slashdot Mirror
"In closed source software, the only way to find software is to pound on software hard and look for problems. You are going backwards from effect to cause, and you can never actually look at the software."
I guess the "you" you are refering to is the user, not the programmer. Closed source teams can examine the code, of course, so testing is not the only option.
"Most closed-source software is only checked over by one person, the one who wrote the software."
And how did you come to that conclusion?
Any paper that concludes that one method is "always" better than another is almost certainly wrong. Be happy slashdotters, you can get away without reading the article this time.
Any license or contract that is presented by one party in a take-it-or-leave-it manner to a second party is quite obviously protecting the interests of party #1.
In the case of the GPL, if it's to my benefit I should be able to say "Thanks for your generous offer to protect my interests through the GPL. Your really being too generous and I must insist that I take your code without agreeing to it. It just wouldn't be right to take advantage of you in this way".
"Any reasonable judge is going to think the most just outcome is for IBM to stop the infringement (if they did and if they can), not to cause IBM to pay SCO a windfall."
Typically, that's not the way things work. SCO claims that they lost money due to the infringement so it makes sense that they would be compenstated for it.
Look at MS. Most of the people on Slashdot didn't want MS simply to stop their illegal practices, they wanted them to be broken up, fined etc. Sun is still suing MS even though MS has produced no new version of J++ in years (J++ being their original complaint).
So, the general principle is that merely stopping the actionable activity is not sufficient restitution.
IANALEAIDPOOTV (I Am Not A Lawyer Either And I Don't Play One On TV) but ...
It's going to be a lot more than a month before a judge rules on the injunction. I offer no stock advice, however.
Believe it or not some people use Java for reasons other than hating MS. Some people use MS for reasons other than disliking open source.
Having said that, I do note that you are perpetuating the myth that Java runs on "any OS/hardware combo". This is untrue of any language but I suspect "C" comes closer to achieving it than Java.
Gee, even my corrections are moderated as "Troll".
It doesn't bother me though. Calling people names is one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book. It usually follows an argument that strikes too close to the truth.
Tell it to the poster I was responding to. He was the one the claimed that the problem was the number of lines of code involved.
"Yeah, sure. We'll get right on that. (In case you missed the sarcasm, eighty lines of code is a friggin' needle in the haystack!"
Ah, but your forgetting the "many eyeballs" theory. I'm not a big believer in that theory, but many open-source advocates are.
My point about "why should SCO bother" was that it's pointless to present proof to people who won't believe it proves anything anyway. Linux advocates should have established early on what they considered adequate proof. Then they wouldn't look like they are in denial now.
"The code, including line numbers, filenames, and the whole sourcefile from UNIXWARE it is based on."
It sounds to me like your definition of "enough" is everything. In any case, the Linux community should now do what they should have done from the begining, establish what they consider to be adequate evidence (as you have done, however unrealistically) and stick with the defintion.
I should have said "isn't made public" instead of "be made public"
So first SCO is at fault for not showing any evidence. Now that they have, the claim is that they can't prove the code is theirs. If the Linux community wasn't going to accept code as evidence, why ask for it in the first place?
In your post you are asking why this code, that you don't believe is valid evidence, be made public. Why should SCO bother? Besides, copied or not, you already have it. Just look in the Linux source.
It seems like an unlikely scenario, but if there is a conflict between a patent and a license I don't think the license would always win. It would depend on the particulars of the case, I imagine.
The original post I was commenting on suggested that were was no IP associated with Unix, which is different from what you're saying.
By the way, keep in mind that Apple sued MS over Windows when there was no issue of trade secrets, patents, or copied code. Lotus sued Borland over Quatro keystrokes and again no trade secrets, patents, or copied code was involved.
What "he" are you talking about. Read the original post I was commenting on.
That's a nice theory, but most companies aren't going to knowingly violate an IBM patent. Holding the patent is an implied threat. If you can actually find an IBM quote that says they won't enforce their patents unless you sue them first, I'll believe it. Of course, IBM's lawyers would never allow it.
I think you meant IBM would destroy SCO, not the other way around? In any case, a company's officers should do what's best for their shareholders, not indulge themselves. IBM is not like Sun or Oracle, to them it's business, not personal.
At IBM, it's also not about philosophy. They see Linux as just another way to sell hardware, nothing more.
I believe IBM holds more software patents than any other company. If they were really serious about being open, they would release them to the public.
They made a deal with Jack Valenti - they told him they would give him a big part in their next project: Star Wars Episode VI. He's going to play the emperor.
If by the phrase "There is no way IBM can be taken down here" you mean SCO would lose it's lawsuit, then why would IBM want to buy them?
Buying SCO is a low probability if IBM were worried about losing the lawsuit, it has a 0% chance of happening if IBM is confident it will win.
The question was why should a knock-off get more IP protection than the original? It's not a legal question so much as a fairness question.
As far as trade secrets are concerned, I think the critical questions are if the "secret" was derived by others completely independently of those that signed an NDA and if the legal owner of the secret took all the proper steps to protect it. I doubt that the fact that the secret was illegally dissemenated many times would weaken the case. Rather the contrary, I would expect.
That's nice. It doesn't answer my question, however.
You seem to think that SCO is out to destroy Linux. It looks to me like they're trying to make money. If they can prove their case against IBM (I'm not saying they can) they're going to make big bucks. As long as they get their money, they won't give a F*** what happens to Linux one way or the other.
So, if the orginal (Unix) doesn't deserve IP protection, how can the knock-off (Linux) expect any?