Except that transfer of copyrights has to follow certain rules and that the Judge has already ruled that the current contracts do not qualify as such a transfer.
So SCO still has to prove how they acquired these Copyrights. These minutes prove that at the time of sale to oldSCO now Tarantella the sale of copyrights was not in order. So newSCO, which got the business from SCO-Tarantella, has to prove these did transfer anyway, to oldSCO-Tarantella and then to them. So far they have done a poor job in the way of any evidence.
There are lots of people like me around. I do not believe in "social justice" at all. I don't see where separate but equal enters the discussion at all. Ensuring equal facilities at the government level is one thing. Robbing Peter to feed Paul is another thing altogether. If you have a right to eat, and I have a responsibility to provide your meal for you, I am your slave. Last time I checked, we don't do slavery in the US.
You correctly state this as a believe, because you're using flawed logic to base it on. But at least the USA today cannot be accused of a lack of social injustice. Or wasn't that your goal of not believing in Social Justice? There were other good reasons I supported Bush (and I didn't vote for him in 2000). Please state these, I'm very interested in any good reason to vote for him. I have learned that he is good for social issues, but I disagree on those.
And as a Dutchy, I wish the Netherlands would be missing as well. We are only a peacekeeper force, but even that support is completely inappropriate for this unneeded war.
Domestic problems with the Muslim population have only become worse. Appeartly our country now attracks lots of attention from muslim fundamentalists.
I do not rely on CNN solely for my news, but it supprised me that they reported that reason for voting for Bush. The same report has however been made by the BBC, who we all know is far more objective;). It's not so much the source as the report that supprised me. Especially since they protrayed being against Same Sex Marriage and Abortion as a Good Thing.
But as for my point about voting for Nader. My most important point I wanted to make was that there is no real choice to make. Some people would default to some issue in favor for some party, some would default to neither of the party candidates. In my view electing based on issues is almost impossible in the Netherlands, and we have about 15-20 parties to choose from. But because the parties have to rule on concensus, more of a compromise needs to be made. With 2 parties and a few independants it would be impossible.
Hoping on George Bush having learned his leason, while he has increased his mandate and increased his lead in Senate what not be something I would realistically hope for. My comment "American has lost all appeal to me as a nation" is based on my not to high hopes of this president. Of course I realise there are lots of Americans I would really like and probably be friends with, but all the police state laws and extreme right views scare me off. It's this image that has the most impact on my view on America.
In my view there are mostly bad reasons to elect Bush, but I live in a social healthcare country, for as long as that lasts. In my view the rich help the week and the poor and this can be state regulated, but our views defer on that. I would have hoped you could have voted on that view without having to choose for Bush, who is in my view a bad choice for a whole number of other reasons.
I don't asume much. I just don't understand it. How can Bush clearly have won when things are clearly almost 50%-50%. Last I heard there was a posibility that the VP could be DM with the President GOP.
Your President might be a figurehead. I think he is pretty powerfull. I don't know what scares me more, if the actions of the president are the result of him being a figurehead or doing what he thinks is best.
My point is that the actions of the president don't seem to have to represent nearly 48% of the voters in the nation. But maybe living in a country with a Queen, I don't understand the concept of a president very well. (NL)
That's the thing with voting, you have your beliefs and you hope that people agree by voting for you.
You proposed to sell out your beliefs just so more people vote for you. If this is necessary, how is this to be defined as being democratic?
The simple truth is that are were just not enough people in the right places to think similarly to the Democrats. Changing views should not be the answer, but in the USA apparently it is.
The problem start in my view with there being only 2 parties. This way you will have to match your beliefs on the people, instead of the other way around. And there have to be enough similarly minded people. In a democratic country with a majority or extreme left or right, those beliefs will rule.
As much as I like American tough talk, I fail to see exactly why the USA attacked Iraq as a result of the 9/11 incident. That terrorist action was done by Al Quaida, mostly Afghanistan and Saudi terrorist, which have almost no connection with Iraq or in any case not enough connection.
In hindsight the result has been even worse then the idea was in the first place. It has driven all USA allies away from the USA, united all Muslim states against you, caused sever unstability in the region and costs the USA losts of cash and military lives. There must have been better ways to go about this, even the UN approach would have been superior.
Since you seem to think that it's all about Individualism and Personal Honor, be my guest. But next time you feel the need to defend your Individualism and Personal Honor against all costs, please try not fuck up my world along the way.
The scary part is that you can and already have proven this.
We will hunt them down, and we will destroy them, root and branch. It's chilling how close this is to an expectable Muslim fundamentalist quote.
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their wickedness and homosexuality. It is an abomination before the Lord.
You are equalling gay couples that want to celebrate their union to the extremes that went on in those 2 cities? Let the Lord Himself choose his own abominations and let's hope the Lord doesn't think that judging people that love people of the same sex as a couple to be wicked by default and worthy of special laws are just as much an abomination. Gay marriage by default is not about producing children obviously, but it's about benefits granted to a union of 2 persons. Not to grant those financial benefits is in my view discrimanatory. And it proves that you cannot seperate your religious views from politics ones, always a dangerous thing.
Here's my question: where do you get your morals and why are they better than anyone else's? If you feel the moral guidance of the President is too strict surely there are others who may feel your moral values are too liberal.
I didn't get my morals anywhere, I think freely for myself. I wonder: Where did you get yours? Don't you think it's ironic to question the validity of questioning morals when you're are supporting laws that 'discriminate' against people? What is the moral in that? You may think of my moral values to be liberal, but I'm really happy not to depend on Bush of all people for my moral fibre.
The scariest part of this is that you are not alone in this. There is a whole country full of people feeling the same way and they are led by George Bush. God help us all...
Problem with discussions like this is that it's about how people feel about things and that it's hard to make a point without generalizations.
So I respect that you as a well educated American voted for Bush. A lot of them seem to have done that. I don't understand that at all, as a foreign European.
The thing that puzzles me most is the lack of choice between candidates. Populair opinion dictates that Bush and Kerry think alike about lots of issues, leaving you in a two party system with no real choice at all. Somehow in the USA the ability to vote while making a well educated choice has been eliminated. And somehow the citizens of the USA aren't at all pissed off about it. (Generalization here, sorry). Lacking a 'real' option I would have voted for Nader possibly, but since he is independant, your vote is successfully completely disregarded.
What supprised me the most, as a citizen of the Netherlands, is that the analysis showed (CNN) that people voted for Bush on 'social issues'. Bush clearly opposes same sex marriages, euthanisia and abortion. All things my country at least realises needs to have laws, because they are 'part of life'. They are in this way 'allowed'.
Call me liberal, but I would not disregard the proven trackrecord of Bush in exchange for this home security. But it seems an aweful lot of Americans did. And they call themselves Christians as well.
I do realise that this does not reflect your opinion at all. It just that as I try to understand the reasoning behind all this I come to realise I don't understand Americans at all. And because of this I'm sorry to say America has lost all appeal to me as a nation.
This is a bit OT, but as a non American I'm greatly puzzled by the voting process of America. Apparently it's supposed to be inefficient and vague, to the pride of Americans everywhere, but things that puzzle me are:
How can you hope to express your views when there are only two parties with two candidates, who on most issues share the same view? How can you vote fairly when you have to vote for a local representative you approve of, but these votes count for a national representative you might not approve of as well? How can it be when the populair vote is devided about 51% to 49% that the 1 part gets to have all the say in the next four years? Shouldn't it be a Republican Presidant with a Democrat Vice President to do justice to the popular vote?
When I look at elections in my country, I have multiple parties to vote on and I can vote seperately for my city, provence, Nation and Europe. This doesn't garantee my views are represented, but a lot more concensus is needed to get things done.
Back on topic, as a non European the USAPATRIOT act has not affected me. It did change my view of America to a not so free country lead more by fear then it needs to. I hope that repressive acts such as this will continue to not affect me. It would be a scary world when laws such as this start to affect foreigners as well.
Hans
Re:Free Speech in Denmark??
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 1
I don't drink coffee. So no decaf for me.
But explain to me how using a size argument in a corruption and freedom of press setting is nothing but blatant arrogance on the side of the bigger player. Or should I not read your post in the contexr it was written in?
And thanks for ridiculing me, I now realize you are vastly superiour.
Hans
Re:Free Speech in Denmark??
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And that says exacylt what? That freedoms of smaller countries can be ignored, because freedom in a larger country is somehow harder?
As long as we're talking percentages, we can compare. I'm Dutch, New York City might have a population and maybe even area larger then the Netherlands, but I don't care about that much. But if you use that fact to minimalise my opinion, then I'm very much reconfirmed in my current opinion about Americans.
Get a grip, it's not about size. Your post is just offensive to all Europeans, who all take Danmark very seriously.
Meanwhile, while we enjoy our freedoms and rights, please enjoy yours. As long as you keep thinking America is best in every respect, it will keep you from challenging issues, all while gloating about your so call 'Freedom of speech'. To me America is the land of double standards: Most repressive on Sexual Content, but most teenage pregnancies. Free gunownership, but most persons killed by gunfire. Land of the free etc, but able to just sidestep all human right issues and internation treeties to arrest unproven 'terrorist'.
And somehow the world still has to take the USA seriously as global leader of democracy? Demockery is more appropriate.
I am an old-hat Novell engineer. But one with experience in deploying new Novell environments: I have implemented a Netware 6 cluster with ZenWorks3.2 for an education site. I am now implementing a ZENworks 4 deployment environment in a Microsoft only server environment.
I have had lots of experience with Novell and the thing that kept me believing in their products was that troubleshooting was always effective. You could dive into the problem, find some errors or inconsistancies and fix the settings for those. Then it would work again. Now that I am deploying on W2k I am finding that the troubleshooting is much more complex. The events in the logging are less helpfull and give little insight or meaning and basically you are relying on the MS knowledgebase to already have the answer and find that. In my opinion with Novell one has more ability to find the solution on your own.
The thing that hurt Novell the most was this forced mariage with M$ for at least the client part of the solution. Although with Zenworks they offer the best tool to manage these. They couldn't keep up with developing tools to make an Application Server, so they started relying on Apache, Tomcat and other open source offerings to keep up. To me this push to integrate the product Ximian and then the desktop of SuSE is a late but needed step to break the marriage with M$. As I am a OSS fan in private I loudly cheer this. I cannot wait to deploy a eDirectory based linux server at home, fully intergrated into but the filesharing and the desktop version. To me, this is the best of all worlds.
Slashdot Mirror
Caldera became SCO became Tarantella. what is SCO now was not the SCO of Caldera fame. But they are the successors in interest.
But I might be wrong. I find this whole naming issue confusing.
Except that transfer of copyrights has to follow certain rules and that the Judge has already ruled that the current contracts do not qualify as such a transfer.
So SCO still has to prove how they acquired these Copyrights. These minutes prove that at the time of sale to oldSCO now Tarantella the sale of copyrights was not in order. So newSCO, which got the business from SCO-Tarantella, has to prove these did transfer anyway, to oldSCO-Tarantella and then to them. So far they have done a poor job in the way of any evidence.
More info on Groklaw.
Hans
While this discussion is mostly a mudfight, you at least stand for who you are and make statements that clearly are your own.
There is hope still. Too bad there are only very few comments like this.
Didn't you mean finally recover the state of Justice?
Hans
There are lots of people like me around. I do not believe in "social justice" at all. I don't see where separate but equal enters the discussion at all. Ensuring equal facilities at the government level is one thing. Robbing Peter to feed Paul is another thing altogether. If you have a right to eat, and I have a responsibility to provide your meal for you, I am your slave. Last time I checked, we don't do slavery in the US.
You correctly state this as a believe, because you're using flawed logic to base it on. But at least the USA today cannot be accused of a lack of social injustice. Or wasn't that your goal of not believing in Social Justice?
There were other good reasons I supported Bush (and I didn't vote for him in 2000).
Please state these, I'm very interested in any good reason to vote for him. I have learned that he is good for social issues, but I disagree on those.
Would that be (Scary +1) or (Scary -1) ?
Now that I think of it, I wouldn't know. Scary -1 sounds like parental control and Scary +1 is just scary in itself.
Hans
And as a Dutchy, I wish the Netherlands would be missing as well. We are only a peacekeeper force, but even that support is completely inappropriate for this unneeded war.
Domestic problems with the Muslim population have only become worse. Appeartly our country now attracks lots of attention from muslim fundamentalists.
The world really has become a safer place.
Hans
I do not rely on CNN solely for my news, but it supprised me that they reported that reason for voting for Bush. The same report has however been made by the BBC, who we all know is far more objective ;). It's not so much the source as the report that supprised me. Especially since they protrayed being against Same Sex Marriage and Abortion as a Good Thing.
But as for my point about voting for Nader. My most important point I wanted to make was that there is no real choice to make. Some people would default to some issue in favor for some party, some would default to neither of the party candidates. In my view electing based on issues is almost impossible in the Netherlands, and we have about 15-20 parties to choose from. But because the parties have to rule on concensus, more of a compromise needs to be made. With 2 parties and a few independants it would be impossible.
Hoping on George Bush having learned his leason, while he has increased his mandate and increased his lead in Senate what not be something I would realistically hope for. My comment "American has lost all appeal to me as a nation" is based on my not to high hopes of this president. Of course I realise there are lots of Americans I would really like and probably be friends with, but all the police state laws and extreme right views scare me off. It's this image that has the most impact on my view on America.
In my view there are mostly bad reasons to elect Bush, but I live in a social healthcare country, for as long as that lasts. In my view the rich help the week and the poor and this can be state regulated, but our views defer on that. I would have hoped you could have voted on that view without having to choose for Bush, who is in my view a bad choice for a whole number of other reasons.
I don't asume much. I just don't understand it. How can Bush clearly have won when things are clearly almost 50%-50%. Last I heard there was a posibility that the VP could be DM with the President GOP.
Your President might be a figurehead. I think he is pretty powerfull. I don't know what scares me more, if the actions of the president are the result of him being a figurehead or doing what he thinks is best.
My point is that the actions of the president don't seem to have to represent nearly 48% of the voters in the nation. But maybe living in a country with a Queen, I don't understand the concept of a president very well. (NL)
That's the thing with voting, you have your beliefs and you hope that people agree by voting for you.
You proposed to sell out your beliefs just so more people vote for you. If this is necessary, how is this to be defined as being democratic?
The simple truth is that are were just not enough people in the right places to think similarly to the Democrats. Changing views should not be the answer, but in the USA apparently it is.
The problem start in my view with there being only 2 parties. This way you will have to match your beliefs on the people, instead of the other way around. And there have to be enough similarly minded people. In a democratic country with a majority or extreme left or right, those beliefs will rule.
God, there must be a lot of them.
iWE DO NOT GIVE IN TO OUR ENEMIES.
As much as I like American tough talk, I fail to see exactly why the USA attacked Iraq as a result of the 9/11 incident. That terrorist action was done by Al Quaida, mostly Afghanistan and Saudi terrorist, which have almost no connection with Iraq or in any case not enough connection.
In hindsight the result has been even worse then the idea was in the first place. It has driven all USA allies away from the USA, united all Muslim states against you, caused sever unstability in the region and costs the USA losts of cash and military lives. There must have been better ways to go about this, even the UN approach would have been superior.
Since you seem to think that it's all about Individualism and Personal Honor, be my guest. But next time you feel the need to defend your Individualism and Personal Honor against all costs, please try not fuck up my world along the way.
The scary part is that you can and already have proven this.
We will hunt them down, and we will destroy them, root and branch.
It's chilling how close this is to an expectable Muslim fundamentalist quote.
If nothing else it's prophetic.
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their wickedness and homosexuality. It is an abomination before the Lord.
You are equalling gay couples that want to celebrate their union to the extremes that went on in those 2 cities? Let the Lord Himself choose his own abominations and let's hope the Lord doesn't think that judging people that love people of the same sex as a couple to be wicked by default and worthy of special laws are just as much an abomination. Gay marriage by default is not about producing children obviously, but it's about benefits granted to a union of 2 persons. Not to grant those financial benefits is in my view discrimanatory. And it proves that you cannot seperate your religious views from politics ones, always a dangerous thing.
Here's my question: where do you get your morals and why are they better than anyone else's? If you feel the moral guidance of the President is too strict surely there are others who may feel your moral values are too liberal.
I didn't get my morals anywhere, I think freely for myself. I wonder: Where did you get yours? Don't you think it's ironic to question the validity of questioning morals when you're are supporting laws that 'discriminate' against people? What is the moral in that? You may think of my moral values to be liberal, but I'm really happy not to depend on Bush of all people for my moral fibre.
The scariest part of this is that you are not alone in this. There is a whole country full of people feeling the same way and they are led by George Bush. God help us all...
Problem with discussions like this is that it's about how people feel about things and that it's hard to make a point without generalizations.
So I respect that you as a well educated American voted for Bush. A lot of them seem to have done that. I don't understand that at all, as a foreign European.
The thing that puzzles me most is the lack of choice between candidates. Populair opinion dictates that Bush and Kerry think alike about lots of issues, leaving you in a two party system with no real choice at all. Somehow in the USA the ability to vote while making a well educated choice has been eliminated. And somehow the citizens of the USA aren't at all pissed off about it. (Generalization here, sorry). Lacking a 'real' option I would have voted for Nader possibly, but since he is independant, your vote is successfully completely disregarded.
What supprised me the most, as a citizen of the Netherlands, is that the analysis showed (CNN) that people voted for Bush on 'social issues'. Bush clearly opposes same sex marriages, euthanisia and abortion. All things my country at least realises needs to have laws, because they are 'part of life'. They are in this way 'allowed'.
Call me liberal, but I would not disregard the proven trackrecord of Bush in exchange for this home security. But it seems an aweful lot of Americans did. And they call themselves Christians as well.
I do realise that this does not reflect your opinion at all. It just that as I try to understand the reasoning behind all this I come to realise I don't understand Americans at all. And because of this I'm sorry to say America has lost all appeal to me as a nation.
Hans
This is a bit OT, but as a non American I'm greatly puzzled by the voting process of America. Apparently it's supposed to be inefficient and vague, to the pride of Americans everywhere, but things that puzzle me are:
How can you hope to express your views when there are only two parties with two candidates, who on most issues share the same view?
How can you vote fairly when you have to vote for a local representative you approve of, but these votes count for a national representative you might not approve of as well?
How can it be when the populair vote is devided about 51% to 49% that the 1 part gets to have all the say in the next four years? Shouldn't it be a Republican Presidant with a Democrat Vice President to do justice to the popular vote?
When I look at elections in my country, I have multiple parties to vote on and I can vote seperately for my city, provence, Nation and Europe. This doesn't garantee my views are represented, but a lot more concensus is needed to get things done.
Back on topic, as a non European the USAPATRIOT act has not affected me. It did change my view of America to a not so free country lead more by fear then it needs to. I hope that repressive acts such as this will continue to not affect me. It would be a scary world when laws such as this start to affect foreigners as well.
Hans
I don't drink coffee. So no decaf for me.
But explain to me how using a size argument in a corruption and freedom of press setting is nothing but blatant arrogance on the side of the bigger player. Or should I not read your post in the contexr it was written in?
And thanks for ridiculing me, I now realize you are vastly superiour.
Hans
And that says exacylt what? That freedoms of smaller countries can be ignored, because freedom in a larger country is somehow harder?
As long as we're talking percentages, we can compare. I'm Dutch, New York City might have a population and maybe even area larger then the Netherlands, but I don't care about that much. But if you use that fact to minimalise my opinion, then I'm very much reconfirmed in my current opinion about Americans.
Get a grip, it's not about size. Your post is just offensive to all Europeans, who all take Danmark very seriously.
Meanwhile, while we enjoy our freedoms and rights, please enjoy yours. As long as you keep thinking America is best in every respect, it will keep you from challenging issues, all while gloating about your so call 'Freedom of speech'. To me America is the land of double standards:
Most repressive on Sexual Content, but most teenage pregnancies.
Free gunownership, but most persons killed by gunfire.
Land of the free etc, but able to just sidestep all human right issues and internation treeties to arrest unproven 'terrorist'.
And somehow the world still has to take the USA seriously as global leader of democracy? Demockery is more appropriate.
Hans
Hans
I am an old-hat Novell engineer. But one with experience in deploying new Novell environments: I have implemented a Netware 6 cluster with ZenWorks3.2 for an education site. I am now implementing a ZENworks 4 deployment environment in a Microsoft only server environment.
I have had lots of experience with Novell and the thing that kept me believing in their products was that troubleshooting was always effective. You could dive into the problem, find some errors or inconsistancies and fix the settings for those. Then it would work again. Now that I am deploying on W2k I am finding that the troubleshooting is much more complex. The events in the logging are less helpfull and give little insight or meaning and basically you are relying on the MS knowledgebase to already have the answer and find that. In my opinion with Novell one has more ability to find the solution on your own.
The thing that hurt Novell the most was this forced mariage with M$ for at least the client part of the solution. Although with Zenworks they offer the best tool to manage these. They couldn't keep up with developing tools to make an Application Server, so they started relying on Apache, Tomcat and other open source offerings to keep up. To me this push to integrate the product Ximian and then the desktop of SuSE is a late but needed step to break the marriage with M$. As I am a OSS fan in private I loudly cheer this. I cannot wait to deploy a eDirectory based linux server at home, fully intergrated into but the filesharing and the desktop version. To me, this is the best of all worlds.
Hans
Btw: First post!