I have a project in which I am trying to completely generate a MUD and then run a massive simulation to have a dynamic world.
It isn't about whether or not the output is "as good as" what a human can do. It's about the fact that games and art in general are patterns of symbols, and using computers to record and playback symbols and patterns that people create isn't very interesting to me. It's not that I think taking pictures or recording music or writing a story is bad, it's just that computers can do so much more than record/playback, and I want to see what they can do. It's much more interesting to try to teach the computer to generate those symbols and patterns. And I'm back in school studying AI now.:)
I think the main issue with randomly generated content is that people don't take it far enough. It's hard to create systems that will generate content, so I think people give up. The other issue is that once people understand the underlying pattern for how the content was formed, the value of the content is reduced to that pattern, so it has to be so complex that people can't figure out how it was made, or at least so they can't be sure how it was made. I am an optimist and I think it will eventually get good.
2. To the consumers: A proposed "black out" date has been set for December 1st-December 31st 2003. During this time,no RIAA controlled CD should be purchased from any store.
I think you should be like me and boycott of all **AA materials for a "limited time".*
* "Limited time" as in: Jack Valenti thinks that copyright should last "forever minus one day" which is his definition of limited time. I now take that definition for mine.
Since I don't steal music, and I don't ever expect to, I would sign this contract. If they gave me something in return, since I'm not going sued so I don't get anything out of this current contract. I want them to promise in a contract with me that they'll never try to restrict or ban or require technology to protect or extend copyright or any other IP rights again, nor will they attempt to lengthen or expand the scope of IP rights period. That's my price for my signature saying that I won't steal music. They have to promise to not steal or cripple my (future) computers, and my current rights.
It's called the Audio Home Recording Act, which basically said that you can make copies of things at home, but in return the **AA's collect a levy on all recording media and recorders sold, and you can only make a copy from a first-generation copy of something.
The main problem is that the law was passed 10 years ago, and nobody had any idea that the Internet would take off so much, and if I read it correctly, it doesn't protect you if you download. I think the problem with downloading is that the downloaded music is not a first-generation recording, so you can't let someone else copy it. Although, I wonder what happens if you use one of those 99cents download services, and then let people download from your server. I think there are other issues in that computers aren't covered devices because they don't have the necessary !copying protection and don't pay royalties. It's a mess, but it appears that doing a CD->CD transfer with a CD player is ok.
Are you still giving them money? Stop doing it and stop downloading ok? And don't listen to the people who say "but if we stop buying they'll assume we're steaing so we'll be screwed anyway so we may as will keep downloading." Those people are wrong. Politicians are not all that stupid, and I'm pretty sure that you know that there's nothing "noble" about not paying for something but using it anyway. There is something noble about wanting something but refusing to buy it because you don't want to support the people who make the product. Do the right thing. Don't do the easy, thing. Stop buying/renting/downloading and never give them money ever again.
The rock is said to measure approximately 1.2 kilometres (less than a mile) across - only one tenth of the size of the meteor thought to have wiped out te dinosaurs
You know what the funny thing is? IIRC, that meteor was about 6 miles (a bit less than 10 km) across. That means, this thing is 1/10 the size IN EACH DIRECTION which is more like 1/1000 of the size of the dino meteor. Or more like (1/8)^3, or 1/512 as powerful. OTOH that doesn't take into account relative velocities and such.
I thought the little game of splitting hairs that people play is that algorithms aren't patentable, because they're abstract mathematical ideas. However, once you figure out how to use a mathematical algorithm to do something useful using a computer, then that process is patentable. That would say to me that you can't patent algorithms, but you can patent software. (Not that I agree with it, but that appears to be the way it is.)
I guess they say that the idea for solving a math problem isn't patentable. But once you figure out how to use a mathematical technique to solve a word problem (a math problem where the numbers have real-world values), and you say you're going to solve it using a computer, even though this is just carrying out calculations really fast, then you can get a patent on that. It seems rather silly to me to make a distinction between math problems where the numbers have no meaning and where the numbers have real-world meaning; and between pencil and paper calculations and machine calculations, but what do I know? I'm not a patent attorney.
I hope they do extend it into other artistic areas. Then people will see how bad software patents are. It will be a more concrete example since those other artistic expressions are more well understood by people. So, I think it's always good to compare software to art and music and TV and movies and pictures and books and poems, since in all cases you have people manipulating machines creatively, thereby causing a string of bits to be created that can later be used as a set of instructions for the original machine or other machines.
I agree you need to talk in terms of loss to convince people that software patents are bad. However, I don't think talking abstractly about loss of future potential will work. People don't think abstractly too well, and you're talking in abstractions about thinking abstractly about writing software. That's bad. Talk about Ebay, Eolas/IE, and Pan IP. Talk about the things people use every day that they could or will lose due to software patents. Be concrete since abstract talk will just get you blank stares. It's a good thing that a lot of the "big" stuff on the Internet is being attacked like auctions, and www storefronts for real stores, and flashy www stuff so people can see the potential loss. In all cases, I believe, you're talking about people filing lawsuits who did the 1 percent inspiration, and are now trying to take away things that companies that did the 99 percent perspiration actually implemented. Be concrete.
Most people don't understand computers and don't see the possibilities of what they can do.
I don't think arguments about "things that will never be created" because of patents will work. Simply because people can't grasp the potential of computers, so you sound like you're full of it.
I recommend talking about things that people can lose. Like how Ebay lost a big patent suit, and had the "inventor" wanted to, he might bave been able to shut down Ebay. Talk about MS IE and plugins and explain how all of the "cool" stuff on the WWW could be taken away.
Be concrete with concrete examples where patents take away things people already have. That's concrete. They can understand that they could do X before, and now they can't do X. Talking in terms of abstractions and potentials won't work since people fundamentally don't get it. For most people, the limits of what a computer can do are the things that they know how to do in commercial products that already exist. Not in the crazy ideas that most people here probably think about.
but if a program is compiled, it's no longer writing.
What if we translate the code into some other language (both programming and natural language) that you don't understand? Is it still writing?
Have you noticed how EULA's always have clauses saying you can't decompile or disassemble the binaries? Why do they put those in there? Could it be because the binaries contain enough information that you can return the code to some semblance of readable form? (Ok so this doesn't work too well, but it works well enough that companies put it into their EULA's.) So, the binaries aren't changed to not be writing, they're just changed to another written language that can be sort of translated to something like the original written thing.
If Europe refuses to allow software patents, and their software industries surge ahead of US software companies then maybe the US will see that software patents are bad and limit or get rid of them. OTOH, if Europe decides that software patents are ok, then there's nothing to compare the US system to. (Example: plugins work in Europe, but not in the US.)
I just wish that Eolas injunction had been handed down a few months ago, so European MP's could see how bad software patents can be.
The most important issue is this:
Most people don't understand computers and don't think about how to make them do cool things.
(Hypothetical Example: Oh, I'm a power user, I use email, and the www, and I put my digital pictures online, and I use Kazaa, and I use Word, Excel, and ppt!)
For a person who gets computers, these are interesting up to a point, but they're probably not the "neatest" things you ever tried to make computers do.
They want to do stuff and that's it, and will try out new "cool" things if a product already exists. If they don't get to do some potential thing that doesn't exist yet because of software patents, then they won't notice. They probably never thought about doing that thing anyway so they aren't missing anything.
OTOH, if they have something, like Ebay or plugins, and they LOSE it, then they will notice. That's the time to explain to them the evils of software patents and how there are lots of other cool things that they might have had if not for these evil things. That's why I wish that Ebay had decided not to pay money or licensing fees, but instead just decide to shut down. THEN the general public would understand how evil these things are. Same with Eolas and plugins. I hope MS just eviscerates IE and screws up the whole Internet for everyone. Then people will see how evil software patents are. Unfortunately, they will probably try to mitigate the damage.
So, I think theoretical arguments about possible loss of freedom don't count for much because most people don't get computers anyway. You have to point to specific examples of cases where they lose things that they already have. That makes it concrete instead of abstract. (Cmon MS: gut IE!:))
Oh, and another thing, I don't think Eolas has a chance in hell of ever making a product. If IE gets nerfed, then Eolas will have pissed off just about everyone in the world, and a lot of those people will have patents that Eolas will need to infringe to make a real product. Therefore, I expect them to get stopped for refusing to "play the patent game" correctly by just taking their extortion money (oops, I meant their rightfully earned patent infringement penalty fees) and going home.
I hope they catch the people doing the DoS attack [probably as they brag how cool the attack is over some l33t IRC channelz] and beat their heads into the ground.
On some story on Newsforge, Eric Raymond claims that he's talked to a friend the attacker(s). I think he should give that info to the police (time/date of phone call) so they can figure out who this friend is. If he doesn't IMO it seems like he's harboring a criminal. Even if the caller lied, he should still help them to check up on this.
When IBM gets a preliminary injunction, then SCO will have all of their revenues cut off.
Almost. I'm not saying that there's a conspiracy. I'm not saying that there isn't. But I think it's a good bet that SCO will get another multimillion dollar 1-year license from Microsoft in 2004.
This might make a good argument against software patents. If the people protesting in Europe point out to the legislators that they're close to losing the ability to do lots of "cool" stuff on the Web due to these patents...
And that this Eolas company (AFAIK) doesn't have a real product to replace the one that Eolas is about to take away...
It would have made a better argument had MS removed functionality before the vote next Monday.
I hope they reduce their browser to displaying static content. I hope lots of people get pissed. I hope everyone explains to people that MS is NOT evil in this case. Software patents are evil, and if they want the WWW back, they need to write Congress to get rid of software patents! This could be the thing that gets rid of them. (Ok, not likely, but we can hope.)
Although I wish Eric would be more clear about what he's planning next.
He has definite, serious and well-thought-out plans afoot for SCO. However, he can't reveal them publicly or SCO will find ways to counter the plans. OTOH, if you want to find out what those plans are, you can sign an NDA and see bits and pieces of his plans so you'll know how cool and 31337 they are and how much SCO should really ph33r those plans.
It's another thing altogether to ruin your career because your employer stole some open-source wonk's implementation of the cosine function.
I'm not attacking you. But, every damn time I call "copyight infringement" "stealing" thousands of wannabe/. lawyers jump on my ass. And here you get away with it.
Cmon, where are all the "copyright infringement isn't stealing" people? Why is it ok to label illegal use of FLOSS as stealing, but not illegal downloading of music?
(BTW, that was a rhetorical question and I think I know the answer. The purpose of this post was to maybe make some of the illegal file downloaders think a bit about what they're doing if they also support FLOSS and think FLOSS licenses should be enforced.)
Copyright infringement is more like a speeding ticket. Nobody is directly hurt,
Ahh, more stuff for my list. Your insightful and compelling argument(s) about why copyright infringement isn't a big deal have been added to the bottom.
The giant record companies are corrupt
The giant record companies colluded to keep CD prices high,and all I got was this lousy voucher.
They don't pay the artists enough.
They screw artists out of their royalties, therefore I should screw the record companies out of their income.
If I knew the artists were getting the money, I would pay for it gladly.
I'm doing it for the artists. Don't you care about the artists?
Britney Spears sucks. Why would you support her?
Congress is corrupt.
They bribed Congress.
The courts are corrupt.
They bribed the judges.
I don't have the money.
I wouldn't pay for it anyway, so they didn't lose a sale.
Information should be free.
Copyright lasts too long.
All thee RIAA base are belong to me biznatch.
I've been doing this for so long, that now I'm entitled to keep doing this, so they can't take it away.
They jack up the prices so that they can pay money to all of the crappy bands that they have on their labels. I don't want to pay for those shitty bands.
I don't like the DRM on CD's so the only way I can play the music is to download it.
NSync sucks. Do you think supporting them is more important than freedom?
My downloads aren't going to make a difference.
They're keeping the indies from getting mainstream exposure.
The stores don't have any of the music that I like.
If they had my favorite band X on their label, I would buy it, but all they have is crap crap crap!
They waste money on stupid shit like Cristal and promotion and advertising.
I could make better music than they could at 1/10 the cost.
CD's cost less to produce per copy today but cost more.
Look. I'm not going to buy the music anyway, and if I stopped downloading they would still blame the decline in revenue on filesharing, so I may as well join in.
Christna Aguilera sucks. I refuse to support an industry that would produce such crap.
The music is all crap anyway.
There's only one song I want off a CD, so why should I have to pay for the whole thing?
They can't put N million people in jail.
It doesn't matter. I've started an open source P2P project that will have totally anonymous users, perfectly secure encryption, and the license will be set up so it will be illegal for the **AA's or law enforcement to log onto the network, so we'll be totally safe! The project is in the alpha planning stage, and we're looking for coders!
Piracy? WTF are we putting on eyepatches and swords and raiding the **AA headquarters? I'll stop when they stop libeling us with their offensive use of that word.
I only downloaded a few songs.
I only downloaded songs that I can't find in a store anywhere.
I wanted to listen to it on Linux and the only versions available for legal download work on WMP.
Who cares, I'll just set up an index on Sealand and they'll never be able to touch it.
We'll always keep ahead of them technologically, so they can't win.
I don't agree with their business methods.
It's an obsolete business model.
They need to change their business models.
If artists had tip jars, of course I'd pay them for downloading their music. Then I would KNOW where the money's going.
I think the entire concept of copyright is wrong.
I don't think that filesharing is illegal.
I can sample and hear different kinds of music and that will make be buy more CD's.
As soon as a micropayment system is in place that doesn't use corrupt serv
Mr. McBride is creating so much work because for each claim of copyright, the onus is going to be on the linux community to find the origins and prove the allegations wrong. SCO is only going to present SCO code that was supposedly 'written' before the linux code.
Yes, but. Don't you think that after they do this 10 times or so, that eventually a judge will tell them to STFU? I mean it's like you file a paternity suit, and you start dragging random guys into the DNA testing facility to find the daddy. I think that after a few misfires, the judge would throw it out.
But they also said that 2.2 is ok, and 2.4 is where things go bad. Since 2.2 had 1.8 million lines, my guess is they're saying anything beyond 2.2 is all SCO.
There's way too many whiny little crybabies getting offended by something someone said these days.
Why are you disparaging little children who haven't learned to express themselves by comparing them to adults who complain about trivial things? Do you think it's funny to insult defenseless children for communicating in the only way that they can? Sure, babies cry. But that's ALL THEY KNOW HOW TO DO! Pick another term for adults who complain all of the time.
And before you reply with one of those smart-alecky oh-so-sarcastic responses so common to this website, FYI: I'm not doing this to boost my ego, I'm not doing this because I'm some kind of humorless "PC cop", and I'm not doing this to get cheap karma points.
I'm doing it for the children. Don't you care about the children?
I hope MS wins on appeal. It's never good to let people with software patents successfully sue other people. Which is why I hope that even in the SCO/IBM case, IBM cannot use its patents successfully.
But, if you download or buy a single copy of Linux, the ONLY reason you can copy it to all 2000 of your internal machines is that you accept the GPL right?
I know they can claim that they think it's under the GPL and they were just playing CYA, but the company is copying illegally if they do it internally without accepting the GPL. Unless I don't understand the GPL, but it seems clear to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a project in which I am trying to completely generate a MUD and then run a massive simulation to have a dynamic world.
:)
It isn't about whether or not the output is "as good as" what a human can do. It's about the fact that games and art in general are patterns of symbols, and using computers to record and playback symbols and patterns that people create isn't very interesting to me. It's not that I think taking pictures or recording music or writing a story is bad, it's just that computers can do so much more than record/playback, and I want to see what they can do. It's much more interesting to try to teach the computer to generate those symbols and patterns. And I'm back in school studying AI now.
I think the main issue with randomly generated content is that people don't take it far enough. It's hard to create systems that will generate content, so I think people give up. The other issue is that once people understand the underlying pattern for how the content was formed, the value of the content is reduced to that pattern, so it has to be so complex that people can't figure out how it was made, or at least so they can't be sure how it was made. I am an optimist and I think it will eventually get good.
2. To the consumers: A proposed "black out" date has been set for December 1st-December 31st 2003. During this time ,no RIAA controlled CD should be purchased from any store.
I think you should be like me and boycott of all **AA materials for a "limited time".*
* "Limited time" as in: Jack Valenti thinks that copyright should last "forever minus one day" which is his definition of limited time. I now take that definition for mine.
Since I don't steal music, and I don't ever expect to, I would sign this contract. If they gave me something in return, since I'm not going sued so I don't get anything out of this current contract. I want them to promise in a contract with me that they'll never try to restrict or ban or require technology to protect or extend copyright or any other IP rights again, nor will they attempt to lengthen or expand the scope of IP rights period. That's my price for my signature saying that I won't steal music. They have to promise to not steal or cripple my (future) computers, and my current rights.
Do you have any more details on this?
It's called the Audio Home Recording Act, which basically said that you can make copies of things at home, but in return the **AA's collect a levy on all recording media and recorders sold, and you can only make a copy from a first-generation copy of something.
A good link is here.
The main problem is that the law was passed 10 years ago, and nobody had any idea that the Internet would take off so much, and if I read it correctly, it doesn't protect you if you download. I think the problem with downloading is that the downloaded music is not a first-generation recording, so you can't let someone else copy it. Although, I wonder what happens if you use one of those 99cents download services, and then let people download from your server. I think there are other issues in that computers aren't covered devices because they don't have the necessary !copying protection and don't pay royalties. It's a mess, but it appears that doing a CD->CD transfer with a CD player is ok.
"Fairly consistent for years?" Where the fuck is your source for that statement?
:P Try to reparse with the NOBS flag on.
It was consistently 0 for years.
Oh wait, that's probably copyrighted or trademarked or something isn't it?
I called this months ago.
Are you still giving them money? Stop doing it and stop downloading ok? And don't listen to the people who say "but if we stop buying they'll assume we're steaing so we'll be screwed anyway so we may as will keep downloading." Those people are wrong. Politicians are not all that stupid, and I'm pretty sure that you know that there's nothing "noble" about not paying for something but using it anyway. There is something noble about wanting something but refusing to buy it because you don't want to support the people who make the product. Do the right thing. Don't do the easy, thing.
Stop buying/renting/downloading and never give them money ever again.
The rock is said to measure approximately 1.2 kilometres (less than a mile) across - only one tenth of the size of the meteor thought to have wiped out te dinosaurs
You know what the funny thing is? IIRC, that meteor was about 6 miles (a bit less than 10 km) across. That means, this thing is 1/10 the size IN EACH DIRECTION which is more like 1/1000 of the size of the dino meteor. Or more like (1/8)^3, or 1/512 as powerful. OTOH that doesn't take into account relative velocities and such.
Software isn't patentable; algorithms are.
I thought the little game of splitting hairs that people play is that algorithms aren't patentable, because they're abstract mathematical ideas. However, once you figure out how to use a mathematical algorithm to do something useful using a computer, then that process is patentable. That would say to me that you can't patent algorithms, but you can patent software. (Not that I agree with it, but that appears to be the way it is.)
I guess they say that the idea for solving a math problem isn't patentable. But once you figure out how to use a mathematical technique to solve a word problem (a math problem where the numbers have real-world values), and you say you're going to solve it using a computer, even though this is just carrying out calculations really fast, then you can get a patent on that. It seems rather silly to me to make a distinction between math problems where the numbers have no meaning and where the numbers have real-world meaning; and between pencil and paper calculations and machine calculations, but what do I know? I'm not a patent attorney.
I hope they do extend it into other artistic areas. Then people will see how bad software patents are. It will be a more concrete example since those other artistic expressions are more well understood by people. So, I think it's always good to compare software to art and music and TV and movies and pictures and books and poems, since in all cases you have people manipulating machines creatively, thereby causing a string of bits to be created that can later be used as a set of instructions for the original machine or other machines.
I agree you need to talk in terms of loss to convince people that software patents are bad. However, I don't think talking abstractly about loss of future potential will work. People don't think abstractly too well, and you're talking in abstractions about thinking abstractly about writing software. That's bad. Talk about Ebay, Eolas/IE, and Pan IP. Talk about the things people use every day that they could or will lose due to software patents. Be concrete since abstract talk will just get you blank stares. It's a good thing that a lot of the "big" stuff on the Internet is being attacked like auctions, and www storefronts for real stores, and flashy www stuff so people can see the potential loss. In all cases, I believe, you're talking about people filing lawsuits who did the 1 percent inspiration, and are now trying to take away things that companies that did the 99 percent perspiration actually implemented. Be concrete.
Most people don't understand computers and don't see the possibilities of what they can do.
I don't think arguments about "things that will never be created" because of patents will work. Simply because people can't grasp the potential of computers, so you sound like you're full of it.
I recommend talking about things that people can lose. Like how Ebay lost a big patent suit, and had the "inventor" wanted to, he might bave been able to shut down Ebay. Talk about MS IE and plugins and explain how all of the "cool" stuff on the WWW could be taken away.
Be concrete with concrete examples where patents take away things people already have. That's concrete. They can understand that they could do X before, and now they can't do X. Talking in terms of abstractions and potentials won't work since people fundamentally don't get it. For most people, the limits of what a computer can do are the things that they know how to do in commercial products that already exist. Not in the crazy ideas that most people here probably think about.
but if a program is compiled, it's no longer writing.
What if we translate the code into some other language (both programming and natural language) that you don't understand? Is it still writing?
Have you noticed how EULA's always have clauses saying you can't decompile or disassemble the binaries? Why do they put those in there? Could it be because the binaries contain enough information that you can return the code to some semblance of readable form? (Ok so this doesn't work too well, but it works well enough that companies put it into their EULA's.) So, the binaries aren't changed to not be writing, they're just changed to another written language that can be sort of translated to something like the original written thing.
If Europe refuses to allow software patents, and their software industries surge ahead of US software companies then maybe the US will see that software patents are bad and limit or get rid of them. OTOH, if Europe decides that software patents are ok, then there's nothing to compare the US system to. (Example: plugins work in Europe, but not in the US.)
:))
I just wish that Eolas injunction had been handed down a few months ago, so European MP's could see how bad software patents can be.
The most important issue is this:
Most people don't understand computers and don't think about how to make them do cool things.
(Hypothetical Example: Oh, I'm a power user, I use email, and the www, and I put my digital pictures online, and I use Kazaa, and I use Word, Excel, and ppt!)
For a person who gets computers, these are interesting up to a point, but they're probably not the "neatest" things you ever tried to make computers do.
They want to do stuff and that's it, and will try out new "cool" things if a product already exists. If they don't get to do some potential thing that doesn't exist yet because of software patents, then they won't notice. They probably never thought about doing that thing anyway so they aren't missing anything.
OTOH, if they have something, like Ebay or plugins, and they LOSE it, then they will notice. That's the time to explain to them the evils of software patents and how there are lots of other cool things that they might have had if not for these evil things. That's why I wish that Ebay had decided not to pay money or licensing fees, but instead just decide to shut down. THEN the general public would understand how evil these things are. Same with Eolas and plugins. I hope MS just eviscerates IE and screws up the whole Internet for everyone. Then people will see how evil software patents are. Unfortunately, they will probably try to mitigate the damage.
So, I think theoretical arguments about possible loss of freedom don't count for much because most people don't get computers anyway. You have to point to specific examples of cases where they lose things that they already have. That makes it concrete instead of abstract. (Cmon MS: gut IE!
Oh, and another thing, I don't think Eolas has a chance in hell of ever making a product. If IE gets nerfed, then Eolas will have pissed off just about everyone in the world, and a lot of those people will have patents that Eolas will need to infringe to make a real product. Therefore, I expect them to get stopped for refusing to "play the patent game" correctly by just taking their extortion money (oops, I meant their rightfully earned patent infringement penalty fees) and going home.
I hope they catch the people doing the DoS attack [probably as they brag how cool the attack is over some l33t IRC channelz] and beat their heads into the ground.
On some story on Newsforge, Eric Raymond claims that he's talked to a friend the attacker(s). I think he should give that info to the police (time/date of phone call) so they can figure out who this friend is. If he doesn't IMO it seems like he's harboring a criminal. Even if the caller lied, he should still help them to check up on this.
When IBM gets a preliminary injunction, then SCO will have all of their revenues cut off.
Almost. I'm not saying that there's a conspiracy. I'm not saying that there isn't. But I think it's a good bet that SCO will get another multimillion dollar 1-year license from Microsoft in 2004.
This might make a good argument against software patents. If the people protesting in Europe point out to the legislators that they're close to losing the ability to do lots of "cool" stuff on the Web due to these patents...
And that this Eolas company (AFAIK) doesn't have a real product to replace the one that Eolas is about to take away...
It would have made a better argument had MS removed functionality before the vote next Monday.
I hope they reduce their browser to displaying static content. I hope lots of people get pissed. I hope everyone explains to people that MS is NOT evil in this case. Software patents are evil, and if they want the WWW back, they need to write Congress to get rid of software patents! This could be the thing that gets rid of them. (Ok, not likely, but we can hope.)
Although I wish Eric would be more clear about what he's planning next.
He has definite, serious and well-thought-out plans afoot for SCO. However, he can't reveal them publicly or SCO will find ways to counter the plans. OTOH, if you want to find out what those plans are, you can sign an NDA and see bits and pieces of his plans so you'll know how cool and 31337 they are and how much SCO should really ph33r those plans.
It's another thing altogether to ruin your career because your employer stole some open-source wonk's implementation of the cosine function.
/. lawyers jump on my ass. And here you get away with it.
I'm not attacking you. But, every damn time I call "copyight infringement" "stealing" thousands of wannabe
Cmon, where are all the "copyright infringement isn't stealing" people? Why is it ok to label illegal use of FLOSS as stealing, but not illegal downloading of music?
(BTW, that was a rhetorical question and I think I know the answer. The purpose of this post was to maybe make some of the illegal file downloaders think a bit about what they're doing if they also support FLOSS and think FLOSS licenses should be enforced.)
Ahh, more stuff for my list. Your insightful and compelling
argument(s) about why copyright infringement isn't a big deal have been added
to the bottom.
Mr. McBride is creating so much work because for each claim of copyright, the onus is going to be on the linux community to find the origins and prove the allegations wrong. SCO is only going to present SCO code that was supposedly 'written' before the linux code.
Yes, but. Don't you think that after they do this 10 times or so, that eventually a judge will tell them to STFU? I mean it's like you file a paternity suit, and you start dragging random guys into the DNA testing facility to find the daddy. I think that after a few misfires, the judge would throw it out.
But they also said that 2.2 is ok, and 2.4 is where things go bad. Since 2.2 had 1.8 million lines, my guess is they're saying anything beyond 2.2 is all SCO.
When will they announce the final, final Termination?
When they have no more stock do dump?
There's way too many whiny little crybabies getting offended by something someone said these days.
Why are you disparaging little children who haven't learned to express themselves by comparing them to adults who complain about trivial things? Do you think it's funny to insult defenseless children for communicating in the only way that they can? Sure, babies cry. But that's ALL THEY KNOW HOW TO DO! Pick another term for adults who complain all of the time.
And before you reply with one of those smart-alecky oh-so-sarcastic responses so common to this website, FYI: I'm not doing this to boost my ego, I'm not doing this because I'm some kind of humorless "PC cop", and I'm not doing this to get cheap karma points.
I'm doing it for the children. Don't you care about the children?
I hope MS wins on appeal. It's never good to let people with software patents successfully sue other people. Which is why I hope that even in the SCO/IBM case, IBM cannot use its patents successfully.
But, if you download or buy a single copy of Linux, the ONLY reason you can copy it to all 2000 of your internal machines is that you accept the GPL right?
I know they can claim that they think it's under the GPL and they were just playing CYA, but the company is copying illegally if they do it internally without accepting the GPL. Unless I don't understand the GPL, but it seems clear to me.