Re:Never mind, I misparsed that
on
SCO News Roundup
·
· Score: 1
Licensed Technology does not constitute a primary portion of the value of the total bundled or integrated product
I think SCO may still be in trouble (IANAL). Since Linux is open source, and available for no charge, I don't see how Novell could make that a primary portion of what they are selling. Instead I would imagine, their SUPPORT of that os would be the primary portion (if not all) of what they are selling.
I don't know if the guy is being screwed or if Apple is within their rights
Both are possible at the same time. Apple has plenty of money (compared to the average developer), and could easily buy the product from the guy (consider it a bonus for extra work). They are saying that the software belongs to them (and possibly it does) but that doesn't mean that they can't reward effort "beyond the call of duty". Instead, they decided that it is in their best interest (and it is their decision to make) to punish their employees for doing extra work.
So...
Bad employee, BAD!!!
Spend your time off work with loved ones and friends. In the end, they are the only ones that matter anyway.
Yes, but what if you had a bag of pot dropped on your front yard? I think that is a better analogy to a Windows computer connected to a cable/DSL modem.
Well, I for one would like to have my cat learn that every time it even THINKS about peeing on the floor it will be controlling a switch to zap itself.
I was not there. I doubt you were there either (if you were, I'm sorry, and we can add or drop assumptions based on your account). Right now, all I have to go on is the stories as told by both parties involved, and my own personal experience. I know that intimidation tactics do not require that you go to someone's home. I also know they do not require you be alone with the person.
Now, Krugman did NOT voluntarily arrange for Luskin to come get a book signed. He was at work, doing his job (in this case signing books for the public), when Luskin showed up (and IMHO innocently asked to get a book signed, but I remind you I WAS NOT THERE). He can't stand (and possibly hates) Luskin, and believes the same is true in reverse. He thinks Luskin is angry with him (and probably rightly so, I don't know even the slightest bit about either of them except for what I read in the linked stories). He feels that Luskin would do anything to get him to stop attacking him (possibly because he would if the roles were reversed, I don't know). The rest I have already written.
Remember, we are not talking about normal people here. If you have read the writings of either of these people, you must be aware of the asinine assumptions they are willing to make in order to further their agendas. Neither is willing to accept they are wrong when they are given FACTS that prove it. Both are quick to judge the other side and see malice where ignorance or stupidity easily explains. Both are into name calling as an acceptable way to point out flaws in the others arguments. Both sides use half-truths and lies mixed with truths in order to sway public oppinion. And yes, both are quick to dodge tough questions through any means necessary.
I have no respect for either of them. If you put two sensible people in a room who disagree politically, they would not act this way. They would be able to sit down and explain their side and LISTEN to the other side without the intent to find and point out flaws that have no bearing on the argument. They wouldn't call the other names in an effort to demean their view. These are not great men. Both of them are whining babies who throw tantrums when they can't get their way. The fact that anyone listens to them only proves that people don't really care about understanding what is going on in the world but would rather just listen to people talk who believe like they do and agree with them on topics they already know.
What kind of a lame haxor are you if you don't know that 217 does NOT give write permissions to anyone but you? (217 = -w---xr-x) Are you running FreeBSD or something?:)
One that knows binary: 217 = -w---xrwx
The way this works is each of the three-bit pieces are looked at independently (something I think you grasped). The first number represents the permissions for the owner, the second for the group assigned to the file, and the last number represents the permissions granted to others. But they then are given their binary equivalent in order to know which bits to turn on.
In the case of 2, the binary for 2 is 010. Thus the read bit is off, the write bit is on, and the execute bit is off (0 means turn them off, and one means turn them on). Congratulations, you got that one right. Next, the binary for 1 is 001. Thus, the read and write bits are off, but the execute bit is on. Congratulations, you got that one right also. Lastly, the binary for 7 is 111. Thus, all three bits are turned on. This is where you didn't see the allowing of others to over-write your diary.
Since I'm not totally sure you understand binary (66% success rate isn't passing), I will try to explain how 7 is represented by 111.
You see, the right-most bit is valued at 1 if on, and 0 if off. The middle bit is valued at 2 if on, and 0 if off. The left-most bit is valued at 4 if on and 0 if off. So, if we turn the first and last bits on, we have a value of 4+1 which equals 5. 5 does not equal 7, so we must look further to determine what to do. If we turn the first and second bits on, we have a value 4+2 which equals 6. 6 also does not equal 7. But, we are getting close. If we turn on the 4 bit, the 2 bit, AND the 1 bit guess what happens?! You got it, 4+2+1=7!!! Furthermore, we know from first grade math, that 7 equals 7. Thus we have found our answer.
I'm a computer programmer/systems administrator, not a professional teacher, so if I have confused you let me know and I will try to explain it in more simple terms. In the meantime, trust me, if you have any files with **7 permissions, change them IMMEDIATELY unless you really want anyone to be able to write to the files and execute arbitrary code on your box.
I agree that stalking is not defined by attending a public event, but when Luskin went up to Krugman it could be interpreted as meaning, "Hey Krugman, you know me, I'm Luskin. See how easy it is for me to get close enough to you to do you bodily harm? See, I'm so close I could easily just reach down and do all kinds of bad things to you. You better keep up the good work." I am NOT saying that this was Luskin's intent, but only that Krugman could reasonably see the actions this way. And, if he saw the actions this way, the statue would define the actions as stalking, and the inferrence would be correct. There is an old addage, that says, don't attribute to malice that which can easily be explained by stupidity. I think it applies to both sides here. Both Krugman and Luskin have demonstrated their stupidity.
Libel is print, slander is spoken. (you can remember by the ss rule!)
I in no way meant to imply that one moron in the article should call the other moron in the article a stalker (not to mean there were only two morons in the article). I just don't see the statement as being libelous when moron two refers to himself that way. Granted, moron two denies that he is a stalker elsewhere, and even denies that he stalked moron one. But the behavior that he describes doing actually could be interpreted as stalking. Here is the federal stalking law:
Federal Interstate Stalking Law
18 U.S.C § 2261A (1)
Whoever (1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or the spouse or intimate partner of that person; or (2) with the intent (A) to kill or injure a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or (B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to (i) that person; (ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person; or (iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person, uses the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii), shall be punished as provided in §2261(b).
Here is moron two's account of the events:
I attended a lecture he gave at the University of California at San Diego as part of his tour to promote his book. I listened to the lecture. I videotaped parts of the event with a personal camcorder. Like many members of the audience, I submitted a written question to Krugman. And like many members of the audience, I stood in line to have him sign a copy of his book. I asked him to inscribe it to me, in the process of which he (naturally) realized my identity. He made the inscription, and I said to him, "Now you keep up the good work, Paul," and walked away.
The line in the statute that says, "...with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, that person..." (emphasis mine) basically shows that moron two may actually have stalked (IANAL, and I am not accusing moron two of being a stalker, but only trying to understand the law). If moron one was in fear of bodily injury (I would think that it would be up to moron one to determine, not moron two), then if the intent was to harass, it might be stalking. Now, moron two goes on to say, "Having written so much about Krugman, I had long been curious to see him with my own eyes and take his measure." I don't see how taking his measure would be anything but harassing especially with the snide remark that he threw in.
Now, do I think moron two is a stalker? No. Do I see where moron one might have a reasonable argument for calling him a stalker? Yes. Do I think moron one should have called him a stalker? No. Do I think moron two might have a libel case? Yes. Do I think moron two should sue for libel? No. Do I think both parties have proved moronicism? YES!!!
(But, I guess the fact that they both have blogs could speak for that.)
Whoever (1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or the spouse or intimate partner of that person; or (2) with the intent (A) to kill or injure a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or (B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to (i) that person; (ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person; or (iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person, uses the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii), shall be punished as provided in §2261(b)
It seems to me that the person already called themselves a criminal. If I refer to myself as a thief, don't I then open anyone else to also refer to me as a thief? Just a question, I don't have any answer on this, and think that both (all) parties involved should be ignored.
It will also be hard to add to it if you can't read it. Try opening something in vi that you can't read (or any other editor for that matter). Of course you can always
% echo '[my next day's entry]' >> diary
even if it is chmod 217. But that is a pain for long diary entries.
The really scary part is the 17. Basically you are setting up anyone you don't know to overwrite your diary with some script that says how lame a haxor you are, and then have people you know run it and laugh at you.
IANAL... If you go back and look at the case, McD's had to pay so much, not because they sold over-hot-coffee, but rather because they sold over-hot-coffee simply because they found that if it was that hot, people would not drink a second cup, and they would then make more money. They also knew that if it was that hot, it would cause severe burns if a customer spilled it. They chose to ignore the health risks, and go after the money. That is why they had to pay.
The money spent on drug enforcement far outweighs the money that is (or would be) spent for medical services for illegal drug users. If drugs were legal, all of the money that is currently spent on enforcement could be used for medical treatment and still leave plenty for drug education. This does not even take into account the money that is spent on incarceration for drug dealers which would not be spent if drugs were legal. The "It costs society" argument is a fallacy.
Drugs are illegal simply due to the fact that a bunch of do-gooders believed that they had all of the answers, and that the unwashed masses must be told what to do. It was this same type of person that got the U.S. to pass Prohibition, and more recently made smokers into polluters, and gun manufactures into murderers.
And no, I also do not do drugs, and would not even if they were legal. I just believe in Freedom, something that most people in America have no real concept of, or have forgotten all about in an effort to remain more secure and have more money.
Yes, I have been programming since 1981, and the projects I work on, both open and closed source, follow standards that I was taught in college as well as ones that I have learned and/or adopted over the years.
Your argument is fallacious, the 5 fixes would be submitted to the maintainer, just as they would be in a closed system, who would then be able to pick the best one, and implement it. The difference is that in a closed system, there would probably only be one, and in an open system there would be (in a project as big as this) many.
Don't for a second think that just because a bunch of people all over the world work on an open source project that it doesn't follow standard programming principles. The only difference between the two sets of programmers is that open source programmers get paid in different ways than spendable cash. Both are just as likely to develop crappy code. But when you have more developers developing code, the likelyhood that they produce a piece of quality code increases. Since the maintainer is able to pick the pieces they want (in both types of development) the code is almost certainly going to be better when there are more choices to pick from. (Note, I said almost certainly, this does not mean it will always be the case.)
I recently read the article referenced above, and feel compelled to express my disappointment with the Forbes editorial staff for allowing such a misleading and fallacious article to be printed. In the article, Daniel Lyons portrays the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Open Source movement in general, as a form of cancer eating away at intellectual property of legitimate businesses. I believe this is either due to Mr. Lyons lack of knowledge regarding the GNU public license, or his misconception regarding who is infringing on which groups IP.
In the article, Mr. Lyons mentions that Linksys sold a router which, "Aimed at home users, the $129 device has been a smash hit, selling 400,000 units in the first quarter of this year alone." But how much more expensive would this router have been if it included the cost of paying for the ten years and thousands of developers that wrote the code that makes it function. Linksys decided that it would be able to save money, and make a less expensive router, by not paying cash for that development time, and decided that Linux would be an efficient means to produce a low cost router. It read the license for the software, and then decided that it would go forward with the terms of the licensing agreement. Then, after making lots of money, decided that it no longer wanted to abide by its agreement. The agreement was that it would turn over any "derivative works" of the software in question, in this case the Linux operating system to the public. These "derivative works" do not belong to Linksys, but rather to the copyright holders of the Linux operating system and the public at large. This is the price that Linksys agreed to pay for using Linux, and by not doing so, they are in violation of the licensing agreement.
In the article, Mr. Lyons describes the efforts of the FSF to enforce the terms of the GNU public license as "the dark side of the free software movement". When other companies attempt to enforce their licensing agreements by utilizing the resources of organizations such as the Business Software Alliance to audit software, and force compliance, typically the offending companies are looked at in a negative light. If instead of using Linux in its routers, Linksys decided to use an embedded Microsoft operating system, and then did not pay Microsoft for the use of their operating system, Microsoft would probably demand payment. If Linksys did not pay them, they would probably take them to court and the court would force payment. Why are the efforts of the FSF to demand payment not looked at with the same light? Is this due to the fact that the payment is in the form of software code and IP rather than cash? This is the price that Linksys agreed to pay for use of the licensed code.
Mr. Lyons demonstrates his lack of knowledge regarding the Gnu Public License by stating, "Or maybe, as some suggest, the foundation wants GPL-covered code to creep into commercial products so it can use GPL to force open those products." The GPL cannot force open any products. If GPL software is on a system, it DOES NOT make all of the software on the system public domain. In fact, the Linksys software, may not even be public domain. In other words, it may not even be a "derivative work". This concept can be demonstrated by looking at the efforts of NVIDIA. NVIDIA writes software drivers for its video hardware that integrate with the Linux operating system at the lowest level. These drivers are not derivative works since they do not include any Linux code, and are therefore NVIDIA's IP. What the FSF wants is to be shown that Linksys is not violating the licensing agreement. If Linksys hasn't made derivative works, then they have nothing to pay. If they have, then they need to pay up. This concept is not new, and should have nothing to do with the fact that Linksys decided to utilize a non-standard method for payment.
Forrest Tiffany Linux User since 1995 Software Developer since 1981
It was last Friday. That's two whole business days without a SCO story. (It's not like SCO would do a FUD-Raising drive on the weekend, the stock market isn't open.)
IBM Adds SCO Counterclaim Charging Copyright Infringement On September 26th, 2003 with 741 comments linuxjack55 writes "According to Yahoo! Finance, IBM has filed yet another counterclaim against SCO, this time claiming that SCO 'infringed IBM's copyrights by... Section: Your Rights Online > Caldera , Linux , Unix , Software , Businesses , Operating Systems
Well, if enough people don't upgrade because the hardware isn't supported, it might cause the HW manufactures to build to some form of standard. It might also be possible for the games to be written to look for specific drivers (ex sound and video) on the harddrive and if they exist there to use them, and if not to use the default driver. I know there are some issues involved with the CD-ROM bootable game, but I still think it can be a viable form of software distribution.
Actually, it makes a lot of sense. The mass produced CD-ROMs can include software at the kernel level that would enable them to read parts of the CD that are unreadable by copy software. This would be an almost foolproof form of copy protection. I'm not a CD wiz, but I believe it is possible.
They would also be able to open their market share to users of Windows (tm) as well as those of us who prefer to use an alternative Operating System (i.e. as long as it is x86 it will work).
Slashdot Mirror
Licensed Technology does not constitute a primary portion of the value of the total bundled or integrated product
I think SCO may still be in trouble (IANAL). Since Linux is open source, and available for no charge, I don't see how Novell could make that a primary portion of what they are selling. Instead I would imagine, their SUPPORT of that os would be the primary portion (if not all) of what they are selling.
I don't know if the guy is being screwed or if Apple is within their rights
Both are possible at the same time. Apple has plenty of money (compared to the average developer), and could easily buy the product from the guy (consider it a bonus for extra work). They are saying that the software belongs to them (and possibly it does) but that doesn't mean that they can't reward effort "beyond the call of duty". Instead, they decided that it is in their best interest (and it is their decision to make) to punish their employees for doing extra work.
So...
Bad employee, BAD!!!
Spend your time off work with loved ones and friends. In the end, they are the only ones that matter anyway.
JMHO
Another analogy closer to the pool is if someone comes by your pool and drowns a third party. Are you then responsible for the murder?
Yes, but what if you had a bag of pot dropped on your front yard? I think that is a better analogy to a Windows computer connected to a cable/DSL modem.
(And BTW all my mp3's are legal.)
Well, I for one would like to have my cat learn that every time it even THINKS about peeing on the floor it will be controlling a switch to zap itself.
What year?
I was not there. I doubt you were there either (if you were, I'm sorry, and we can add or drop assumptions based on your account). Right now, all I have to go on is the stories as told by both parties involved, and my own personal experience. I know that intimidation tactics do not require that you go to someone's home. I also know they do not require you be alone with the person.
Now, Krugman did NOT voluntarily arrange for Luskin to come get a book signed. He was at work, doing his job (in this case signing books for the public), when Luskin showed up (and IMHO innocently asked to get a book signed, but I remind you I WAS NOT THERE). He can't stand (and possibly hates) Luskin, and believes the same is true in reverse. He thinks Luskin is angry with him (and probably rightly so, I don't know even the slightest bit about either of them except for what I read in the linked stories). He feels that Luskin would do anything to get him to stop attacking him (possibly because he would if the roles were reversed, I don't know). The rest I have already written.
Remember, we are not talking about normal people here. If you have read the writings of either of these people, you must be aware of the asinine assumptions they are willing to make in order to further their agendas. Neither is willing to accept they are wrong when they are given FACTS that prove it. Both are quick to judge the other side and see malice where ignorance or stupidity easily explains. Both are into name calling as an acceptable way to point out flaws in the others arguments. Both sides use half-truths and lies mixed with truths in order to sway public oppinion. And yes, both are quick to dodge tough questions through any means necessary.
I have no respect for either of them. If you put two sensible people in a room who disagree politically, they would not act this way. They would be able to sit down and explain their side and LISTEN to the other side without the intent to find and point out flaws that have no bearing on the argument. They wouldn't call the other names in an effort to demean their view. These are not great men. Both of them are whining babies who throw tantrums when they can't get their way. The fact that anyone listens to them only proves that people don't really care about understanding what is going on in the world but would rather just listen to people talk who believe like they do and agree with them on topics they already know.
Sorry about the long rant.
What kind of a lame haxor are you if you don't know that 217 does NOT give write permissions to anyone but you? (217 = -w---xr-x) Are you running FreeBSD or something? :)
One that knows binary: 217 = -w---xrwx
The way this works is each of the three-bit pieces are looked at independently (something I think you grasped). The first number represents the permissions for the owner, the second for the group assigned to the file, and the last number represents the permissions granted to others. But they then are given their binary equivalent in order to know which bits to turn on.
In the case of 2, the binary for 2 is 010. Thus the read bit is off, the write bit is on, and the execute bit is off (0 means turn them off, and one means turn them on). Congratulations, you got that one right. Next, the binary for 1 is 001. Thus, the read and write bits are off, but the execute bit is on. Congratulations, you got that one right also. Lastly, the binary for 7 is 111. Thus, all three bits are turned on. This is where you didn't see the allowing of others to over-write your diary.
Since I'm not totally sure you understand binary (66% success rate isn't passing), I will try to explain how 7 is represented by 111.
You see, the right-most bit is valued at 1 if on, and 0 if off. The middle bit is valued at 2 if on, and 0 if off. The left-most bit is valued at 4 if on and 0 if off. So, if we turn the first and last bits on, we have a value of 4+1 which equals 5. 5 does not equal 7, so we must look further to determine what to do. If we turn the first and second bits on, we have a value 4+2 which equals 6. 6 also does not equal 7. But, we are getting close. If we turn on the 4 bit, the 2 bit, AND the 1 bit guess what happens?! You got it, 4+2+1=7!!! Furthermore, we know from first grade math, that 7 equals 7. Thus we have found our answer.
I'm a computer programmer/systems administrator, not a professional teacher, so if I have confused you let me know and I will try to explain it in more simple terms. In the meantime, trust me, if you have any files with **7 permissions, change them IMMEDIATELY unless you really want anyone to be able to write to the files and execute arbitrary code on your box.
I agree that stalking is not defined by attending a public event, but when Luskin went up to Krugman it could be interpreted as meaning, "Hey Krugman, you know me, I'm Luskin. See how easy it is for me to get close enough to you to do you bodily harm? See, I'm so close I could easily just reach down and do all kinds of bad things to you. You better keep up the good work." I am NOT saying that this was Luskin's intent, but only that Krugman could reasonably see the actions this way. And, if he saw the actions this way, the statue would define the actions as stalking, and the inferrence would be correct. There is an old addage, that says, don't attribute to malice that which can easily be explained by stupidity. I think it applies to both sides here. Both Krugman and Luskin have demonstrated their stupidity.
Libel is print, slander is spoken. (you can remember by the ss rule!)
Now, do I think moron two is a stalker? No. Do I see where moron one might have a reasonable argument for calling him a stalker? Yes. Do I think moron one should have called him a stalker? No. Do I think moron two might have a libel case? Yes. Do I think moron two should sue for libel? No. Do I think both parties have proved moronicism? YES!!! (But, I guess the fact that they both have blogs could speak for that.)
It seems to me that the person already called themselves a criminal. If I refer to myself as a thief, don't I then open anyone else to also refer to me as a thief? Just a question, I don't have any answer on this, and think that both (all) parties involved should be ignored.
It will also be hard to add to it if you can't read it. Try opening something in vi that you can't read (or any other editor for that matter). Of course you can alwayseven if it is chmod 217. But that is a pain for long diary entries.
The really scary part is the 17. Basically you are setting up anyone you don't know to overwrite your diary with some script that says how lame a haxor you are, and then have people you know run it and laugh at you.
IANAL...
If you go back and look at the case, McD's had to pay so much, not because they sold over-hot-coffee, but rather because they sold over-hot-coffee simply because they found that if it was that hot, people would not drink a second cup, and they would then make more money. They also knew that if it was that hot, it would cause severe burns if a customer spilled it. They chose to ignore the health risks, and go after the money. That is why they had to pay.
And how exactly is one supposed to steal, kill, or rape on an island by themselves?
(I'm not sure I really want an answer to that last one).
The money spent on drug enforcement far outweighs the money that is (or would be) spent for medical services for illegal drug users. If drugs were legal, all of the money that is currently spent on enforcement could be used for medical treatment and still leave plenty for drug education. This does not even take into account the money that is spent on incarceration for drug dealers which would not be spent if drugs were legal. The "It costs society" argument is a fallacy.
Drugs are illegal simply due to the fact that a bunch of do-gooders believed that they had all of the answers, and that the unwashed masses must be told what to do. It was this same type of person that got the U.S. to pass Prohibition, and more recently made smokers into polluters, and gun manufactures into murderers.
And no, I also do not do drugs, and would not even if they were legal. I just believe in Freedom, something that most people in America have no real concept of, or have forgotten all about in an effort to remain more secure and have more money.
Does that mean no more mail order drug spam?
Ever heard of standards? Didn't think so.
Yes, I have been programming since 1981, and the projects I work on, both open and closed source, follow standards that I was taught in college as well as ones that I have learned and/or adopted over the years.
Your argument is fallacious, the 5 fixes would be submitted to the maintainer, just as they would be in a closed system, who would then be able to pick the best one, and implement it. The difference is that in a closed system, there would probably only be one, and in an open system there would be (in a project as big as this) many.
Don't for a second think that just because a bunch of people all over the world work on an open source project that it doesn't follow standard programming principles. The only difference between the two sets of programmers is that open source programmers get paid in different ways than spendable cash. Both are just as likely to develop crappy code. But when you have more developers developing code, the likelyhood that they produce a piece of quality code increases. Since the maintainer is able to pick the pieces they want (in both types of development) the code is almost certainly going to be better when there are more choices to pick from. (Note, I said almost certainly, this does not mean it will always be the case.)
Windows is closed. If it were open, someone would have fixed the security holes by now.
Here's mine
I recently read the article referenced above, and feel compelled to express my disappointment with the Forbes editorial staff for allowing such a misleading and fallacious article to be printed. In the article, Daniel Lyons portrays the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Open Source movement in general, as a form of cancer eating away at intellectual property of legitimate businesses. I believe this is either due to Mr. Lyons lack of knowledge regarding the GNU public license, or his misconception regarding who is infringing on which groups IP.
In the article, Mr. Lyons mentions that Linksys sold a router which, "Aimed at home users, the $129 device has been a smash hit, selling 400,000 units in the first quarter of this year alone." But how much more expensive would this router have been if it included the cost of paying for the ten years and thousands of developers that wrote the code that makes it function. Linksys decided that it would be able to save money, and make a less expensive router, by not paying cash for that development time, and decided that Linux would be an efficient means to produce a low cost router. It read the license for the software, and then decided that it would go forward with the terms of the licensing agreement. Then, after making lots of money, decided that it no longer wanted to abide by its agreement. The agreement was that it would turn over any "derivative works" of the software in question, in this case the Linux operating system to the public. These "derivative works" do not belong to Linksys, but rather to the copyright holders of the Linux operating system and the public at large. This is the price that Linksys agreed to pay for using Linux, and by not doing so, they are in violation of the licensing agreement.
In the article, Mr. Lyons describes the efforts of the FSF to enforce the terms of the GNU public license as "the dark side of the free software movement". When other companies attempt to enforce their licensing agreements by utilizing the resources of organizations such as the Business Software Alliance to audit software, and force compliance, typically the offending companies are looked at in a negative light. If instead of using Linux in its routers, Linksys decided to use an embedded Microsoft operating system, and then did not pay Microsoft for the use of their operating system, Microsoft would probably demand payment. If Linksys did not pay them, they would probably take them to court and the court would force payment. Why are the efforts of the FSF to demand payment not looked at with the same light? Is this due to the fact that the payment is in the form of software code and IP rather than cash? This is the price that Linksys agreed to pay for use of the licensed code.
Mr. Lyons demonstrates his lack of knowledge regarding the Gnu Public License by stating, "Or maybe, as some suggest, the foundation wants GPL-covered code to creep into commercial products so it can use GPL to force open those products." The GPL cannot force open any products. If GPL software is on a system, it DOES NOT make all of the software on the system public domain. In fact, the Linksys software, may not even be public domain. In other words, it may not even be a "derivative work". This concept can be demonstrated by looking at the efforts of NVIDIA. NVIDIA writes software drivers for its video hardware that integrate with the Linux operating system at the lowest level. These drivers are not derivative works since they do not include any Linux code, and are therefore NVIDIA's IP. What the FSF wants is to be shown that Linksys is not violating the licensing agreement. If Linksys hasn't made derivative works, then they have nothing to pay. If they have, then they need to pay up. This concept is not new, and should have nothing to do with the fact that Linksys decided to utilize a non-standard method for payment.
Forrest Tiffany
Linux User since 1995
Software Developer since 1981
Too bad they were reviewing Linux and not Irix, they could have potentially found more bugs.
Whatever happened to the co-existence theory
I think it incorporated and was viable for a while, but was bought out by the we-have-more-money-than-you-ever-dreamed-of theory.
It was last Friday. That's two whole business days without a SCO story. (It's not like SCO would do a FUD-Raising drive on the weekend, the stock market isn't open.)
IBM Adds SCO Counterclaim Charging Copyright Infringement
On September 26th, 2003 with 741 comments
linuxjack55 writes "According to Yahoo! Finance, IBM has filed yet another counterclaim against SCO, this time claiming that SCO 'infringed IBM's copyrights by...
Section: Your Rights Online > Caldera , Linux , Unix , Software , Businesses , Operating Systems
Well, if enough people don't upgrade because the hardware isn't supported, it might cause the HW manufactures to build to some form of standard. It might also be possible for the games to be written to look for specific drivers (ex sound and video) on the harddrive and if they exist there to use them, and if not to use the default driver. I know there are some issues involved with the CD-ROM bootable game, but I still think it can be a viable form of software distribution.
Actually, it makes a lot of sense. The mass produced CD-ROMs can include software at the kernel level that would enable them to read parts of the CD that are unreadable by copy software. This would be an almost foolproof form of copy protection. I'm not a CD wiz, but I believe it is possible.
They would also be able to open their market share to users of Windows (tm) as well as those of us who prefer to use an alternative Operating System (i.e. as long as it is x86 it will work).