The problem lies in that they don't have a right to distribute the code in question (because they don't have permission to do so...) because of their claims (Clause 4 invalidates their rights to the code in question...).
The people buying aren't ON the boards for the most part. That's a fact.
What WILL stop SCO dead in its tracks is a handfull of infringement suits filed against them. The more, the merrier. After all, they are STILL distributing the Linux kernel in violation of the terms set forth in Clause 4 of the GPL. They've been doing it for over seven months now.
What you need is to see the kernel coders sue SCO into oblivion.
If you'd been following the BS going on in Yahoo!'s SCOX board, you'd see that the informed ones are the ones posting Strong Sell and putting forward the facts of the case. The Strong Buy's are doing pretty much nothing more than flametrolling...
While I admit Yahoo!'s boards are not indicative, I do believe that the ignorance of all the details is what is driving up the prices.
The problem lies not with other people using the Linux kernel- but rather SCO's distribution thereof. The GPL is not an EULA, it's a distribution and derivative works license- completely different beast.
Since SCO claims that they didn't license the alleged code under the GPL, they distributed everyone else's code in violation of the terms of the GPL. SCO distributed, knowingly (and still WAS off of their FTP site as late as yesterday...) the IP of the Linux kernel with their IP intermingled with it. If SCO isn't willing to distribute the code in question under the GPL, they did not have the license to distribute the rest either.
SCO is officially guilty of over seven months of IP infringement on the collected Copyrights on the Linux kernel.
They're beligerent and obviously unwilling to work with the community over this (Did anyone ever believe them when they said that they weren't going to go after the Linux community when they started this BS? I sure as hell didn't...).
I wonder when the kernel coders will start working at filing infringement suits on SCO over their 1-2% in the kernel and the licensing they just announced.
Since SCO distributed the OTHER portions of the code that are non-infringing with their IP intermixed, they're in an unenviable position of knowingly infringing the IP rights of other holders.
Clause 4 of the GPL requires that you make everything you ship out to be GPL- no exceptions. They've been distributing Linux in the alleged condition for over seven months now- stating that it was "okay" for them to do so, because the alleged IP was theirs to begin with.
They don't own the other 98% of the kernel source- other people do. And they've been distributing it for too much time to be excused for not knowing what was going on.
That's NOT a loophole for SCO in any way, shape, or form.
Clause 4 in the GPL invalidates your license the moment you knowingly distribute intermixed code of your own or someone else's that isn't also GPLed.
SCO continued to sell OpenLinux for 2-3 months after they allegedly found there was allegedly a problem and has continued to distribute the kernel sources now for SEVEN months. This is combined with a public statement from them saying that it was all "okay" for them to do so since the infringing IP was theirs to begin with. That makes whatever SCO has done as premeditated and willful.
Now, charging for licenses means they're intending on claiming that the code is theirs and that it's not under the GPL. This means that SCO is liable for seven months worth of infringement on at least 400 seperate instances of Copyrighted materials- of which they've already made it clear that it was intentional. Not understanding the license doesn't count- you shoul d never agree to something you don't understand fully. And, by distributing Linux, they agreed to all the terms, including clause 4.
There is not going to be a court that is going to let SCO off the hook for this if they go ahead with the licensing ideas. Without the GPL, they can't distribute. Clause 4's not unreasonable and isn't illegal- so it won't be discounted. They distributed the code with the alleged infringing code, knowing it was there, for seven months.
Assuming for a moment that SCO is, in fact, telling the truth about IP in Linux (Not that I believe that one for a moment...), SCO is guilty of over six months worth of IP infringement of the Linux kernel because they have been distributing the same with NO license to do so during the time that they knew about the problem with infringement and did nothing about it.
I expect to see movement along the lines of at least several of the Linux kernel coders getting a temporary injunction on SCO over this if they attempt to do the licensing scheme.
Re:60 MPH on his Schwinn!?
on
United Nuclear
·
· Score: 1
Scary, huh?
I remember having that model of Schwinn when I was a kid. Nice bike- I sure as hell wouldn't want to be going 60 on it.:-)
Ugh... If what you just said is true, then they shouldn't have even bothered- it'd been okay as it's own thing, but to have called it Galactica, well...
It'll handle decode of MPEG4/DiVX streams adequately - the hardware MPEG2 is there to give the CPU a leg up so that it can do other tasks as well (think streaming MPEG2 combined with a web surf session or something similar going on...).
The new EPIA-M's will be supported shortly. VIA released source code for the 2D and 3D accelerator drivers that they've developed and work is proceeding to integrate the code into the XFree86 and DRI source trees. From talking with the people there at VIA, they're not going to just give out tech data for the CLE266 to just anybody and everybody, but they are willing to allow select (as in the people actually working on the drivers...) people access to the tech data to fix/extend the driver sources that they've recently provided.
Per the statements made by Stowell, they knew about the alleged code infringement since the end of last year. That places it in an October/November/December timeframe. They had their reasonable amount of time from that point until they filed (anywhere from 3-5 months...) and they proceeded to distribute everything for at least another 2-3 months past that.
It's not going to wash in a court that they took anywhere from 4-7 months to finally decide to take action with regards to the source, especially when they filed a case against IBM over the same in the middle of the 4-7 month timeframe. While they can still claim that they didn't license the code under the GPL, they can't claim it's legit to ship it under the current state of things if there IS SCO code not licensed under the GPL in the Linux kernel.
SCO's got a nasty problem if what they've been saying is true- and it doesn't involve them unknowingly GPLing the code (which can't technically happen...). The license grant of the GPL is revoked if you knowingly distribute code that is not GPLed intermixed with GPLed code. They KNOWINGLY did it, stating IN PUBLIC that it was okay for THEM to do so since it was their IP to begin with. This translates into something like 4-6+ months of infringement of the Linux kernel sources because they no longer had a license to distribute the code in question.
There's already several suits in progress that address that issue with SCO.
Let me clarify that prior statement (Must remember not to post at 2AM...:-)
The absolute range isn't really in the reader's antenna or it's broadcast power. It's in the tag's antenna and the RF circuitry in the tag. It's how much power you can effectively re-radiate with the tag- and the antennas and chips on the tags in question limit the range dramatically because they can't pump out a lot of RF power into space.
It's like the range difference on a 5 watt CB handie-talkie. On a rubber duck antenna, you'll get maybe a quarter mile or so at best- even at 5 watts of RF power. With a quarter-wave whip attached, though, you can get many miles out of the equipment, especially at 5 watts of RF power. Why? Because the quarter wavelength sized antenna much more effectively couples the power into space. Also worth noting is that while you get better results with a quarter wave antenna and more power, there are limits to how far you can transmit and recieve because of frequency related propagation characteristics. 10 watts gives you a longer range (but not twice as far- propagation follows the inverse square law...) but once you reach 100 watts, CB just fizzles pretty much at the same distance, no matter how much juice you pour into the transmission. This is due to how the signal propagates through space at a given frequency.
The same applies for RFID tags. While your tag antenna might be the right size (The tag's at quarter wavelengths in many cases), you're fighting how much electrical power the chip can resolve into power to radiate back out. If the chip's designed for a nanowatt or two of RF power, pumping a kilowatt of power at it won't change the radiated power from the tag one bit. Also you're fighting the propagation characteristics of the frequency you're using. Check out what the propagation characteristics are for 2.4GHz sometime. Not a pretty thing, if you're going for distance. You usually have to switch to 5GHz or to 900MHz to get real range on a tag. And you're going to have to use larger parts to have higher power levels because the chips they're using in these small tags aren't capable of a lot of power back out.
At the frequencies in question, a metalized mylar bag or sheet will stop the signal dead in it's tracks. Typically, they store these sorts of tags in metalized anti-stat bags to keep them from spuriously operating.
The range isn't in the reader's antenna. It's in how much power is radiated by the tag. A directional antenna will help in this regard- a highly directional antenna is probably involved with the 15 foot range claimed by Alien.
A small merchandise style RFID tag has a severely small antenna, electrically speaking. It can't couple a lot of RF power radiated to it by the reader and it can't couple a lot of power back out for transmission.
This translates into a milliwatt at most and more like microwatts or picowatts with most tags. That really limits the effective range dramatically.
I didn't go but about 3-4 hits deep. What was the page in question that started showing the internal distribution only stuff (and are you sure that they didn't change the determination of it?)
You'd have to catch and broadcast each style of RFID tag radio signal.
Inductive Pulsed Backscatter Rebroadcast (differing frequencies for transmit and recieve...) Etc.
Each one's completely different from the other in it's operation. And that just covers the RADIO portion of the systems. It doesn't cover the modulation or the encoding. There's a bazillion of those out there.
Yes, you could come up with a system that could jam/confuse each and every RFID reader nearby. But, it'd end up being something like the military's signal intelligence systems in size and complexity.
You've got prior art on your "prior art" at the least...
'sides, HERF-ing the tags would very probably set fire to things that they're attached to since they operate in the same frequency domain as most of the DIY HERF guns.
Nobody that's on about the "Confidential" pages apparently did.
From the website search engine:
"Summary: pml research update june 4, 2002 christian floerkemeier robin koh Confidential until september 2002. Confidential until September 2002 in re "
(Bold emphasis mine...)
Notice that this sample says "Confidential until September 2002". Now, unless you know for a fact that they were available for reading prior to September of last year, then there's really no problem unless they're talking about some sort of big-brother-esque system.
Now, this isn't saying that they're not. But, as seeing that Cryptome's/.'ed off the face of the 'net right at the moment and I've yet to see much of any proof thereof, I'm going to err on the side of caution- partly because I know what the capabilities of the RFID systems are these days and there's not currently anything that could do what the alarmists keep saying is possible. Now, that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen- but it's not going to be an RF system at that point because the little tags don't have enough antenna, etc. to be able to radiate more than a few picowatts of power at any frequency that they've used to date (or in the future...).
Slashdot Mirror
The problem lies in that they don't have a right to distribute the code in question (because they don't have permission to do so...) because of their claims (Clause 4 invalidates their rights to the code in question...).
The people buying aren't ON the boards for the most part. That's a fact.
.
What WILL stop SCO dead in its tracks is a handfull of infringement suits filed against them. The more, the merrier. After all, they are STILL distributing the Linux kernel in violation of the terms set forth in Clause 4 of the GPL. They've been doing it for over seven months now
What you need is to see the kernel coders sue SCO into oblivion.
Now, THAT is something I'd fund in a heartbeat.
If you'd been following the BS going on in Yahoo!'s SCOX board, you'd see that the informed ones are the ones posting Strong Sell and putting forward the facts of the case. The Strong Buy's are doing pretty much nothing more than flametrolling...
While I admit Yahoo!'s boards are not indicative, I do believe that the ignorance of all the details is what is driving up the prices.
I am not a lawyer either...
The problem lies not with other people using the Linux kernel- but rather SCO's distribution thereof. The GPL is not an EULA, it's a distribution and derivative works license- completely different beast.
Since SCO claims that they didn't license the alleged code under the GPL, they distributed everyone else's code in violation of the terms of the GPL. SCO distributed, knowingly (and still WAS off of their FTP site as late as yesterday...) the IP of the Linux kernel with their IP intermingled with it. If SCO isn't willing to distribute the code in question under the GPL, they did not have the license to distribute the rest either.
SCO is officially guilty of over seven months of IP infringement on the collected Copyrights on the Linux kernel.
They're beligerent and obviously unwilling to work with the community over this (Did anyone ever believe them when they said that they weren't going to go after the Linux community when they started this BS? I sure as hell didn't...).
I wonder when the kernel coders will start working at filing infringement suits on SCO over their 1-2% in the kernel and the licensing they just announced.
Since SCO distributed the OTHER portions of the code that are non-infringing with their IP intermixed, they're in an unenviable position of knowingly infringing the IP rights of other holders.
Clause 4 of the GPL requires that you make everything you ship out to be GPL- no exceptions. They've been distributing Linux in the alleged condition for over seven months now- stating that it was "okay" for them to do so, because the alleged IP was theirs to begin with.
They don't own the other 98% of the kernel source- other people do. And they've been distributing it for too much time to be excused for not knowing what was going on.
You have to buy a seat of UnixWare, per the press release. That's $1500 per seat. Do YOU think anyone is going to pay that?
I just haven't seen them until just now. Me, I've been posting here and at linuxtoday.com- and Yahoo's message board, of course.
That's NOT a loophole for SCO in any way, shape, or form.
Clause 4 in the GPL invalidates your license the moment you knowingly distribute intermixed code of your own or someone else's that isn't also GPLed.
SCO continued to sell OpenLinux for 2-3 months after they allegedly found there was allegedly a problem and has continued to distribute the kernel sources now for SEVEN months. This is combined with a public statement from them saying that it was all "okay" for them to do so since the infringing IP was theirs to begin with. That makes whatever SCO has done as premeditated and willful.
Now, charging for licenses means they're intending on claiming that the code is theirs and that it's not under the GPL. This means that SCO is liable for seven months worth of infringement on at least 400 seperate instances of Copyrighted materials- of which they've already made it clear that it was intentional. Not understanding the license doesn't count- you shoul d never agree to something you don't understand fully. And, by distributing Linux, they agreed to all the terms, including clause 4.
There is not going to be a court that is going to let SCO off the hook for this if they go ahead with the licensing ideas. Without the GPL, they can't distribute. Clause 4's not unreasonable and isn't illegal- so it won't be discounted. They distributed the code with the alleged infringing code, knowing it was there, for seven months.
Wondered when you'd chime in with something over here at /.
:-)
(Right now I'm wondering what sirius and yoyo are doing over this announcement- probably frothing at the mouth about it going to the moon...
Damn slashdot... :->
Assuming for a moment that SCO is, in fact, telling the truth about IP in Linux (Not that I believe that one for a moment...), SCO is guilty of over six months worth of IP infringement of the Linux kernel because they have been distributing the same with NO license to do so during the time that they knew about the problem with infringement and did nothing about it.
I expect to see movement along the lines of at least several of the Linux kernel coders getting a temporary injunction on SCO over this if they attempt to do the licensing scheme.
Scary, huh?
:-)
I remember having that model of Schwinn when I was a kid. Nice bike- I sure as hell wouldn't want to be going 60 on it.
Ugh... If what you just said is true, then they shouldn't have even bothered- it'd been okay as it's own thing, but to have called it Galactica, well...
It'll handle decode of MPEG4/DiVX streams adequately - the hardware MPEG2 is there to give the CPU a leg up so that it can do other tasks as well (think streaming MPEG2 combined with a web surf session or something similar going on...).
The new EPIA-M's will be supported shortly. VIA released source code for the 2D and 3D accelerator drivers that they've developed and work is proceeding to integrate the code into the XFree86 and DRI source trees. From talking with the people there at VIA, they're not going to just give out tech data for the CLE266 to just anybody and everybody, but they are willing to allow select (as in the people actually working on the drivers...) people access to the tech data to fix/extend the driver sources that they've recently provided.
Per the statements made by Stowell, they knew about the alleged code infringement since the end of last year. That places it in an October/November/December timeframe. They had their reasonable amount of time from that point until they filed (anywhere from 3-5 months...) and they proceeded to distribute everything for at least another 2-3 months past that.
It's not going to wash in a court that they took anywhere from 4-7 months to finally decide to take action with regards to the source, especially when they filed a case against IBM over the same in the middle of the 4-7 month timeframe. While they can still claim that they didn't license the code under the GPL, they can't claim it's legit to ship it under the current state of things if there IS SCO code not licensed under the GPL in the Linux kernel.
SCO's got a nasty problem if what they've been saying is true- and it doesn't involve them unknowingly GPLing the code (which can't technically happen...). The license grant of the GPL is revoked if you knowingly distribute code that is not GPLed intermixed with GPLed code. They KNOWINGLY did it, stating IN PUBLIC that it was okay for THEM to do so since it was their IP to begin with. This translates into something like 4-6+ months of infringement of the Linux kernel sources because they no longer had a license to distribute the code in question.
There's already several suits in progress that address that issue with SCO.
Did they happen to have a license from the Knowling or the publisher for producing and distributing a Czech version of the new Harry Potter book?
No.
The Czech publisher, Albatros, does- and has a legal right to sue them for infringement.
The German translation effort will run afoul the same situation at some point.
Let me clarify that prior statement (Must remember not to post at 2AM... :-)
The absolute range isn't really in the reader's antenna or it's broadcast power. It's in the tag's antenna and the RF circuitry in the tag. It's how much power you can effectively re-radiate with the tag- and the antennas and chips on the tags in question limit the range dramatically because they can't pump out a lot of RF power into space.
It's like the range difference on a 5 watt CB handie-talkie. On a rubber duck antenna, you'll get maybe a quarter mile or so at best- even at 5 watts of RF power. With a quarter-wave whip attached, though, you can get many miles out of the equipment, especially at 5 watts of RF power. Why? Because the quarter wavelength sized antenna much more effectively couples the power into space. Also worth noting is that while you get better results with a quarter wave antenna and more power, there are limits to how far you can transmit and recieve because of frequency related propagation characteristics. 10 watts gives you a longer range (but not twice as far- propagation follows the inverse square law...) but once you reach 100 watts, CB just fizzles pretty much at the same distance, no matter how much juice you pour into the transmission. This is due to how the signal propagates through space at a given frequency.
The same applies for RFID tags. While your tag antenna might be the right size (The tag's at quarter wavelengths in many cases), you're fighting how much electrical power the chip can resolve into power to radiate back out. If the chip's designed for a nanowatt or two of RF power, pumping a kilowatt of power at it won't change the radiated power from the tag one bit. Also you're fighting the propagation characteristics of the frequency you're using. Check out what the propagation characteristics are for 2.4GHz sometime. Not a pretty thing, if you're going for distance. You usually have to switch to 5GHz or to 900MHz to get real range on a tag. And you're going to have to use larger parts to have higher power levels because the chips they're using in these small tags aren't capable of a lot of power back out.
At the frequencies in question, a metalized mylar bag or sheet will stop the signal dead in it's tracks. Typically, they store these sorts of tags in metalized anti-stat bags to keep them from spuriously operating.
The range isn't in the reader's antenna. It's in how much power is radiated by the tag. A directional antenna will help in this regard- a highly directional antenna is probably involved with the 15 foot range claimed by Alien.
A small merchandise style RFID tag has a severely small antenna, electrically speaking. It can't couple a lot of RF power radiated to it by the reader and it can't couple a lot of power back out for transmission.
This translates into a milliwatt at most and more like microwatts or picowatts with most tags. That really limits the effective range dramatically.
I didn't go but about 3-4 hits deep. What was the page in question that started showing the internal distribution only stuff (and are you sure that they didn't change the determination of it?)
You'd have to catch and broadcast each style of RFID tag radio signal.
Inductive
Pulsed
Backscatter
Rebroadcast (differing frequencies for transmit and recieve...)
Etc.
Each one's completely different from the other in it's operation. And that just covers the RADIO portion of the systems. It doesn't cover the modulation or the encoding. There's a bazillion of those out there.
Yes, you could come up with a system that could jam/confuse each and every RFID reader nearby. But, it'd end up being something like the military's signal intelligence systems in size and complexity.
I dunno... I think someone else may have implemented it- but for a different target than an RFID tag.
0 1q 2/002046.html
http://lists.personaltelco.net/pipermail/ptp/20
You've got prior art on your "prior art" at the least...
'sides, HERF-ing the tags would very probably set fire to things that they're attached to since they operate in the same frequency domain as most of the DIY HERF guns.
From the website search engine:
(Bold emphasis mine...)
Notice that this sample says "Confidential until September 2002". Now, unless you know for a fact that they were available for reading prior to September of last year, then there's really no problem unless they're talking about some sort of big-brother-esque system.
Now, this isn't saying that they're not. But, as seeing that Cryptome's