Hell, they could have been contractually obligated to continue releasing Linux even after they "discovered" the "offending" code. IBM breaking their contract is not a tenable reason to break their own 3rd party contracts.
I don't know, of course, but I would imagine their justification for continuing to release it would go something like this.
Yes, for about a two week period in 1983, these red "V"s were popping up everywhere. Someone even managed to do one in the 24-hour library at my college.
Well, my point was that it's impossible to do an audit for stolen proprietary code without access to that code. One could guess via functionality, or decompiling the proprietary source, but that's all it would be is a guess.
Which brings up the really evil possibility that IBM wants this suit, will settle with great fanfare, and then have a lock on business use of Linux (at least in the U.S.).
Wait a minute, maybe I'm missing something, but if they distributed the products "SCO Linux" and "Caldera OpenLinux", doesn't that mean that all the code is GPL? And they GPLed it themselves? And, of course, once it's GPLed, then anybody can incorporate it into their distributions as long as they provide source code.
My favorite subway loop was in the Hartfield (Atlanta) airport. At one time, a very Cyclon sounding voice gave a two sentence spiel on using the subway system (The color-coded maps...). Then, just as the doors were about to close, a normal human male voice with a very thick southern accent would warn: "Stoppp, do no en-ter".
Perhaps you had to hear the discrepancy between the two, but it always cracked me up.
And I've been fairly happy with it. I always avoided laptops, as the compromises made for portability always seemed a rip-off to me. However, my situation became such that the portability was needed, so laptop shopping I went.
I looked at many models, both online and at the local best buy. I decided on the Matrix basically because it hit the sweet spot the best in price/performance, especially considering it has integrated 802.11b. That was one less thing to buy after the major purchase. I paid $1400 (after $100 rebate), and got the following:
I couldn't find anything that beat this for the price. There are some nice extras, like the aforementioned integrated 802.11b, plus widescreen 15" screen which is very crisp and bright, 2 firewire and 4 USB 2.0.
Well, it had it's moments. It wasn't anything like the cartoon, really, but I liked it. The best description would probably be: "Seinfeld" in spandex.
It was discussed on/., if you would like independent verification: Cancellation
Chemists can't do physics! This is Fleish and Ponds all over again.
The article is very confusing, and makes several leaps that even the researchers don't promulgate.
Basically, what seems to be going on here is that one charges up metal spheres to see how they interact. This is a way of testing EM theory. Now, as is commonly known, charging a metal sphere will eventually have the charge distributed uniformly on the surface, and eventually static. However, it takes a non-zero amount of time to reach these static states. What these boys have done is charge 3 spheres (presumably) simultaneously, and then observe physical spin (rotation) in the spheres.
Well, inhomogenities in the surfaces can have slightly non-uniform charge currents during the charging process. All it would take is a slight asymmetry, and the charge on two spheres (let alone three) could and would provide a torque to the other(s) via the usual Coulomb interaction.
Comparing the Apple/Microsoft case to the the Lotus/Paperback Software case is rather misleading. In the latter, the defendants copied every detail, unlike the independent development path that Borland and Microsoft pursued. In the former, the proven "prior art" of the general elements of a GUI were established, giving Apple no claim to the concepts despite any licensing agreement they may have had with Xerox.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, they could have been contractually obligated to continue releasing Linux even after they "discovered" the "offending" code. IBM breaking their contract is not a tenable reason to break their own 3rd party contracts.
I don't know, of course, but I would imagine their justification for continuing to release it would go something like this.
Front:
/., you couldnt posibly understande
its
Back:
Best...tech site...ever
The site formerly known as slashdot has changed its name to scodot; please update your bookmarks.
Hotwired had a thriving thread community at one time, but they dumped it back in '98.
Yes, for about a two week period in 1983, these red "V"s were popping up everywhere. Someone even managed to do one in the 24-hour library at my college.
If the grannies use the "DMCA infringing" patterns on a pair of boxers would that make it underwarez?
Yes, it is encrypted. Thus, if you find a house or building without using their approved Decrypting device, you will be in violation of the DCMA!
Well, my point was that it's impossible to do an audit for stolen proprietary code without access to that code. One could guess via functionality, or decompiling the proprietary source, but that's all it would be is a guess.
How does one audit to determine if closed sourced code is in Linux?
Which brings up the really evil possibility that IBM wants this suit, will settle with great fanfare, and then have a lock on business use of Linux (at least in the U.S.).
Wait a minute, maybe I'm missing something, but if they distributed the products "SCO Linux" and "Caldera OpenLinux", doesn't that mean that all the code is GPL? And they GPLed it themselves? And, of course, once it's GPLed, then anybody can incorporate it into their distributions as long as they provide source code.
If they had horns and a tail, wouldn't that make it easier for them to pass themselves off as *BSD advocates?
My favorite subway loop was in the Hartfield (Atlanta) airport. At one time, a very Cyclon sounding voice gave a two sentence spiel on using the subway system (The color-coded maps...). Then, just as the doors were about to close, a normal human male voice with a very thick southern accent would warn: "Stoppp, do no en-ter".
Perhaps you had to hear the discrepancy between the two, but it always cracked me up.
And I've been fairly happy with it. I always avoided laptops, as the compromises made for portability always seemed a rip-off to me. However, my situation became such that the portability was needed, so laptop shopping I went.
I looked at many models, both online and at the local best buy. I decided on the Matrix basically because it hit the sweet spot the best in price/performance, especially considering it has integrated 802.11b. That was one less thing to buy after the major purchase. I paid $1400 (after $100 rebate), and got the following:
2 GHz pentium 4 processor
512 MB Ram
40 GB hard drive
I couldn't find anything that beat this for the price. There are some nice extras, like the aforementioned integrated 802.11b, plus widescreen 15" screen which is very crisp and bright, 2 firewire and 4 USB 2.0.
Well, it had it's moments. It wasn't anything like the cartoon, really, but I liked it. The best description would probably be: "Seinfeld" in spandex. It was discussed on /., if you would like independent verification: Cancellation
It happened, but only lasted about 6 weeks.
Maybe they'll pull a Police Squad/Naked Gun from it, but I doubt it.
Unfortunately, the big "CHA" on the moon's surface would ruin the experience.
In an idealized metal absent other influences, charge distribution will be uniform if held at a constant potential.
The article is very confusing, and makes several leaps that even the researchers don't promulgate.
Basically, what seems to be going on here is that one charges up metal spheres to see how they interact. This is a way of testing EM theory. Now, as is commonly known, charging a metal sphere will eventually have the charge distributed uniformly on the surface, and eventually static. However, it takes a non-zero amount of time to reach these static states. What these boys have done is charge 3 spheres (presumably) simultaneously, and then observe physical spin (rotation) in the spheres.
Well, inhomogenities in the surfaces can have slightly non-uniform charge currents during the charging process. All it would take is a slight asymmetry, and the charge on two spheres (let alone three) could and would provide a torque to the other(s) via the usual Coulomb interaction.
Cowboy Neal, of course.
*cough*I think I have SARS*cough*
No, sorry, different plague I guess
Your comments become the property of the Federal Government, and viewing of the final report requires agreement to the license agreement.
Maybe the people who are donating their cycles to the project aren't interested in those other things? This isn't (yet) a completely command economy.
Comparing the Apple/Microsoft case to the the Lotus/Paperback Software case is rather misleading. In the latter, the defendants copied every detail, unlike the independent development path that Borland and Microsoft pursued. In the former, the proven "prior art" of the general elements of a GUI were established, giving Apple no claim to the concepts despite any licensing agreement they may have had with Xerox.