Then why hasn't any of the kernel developers or the companies which employed them filed suit to enforce the GPL? Where's the class action lawsuit? It's their collective copyright. Why isn't someone enforcing it?
They followed the legal advise of their lawyers and when that advice changed they stopped distributing to the best of their ability. They can argue that they are actively working on getting their customer base off of the currently infringing linux distribution and onto "proper" SCO Unix software. This requires time and it is unreasonable to expect SCO to put their entire customer base into chaos during this period. It could be furthered argued that since the GPL has never been tested in court that it required more time to determine the best course of action.
All that matters is if they can show due care in the courtroom. If they are taking reasonable steps to handle the issue that's all that matters. And what defines reasonable won't be decided by you or me but by the judge.
Also, considering the enormity of the penalty involved - i.e. the complete loss of the IP in question due to it being GPLd, I wonder if the judge would take that into consideration when determining what constitutes due care. That's an interesting issue from my layman's perspective.
No. There was a post requesting oral sex from SCO already.
But honestly, can someone explain why a person would willing accept a blowjob from Darl McBride? I mean after all these dumb ass comments he's made you do kinda get a vague idea of where his mouth has been....
IANAL. The alleged offending code was never and will never be GPL'd if SCO's claims are true. This is whether SCO distributed it afterwards or not. The GPL already covers this. If you can't freely distribute the code due to patents or copyright then the code cannot be placed under the GPL. If you do try to place it under the GPL the license is revoked.
It simply doesn't matter if they distributed it or not. It is their code. Until the code gets a new GPL statement saying SCO places it under the GPL it is still their code under their copyright. Some engineer in IBM doesn't have that right to relicense it and saying that because SCO distributed it afterwards really doesn't mean SCO has relicensed the code. I would take the fact that they've continued to listen to legal advice and got out of distributing the source within what seems to be a reasonable amount of time to fulfil due care. Whatever GPL violations they might be committing now is a different issue and would have to be brought up in a new lawsuit.
Sorry, but SCO's stance really doesn't surprise me and I don't see it as being outlandish. I would think the next step is to counter-sue SCO and force them to point out what code is violating their IP rights and then remove it and force SCO to do the same or relicense it under the GPL if it can be proven that the code was actually stolen.
Whatever. You might as well outlaw crypto, VPNs, anonymous email (which would let someone inside a terrorist cell leak info to the authorities), PDFs (hey I can write an innocent environmental piece and a suicide bomber can use a template to get a coded message within), etc., etc.. Disposable cell phones? Get rid of them. Flight simulators? They gotta go!
And that's not why decentralized technologies were developed. But you go on believing that.
DoS the whitehouse isn't terrorism. As Bruce Schneier says "If I don't get my email for a day I'm not terrorized." If someone had half a brain, years ago they get instructions on how to make explosives from a forestry manual published by the US government no less. The terrorists who commited 9/11 were hooking up at a tittie bar not over AOL.
The terrorist aren't going to win because they have P2P. They're going to win because people won't be stuffing BILLIONS of dollars into strippers g-strings. Now there's a depression.
Ouch. You should really play Paranoia. With that type of spurious logic you could get a clearance of yellow before all your clones would report for termination.
A switch is a physical device. You could actually build one that might be good for high power lines, conditions the power and it costs less to produce. I wouldn't mind if someone patented it.
Now if you patented making a control that looked like a switch in a window and clicking it turned the program off? Well, then I'd have to take the foam cluebat to you.
"Foreign people" won't have to worry about this stupid patent because Verizon won't be able to enforce it overseas. See, the American patent system isn't a global patent system.
As for your sig, well I didn't know Mensa had a chapter for the retarded. Silly me.
There is no reason why you can't have Firebird dishwashing liquid and Firebird condoms and trademark a car as a Firebird. A browser and a database are functionally two different products. Each can be called Firebird.
The fact that these two different products are software is imho not an issue.
SCO will actually go after Linux and try to get an injunction to stop distribution of the kernel proper or try to go after Linus and try to force him to stop development of the kernel.
Yeah, everything could be moved overseas and/or somebody like Alan Cox could continue to maintain a branch of the kernel like what is being done today but, if I really, really wanted to shake corporate confidence in Linux disrupting actual development would be the primary target. It would also make sense for SCO to attempt to do something like this. An arguement can be made that stopping distribution of the kernel sources and any binaries produced would put a halt on the continuing alleged infringement.
Would it stop everyone from using linux? Nope. But it would totally derail business adoption of linux here in the States first. Elsewhere I don't know.
Nope. I'll contribute to the EFF so they can defend someone willing to fight.
Jesse has every right to settle and I don't blame him for his decision but I want my money to go to something that actually does have a chance to "fuck the RIAA." This isn't it. Sorry.
Not to mention that contributions to the EFF are tax deductable which means I can get some money back from the IRS next year.
No, it was a case of an uneducated user not changing the password. The instructions on changing the password should have been prominently displayed and not buried in the information packet. The system should have forced a password change once it was accessed. Especially when AT&T is expecting the customer to cough up the bill if the system is exploited.
A secure system cannot assume that a user, even one given formal training, will follow best practices. In this case, not putting in a forced password change is negligent.
Look at how MS now does setup for MSSQL. It forces a password change on sadmin. Why? Because it was a reasonable measure to take. Cisco router? The second configuration is to set the enable secret password when using the setup utility. Why?? Because it is reasonable to expect enable mode to be protected. And this is for kit that should be admined by people who will know these steps have to be done.
Why are you expecting more out of Joe and Jane Average?
Your proposal only works if it is easy to find the offender and cheap to prosecute them. The first will become more and more difficult as P2P schemes become more sophisticated. The second will never happen imo. Besides the lawyers fees, court costs, etc., etc., you have to deal with the reprecussions of suing your customer base and the cost of the negative PR that will entail.
And it will have to be at the core of their customer base. Heck, you've already got a handful of students being sued for billions in damages and I haven't heard any news about how file sharing is dropping. Once you've got people talking about how the neighbors just got sued because the kids downloaded an album then watch copyright become a bullet issue. And I do believe that the media industries are completely aware that this type of backlash will happen if they actually go after the typical infringer.
Slashdot Mirror
For a moment their I saw a closing price of over $7 and was going WTF?
Look at Chakrabarty. The SCOTUS ruled "Anything under the sun made by man..." can be patented.
It's a menu bar option. You have to click it.
Then I wonder what you have to say about the end of this advisory from CERT. Note at the bottom when it says:
Then why hasn't any of the kernel developers or the companies which employed them filed suit to enforce the GPL? Where's the class action lawsuit? It's their collective copyright. Why isn't someone enforcing it?
All that matters is if they can show due care in the courtroom. If they are taking reasonable steps to handle the issue that's all that matters. And what defines reasonable won't be decided by you or me but by the judge.
Also, considering the enormity of the penalty involved - i.e. the complete loss of the IP in question due to it being GPLd, I wonder if the judge would take that into consideration when determining what constitutes due care. That's an interesting issue from my layman's perspective.
That you would take my post even semi-seriously is some sad shit.
So far they've only filed one suit against IBM. This kind of contradicts the defination of persistently if you ask me.
Well, no wonder they're in so much trouble. Their CFO can't even properly short his own stock!
But honestly, can someone explain why a person would willing accept a blowjob from Darl McBride? I mean after all these dumb ass comments he's made you do kinda get a vague idea of where his mouth has been....
This is crazy shit that you want no part of. Do not take the brown acid. The brown acid is bad.
This public service anouncement has been brought to you by the Commitee Against Crazy Ass Shit.
It simply doesn't matter if they distributed it or not. It is their code. Until the code gets a new GPL statement saying SCO places it under the GPL it is still their code under their copyright. Some engineer in IBM doesn't have that right to relicense it and saying that because SCO distributed it afterwards really doesn't mean SCO has relicensed the code. I would take the fact that they've continued to listen to legal advice and got out of distributing the source within what seems to be a reasonable amount of time to fulfil due care. Whatever GPL violations they might be committing now is a different issue and would have to be brought up in a new lawsuit.
Sorry, but SCO's stance really doesn't surprise me and I don't see it as being outlandish. I would think the next step is to counter-sue SCO and force them to point out what code is violating their IP rights and then remove it and force SCO to do the same or relicense it under the GPL if it can be proven that the code was actually stolen.
And that's not why decentralized technologies were developed. But you go on believing that.
DoS the whitehouse isn't terrorism. As Bruce Schneier says "If I don't get my email for a day I'm not terrorized." If someone had half a brain, years ago they get instructions on how to make explosives from a forestry manual published by the US government no less. The terrorists who commited 9/11 were hooking up at a tittie bar not over AOL.
The terrorist aren't going to win because they have P2P. They're going to win because people won't be stuffing BILLIONS of dollars into strippers g-strings. Now there's a depression.
Heh. Does that mean I get a Mensa membership too?
Dang. I'm impressed.
Now if you patented making a control that looked like a switch in a window and clicking it turned the program off? Well, then I'd have to take the foam cluebat to you.
Anyway, that's my take on it. Ciao.
"Foreign people" won't have to worry about this stupid patent because Verizon won't be able to enforce it overseas. See, the American patent system isn't a global patent system.
As for your sig, well I didn't know Mensa had a chapter for the retarded. Silly me.
The fact that these two different products are software is imho not an issue.
Yeah, everything could be moved overseas and/or somebody like Alan Cox could continue to maintain a branch of the kernel like what is being done today but, if I really, really wanted to shake corporate confidence in Linux disrupting actual development would be the primary target. It would also make sense for SCO to attempt to do something like this. An arguement can be made that stopping distribution of the kernel sources and any binaries produced would put a halt on the continuing alleged infringement.
Would it stop everyone from using linux? Nope. But it would totally derail business adoption of linux here in the States first. Elsewhere I don't know.
Jesse has every right to settle and I don't blame him for his decision but I want my money to go to something that actually does have a chance to "fuck the RIAA." This isn't it. Sorry.
Not to mention that contributions to the EFF are tax deductable which means I can get some money back from the IRS next year.
Or people like me who went to the website, did a little research and RTFM.
A secure system cannot assume that a user, even one given formal training, will follow best practices. In this case, not putting in a forced password change is negligent.
Look at how MS now does setup for MSSQL. It forces a password change on sadmin. Why? Because it was a reasonable measure to take. Cisco router? The second configuration is to set the enable secret password when using the setup utility. Why?? Because it is reasonable to expect enable mode to be protected. And this is for kit that should be admined by people who will know these steps have to be done.
Why are you expecting more out of Joe and Jane Average?
And it will have to be at the core of their customer base. Heck, you've already got a handful of students being sued for billions in damages and I haven't heard any news about how file sharing is dropping. Once you've got people talking about how the neighbors just got sued because the kids downloaded an album then watch copyright become a bullet issue. And I do believe that the media industries are completely aware that this type of backlash will happen if they actually go after the typical infringer.
You bastards!
sk00l? Isn't spitting chewing tobacco around the server farm a bad thing??