If you're going to offer a response to someone that thinks the intarweb happens in their browser, maybe provide a linky that is more meaningful?
And if you're going to offer a response criticizing a response, you may want to read the original post, which clearly indicated that he already knew what usenet is.
Any fine IBM would be assessed (the 5 (pinky to mount) BILLION dollars) would be a legal punishment, not a fee to license
Umm, fee to license what!?!?! Why would I pay SCOX a fee to license IBM's code, when IBM has already given me a license?
Under your scenerio (not the actuality) TSCOG would still own the IP they started with, plus the $5B, and the right to license their IP any way they want to.
I say again - WHAT IP? In the SCOX alternate universe I described, SCOX doesn't have any IP either - and that's the problem.
SCOX has accused IBM of contributing IBM's OWN CODE to Linux. Not SCOX code, but code that IBM wrote and is the sole copyright holder.
they could (and almost certainly would) then argue that Linux was improperly licensed under the GPL
How? The only person who could (possibly) revoke the right to something is the copyright owner. That's IBM.
Unless you're arguing that SCOX *OWNS* the code (which they have just admitted they don't) then there's nothing they can do. I have it *WITH PERMISSION* from the copyright holder - if the copyright holder had other obligations that should have prevented them from giving it to me, then they can go after the copyright holder, but they have no basis for trying to stop me.
(This is beside the fact that SCOX distributed the code *themselves*.)
Anyone else would be infringing on their copyright
BULLSHIT. As SCOX IS NOT the copyright holder (we've already established this), then nobody would be infringing on their copyright.
It's been reported that IBM's contract with SCO stated that they weren't allowed to put technologies from their Unix into any other OS.
It's also been reported that a fat guy in a red suit flies around the earth once a year in a reindeer-powered sleigh.
What you miss in that is that *everyone* who was directly involved in the contract (which was with AT&T, not SCO, or SCOX) has said that it does not mean what SCOX says it means. This includes the $echo newsletter, in which AT&T explicitly clarified that the clause only refers to AT&T's code, not code owned by the customer.
1. Considering that *everyone* who was involved with the Unix source licensing agreements has said that the licenses doesn't mean what SCOX claims it means (including AT&T publishing this in their $echo newsletter), how the hell does SCOX think they can push this past a judge?
2. Even if SCOX were correct in this, and it was against the contract for IBM to give *THEIR OWN SOURCE CODE AWAY*, why does this mean I owe them $699 per CPU? If (as in SCOX's insane world) IBM did something wrong, and IBM has to pay them Five Brazillion Dollars, doesn't that mean that SCOX has already been paid, and they can't go after someone else for the same thing?
Well, I *was* gonna say "they made you change your name, then filed a bogus copyright lawsuit against you", but I changed it because it was funnier. Looks like I made the right decision.
What does it mean to have the same "basic" building blocks? What if we found a species that, say, just used A and C? You'd fall back to "well, though some use G and T, they all use the basic building blocks of A and C." And if the bases were all different for every species, you'd be saying "well, they all have carbon". See how fuzzy claims like "same basic building blocks" can become? Who defines basic? What constitutes same?
Translation:
If I make a general claim with the intent that you won't be able to pin down what I mean, or that I can claim a word is used in a different context, and you answer that claim based on our current conversation, I can then say "ha! That's not what I meant." Because you can't read my mind, then it means that you're wrong!
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to see an example of this actually having happened in court. If it has, please direct me to more information.
Snopes to the rescue
Short answer: no, it's never happened.
What's with "rediculous" -- has 50% of the /. population forgotton how to spell "ridiculous"
/. population doesn't know how to spell the word than, you sure have high hopes.
Considering that better than 50% of the
Gas tanks don't spontaneously explode. A few liters of gasoline will burn quite nicely, but it doesn't explode.
Yes, you're correct.
Debatable...
Just like everything else in your post.
If you're going to offer a response to someone that thinks the intarweb happens in their browser, maybe provide a linky that is more meaningful?
And if you're going to offer a response criticizing a response, you may want to read the original post, which clearly indicated that he already knew what usenet is.
Charge them $500 a month to have the car blow up upon impact and kill the whole family.
I think you have your car manufacturers mixed up.
This is Honda, not Ford
I think it's because they want to maintain common-carrier status.
If they start examining (and then restricting) what people post, then they open themselves up to lawsuits when they miss.
Besides, would it really stop anyone - people could just move the stuff to a different newsgroup.
The term 'gorm' is actually the species name of a Star Trek lizard
:o)
Actually, that's GORN, not Gorm.
I think "Gorm" is a bacterial culture that was marketed circa 2001 in the UK as a meat substitute.
And what is google groups exactly?
A way to search *text*
Usenet right on google, and it is searchable.
Except that it doesn't include pictures, music, and videos. Try searching google for alt.binaries.sounds.mp3 and see what you get.
Although I have a hard time picturing how these guys are gonna stay alive once the MPAA/RIAA finds out about them.
Any fine IBM would be assessed (the 5 (pinky to mount) BILLION dollars) would be a legal punishment, not a fee to license
Umm, fee to license what!?!?! Why would I pay SCOX a fee to license IBM's code, when IBM has already given me a license?
Under your scenerio (not the actuality) TSCOG would still own the IP they started with, plus the $5B, and the right to license their IP any way they want to.
I say again - WHAT IP? In the SCOX alternate universe I described, SCOX doesn't have any IP either - and that's the problem.
SCOX has accused IBM of contributing IBM's OWN CODE to Linux. Not SCOX code, but code that IBM wrote and is the sole copyright holder.
What happened to the concept of a frivolous lawsuit?
:o)
Nothing! It's still alive and well, as evidenced by this case.
Haven't you been paying attention?
Sorry, hard for me to keep track of this case.
:o)
Ahh, OK. Yes, considering that SCOX keeps changing what they claim, I can understand that.
calm down
OK, now it's my turn to sorry
I'm not arguing in any sense of the word that SCO is right.
Yes, I see that now.
I'm glad at least one person gets topical humor. :o)
If the code if infringing, you can't relicense it.
Why not?
If IBM were not entitled to include the code in Linux then it was never under the GPL.
Yes, it was. IBM explicitly said so.
I could just slap the GPL on the leaked Windows Source Code and say "ha, well it's GPL now"
Only if you own the copyright to the source code.
they could (and almost certainly would) then argue that Linux was improperly licensed under the GPL
How? The only person who could (possibly) revoke the right to something is the copyright owner. That's IBM.
Unless you're arguing that SCOX *OWNS* the code (which they have just admitted they don't) then there's nothing they can do. I have it *WITH PERMISSION* from the copyright holder - if the copyright holder had other obligations that should have prevented them from giving it to me, then they can go after the copyright holder, but they have no basis for trying to stop me.
(This is beside the fact that SCOX distributed the code *themselves*.)
Anyone else would be infringing on their copyright
BULLSHIT. As SCOX IS NOT the copyright holder (we've already established this), then nobody would be infringing on their copyright.
It's been reported that IBM's contract with SCO stated that they weren't allowed to put technologies from their Unix into any other OS.
It's also been reported that a fat guy in a red suit flies around the earth once a year in a reindeer-powered sleigh.
What you miss in that is that *everyone* who was directly involved in the contract (which was with AT&T, not SCO, or SCOX) has said that it does not mean what SCOX says it means. This includes the $echo newsletter, in which AT&T explicitly clarified that the clause only refers to AT&T's code, not code owned by the customer.
1. Considering that *everyone* who was involved with the Unix source licensing agreements has said that the licenses doesn't mean what SCOX claims it means (including AT&T publishing this in their $echo newsletter), how the hell does SCOX think they can push this past a judge?
2. Even if SCOX were correct in this, and it was against the contract for IBM to give *THEIR OWN SOURCE CODE AWAY*, why does this mean I owe them $699 per CPU? If (as in SCOX's insane world) IBM did something wrong, and IBM has to pay them Five Brazillion Dollars, doesn't that mean that SCOX has already been paid, and they can't go after someone else for the same thing?
Well, I *was* gonna say "they made you change your name, then filed a bogus copyright lawsuit against you", but I changed it because it was funnier. Looks like I made the right decision.
the result was nothing less than the level of excellence that we have come to expect from Blizzard
:o)
You mean they had you sign a release promising them the right to run spyware on your comptuer, then filed a bogus copyright lawsuit against you?
If we let them believe that stuff is SciFi, then we are that much closer to the all-girl SciFi convention I fantasize about every night.
:o)
Unless you're female, you wouldn't be able to get in.
And if that's true, unless you're lesbian or bisexual, why would you care?
And if you're female and bisexual, what are you doing next weekend?
I can assure you he wasn't a poofter.
He probably wasn't a poofta either.
plenty of Scots men wore kilts back in the day. Some still do. I doubt they were all gay
What, you've never heard of William FitzPatrick and Patrick FitzWilliam, the gay scottish couple?
Do you believe in the scientific method?
That's the beauty of it - you don't have to believe in it. You can test it.
Belief (in the context used) means faith in something untestable.
What does it mean to have the same "basic" building blocks? What if we found a species that, say, just used A and C? You'd fall back to "well, though some use G and T, they all use the basic building blocks of A and C." And if the bases were all different for every species, you'd be saying "well, they all have carbon". See how fuzzy claims like "same basic building blocks" can become? Who defines basic? What constitutes same?
Translation:
If I make a general claim with the intent that you won't be able to pin down what I mean, or that I can claim a word is used in a different context, and you answer that claim based on our current conversation, I can then say "ha! That's not what I meant." Because you can't read my mind, then it means that you're wrong!
you probably don't understand the term "science"
Funnny, I was about to say the same thing about you.
Only without the word "probably."
That sounds entirely as if acessibility was treated like a checkbox feature and not a design goal.
And that's different than MS-Office how exactly?