The thing is that the RoboVac is pretty much exactly the same thing as a $10 2 yearold kids toy with a napkin stuck to it. Except it probably doesnt play a melody while running.
Try buying one of those kids toy cars and sticking a napkin to it and see how efficient it is at cleaning.
It wont work half as well; the problem is it basically doesnt work at all. And the RoboVac is four times more expensive than the kids toy with the napkin.
Of course, for a license to be GPL compatible it also needs to allow those GPL compatible terms to be conferred upon recepients of said GPL software, or Lycoris would be in violation of the GPL by distributing the software when they cannot grant the same GPL compatible rights to the recepients.
So, if the license granted to Lycoris is GPL compatible then someone just has to send Linus a copy of the Lycoris kernel and SCO has automatically lost, totally, completely and utterly, again.
It cant so much collapse and revert as be voided for the violating party. The violating party would then have to obtain a new license from the copyright holders, but it wouldnt affect anyone else much.
That's what makes it a terminally stupid idea to challange the GPL in court. The only thing you can accomplish is terminating your own rights to distribute the software. Wether you win or lose.
Oh, well, I guess SCO can always change their buisness model to the production of manure instead. Because by the time everyone gets through with them, between IBM patents and GPL violations there wont be a program ever produced that they'd be legally allowed to sell.
I dont think it's quite that simple as the behaviour is so ingrained that programs wouldnt be able to handle losing access to file descriptors they have open.
However, I cant see any reason not to pop up a 'device busy, do you want to frag everything using it and eject it anyway?' requester. It wouldnt wait for any writes, of course, but you'd get your damn media NOW.
I can accept things breaking because I tell the computer to do something really stupid. However, I do not like when it doesnt want to do what I tell it to do.
$699? We pay more than that for Linux on production systems already...
Of course, that's to companies that are actually selling us a product worth buying (well, somewhat worth it, at least), not some random lunatic who needs a crash course in copyright law.
Either way, the case SCO is trying to make up simply has no merit, no matter who tried to push it. You cant engage in creative fantasies and make up laws as you go, you have to actually pay off the legislative branch first.
SCO already has made comments that it may very well go after the BSDs. They're just taking things one step at a time.
They dont really have to have a stomach for anything, the people running SCO are completely insane and on drugs. If they really believe anything they're saying I would expect them to have a padded cell as board room, and an executive dresscode involving straightjackets.
The FSF definitely has the resources and the legal counsel, in Eben Moglen, itching to wipe the courtroom with a GPL violator.
However, depending on wether any developers have or have not signed over their copyrights the FSF may or may not be able to file a lawsuit.
However, again, the severity of SCO's violation falls well within the range of criminal copyright violation which means our good friends the feds will have the privilidge of dragging Dear Darl in chains to prison where he gets to be some nice big guys McBride. Civil lawsuits for damages would be easier to file after criminal charges have gone through.
You have a fallacy in your attempt to point out the fallacy of the argument.
To be correct you'd have to continue distributing the project after you've already discovered that the code is yours.
If you're still distributing the code under the same terms after you have that knowledge, which SCO is doing, then you can reasonably be considered to explicitly be distributing that code under the GPL.
"At the time of your letter, we had expected the possibility of a global resolution of SCO's intellectual property claims against all Linux-related companies that would have likely included Red Hat. This effort has apparently stalled, through no fault of SCO."
Again, SCO seems to forget that it has no claims that it can enter into any resolution over. There are only two ways this can play out.
Either SCO can show there is infringing code and it has to be removed (as code licensed under GPL, which would be the other 99.999 percent of the code, cannot be distributed together with SCO licensed code), in which case SCO cant sell anything.
Or SCO cannot show there is any infringing code because any similar code comes from the same public domain/BSD/whatever sources, or is in SCO Unix because SCO took it from Linux in which case SCO cant sell anything.
Any negotiation besides "This is our contended code, here's the proof, now remove it" or "Hey, sorry, we're morons and we like to be very open about it" on SCO's part is bad faith negotiation.
SCO has nothing they can sell to any Linux vendor.
As far as I can tell the fund isnt meant for Redhat, it's meant to support GPL developers and non-profit organizations who get into legal problems. Sort of like EFF but dedicated to open source legal issues.
In countries with state religion you really should take a look at attendance numbers. Most are default registered as one or the other and never asked again. It's not like getting registered in a state church has anything to do with wether you actually believe in a particular god or religion, but more with that your forefathers got thrown in jail, whipped or burned if they didnt agree with that particular worldview.
A large number of them attend church when baptized, married or buried and it could probably be the Church of Cthulhu for all they care.
If they have any separate licensing necessary for Linux then they may not distribute Linux. The GPL prevents distributing GPL code together with code that is licensed under terms not compatible with the GPL.
SCO can try to license their alleged 80 lines in whatever way they want. The problem is you just are not allowed to distribute the other millions of lines together with those 80 lines in any case. Which means any license to do so is worthless.
You are, of course, wrong. The absence of the "Microsoft Tax" will equate to $199 in savings.
I challenge you to prove me wrong. If you can show me a signed contract by an OEM and Microsoft that the price of the bundled Windows is $10, you win. If you cant, you are just making up number off the top of your head and you lose. Like any OEM would in a court case.
Of course it isnt different. The tire place or the bundled console game place just has to show that the actual value of the tire is not $0.
In the Windows case they would not have to refund the actual list price, but they would have to show the actual value of the bundled product; what they paid for it.
That must really stink for the OEMs, as their licenses probably forbid them to tell anyone the price. Which means they're screwed into refunding list price, as that is the only price that can be provided evidence for.
That ought to teach them to sign anything with Microsoft.
As far as I know the amount of stock has little bearing on wether certain stock sales/purchase activity can be considered insider trading, or stock manipulation.
Dont worry, the likelyhood of a tissue match for both would be low.
That's the problem with organ donations. It not only requires one person to die so someone else can have their organs, it requires the right person to die at the right time.
Even in opt-out countries there is a shortage of organs. Even when you have 90 percent of the population as possible donors the chances are not that good that a person of acceptable age and the right tissue match will die in healthy condition with unmangled organs at the right time.
Well, to answer your first question; for backups, monitoring, simplicity, ease of use, datafile copying, etc.
The performance reasons for using raw partitions arent as compelling these days, and in my opinion, the advantages of placing the datafiles in a filesystem by far outweighs the slight performance advantage of using raw partitions.
That's quite easy to solve. The way it works here is we have a national donor register where you can register. Only a very limited number of people have access to the register.
Once someone is declared legally dead, as in no more brain activity, they'll be kept on respirator until doctors can apply for a search in the register and/or ask relatives, in case there was no registration in the register. The registered wish takes precedence, then the relatives wish. Without any obtainable statement from anyone or any registration then the default is considered consent (which I agree with. If you dont care enough to register or state your opinions clearly to relatives, you cant feel very strongly about it).
The doctors dont have any access to the register, and they cant find out your status until you're legally declared dead.
Journalling metadata is still needed. While Oracle will deal with its own datafiles, you'd still have to fix the filesystem/wait for fsck/restore it all from tape if you use a completely unjournalled filesystem and Bad Stuff happens.
Dont get me wrong, reiserfs has impressive performance, but the recurring problems with bugs causing crashes when using reiserfs makes me extremely reluctant to use it on any production system.
A filesystem can have incredible performance, great features and impressive data consistency, but if it crashes the machine it's unusable.
Currently I dont see the developers of reiserfs paying nearly enough attention to stability, nor do they seem particularly interested in the subject, preferring features and performance over stability.
Laudable goals, but goals that puts the safe use of reiserfs into a small niche of high-performance failure tolerant systems.
The law has a loophole that allows cookies and other storage for something the customer has expressedly requested. That would conceivably put most websites in the clear, as the viewer requests to view the website. However, cookies tied to, for example, banner ads would not be as easy to get through that hole.
Wether or not there is prior art doesnt really matter. Solving the problem you mention here is a trivial engineering problem, not an invention worth a patent. Any decent engineer could come up with several solutions to that problem in less than half an hour. I can think of at least three ways to do it off the top of my head.
Of course, adding code complexity to solve a rare special case 'problem' like this, that already has a number of easy workarounds, would be a violation of the KISS principle and should be avoided for security and stability reasons.
Unfortunately, the alternative you suggest has been tried for many many years. It has been found to profoundly suck even more.
That path leads to maintaining thousands of lines of makefiles manually, and getting serious breakage every time a vendor releases a new version of their OS. Or every time someone installs a lib in a slightly non-standard way. I can recall spending days editing makefiles to get something to compile on a not-so-mainstream platform.
Automake and company arent perfect in any way, nor are they always used correctly, but they've made improvements in the order of magnitudes for the probability that something will compile.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is that the RoboVac is pretty much exactly the same thing as a $10 2 yearold kids toy with a napkin stuck to it. Except it probably doesnt play a melody while running.
Try buying one of those kids toy cars and sticking a napkin to it and see how efficient it is at cleaning.
It wont work half as well; the problem is it basically doesnt work at all. And the RoboVac is four times more expensive than the kids toy with the napkin.
Of course, for a license to be GPL compatible it also needs to allow those GPL compatible terms to be conferred upon recepients of said GPL software, or Lycoris would be in violation of the GPL by distributing the software when they cannot grant the same GPL compatible rights to the recepients.
So, if the license granted to Lycoris is GPL compatible then someone just has to send Linus a copy of the Lycoris kernel and SCO has automatically lost, totally, completely and utterly, again.
It cant so much collapse and revert as be voided for the violating party. The violating party would then have to obtain a new license from the copyright holders, but it wouldnt affect anyone else much.
That's what makes it a terminally stupid idea to challange the GPL in court. The only thing you can accomplish is terminating your own rights to distribute the software. Wether you win or lose.
Oh, well, I guess SCO can always change their buisness model to the production of manure instead. Because by the time everyone gets through with them, between IBM patents and GPL violations there wont be a program ever produced that they'd be legally allowed to sell.
I dont think it's quite that simple as the behaviour is so ingrained that programs wouldnt be able to handle losing access to file descriptors they have open.
However, I cant see any reason not to pop up a 'device busy, do you want to frag everything using it and eject it anyway?' requester. It wouldnt wait for any writes, of course, but you'd get your damn media NOW.
I can accept things breaking because I tell the computer to do something really stupid. However, I do not like when it doesnt want to do what I tell it to do.
$699? We pay more than that for Linux on production systems already...
Of course, that's to companies that are actually selling us a product worth buying (well, somewhat worth it, at least), not some random lunatic who needs a crash course in copyright law.
Either way, the case SCO is trying to make up simply has no merit, no matter who tried to push it. You cant engage in creative fantasies and make up laws as you go, you have to actually pay off the legislative branch first.
SCO already has made comments that it may very well go after the BSDs. They're just taking things one step at a time.
They dont really have to have a stomach for anything, the people running SCO are completely insane and on drugs. If they really believe anything they're saying I would expect them to have a padded cell as board room, and an executive dresscode involving straightjackets.
The FSF definitely has the resources and the legal counsel, in Eben Moglen, itching to wipe the courtroom with a GPL violator.
However, depending on wether any developers have or have not signed over their copyrights the FSF may or may not be able to file a lawsuit.
However, again, the severity of SCO's violation falls well within the range of criminal copyright violation which means our good friends the feds will have the privilidge of dragging Dear Darl in chains to prison where he gets to be some nice big guys McBride. Civil lawsuits for damages would be easier to file after criminal charges have gone through.
You have a fallacy in your attempt to point out the fallacy of the argument.
To be correct you'd have to continue distributing the project after you've already discovered that the code is yours.
If you're still distributing the code under the same terms after you have that knowledge, which SCO is doing, then you can reasonably be considered to explicitly be distributing that code under the GPL.
"At the time of your letter, we had expected the possibility of a global resolution of SCO's intellectual property claims against all Linux-related companies that would have likely included Red Hat. This effort has apparently stalled, through no fault of SCO."
Again, SCO seems to forget that it has no claims that it can enter into any resolution over. There are only two ways this can play out.
Either SCO can show there is infringing code and it has to be removed (as code licensed under GPL, which would be the other 99.999 percent of the code, cannot be distributed together with SCO licensed code), in which case SCO cant sell anything.
Or SCO cannot show there is any infringing code because any similar code comes from the same public domain/BSD/whatever sources, or is in SCO Unix because SCO took it from Linux in which case SCO cant sell anything.
Any negotiation besides "This is our contended code, here's the proof, now remove it" or "Hey, sorry, we're morons and we like to be very open about it" on SCO's part is bad faith negotiation.
SCO has nothing they can sell to any Linux vendor.
As far as I can tell the fund isnt meant for Redhat, it's meant to support GPL developers and non-profit organizations who get into legal problems. Sort of like EFF but dedicated to open source legal issues.
In countries with state religion you really should take a look at attendance numbers. Most are default registered as one or the other and never asked again. It's not like getting registered in a state church has anything to do with wether you actually believe in a particular god or religion, but more with that your forefathers got thrown in jail, whipped or burned if they didnt agree with that particular worldview.
A large number of them attend church when baptized, married or buried and it could probably be the Church of Cthulhu for all they care.
If they have any separate licensing necessary for Linux then they may not distribute Linux. The GPL prevents distributing GPL code together with code that is licensed under terms not compatible with the GPL.
SCO can try to license their alleged 80 lines in whatever way they want. The problem is you just are not allowed to distribute the other millions of lines together with those 80 lines in any case. Which means any license to do so is worthless.
You are, of course, wrong. The absence of the "Microsoft Tax" will equate to $199 in savings.
I challenge you to prove me wrong. If you can show me a signed contract by an OEM and Microsoft that the price of the bundled Windows is $10, you win. If you cant, you are just making up number off the top of your head and you lose. Like any OEM would in a court case.
Of course it isnt different. The tire place or the bundled console game place just has to show that the actual value of the tire is not $0.
In the Windows case they would not have to refund the actual list price, but they would have to show the actual value of the bundled product; what they paid for it.
That must really stink for the OEMs, as their licenses probably forbid them to tell anyone the price. Which means they're screwed into refunding list price, as that is the only price that can be provided evidence for.
That ought to teach them to sign anything with Microsoft.
I can accept that. As long as you recognize my right to bill you my hourly rate for my time (one hour minimum charge), of course.
As far as I know the amount of stock has little bearing on wether certain stock sales/purchase activity can be considered insider trading, or stock manipulation.
Dont worry, the likelyhood of a tissue match for both would be low.
That's the problem with organ donations. It not only requires one person to die so someone else can have their organs, it requires the right person to die at the right time.
Even in opt-out countries there is a shortage of organs. Even when you have 90 percent of the population as possible donors the chances are not that good that a person of acceptable age and the right tissue match will die in healthy condition with unmangled organs at the right time.
Well, to answer your first question; for backups, monitoring, simplicity, ease of use, datafile copying, etc.
The performance reasons for using raw partitions arent as compelling these days, and in my opinion, the advantages of placing the datafiles in a filesystem by far outweighs the slight performance advantage of using raw partitions.
That's quite easy to solve. The way it works here is we have a national donor register where you can register. Only a very limited number of people have access to the register.
Once someone is declared legally dead, as in no more brain activity, they'll be kept on respirator until doctors can apply for a search in the register and/or ask relatives, in case there was no registration in the register. The registered wish takes precedence, then the relatives wish. Without any obtainable statement from anyone or any registration then the default is considered consent (which I agree with. If you dont care enough to register or state your opinions clearly to relatives, you cant feel very strongly about it).
The doctors dont have any access to the register, and they cant find out your status until you're legally declared dead.
Where I live we already have opt-out organ donations.
About 10 percent of the population choose to opt out of donating their organs. Hardly an overwhelming majority.
I think you'd be surprised how many people actually dont care what happens to their organs when they're dead.
Journalling metadata is still needed. While Oracle will deal with its own datafiles, you'd still have to fix the filesystem/wait for fsck/restore it all from tape if you use a completely unjournalled filesystem and Bad Stuff happens.
Most of them?
Dont get me wrong, reiserfs has impressive performance, but the recurring problems with bugs causing crashes when using reiserfs makes me extremely reluctant to use it on any production system.
A filesystem can have incredible performance, great features and impressive data consistency, but if it crashes the machine it's unusable.
Currently I dont see the developers of reiserfs paying nearly enough attention to stability, nor do they seem particularly interested in the subject, preferring features and performance over stability.
Laudable goals, but goals that puts the safe use of reiserfs into a small niche of high-performance failure tolerant systems.
The law has a loophole that allows cookies and other storage for something the customer has expressedly requested. That would conceivably put most websites in the clear, as the viewer requests to view the website. However, cookies tied to, for example, banner ads would not be as easy to get through that hole.
Wether or not there is prior art doesnt really matter. Solving the problem you mention here is a trivial engineering problem, not an invention worth a patent. Any decent engineer could come up with several solutions to that problem in less than half an hour. I can think of at least three ways to do it off the top of my head.
Of course, adding code complexity to solve a rare special case 'problem' like this, that already has a number of easy workarounds, would be a violation of the KISS principle and should be avoided for security and stability reasons.
Unfortunately, the alternative you suggest has been tried for many many years. It has been found to profoundly suck even more.
That path leads to maintaining thousands of lines of makefiles manually, and getting serious breakage every time a vendor releases a new version of their OS. Or every time someone installs a lib in a slightly non-standard way. I can recall spending days editing makefiles to get something to compile on a not-so-mainstream platform.
Automake and company arent perfect in any way, nor are they always used correctly, but they've made improvements in the order of magnitudes for the probability that something will compile.