Having help doesn't make you look guilty, it makes you look prepared and intellegent. The way these guys handled their communications (spelling errors and all) makes them look like out of control destructive teenagers.
I would have been interested in your opinion, but your spelling error made you sound like an out of control and destructive teenager. Okay, maybe one error means you could be in your twenties, posibly with some slight degree of control, but the destructive tendencies are undeniable. Could you submit a longer writing sample for analysis?
"I could easily "win" the argument by explaining in detail what really happened, sharing the real facts, details, situations, conversations and intentions, proving lies to be fabrications, assertions to be stories, and your supposed critical analysis to be fueled solely by irrational anger. But somehow I think that I'd end up "losing" by adopting your tactics. "
He seems to be saying that sharing real facts etc are the tactics of the person he's arguing with and that he'd lose if he did the same. That seems odd.
Agreed. And his saying "If there is material in Linux that was contributed without legal authorization, the Linux developers will learn what it is and replace it. SCO cannot use its copyrights, or its contracts with specific parties, to suppress the lawful contributions of thousands of others." was far from critical of Linux or a call to replace it. It seemed pretty clear that he thinks Linux (by which we can be sure he means the kernel) will survive this, although he was also making the point that it is replaceable if it did come to that, which is also true.
You were correct the first time, it isn't theft (though it is illegal). You can't 'steal' rights. The only way to appropriate a right is in accordance with the law; otherwise the law will always say that the person still has the rights, in which case they haven't been stolen although they may have been infringed upon.
It was interesting to me how the PR folks tried to associate Linux with software piracy and communism. I don't think this is because of a real misperception on their part, it seems much more likely to be spin-directed FUD. It's more pathetic than enraging to me.
Agreed. This is a company that until recently sold a Linux distribution as its main product. Their IPO was on the basis of their being a Linux distributor.
The story about them suddenly realising their IP was being infringed upon isn't inherently implausible, though their behaviour in general makes it seem unlikely. But their moving from being a supplier of Linux to a "Linux=Communism" position is just, as you say, pathetic.
Im am implying that by agreeing with Mussolini's ideas on (or "hate of" if you wish) Corporatism/Capitalism that you are pimping the ideas of a tyrant.
You need to re-read his comment. Mussolini was obviously in favor of corporatism. He certainly didn't hate it.
Re:Interesting quote from ESR
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 1
The first paragraph seems to be saying that he actually believes that developers are better off using open source and that if that wasn't the case he'd actually be pro-proprietary software.
The second paragraph seems to be saying that that isn't really true and he only says things like that as a "tactical choice" as the best way to convince people.
I don't know which version represents what he truly believes, if indeed he truly believes anything, but he might be better advised not to put the two conflicting statements right next to each other.
That's not the issue in this case. SCO is reaching further. If I read the article correctly, SCO are claiming that code written by IBM engineers, at IBM in fact belongs to SCO, because that work done by IBM is a derivative work of Unix.
No. They aren't claiming to own the derivative works. They are claiming that IBM is contractually required to keep the source code of the derivative works secret. Hence breach of contract and trade secret violations.
Their theory that code that has been used in conjunction with AIX but which contains no System V code and in no way relies upon System V is derivative of System V is absurd of course.
Stuff built from scratch on government coin should be completely public domain. But when government programmers need open source to start with, they can't use the GPL, because code from the GPL cannot be released without violating the license. It's not as "free" as some would say.
This isn't really true. The work as a whole would need to be GPLd but there's no reason at all why the government contributions can't be individually identified and explicitly public domain.
Yeah, but then I can buy the product and distribute it for free. There's no way around that one.
Sure, but the context here is software development funded by HMG. If they want it developed then they will be paying for it. If they want it open sourced (as it seems they do, or at least think they may do) then it will then be available under an open source license, but they'll have to pay for it to get there.
Clearly in order to determine whether you have 'the freedom' to do something under a particular licence then you have to take into account any conditions attached.
For example, I think it's clear that the intention has always been that a licence granting the right to redistribute copies but requiring a $1,000 fee to be paid to the originator for each copy would not be considered to meet the necessary 'freedom'.
So far as I understand the FSF's position it's that the APSL attaches conditions that they feel renders it 'non-free'. That does seem to be a valid position.
Of course the GPL also applies conditions and you may feel thattheir position is fundamentally flawed. More charitably it looks to me as if it relies on a fundamentally subjective consideration as to whether any given condition is incompatible with a 'freedom' existing. The fact that they reach a different subjective assessment than you do of the impact of the conditions in the APSL license doesn't seem to me to mean that they are objectively wrong in their assessment.
Due to export restrictions, the plan9 can only be downloaded from US and Canada.
That doesn't affect its status as open source. Nothing in the license forbids you from redistributing to 'banned' countries; it just requires you to agree that that's your problem not theirs. Who they choose to distribute it to themselves is up to them and has no effect on whether it's open or free.
Unclear is why SCO thinks they have the rights to RCU, since the technology was originally developed by Sequent in the early 1990s
Their theory seems to be that their contracts require licensees of the UNIX source code to keep secret the code of the products they incorporate the UNIX code into and that therefore anything that you incorporate into your own version of UNIX must then be kept secret even if you subsequently separate it out from the UNIX code.
They are wrong of course but that seems to be what they're claiming. For example, they would presumably say that any technology IBM put into AIX must then be kept secret, and cannot be released even if separated from AIX, regardless of whether it has any relationship at all to the UNIX code licensed from SCO.
On the other hand, if SCO loses, it will send a strong message to the world: "Stay away from anything GPL, or you'll find your proprietary code taken away from you."
If SCO lose because their rights have not been infringed upon, as seems likely, then that doesn't say anything bad about the GPL at all. How could it?
Come to your own conclusions, if you think its a realistic possibility that flying saucers exist than they exist.
Ridiculous. If you think that it's a realistic possibility that flying saucers exist then you must consider that they MAY exist. To claim that anything that is realistically possible must therefore actually exist is absurd.
It is realistically possible that I have an identical twin brother from whom I was separated at birth but that doesn't make it true.
Also European software companies themselfs would never allow that to happen. Europe needs to catchup in software not go backward.
Would never allow what to happen? Software is already not patentable in Europe, at least it certainly isn't in the UK. Software is already patentable in the US. Which part will they not allow to happen?
I'm starting to zoom in on a picture where SCO thinks they can take IBM to court and win the case without anyone but IBM's lawyers ever seeing the code in question, and then hold Linux in perpetual thralldom by levying a license fee on use of the code in Linux without ever telling any of the kernel hackers what the offending code is.
Well they are saying that their claim against IBM is based on trade secrets, whilst spreading copyright and patent FUD all over the press. So possibly if they can beat IBM on the trade secrets claim, have IBM barred from disclosing the trade secrets, obviously, and then use "having beaten IBM" as backing for threats of undefined copyright violations... it's ludicrously high risk but if they were otherwise going out of business anyway it's possible.
I know this has been asked before, but now I am serious, with SCOX trading around 10 a share, and the end being in sight, how, and why, would you short sell the stock?
This is likely to drag on for at least a year, maybe two. Why do you think the end is in sight?
They were pushing awful hard for more inspections. Iraq is a big pretty barren country. It is going to take time to find the damn stuff.
That's right. It's obvious that Saddam didn't use his best weapons when under attack purely because he wanted to make the US look foolish for a brief time before they are discovered.
Maybe, maybe not, but breaking it will get you added to SCO's we-will-sue list. Next press release it'll be IBM, 1500 Linux using companies, Novell and now Slashdot's Anonymous Coward.
Here's a free clue. All the operators have to do is satisfy the 90-95% of their users. The minority can go hang. The content-providers (funny, the 5% whining isn't part of that crowd) will not release anything until DRM is firmly in place (They have the time, they can wait). One of the things that will drive broadband demand for the 95% out there.
Interestingly, the "content-providers" don't agree with you. They want DRM because they don't believe your 5%/95% split. Where did you get your figures from?
Slashdot Mirror
Having help doesn't make you look guilty, it makes you look prepared and intellegent. The way these guys handled their communications (spelling errors and all) makes them look like out of control destructive teenagers.
I would have been interested in your opinion, but your spelling error made you sound like an out of control and destructive teenager. Okay, maybe one error means you could be in your twenties, posibly with some slight degree of control, but the destructive tendencies are undeniable. Could you submit a longer writing sample for analysis?
"I could easily "win" the argument by explaining in detail what really happened, sharing the real facts, details, situations, conversations and intentions, proving lies to be fabrications, assertions to be stories, and your supposed critical analysis to be fueled solely by irrational anger. But somehow I think that I'd end up "losing" by adopting your tactics. "
He seems to be saying that sharing real facts etc are the tactics of the person he's arguing with and that he'd lose if he did the same. That seems odd.
XFree86 is certainly not part of the GNU project (nor is KDE or Gnome).
Gnome most certainly is part of the GNU project. You're correct that XFree86 and KDE aren't.
(I call it Linux myself but I'd just as happily call it GNU if that was the name in common usage, or Freeax for that matter).
Agreed. And his saying "If there is material in Linux that was contributed without legal authorization, the Linux developers will learn what it is and replace it. SCO cannot use its copyrights, or its contracts with specific parties, to suppress the lawful contributions of thousands of others." was far from critical of Linux or a call to replace it. It seemed pretty clear that he thinks Linux (by which we can be sure he means the kernel) will survive this, although he was also making the point that it is replaceable if it did come to that, which is also true.
You were correct the first time, it isn't theft (though it is illegal). You can't 'steal' rights. The only way to appropriate a right is in accordance with the law; otherwise the law will always say that the person still has the rights, in which case they haven't been stolen although they may have been infringed upon.
It was interesting to me how the PR folks tried to associate Linux with software piracy and communism. I don't think this is because of a real misperception on their part, it seems much more likely to be spin-directed FUD. It's more pathetic than enraging to me.
Agreed. This is a company that until recently sold a Linux distribution as its main product. Their IPO was on the basis of their being a Linux distributor.
The story about them suddenly realising their IP was being infringed upon isn't inherently implausible, though their behaviour in general makes it seem unlikely. But their moving from being a supplier of Linux to a "Linux=Communism" position is just, as you say, pathetic.
Im am implying that by agreeing with Mussolini's ideas on (or "hate of" if you wish) Corporatism/Capitalism that you are pimping the ideas of a tyrant.
You need to re-read his comment. Mussolini was obviously in favor of corporatism. He certainly didn't hate it.
The first paragraph seems to be saying that he actually believes that developers are better off using open source and that if that wasn't the case he'd actually be pro-proprietary software.
The second paragraph seems to be saying that that isn't really true and he only says things like that as a "tactical choice" as the best way to convince people.
I don't know which version represents what he truly believes, if indeed he truly believes anything, but he might be better advised not to put the two conflicting statements right next to each other.
That's not the issue in this case. SCO is reaching further. If I read the article correctly, SCO are claiming that code written by IBM engineers, at IBM in fact belongs to SCO, because that work done by IBM is a derivative work of Unix.
No. They aren't claiming to own the derivative works. They are claiming that IBM is contractually required to keep the source code of the derivative works secret. Hence breach of contract and trade secret violations.
Their theory that code that has been used in conjunction with AIX but which contains no System V code and in no way relies upon System V is derivative of System V is absurd of course.
Stuff built from scratch on government coin should be completely public domain. But when government programmers need open source to start with, they can't use the GPL, because code from the GPL cannot be released without violating the license. It's not as "free" as some would say.
This isn't really true. The work as a whole would need to be GPLd but there's no reason at all why the government contributions can't be individually identified and explicitly public domain.
Yeah, but then I can buy the product and distribute it for free. There's no way around that one.
Sure, but the context here is software development funded by HMG. If they want it developed then they will be paying for it. If they want it open sourced (as it seems they do, or at least think they may do) then it will then be available under an open source license, but they'll have to pay for it to get there.
I'm not convinced.
Clearly in order to determine whether you have 'the freedom' to do something under a particular licence then you have to take into account any conditions attached.
For example, I think it's clear that the intention has always been that a licence granting the right to redistribute copies but requiring a $1,000 fee to be paid to the originator for each copy would not be considered to meet the necessary 'freedom'.
So far as I understand the FSF's position it's that the APSL attaches conditions that they feel renders it 'non-free'. That does seem to be a valid position.
Of course the GPL also applies conditions and you may feel thattheir position is fundamentally flawed. More charitably it looks to me as if it relies on a fundamentally subjective consideration as to whether any given condition is incompatible with a 'freedom' existing. The fact that they reach a different subjective assessment than you do of the impact of the conditions in the APSL license doesn't seem to me to mean that they are objectively wrong in their assessment.
Due to export restrictions, the plan9 can only be downloaded from US and Canada.
That doesn't affect its status as open source. Nothing in the license forbids you from redistributing to 'banned' countries; it just requires you to agree that that's your problem not theirs. Who they choose to distribute it to themselves is up to them and has no effect on whether it's open or free.
Unclear is why SCO thinks they have the rights to RCU, since the technology was originally developed by Sequent in the early 1990s
Their theory seems to be that their contracts require licensees of the UNIX source code to keep secret the code of the products they incorporate the UNIX code into and that therefore anything that you incorporate into your own version of UNIX must then be kept secret even if you subsequently separate it out from the UNIX code.
They are wrong of course but that seems to be what they're claiming. For example, they would presumably say that any technology IBM put into AIX must then be kept secret, and cannot be released even if separated from AIX, regardless of whether it has any relationship at all to the UNIX code licensed from SCO.
And how many members of the Council of Europe are not either EU members, or applicants?
Not more than a tithe, I would expect.
If by a tithe you mean 10% then you're way out.
According to the European Union web site, the EU has 15 members and 13 applicants.
According to the Council of Europe web site, the Council of Europe has 45 member stats. That doesn't include the non-voting 'observer' members.
Russia must be the most prominent Council of Europe member that isn't in the EU, or likely to be in the near future, but there are many others too.
On the other hand, if SCO loses, it will send a strong message to the world: "Stay away from anything GPL, or you'll find your proprietary code taken away from you."
If SCO lose because their rights have not been infringed upon, as seems likely, then that doesn't say anything bad about the GPL at all. How could it?
Come to your own conclusions, if you think its a realistic possibility that flying saucers exist than they exist.
Ridiculous. If you think that it's a realistic possibility that flying saucers exist then you must consider that they MAY exist. To claim that anything that is realistically possible must therefore actually exist is absurd.
It is realistically possible that I have an identical twin brother from whom I was separated at birth but that doesn't make it true.
Also European software companies themselfs would never allow that to happen. Europe needs to catchup in software not go backward.
Would never allow what to happen? Software is already not patentable in Europe, at least it certainly isn't in the UK. Software is already patentable in the US. Which part will they not allow to happen?
Well that's it. First they're joining but don't want to have anything to do with the common currency (euro),
and now this...
Where "this" is a UK paper publishing two articles, one opposing a particular proposed directive and the other supporting it?
I'm starting to zoom in on a picture where SCO thinks they can take IBM to court and win the case without anyone but IBM's lawyers ever seeing the code in question, and then hold Linux in perpetual thralldom by levying a license fee on use of the code in Linux without ever telling any of the kernel hackers what the offending code is.
Well they are saying that their claim against IBM is based on trade secrets, whilst spreading copyright and patent FUD all over the press. So possibly if they can beat IBM on the trade secrets claim, have IBM barred from disclosing the trade secrets, obviously, and then use "having beaten IBM" as backing for threats of undefined copyright violations... it's ludicrously high risk but if they were otherwise going out of business anyway it's possible.
I know this has been asked before, but now I am serious, with SCOX trading around 10 a share, and the end being in sight, how, and why, would you short sell the stock?
This is likely to drag on for at least a year, maybe two. Why do you think the end is in sight?
They were pushing awful hard for more inspections. Iraq is a big pretty barren country. It is going to take time to find the damn stuff.
That's right. It's obvious that Saddam didn't use his best weapons when under attack purely because he wanted to make the US look foolish for a brief time before they are discovered.
Do you honestly believe this?
So if the kids are stuck in a power outage and need to leave a message for someone, how exactly do you propose they do it?
So my computer should have a UPS, 'for the sake of the children'. Sounds good to me.
is this NDA actually enforceable?
Maybe, maybe not, but breaking it will get you added to SCO's we-will-sue list. Next press release it'll be IBM, 1500 Linux using companies, Novell and now Slashdot's Anonymous Coward.
Here's a free clue. All the operators have to do is satisfy the 90-95% of their users. The minority can go hang. The content-providers (funny, the 5% whining isn't part of that crowd) will not release anything until DRM is firmly in place (They have the time, they can wait). One of the things that will drive broadband demand for the 95% out there.
Interestingly, the "content-providers" don't agree with you. They want DRM because they don't believe your 5%/95% split. Where did you get your figures from?