The 45-day deadline is to produce "all lines of code that SCO can identify at this time."
Yes, and they already failed to do so during their last deadline, and then argumented that they cannot comply with the court's request without all of AIX, which they're not getting now.
If they did have something, they should've produced it prior to the last hearing. (actually, they should've produced this from the start)
So sure, if SCO now can show something (which they admit they can't), then the lawsuit can continue, and so can discovery.
If SCO can't show anything, they will face court sanctions. Most likely the case will get thrown out, or at least the claims of misappropriation.
Sure.. But the key here is that SCO must show -why- they need the files.
That means they need to have some kind of proof or indication to show. Given what we've seen so far.. I'm very doubtful if SCO will ever be able to satisfy this.
There are quite a few things that the Court has ordered IBM to now turn over to SCO, such as certain releases of AIX and Dynix that SCO had requested. Actually, IBM is being told to turn quite a bit over to SCO, it's not really a "win" either way.
Yes it is. Because IBM has the same 45 days to produce this as SCO does to produce its evidence of infringement.
SCO has already stated in court that they cannot possibly comply with this without all the AIX code. Now, they are neither getting all the AIX code or the chance to use it to prove infringments, since IBM is hardly going to hand over the source at once.
(This is of course what the court intended by giving them a concurrent deadline. SCO must prove their case on their own hand, but IBM must still comply with discovery.)
Basically, the court ruled SCO must put up within 45 days, while IBM must also give AIX (but not all versions) to SCO.
This is of course bad for SCO, who claims they need IBM to provide AIX before they can identify what is infringing. As IBM most likely won't be handing over AIX in the next 44 days or so, obviously SCO will not be able to comply.
It's a cute judgement, since it is fair to both parties while being devastating to SCO at the ame time.
It'll be interesting to see if they will play the 'we need the AIX code!' card again for the third hearing running.
He couldn't see how fast neutrons from a fusion reaction could be any less nasty than fast neutrons generated by a conventional fission reaction.
Well, the production of fast neutrons depends on the type of fusion.. Using tritium instead of deuterium often gives better fusion, but produces neutrons.
Ideally, a fusion reaction that didn't produce neutrons would be used. Otherwise the reactor will eventually become radioactive, which of course will produce some waste, but that waste would both be less radioactive (metals like iron have pretty stable isotopes), and there would also be less of it. (A typical facility produces hundreds of cubic meters of waste a year today, albeit not all highly active)
The number-one risk of nuclear plants is not the radiation generated by the core itself, but rather the danger of the spreading of alpha-emitting radioisotopes. That risk is pretty much nonexistant with fusion plants.
Who said it'd be GPL? Most likely, they'd keep it under something similar to the Sun Industry Standards Source license ala Oo.o, which IIRC gives them a bit more control.
I doubt that.. with IBM taking the initiative and providing the code, I think they would almost certainly go with the CPL (which is basically GPL+anti-patent clause).
This is the license IBM released Eclipse, and I can definitely see that IBM would like to have all their Java stuff under the same license.
And then.. we're talking about two issues here: The VM, and then the class libraries. The CPL, GPL or Sun SSL wouldn't be a good idea for the libraries.
Ideally the libraries would be under the LGPL or such, so they could be be distributed and used with any VM the user felt like. (Sun's java, IBM Jikes, Kaffe, gcj)
The IBM PC was a hit from the start. Apple never had "all the market share" outside of the home computer market.
Nor did IBM ever license their PC architecture. The PC was built mostly on off-the-shelf hardware. Clone manufacturers just reverse-engineered the BIOS.
Later, IBM tried to regain a proprietary hold over the PC market by putting a bunch of non-standard stuff in the PS/2, like the Microchannel architecture, which never took off because none of the clone manufacturers bought into it.
There can be no doubt that IBM wanted the total market control.. indeed, they've been playing that game for over 30 years in the Mainframe market.
As soon as Sun GPL'd Java, it would start to diverge from Sun's commercial Java.
Why? I don't see that happening with C, C++, Perl, Python or any of the zillion other programming languages which have open-source implementations.
There's a spec out there, and Sun owns the trademark on "Java". Only compliant implementations can use it. If it doesn't comply, it's not java, it's a java-like language. And few will use it.
However, it is true that Sun may lose some degree of control, but only by the same way they're already losing control, by not developing it in the direction people need.
Few people want to fork stuff just for the heck of it.. but if Sun doesn't want to go in the same direction as their developers, they're going to lose control either way.
I would hardly say moving the right-mouse-button menu to the top of the image window a major difference. Definitely a major improvement (why wasn't it there to begin with), but it's still there when you right-click.
I'd prefer to use my right-mouse-button for other things.. (This is probably configureable, but I don't think it should even be the default)
All in all, it IS quite improved (I can find 'flip image' next to rotating image now) but I wouldn't say "all-gone"..
Now if only programs like DIA, who chose to perpetuate this lousy design, would also change their minds..
The old Apache license (Version 1.1) had an "obnoxious advertising clause", of the very same type that XFree has now added, and that the old BSD licenses had.
This has now been removed.
Now this patent clause has been added, hence the license is still GPL-incompatible. But it is still far less GPL-incompatible than the old license.
And if the next GPL version includes an anti-SW-patent clause, they may very well become compatible.
So stop bitching, people! The Apache license is now more free than ever before. In fact, it may even be more free than the GPL itself, since the GPL does not give any protection against SW patents.
I hope the EU also forces Apple to bundle Real with MacOSX as well...
The EU has not deemed that Apple has monopoly; Microsoft does.
Are you saying that it's more 'fair' that the same rules should apply to a minor competitor as to a monopoly actor? Because it's certainly not fair if you feel monopolies are bad.
I like the fact that there is only one "branch" of java. I can write a program once and compile it anywhere.
How did this get modded up?
There are MANY 'branches' of java already, in the sense that there are many different VMs. IBM has a JIT, there's Kaffe, gcj (can be used as a VM). etc...
This is about releasing a full Java implementation as open source. Not branching the language. The latter is nothing to be concerned about, since Sun already has set up a licensing scheme that only allows compliant implementations to be labelled 'java'.
Perl and python don't have problems with people creating dialects either. It's a non-issue.
The real issue here is that most OSS folks won't accept java until a full (i.e. usable) OSS implementation is out there, and Sun is losing a lot of potential support for Java because of this.
If you work on open source... or anything else for that matter.. DON'T TOUCH THIS WITH A 50-FOOT POLE!
This is an exaggeration. YES, you are legally safer if you don't look at that code. Or any code for that matter.
But this idea that looking at someone else's source code would permanently and irrevocably taint you and make it impossible to work on any open source project is just ridiculous.
BSD was written by people with the full sources to Unix. People with Unix source licenses have contributed to Linux too.
AFAIK, noone out there is planning to use this to build a Windows clone. If they did, then they might be in trouble.
But if someone uses this for documenting previously undocmented APIs, and that documentation is subsequently used to improve windows emulation (for example), that is legal. (With the exception of the copyright infringement necessary to aquire the leaked source)
Now, trade secrets and patents are a different matter, but you can infringe on those without looking at any MS source as well.
Anyone around here remember when the Apple QuickDraw code was leaked 1989?
It started quite a big ruckus, with the media making it out to be the entire OS, and the FBI starting what has been described as more or less a witch-hunt on 'hackers'..
I would not be surprized to see a repeat of that, substituting 'hackers' for 'file-sharers'..
Can anyone explain to me why the friggin' Pentagon is involved in this?
How is this a defense issue and not something which should be handled by the Federal Election Commision?
Hackers and terrorists? Come on! Fixing the poor-quality voting machines in certain US states would have more significance than those of us foreign residents who actually bother to vote.
(And yes, I'm one.. and absentee-voting is a real bureaucratic hassle.. this sucks.)
The government uses a lot of OCR - more than you would believe. Standardizing on one exact font description makes it far easier to build an OCR engine optimized for speed and accuracy, which in turn saves time and taxpayer dollars.
Wait a second.. are you saying that the government is spending lots of time OCRing their own computer documents??
Will scholarly publications view this as a valid source of accurate information?
I think that's a bit irrelevant, actually.
Academic publications are all about source-criticism, nothing is (supposed to be) accepted offhand just because it comes from a 'reliable' source. It's what is said that is to be taken into account, not who said it.
Apart from that, encyclopedias and Wikipedia are really about 'general knowledge'. And 'general knowledge' is by definition stuff which isn't in dispute.
And if the information isn't in dispute, there is no reason to question the source, whatever it may be. (and the academic practice is not to give sources for such information, either)
You're forgetting one binary problem: Library dependency hell.
It's a problem. You CAN always rely on libc being installed, but you CAN'T rely on it being 2.3.x vs. 2.2.x, etc..
Of course, if you're going to distribute your program as a binary, you should link statically. Or better, distribute your program as object code and link it on installation. (On a Linux system, you -can- rely on the user having a linker)
Not a major problem, but it's definetly a bit more complicated than the situation under Windows.
So you need to be eternally vigilant against people wanting to taking away your freedom, ie YOUR GOVERNMENT.
The real threat to freedom in the USA are the corporations.. big business. With the exception of the law-enforcement and intelligence communities, the government isn't very interested in our freedoms.
But it's not only by working through congress the businesses get our rights handed over to them, it's through the courts.
With their armies of lawyers, they manipulate the system so that their propaganda is "free speech", whereas if you say something against them it's "slander".
Not to mention abuse of the DMCA, and any other law they can find.
Now this is all correct and good, but there are some points to be made..
If you contribute code to a project, it is quite natural to assume that you the contributor has the right to do so, unless there's some obvious reason to be suspicious.
If someone sells you something, you generally assume the seller has the right do do so as well. If it turns out they didn't, they can be liable for fraud.
Naturally a written guarantee is better, but for the majority of F/OSS projects out there, which are mostly small hobby-projects with little threat of being the target of litigation, it may be a waste of time to ironclad things out of a legal standpoint.
Of course, the introduction of the printing press in Europe is coincidental and inextricably linked with the vulgarization of the Bible (Guttenberg) so you are essentially correct.
Gutenberg was before the reformation though, and so the actual Gutenberg bible was in Latin, and couldn't have helped much with spelling.
As you point out, most likely it was both these things of course.
Yes, but you'd expect that whatever Chaucer made up for "treatise", be it "tretys" or "trytis", he'd use the same thing throughout the text.
Actually, this was pretty typical of medieval spelling.. Things weren't spelled consistently, and the same author would often vary his spelling to not have to repeat himself.
Remember, this was way before dictionaries, and the idea that there would be one 'correct' spelling, making all others 'wrong' hadn't yet quite entered.
It was later, during the reformation, the Bible was translated, and often ended up serving as the 'offical' way of writing and spelling.
As far as I know, anyway.. IANAEM (An English Major)
Slashdot Mirror
The 45-day deadline is to produce "all lines of code that SCO can identify at this time."
Yes, and they already failed to do so during their last deadline, and then argumented that they cannot comply with the court's request without all of AIX, which they're not getting now.
If they did have something, they should've produced it prior to the last hearing. (actually, they should've produced this from the start)
So sure, if SCO now can show something (which they admit they can't), then the lawsuit can continue, and so can discovery.
If SCO can't show anything, they will face court sanctions. Most likely the case will get thrown out, or at least the claims of misappropriation.
Sure.. But the key here is that SCO must show -why- they need the files.
That means they need to have some kind of proof or indication to show. Given what we've seen so far.. I'm very doubtful if SCO will ever be able to satisfy this.
There are quite a few things that the Court has ordered IBM to now turn over to SCO, such as certain releases of AIX and Dynix that SCO had requested. Actually, IBM is being told to turn quite a bit over to SCO, it's not really a "win" either way.
Yes it is. Because IBM has the same 45 days to produce this as SCO does to produce its evidence of infringement.
SCO has already stated in court that they cannot possibly comply with this without all the AIX code. Now, they are neither getting all the AIX code or the chance to use it to prove infringments, since IBM is hardly going to hand over the source at once.
(This is of course what the court intended by giving them a concurrent deadline. SCO must prove their case on their own hand, but IBM must still comply with discovery.)
As per usual, Groklaw has the full treatment.
Basically, the court ruled SCO must put up within 45 days, while IBM must also give AIX (but not all versions) to SCO.
This is of course bad for SCO, who claims they need IBM to provide AIX before they can identify what is infringing. As IBM most likely won't be handing over AIX in the next 44 days or so, obviously SCO will not be able to comply.
It's a cute judgement, since it is fair to both parties while being devastating to SCO at the ame time.
It'll be interesting to see if they will play the 'we need the AIX code!' card again for the third hearing running.
He couldn't see how fast neutrons from a fusion reaction could be any less nasty than fast neutrons generated by a conventional fission reaction.
Well, the production of fast neutrons depends on the type of fusion.. Using tritium instead of deuterium often gives better fusion, but produces neutrons.
Ideally, a fusion reaction that didn't produce neutrons would be used. Otherwise the reactor will eventually become radioactive, which of course will produce some waste, but that waste would both be less radioactive (metals like iron have pretty stable isotopes), and there would also be less of it. (A typical facility produces hundreds of cubic meters of waste a year today, albeit not all highly active)
The number-one risk of nuclear plants is not the radiation generated by the core itself, but rather the danger of the spreading of alpha-emitting radioisotopes.
That risk is pretty much nonexistant with fusion plants.
Who said it'd be GPL? Most likely, they'd keep it under something similar to the Sun Industry Standards Source license ala Oo.o, which IIRC gives them a bit more control.
I doubt that.. with IBM taking the initiative and providing the code, I think they would almost certainly go with the CPL (which is basically GPL+anti-patent clause).
This is the license IBM released Eclipse, and I can definitely see that IBM would like to have all their Java stuff under the same license.
And then.. we're talking about two issues here: The VM, and then the class libraries.
The CPL, GPL or Sun SSL wouldn't be a good idea for the libraries.
Ideally the libraries would be under the LGPL or such, so they could be be distributed and used with any VM the user felt like. (Sun's java, IBM Jikes, Kaffe, gcj)
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The IBM PC was a hit from the start. Apple never had "all the market share" outside of the home computer market.
Nor did IBM ever license their PC architecture. The PC was built mostly on off-the-shelf hardware. Clone manufacturers just reverse-engineered the BIOS.
Later, IBM tried to regain a proprietary hold over the PC market by putting a bunch of non-standard stuff in the PS/2, like the Microchannel architecture, which never took off because none of the clone manufacturers bought into it.
There can be no doubt that IBM wanted the total market control.. indeed, they've been playing that game for over 30 years in the Mainframe market.
As soon as Sun GPL'd Java, it would start to diverge from Sun's commercial Java.
Why?
I don't see that happening with C, C++, Perl, Python or any of the zillion other programming languages which have open-source implementations.
There's a spec out there, and Sun owns the trademark on "Java". Only compliant implementations can use it. If it doesn't comply, it's not java, it's a java-like language. And few will use it.
However, it is true that Sun may lose some degree of control, but only by the same way they're already losing control, by not developing it in the direction people need.
Few people want to fork stuff just for the heck of it.. but if Sun doesn't want to go in the same direction as their developers, they're going to lose control either way.
I would hardly say moving the right-mouse-button menu to the top of the image window a major difference.
Definitely a major improvement (why wasn't it there to begin with), but it's still there when you right-click.
I'd prefer to use my right-mouse-button for other things.. (This is probably configureable, but I don't think it should even be the default)
All in all, it IS quite improved (I can find 'flip image' next to rotating image now) but I wouldn't say "all-gone"..
Now if only programs like DIA, who chose to perpetuate this lousy design, would also change their minds..
RANT MODE:OFF
The old Apache license (Version 1.1) had an "obnoxious advertising clause", of the very same type that XFree has now added, and that the old BSD licenses had.
This has now been removed.
Now this patent clause has been added, hence the license is still GPL-incompatible. But it is still far less GPL-incompatible than the old license.
And if the next GPL version includes an anti-SW-patent clause, they may very well become compatible.
So stop bitching, people!
The Apache license is now more free than ever before. In fact, it may even be more free than the GPL itself, since the GPL does not give any protection against SW patents.
I hope the EU also forces Apple to bundle Real with MacOSX as well...
The EU has not deemed that Apple has monopoly; Microsoft does.
Are you saying that it's more 'fair' that the same rules should apply to a minor competitor as to a monopoly actor?
Because it's certainly not fair if you feel monopolies are bad.
I like the fact that there is only one "branch" of java. I can write a program once and compile it anywhere.
How did this get modded up?
There are MANY 'branches' of java already, in the sense that there are many different VMs. IBM has a JIT, there's Kaffe, gcj (can be used as a VM). etc...
This is about releasing a full Java implementation as open source. Not branching the language. The latter is nothing to be concerned about, since Sun already has set up a licensing scheme that only allows compliant implementations to be labelled 'java'.
Perl and python don't have problems with people creating dialects either. It's a non-issue.
The real issue here is that most OSS folks won't accept java until a full (i.e. usable) OSS implementation is out there, and Sun is losing a lot of potential support for Java because of this.
If you work on open source... or anything else for that matter.. DON'T TOUCH THIS WITH A 50-FOOT POLE!
This is an exaggeration. YES, you are legally safer if you don't look at that code. Or any code for that matter.
But this idea that looking at someone else's source code would permanently and irrevocably taint you and make it impossible to work on any open source project is just ridiculous.
BSD was written by people with the full sources to Unix. People with Unix source licenses have contributed to Linux too.
AFAIK, noone out there is planning to use this to build a Windows clone. If they did, then they might be in trouble.
But if someone uses this for documenting previously undocmented APIs, and that documentation is subsequently used to improve windows emulation (for example), that is legal.
(With the exception of the copyright infringement necessary to aquire the leaked source)
Now, trade secrets and patents are a different matter, but you can infringe on those without looking at any MS source as well.
Anyone around here remember when the Apple QuickDraw code was leaked 1989?
It started quite a big ruckus, with the media making it out to be the entire OS, and the FBI starting what has been described as more or less a witch-hunt on 'hackers'..
I would not be surprized to see a repeat of that, substituting 'hackers' for 'file-sharers'..
Strewn through that list of files we find quite a few named "gnumakefile"..
Would MS really use GNU make??!
Ok.. can someone tell me why it's named "Core"?
To me, that seems to imply that it'd be a bare-bones system, like the kernel+GNU utilities..
This is obviously not the case.. but, seriously, why the name?
HOW isn't easy at all.
That's just a reaction balance.. it doesn't say anything about HOW the reaction occurs.
In fact, the actual how means everything here. So why doesn't this reaction occur anyway? Why is the titanium catalyst required? How does that work?
Now THAT is pretty difficult stuff. In fact that's pretty much what chemistry is all about.
Writing reaction formulas isn't.
Can anyone explain to me why the friggin' Pentagon is involved in this?
How is this a defense issue and not something which should be handled by the Federal Election Commision?
Hackers and terrorists? Come on! Fixing the poor-quality voting machines in certain US states would have more significance than those of us foreign residents who actually bother to vote.
(And yes, I'm one.. and absentee-voting is a real bureaucratic hassle.. this sucks.)
The government uses a lot of OCR - more than you would believe. Standardizing on one exact font description makes it far easier to build an OCR engine optimized for speed and accuracy, which in turn saves time and taxpayer dollars.
Wait a second.. are you saying that the government is spending lots of time OCRing their own computer documents??
Now that is a waste of time and money!
Will scholarly publications view this as a valid source of accurate information?
I think that's a bit irrelevant, actually.
Academic publications are all about source-criticism, nothing is (supposed to be) accepted offhand just because it comes from a 'reliable' source. It's what is said that is to be taken into account, not who said it.
Apart from that, encyclopedias and Wikipedia are really about 'general knowledge'. And 'general knowledge' is by definition stuff which isn't in dispute.
And if the information isn't in dispute, there is no reason to question the source, whatever it may be. (and the academic practice is not to give sources for such information, either)
You're forgetting one binary problem: Library dependency hell.
It's a problem. You CAN always rely on libc being installed, but you CAN'T rely on it being 2.3.x vs. 2.2.x, etc..
Of course, if you're going to distribute your program as a binary, you should link statically. Or better, distribute your program as object code and link it on installation.
(On a Linux system, you -can- rely on the user having a linker)
Not a major problem, but it's definetly a bit more complicated than the situation under Windows.
So you need to be eternally vigilant against people wanting to taking away your freedom, ie YOUR GOVERNMENT.
The real threat to freedom in the USA are the corporations.. big business.
With the exception of the law-enforcement and intelligence communities, the government isn't very interested in our freedoms.
But it's not only by working through congress the businesses get our rights handed over to them, it's through the courts.
With their armies of lawyers, they manipulate the system so that their propaganda is "free speech", whereas if you say something against them it's "slander".
Not to mention abuse of the DMCA, and any other law they can find.
Now this is all correct and good, but there are some points to be made..
If you contribute code to a project, it is quite natural to assume that you the contributor has the right to do so, unless there's some obvious reason to be suspicious.
If someone sells you something, you generally assume the seller has the right do do so as well.
If it turns out they didn't, they can be liable for fraud.
Naturally a written guarantee is better, but for the majority of F/OSS projects out there, which are mostly small hobby-projects with little threat of being the target of litigation, it may be a waste of time to ironclad things out of a legal standpoint.
Of course, the introduction of the printing press in Europe is coincidental and inextricably linked with the vulgarization of the Bible (Guttenberg) so you are essentially correct.
Gutenberg was before the reformation though, and so the actual Gutenberg bible was in Latin, and couldn't have helped much with spelling.
As you point out, most likely it was both these things of course.
Yes, but you'd expect that whatever Chaucer made up for "treatise", be it "tretys" or "trytis", he'd use the same thing throughout the text.
Actually, this was pretty typical of medieval spelling.. Things weren't spelled consistently, and the same author would often vary his spelling to not have to repeat himself.
Remember, this was way before dictionaries, and the idea that there would be one 'correct' spelling, making all others 'wrong' hadn't yet quite entered.
It was later, during the reformation, the Bible was translated, and often ended up serving as the 'offical' way of writing and spelling.
As far as I know, anyway.. IANAEM (An English Major)