You know what SGI is going to do if they lose their Unix lisence. The same thing IBM did, they'll start to use Linux even more in their business.
Yes, SGI is going to do the same thing IBM did. However what IBM did was NOT to use linux 'even more' (it's only been 6 months since their license was 'terminated, and I don't see any major changes in IBMs stance on AIX)
What IBM did was: nothing. Both IBM and SGI have irrevocable Unix licences. They both know this, and so does SCO.
This is all SCO posturing to give the impression that they own everything in the Unix world, and you seem to be believing it.
Although you have a point on Art flicks vs. mainstream, but you are incorrect in claiming that "hardly anyone" has heard of Kubrick. Perhaps you mean "hardly anyone outside your age group".
Kubrick did have some great commerical success, most notably "Dr. Strangelove", "Spartacus", "2001" and "A clockwork orange".
Not to mention Hitchcock, who was hugely succesful commercially, and a Hollywood director.
Actually, IBM has raised patent-infringments in their counterclaims. But that's not what the story was about.. so the original poster is either confused or misinformed.
As others have noted, this tree really means nothing in terms of actual code. For instance, Linux appears to be an offspring of Minix, which in turn is an offshoot of the original Unix.
Now, anyone who's read the preface to Andy Tanenbaum's book (where the entire Minix code is listed) knows that Minix is a clean re-implementation of unix, and contains no UNIX code whatsoever.
Linus, in turn, used some Minix code to get started with Linux, but this was quickly replaced. Linux hasn't contained any Minix code for years.
So this chart, although correct with respect to 'influence' or 'inspiration' has nothing to do with actual code. Naturally, it doesn't provide any real support to SCO's claims.
That would be something like Digital Research suddenly claiming ownership of Windows, since it's based on DOS, which in turn was based on QDOS, which was a CP/M clone.
Wait, wasn't HP the supposed Fourtune 500 company that bought a SCO license?
No.. Although it was speculated at the time. Also, HP was an original sponsor of the SCO users conference, but pulled out.
The latest 10-Q quarterly report from SCO makes it clear that Sun was the other licensee:
We initiated the SCOsource effort to review the status of these existing licensing and sublicensing agreements and to identify others in the industry that may be currently using our intellectual property without obtaining the necessary licenses. This effort resulted in the execution of two license agreements during the April 30, 2003 quarter. The first of these licenses was with Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun"), a long-time licensee of the UNIX source code and a major participant in the UNIX industry, and was a "clean-up" license to cover items that were outside the scope of Sun's initial UNIX license. The second license was to Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft")"
"Intellectual property" is a silly and stupid idea. Cases like this only illustrate more obviously how bad an idea it is. It should be abolished as soon as possible.
I'd say it's quite understandable. Software patents are a difficult issue, they require understanding both the technical and the legal issues.
Argumenting against software patents is not easy. A few bad patents do not necessarily invalidate the principle.
On the surface, the principle seems quite reasonable: Patents have certainly helped every other engineering dicipline - why not software? To understand why they are bad requires a detailed understanding of *what* software is, how the development process works, and how it differs from other fields of engineering.
Add to this an understanding of the principles of patent law. Do you really suppose an MEP specializing in say, agricultural issues should know all that?
Adding to the other comments in defense of Eric Idle: He did a great job with the music as well. Who can't whistle "Always look on the bright side of life"?
With his musical and comical talent.. This might well be worth seeing.
SCOsource initiative has already resulted in revenue of $15,530,000 during the last two quarters
In the second quarter this was $8,250,000 from the two licenses sold.
The other licensee was Sun.
We also find the following in the quarterly: The SCOsource licensing revenue in the third quarter of fiscal year 2003 represents additional fees associated with two licenses executed during the April 30, 2003, quarter. Under the terms of our license agreement with Sun, we will receive an additional $2,500,000 by November 2003.
So basically, they haven't sold any more licenses since April. Sun and MS are propping SCO up to hurt Linux. (Excluding the licensing, SCO is bleeding badly.. this is the only thing bringing them into the black.)
I suspect that all these posters aren't lawyers; they're probably some form of "geek": engineers, programmers, mathematicians, chemists, what have you./. is heavily slanted towards computer geeks. And for that group, IP issues are a big deal (and also a popular discussion subject on/.)
However, it's not particularily representative. Within most science/engineering fields, IP is not considered the enemy, and for fields like math and foundation research it's a nonissue.
Remember, in most areas, patents work. They do encourage development and investments in research.
Now, software patents ARE a BAD idea. But don't take the computer geeks' view as valid for all engineers and scientists.
But if Eolas was intending to carry over this suit to other browsers, than it could be good for everyone. Although in the end I was still hoping to see Microsoft crash and burn for something.
I think it's the InterTrust suit you want to be hoping for in that case.. I don't think Linux is vunerable to patents on DRM technology.
Eolas Technology is apparently a 1-man front for the University.[ of California]
So correct me if I'm wrong: We have a government-funded institution which exploits the laxness of a government agency, in order to extort cash from industry.
Even to a Communist-Bleeding-Heart-Liberal like me finds that hard to swallow!
Exactly.. ethics are -not- universal. That's why tolerance is so important.
Anyway.. I think physicists (in general) are more international in their outlook than engineers.
That is of course an explanation and not a reason.. but ethical values are shaped by experience and it would not be surprizing if that also lead to more physicists having an "internationalist" rather than "patriotic" view.
Personally I have no problems defending my country. (not that it's likely, nearly 200 years without a war, knock on wood.) Living in Sweden, I did 15 months of military service and hold a 2nd lieutenants rank.
Participation in peace-time is a different matter for me, though.
Apart from experience making things harder (like the A-bomb) is the type of weapon (conventional vs. WMDs, defensive vs. offensive) but also the percived morality of the war. (most would agree the WWII involvment was a good thing, fewer would say the same for Vietnam)
No easy answers.. but I think that's a good thing. Fundamentalists have easy answers. Fascists and communists too. Nothing good can come from believing you have all the answers.
"Verifiable and successful attacks" indeed.. what about the number of unsuccessful attacks?
They have no figure on that.
This means that their conclusions rely entirely on the assumption that their data has no OS bias.
There is no reason whatsoever to assume this.
For instance, for all we know linux users might be more open about admitting attacks than windows users. Perhaps more of the windows admins were out patching their machines and didn't have time to reply. Maybe they didn't even survey the same amount of linux sites as windows sites. We know nothing.
Unless their source data is unbiased their numbers mean nothing.
In all fairness, SCO's value is not in being purchased so that the source code can be freed...
Well.. that's not what I had in mind either. Rather, I was thinking that the source and rights to UNIX will be up for sale with the rest of SCOs assets after they file for bankruptcy. (And THAT, I assure you is just a matter of time..)
Interestingly, Red Hat's lawsuit and IBM's countersuit could very well leave the future smoldering wreck of SCO owing them money.. (I think we can all agree that their cases definetly have more merit than SCOs)
In fact.. if that happens UNIX could be included in a financial settlement between either of the above parties and the trustee of SCOs bankruptcy.
Slashdot Mirror
They also said repeatedly that they will "strongly defend their IP".
But they also said they wouldn't sue IBM.
Oh, dear.. it seems that either way they'll be contradicting themselves.
I don't think anyone can predict just what crazy move SCO is going to make next.
You can always print to file and then use ps2pdf, you know?
(comes with ghostview)
You know what SGI is going to do if they lose their Unix lisence. The same thing IBM did, they'll start to use Linux even more in their business.
Yes, SGI is going to do the same thing IBM did.
However what IBM did was NOT to use linux 'even more'
(it's only been 6 months since their license was 'terminated, and I don't see any major changes in IBMs stance on AIX)
What IBM did was: nothing. Both IBM and SGI have irrevocable Unix licences.
They both know this, and so does SCO.
This is all SCO posturing to give the impression that they own everything in the Unix world, and you seem to be believing it.
DC?
Thank you Mr Edison. We'll call you if we need you.
Yeah, I mean it's not as if there's any research being done in this, or any manufacturers of power systems building these things.
As if any serious energy company would even consider such a thing!
I'd sure like to have a price estimate on my old copy of Sys V..
Although you have a point on Art flicks vs. mainstream, but you are incorrect in claiming that "hardly anyone" has heard of Kubrick. Perhaps you mean "hardly anyone outside your age group".
Kubrick did have some great commerical success, most notably "Dr. Strangelove", "Spartacus", "2001" and "A clockwork orange".
Not to mention Hitchcock, who was hugely succesful commercially, and a Hollywood director.
I mean, does anyone really give a damn about the Oscars?
It's the industry celebrating itself in a annual act of masturbation on national TV.
If you disagree, please explain why Kevin Costner has a "Best Director" award but not Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock or Akira Kurosawa?
Actually, IBM has raised patent-infringments in their counterclaims.
But that's not what the story was about.. so the original poster is either confused or misinformed.
Those comments seem pretty consistant with what Mr. Love has said in the past.
Which is the obvious reason he isn't with the company anymore.
People who make self-consistent remarks have no place in SCO management.
The orignal tree.
As others have noted, this tree really means nothing in terms of actual code.
For instance, Linux appears to be an offspring of Minix, which in turn is an offshoot of the original Unix.
Now, anyone who's read the preface to Andy Tanenbaum's book (where the entire Minix code is listed) knows that Minix is a clean re-implementation of unix, and contains no UNIX code whatsoever.
Linus, in turn, used some Minix code to get started with Linux, but this was quickly replaced. Linux hasn't contained any Minix code for years.
So this chart, although correct with respect to 'influence' or 'inspiration'
has nothing to do with actual code. Naturally, it doesn't provide any real support to SCO's claims.
That would be something like Digital Research suddenly claiming ownership of Windows, since it's based on DOS, which in turn was based on QDOS, which was a CP/M clone.
Wait, wasn't HP the supposed Fourtune 500 company that bought a SCO license?
No.. Although it was speculated at the time. Also, HP was an original sponsor of the SCO users conference, but pulled out.
The latest 10-Q quarterly report from SCO makes it clear that Sun was the other licensee:
We initiated the SCOsource effort to review the status of these existing licensing and sublicensing agreements and to identify others in the industry that may be currently using our intellectual property without obtaining the necessary licenses. This effort resulted in the execution of two license agreements during the April 30, 2003 quarter. The first of these licenses was with Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun"), a long-time licensee of the UNIX source code and a major participant in the UNIX industry, and was a "clean-up" license to cover items that were outside the scope of Sun's initial UNIX license. The second license was to Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft")"
Linus and Alan write on Sunday, and the EU jumps on Monday. Good show, gentlemen!
Given that the amendment is from June they're even faster than that!
"Intellectual property" is a silly and stupid idea. Cases like this only illustrate more obviously how bad an idea it is. It should be abolished as soon as possible.
Three words:
Baby, bath water.
The cluelessness amoung MEPs is interesting.
I'd say it's quite understandable. Software patents are a difficult issue,
they require understanding both the technical and the legal issues.
Argumenting against software patents is not easy.
A few bad patents do not necessarily invalidate the principle.
On the surface, the principle seems quite reasonable: Patents have certainly helped
every other engineering dicipline - why not software?
To understand why they are bad requires a detailed understanding of *what* software is,
how the development process works, and how it differs from other fields of engineering.
Add to this an understanding of the principles of patent law.
Do you really suppose an MEP specializing in say,
agricultural issues should know all that?
On what planet do you live that you have 6 month years? Here on Earth 18 months is 1 1/2 years.
Well.. If there's a bright centre to the universe, it's the planet farthest from.
I've gotta go and fix some moisture evaporators now. And find that missing droid.
Here
I've actually seen this myself a couple of times.. and no, none of the ATM keys seem to be mapped to Return, so you can't do anything.
Adding to the other comments in defense of Eric Idle:
He did a great job with the music as well. Who can't whistle "Always look on the bright side of life"?
With his musical and comical talent.. This might well be worth seeing.
SCOsource initiative has already resulted in revenue of $15,530,000 during the last two quarters
In the second quarter this was $8,250,000 from the two licenses sold.
The other licensee was Sun.
We also find the following in the quarterly:
The SCOsource licensing revenue in the third quarter of fiscal year 2003 represents additional fees associated with two licenses executed during the April 30, 2003, quarter. Under the terms of our license agreement with Sun, we will receive an additional $2,500,000 by November 2003.
So basically, they haven't sold any more licenses since April.
Sun and MS are propping SCO up to hurt Linux.
(Excluding the licensing, SCO is bleeding badly.. this is the only thing bringing them into the black.)
I suspect that all these posters aren't lawyers; they're probably some form of "geek": engineers, programmers, mathematicians, chemists, what have you. /. is heavily slanted towards computer geeks. And for that group, IP issues are a big deal (and also a popular discussion subject on /.)
However, it's not particularily representative. Within most science/engineering fields, IP is not considered the enemy, and for fields like math and foundation research it's a nonissue.
Remember, in most areas, patents work. They do encourage development and investments in research.
Now, software patents ARE a BAD idea. But don't take the computer geeks' view as valid for all engineers and scientists.
But if Eolas was intending to carry over this suit to other browsers, than it could be good for everyone. Although in the end I was still hoping to see Microsoft crash and burn for something.
I think it's the InterTrust suit you want to be hoping for in that case.. I don't think Linux is vunerable to patents on DRM technology.
Enough said.
Eolas Technology is apparently a 1-man front for the University.[ of California]
So correct me if I'm wrong:
We have a government-funded institution which exploits the laxness
of a government agency, in order to extort cash from industry.
Even to a Communist-Bleeding-Heart-Liberal like me finds that hard to swallow!
Exactly.. ethics are -not- universal. That's why tolerance is so important.
Anyway.. I think physicists (in general) are more international in their outlook than engineers.
That is of course an explanation and not a reason.. but ethical values are shaped by experience and it would not be surprizing if that also lead to more physicists having an "internationalist" rather than "patriotic" view.
Personally I have no problems defending my country. (not that it's likely, nearly 200 years without a war, knock on wood.) Living in Sweden, I did 15 months of military service and hold a 2nd lieutenants rank.
Participation in peace-time is a different matter for me, though.
Apart from experience making things harder (like the A-bomb) is the type of weapon (conventional vs. WMDs, defensive vs. offensive) but also the percived morality of the war. (most would agree the WWII involvment was a good thing, fewer would say the same for Vietnam)
No easy answers.. but I think that's a good thing. Fundamentalists have easy answers. Fascists and communists too. Nothing good can come from believing you have all the answers.
"Verifiable and successful attacks" indeed.. what about the number of unsuccessful attacks?
They have no figure on that.
This means that their conclusions rely entirely on the assumption that their data has no OS bias.
There is no reason whatsoever to assume this.
For instance, for all we know linux users might be more open about admitting attacks than windows users. Perhaps more of the windows admins were out patching their machines and didn't have time to reply. Maybe they didn't even survey the same amount of linux sites as windows sites. We know nothing.
Unless their source data is unbiased their numbers mean nothing.
In all fairness, SCO's value is not in being purchased so that the source code can be freed...
Well.. that's not what I had in mind either.
Rather, I was thinking that the source and rights to UNIX will be up for sale with the rest of SCOs assets after they file for bankruptcy. (And THAT, I assure you is just a matter of time..)
Interestingly, Red Hat's lawsuit and IBM's countersuit could very well leave the future smoldering wreck of SCO owing them money..
(I think we can all agree that their cases definetly have more merit than SCOs)
In fact.. if that happens UNIX could be included in a financial settlement between either of the above parties and the trustee of SCOs bankruptcy.
Now.. -that- would be sweet.