> What are you going to suggest next, labor unions?
Seems to me that what is being suggested here -- forming a company and then negotiating to sell your services back to your former employer -- amounts to just that. And that's just fine.
> Do you think that you and your buddies are > entitled to be treated like human beings?
They're entitled to whatever terms they can and will negotiate.
> Does anyone out there know any ways around this?
There's nothing to get around. The copyright on each patch is owned by its author, who has full standing to sue. Any portions which are joint works are jointly owned by all the authors, each of who has standing to sue independently of the others.
> how do they prove where those pieces of code came > from, who wrote them, when, etc.?
By searching back through the Linux kernel patches until you find the one that added the lines of interest. Since every patch has been promptly released publicly there is no possibility of chicanery.
The same could presumably be done with SCO's source tree, but since no one outside SCO has had access to it...
> Especially as we have 80 lines of identical code > including comments
No. We have somebody who _says_ that 80 lines of code including comments are identical but who has entered into a secret agreement with SCO that lets SCO control what they say.
Re:Demonstrating my ignorance....
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
> So if SCO made contributions to the Linux kernel,
> I'd like to know whether full de-regulation of the > telecommunication industry in the United States > has benefited customer service and also what > effect it has had on providing innovative > services.
The telecommunication industry in the United States is far from fully de-regulated.
> No idea, but speculation is sure to be with us for a while."
None of which will take into consideration the possibility that he is simply diversifying his holdings as all financial advisors tell us to do. Do you have all your savings invested in your employer's stock?
Re:Slightly OT: Linking static libs w/GPL'd code?
on
What if SCO is Right?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
What happens if you're a software company that buys some closed source static libraries from another company and link them to your proprietary product and sell the result to customers and later discover the library company included a third company's proprietary code without telling you?
> The GPL seems like a nasty can of worms...
Closed-source is a nasty can of worms. You have only the vendor's word as to what is in it. If they are incompetent or crooked you can get smacked from behind at any moment.
> Sure you can get the same source I got, but that > doesn't mean you can get the modified source that > created the binary you leased from me.
The owner of the source that you modified can require you to comply with the GPL and give me the source. His license to you (the GPL) permits you to distribute his work only under the terms of the GPL. By distributing it under your lease you are violating that license.
> Do renters of GPL software have no rights under > the GPL?
I've never seen a software rental agreenent that would not be in direct violation of the GPL.
> Is this situation similar to the one where the > makers of DSL/cable routers don't have to > provide the source, even though the devices are > based on embedded Linux?"
Can you provide some support for the claim that such a situation exists?
> get a cheap, non-working fridge. Drill a few > holes for the cables and you're set. No dust, no > cat hairs.
And no way for the heat to get out. Refrigerators are _insulated_.
Build an oversized, airtight aluminum case. Bolt large heatsinks on the inside and outside of one side opposite each other so that they are in intimate thermal contact via the case wall. Install fans on the inside to blow the air inside the case across the inside heatsink, and install fans on the outside to blow outside are across the outside heatsink. Install the (caseless) computer in it, fans and all. You could add fans inside to blow air through the guts of the computer if the you don't think the heatsinks do a good enough job of that.
> I don't want anyone to modify the prose of my > dissertation
Why do you think anyone would want to? I don't mean to imply that it's worthless, just that it is not obvious why anyone would want to distribute modified versions (they might want to distribute portions of it, but why would you object to that?)
> I don't want it distributed without my consent.
I thought you said you'd GFDLd it. Who now needs your consent to distribute it?
> the majority of the US doesn't live on top of a > fiber backbone.
Heh. I have two fibre-optic cables on my property, one 1/4 mile from the house and one 200 feet away. I can't even get cable or DSL (not that I could afford either anyway).
> The basis used by the RIAA for calculating > damages in all these cases is fundamentally > absurd.
True.
> They take the number of copies, multiply by the > highest recent retail they can find, and draw a > big red circle around the result.
False. They take the number of works they claim were infringed and multiply by $150,000, the maximum statutory damages permitted by law. The result is _not_ $97 billion.
Slashdot Mirror
> That Darrell McBride is a scary man:
No. He's merely another fool.
> What are you going to suggest next, labor unions?
Seems to me that what is being suggested here -- forming a company and then negotiating to sell your services back to your former employer -- amounts to just that. And that's just fine.
> Do you think that you and your buddies are
> entitled to be treated like human beings?
They're entitled to whatever terms they can and will negotiate.
> You'd need to get those people to agree to be
> parties in the suit.
Just one of them.
> Does anyone out there know any ways around this?
There's nothing to get around. The copyright on each patch is owned by its author, who has full standing to sue. Any portions which are joint works are jointly owned by all the authors, each of who has standing to sue independently of the others.
> how do they prove where those pieces of code came
> from, who wrote them, when, etc.?
By searching back through the Linux kernel patches until you find the one that added the lines of interest. Since every patch has been promptly released publicly there is no possibility of chicanery.
The same could presumably be done with SCO's source tree, but since no one outside SCO has had access to it...
> There's no way that the Linux kernel isn't in
> public domain.
There's no way that the Linux kernel _is_ in the public domain. You clearly don't know what the public domain is.
> To try to prevent distribution based on 80 lines
> of code of a program with thousands of lines...
Millions.
> which allows a remote site to read any file on the
> client machine
I doubt that.
> Especially as we have 80 lines of identical code
> including comments
No. We have somebody who _says_ that 80 lines of code including comments are identical but who has entered into a secret agreement with SCO that lets SCO control what they say.
> So if SCO made contributions to the Linux kernel,
toncho//usr/src/2.4/linux grep -r SCO * | grep 'Copyright'
net/bluetooth/sco.c: BT_INFO("BlueZ SCO ver %s Copyright (C) 2000,2001 Qualcomm Inc", VERSION);
toncho//usr/src/2.4/linux grep -r Caldera * | grep 'Copyright'
net/ipx/af_ipx.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc.
net/ipx/af_ipx.c: KERN_INFO "IPX Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc.\n" \
On the other hand:
toncho//usr/src/2.4/linux grep -r ' IBM ' * | grep 'Copyright' | wc -l
298
toncho//usr/src/2.4/linux grep -r ' IBM ' * | grep 'Copyright' | grep -v 390 | wc -l
107
> which replaces equations with actual circuit
> building, tours of electrical plants, and classes
> taught by famous professors."
So MIT EEs no longer need to know Kirchoff's laws?
> I'd like to know whether full de-regulation of the
> telecommunication industry in the United States
> has benefited customer service and also what
> effect it has had on providing innovative
> services.
The telecommunication industry in the United States is far from fully de-regulated.
> Good thing for commercialization of space...
..or bad thing for world peace?
How could it be good for commercialization when a government is doing it?
>
How could it be bad for world peace?
> No idea, but speculation is sure to be with us for a while."
None of which will take into consideration the possibility that he is simply diversifying his holdings as all financial advisors tell us to do. Do you have all your savings invested in your employer's stock?
What happens if you're a software company that buys some closed source static libraries from another company and link them to your proprietary product and sell the result to customers and later discover the library company included a third company's proprietary code without telling you?
> The GPL seems like a nasty can of worms...
Closed-source is a nasty can of worms. You have only the vendor's word as to what is in it. If they are incompetent or crooked you can get smacked from behind at any moment.
> But here's the catch: Does this validate
> Microsoft's view of a "viral GPL"?"
No. Bruce's argument would apply in exactly the same was were the kernel under the BSD license.
> what others possibilities exist, and which would
> you choose? Yes, price does matter."
An ordinary non-master mechanical lock, and careful control of the keys. Spend your money on something useful.
> Sure you can get the same source I got, but that
> doesn't mean you can get the modified source that
> created the binary you leased from me.
The owner of the source that you modified can require you to comply with the GPL and give me the source. His license to you (the GPL) permits you to distribute his work only under the terms of the GPL. By distributing it under your lease you are violating that license.
> Do renters of GPL software have no rights under
> the GPL?
I've never seen a software rental agreenent that would not be in direct violation of the GPL.
> Is this situation similar to the one where the
> makers of DSL/cable routers don't have to
> provide the source, even though the devices are
> based on embedded Linux?"
Can you provide some support for the claim that such a situation exists?
It would just make voting so easy that the apathetic would vote anyway, without knowing or caring what they were doing.
It would also totally destroy transparency.
> get a cheap, non-working fridge. Drill a few
> holes for the cables and you're set. No dust, no
> cat hairs.
And no way for the heat to get out. Refrigerators are _insulated_.
Build an oversized, airtight aluminum case. Bolt large heatsinks on the inside and outside of one side opposite each other so that they are in intimate thermal contact via the case wall. Install fans on the inside to blow the air inside the case across the inside heatsink, and install fans on the outside to blow outside are across the outside heatsink. Install the (caseless) computer in it, fans and all. You could add fans inside to blow air through the guts of the computer if the you don't think the heatsinks do a good enough job of that.
> I don't want anyone to modify the prose of my
> dissertation
Why do you think anyone would want to? I don't mean to imply that it's worthless, just that it is not obvious why anyone would want to distribute modified versions (they might want to distribute portions of it, but why would you object to that?)
> I don't want it distributed without my consent.
I thought you said you'd GFDLd it. Who now needs your consent to distribute it?
Taking an entire page out of one manual and inserting it into another is not likely to qualify as fair use.
> if you are copying large parts of the manual
A perfectly reasonable thing to want to do.
But now I see that it's just more "streaming audio" crap. How pointless.
> the majority of the US doesn't live on top of a
> fiber backbone.
Heh. I have two fibre-optic cables on my property, one 1/4 mile from the house and one 200 feet away. I can't even get cable or DSL (not that I could afford either anyway).
> The basis used by the RIAA for calculating
> damages in all these cases is fundamentally
> absurd.
True.
> They take the number of copies, multiply by the
> highest recent retail they can find, and draw a
> big red circle around the result.
False. They take the number of works they claim were infringed and multiply by $150,000, the maximum statutory damages permitted by law. The result is _not_ $97 billion.