Ah yes, but Andrew _is_ one of the core developers. He should know.
Last summer both Linus and Andrew said that when the patches would become too wild, they would consider increasing the version number again. not before. probably that time has arrived. And yes, increasing the version number _is_ a fork
Please folks don't react to this sensationnalistic journalistic bullshit as if it's the end of our world.
This is normal news, and good news. This newspaper is just showing of it's lake of brains. In other words they don't have anything dangerous happenning (Bush is apparently on holyday), so they're falling back on this.
Once out of the door, the original copyright holder's hold of the distributed product is bound by the licence that was provided allong with the product.
You know the licence. Do you see any recall closule ?
There isn't, and the old/new copyright holders will be bound by this.
The GPL's terms will hold up in most court in this world. There will be no recalling with any new owners.
All they can do is to not distribute all _new_ versions of the product under the GPL. But this would not affect the old version.
>... Perhaps they haven't because they don't intend to...
possibly because it's:
- bad for their image - not scaring anybody - too easy to work arround if patent is specific - if patent is too broad, it can get revoked (yes that happens)
As PJ correctly writes on Groklaw, Patent scares don't seem to work as expected in the FOSS world. She compares it to boxing a waterfall. And I agree: very impressive, and a lot of people get wet (read: pissed off), but at the end of the day, it's not actually doing very much.
In this light, it's also easy to see why it would be beter to pay some fool (read: SCO, AdTI) to do the boxing.
Of course, this won't stop big (and not so big) companies from gathering silly patents in their portfolio as it has proven to be very effective in stopping commercial (and healthy) competition.
... then they'll consider stabbing Linux in the back...
Never trust a cornered rat.
Anyway, stabbing anything Open Source seems very much like stabbing water. Very noisy, very entertaining. It might disrupte things for a while, but on the whole not really effective
EV1 may find itself much more screwed by its SCO deal than if it had refused to deal with SCO.
Nope, gpl explicitly says guilty party is sublicensor (which sco is not allowed to do), _NOT_ sublicencee (EV1 in this case). However EV1 only stays not guilty if they keep honoring original licence (GPL).
EV1 no, but SCO yes. Only distribution cost may be asked. no more.
Extract from part 1 of COPYING: You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
Further down, in part 4, it says: You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.
Licencing requirements on Linux fall way beyond distribution costs. They might fall under warranty protection but I doubt it.
Note, more importantly, that the second part explicitly says that EV1 is not at fault for being stupid... which i doubt they actually are, it gives them a (cheap?) publicity boost.
Up to now there was never proof anybody payed for SCO's Linux licence (hear say etc...). This has now changed. Anybody who possess any IP in Linux, may now ask SCO not to distribute _their_ (and only their) IP.
Remember, contrary to MS, SCO does not need it's web site to for their income (MS and Sun are their income source). If the site goes down, they don't care. And in the mean time they will try to get the people to blame linux fanatics.
I think if it wasn't MS doing the beating, everybody here would have noded saying: "Yeah, I could see That coming".
Nobody here can possibly claim Lindows wasn't trying to ride Windows's fame. It's such an obvious trademark infringement, MS would have been mad _not_ to hit it. They would risk loosing the right to the trademark if they didn't.
There is nothing anticonstitutional about using a document format that any software package can read... _if_ they can get there hands on the document.
In other words (just as it is now) secrecy and privacy must be garantied by some other mean than by hiding the document in some obscure, and probably proprietary, format.
I have clearly far greater confidence in the auto pilot than you. However, maybe my trust is misplaced.
Note: That plane that drop into the Potomac a while back, because of the ice on the wings, was *not* (as far as I remember) on the auto pilot. But then, it would have crashed even if it had.
For your information I'm also against the whole idea, but only because I believe it's impossible to implement in the first place. There are just way too many places that need protecting, and there is just no way anybody can keep a DB that much up to date.
So only "important" places will get any protection (read: places where rich people live), the White House, the Pentagon, and maybe the Empire State Building (to keep that symbol at least). But I bet the local school next door will not be on that list.
And I'm dead set against that kind of selective protection.
I would prefere the US would try to see why anybody would get so desperate to do this kind of dramatic thing to attract attention (as nobody kills this many people for fun, especially if you get killed in the process), and to get rid of the *cause* of the problem instead of trying to fight the symtoms.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow! Flamebait ? Did the guy who modded this actually read what I wrote ?
Ah yes, but Andrew _is_ one of the core developers. He should know.
Last summer both Linus and Andrew said that when the patches would become too wild, they would consider increasing the version number again. not before. probably that time has arrived. And yes, increasing the version number _is_ a fork
Please folks don't react to this sensationnalistic journalistic bullshit as if it's the end of our world.
This is normal news, and good news. This newspaper is just showing of it's lake of brains. In other words they don't have anything dangerous happenning (Bush is apparently on holyday), so they're falling back on this.
a license is most certainly not a contract
Please read this neat article:
The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling
Not bullshit, just french, and spelled wrong: "utilise"
Once out of the door, the original copyright holder's hold of the distributed product is bound by the licence that was provided allong with the product.
You know the licence. Do you see any recall closule ?
There isn't, and the old/new copyright holders will be bound by this.
The GPL's terms will hold up in most court in this world. There will be no recalling with any new owners.
All they can do is to not distribute all _new_ versions of the product under the GPL. But this would not affect the old version.
What was the name of that russian guy again ? The one that got arrested while visiting the US ?
Your title is too politicaly correct, isn't sensationnalistic and doesn't sell.
Do you want more reasons ?
Of course I agree with you, and so do most people here. The article is rubbish, and just meant to chock.
> ... Perhaps they haven't because they don't intend to ...
:
possibly because it's
- bad for their image
- not scaring anybody
- too easy to work arround if patent is specific
- if patent is too broad, it can get revoked (yes that happens)
As PJ correctly writes on Groklaw, Patent scares don't seem to work as expected in the FOSS world.
She compares it to boxing a waterfall. And I agree: very impressive, and a lot of people get wet (read: pissed off), but at the end of the day, it's not actually doing very much.
In this light, it's also easy to see why it would be beter to pay some fool (read: SCO, AdTI) to do the boxing.
Of course, this won't stop big (and not so big) companies from gathering silly patents in their portfolio as it has proven to be very effective in stopping commercial (and healthy) competition.
Won't work. Shop will only track it's own.
Server send shop's own (or even department's own) ID over the radio waves, and only RFIDs tagged for this query will respond.
Because most OS use flat memory model where the whole address space is one segment. This would then include both execute code and data.
... then they'll consider stabbing Linux in the back...
Never trust a cornered rat.
Anyway, stabbing anything Open Source seems very much like stabbing water. Very noisy, very entertaining. It might disrupte things for a while, but on the whole not really effective
... anybody can shot it down too.
;^)
Beside any French people here remember: "Z comme Zorglub" ?
Except for the silly fact the commercial it was written backwards. It worked beautifully!
So there is prior Art.
EV1 may find itself much more screwed by its SCO deal than if it had refused to deal with SCO.
Nope, gpl explicitly says guilty party is sublicensor (which sco is not allowed to do), _NOT_ sublicencee (EV1 in this case). However EV1 only stays not guilty if they keep honoring original licence (GPL).
EV1 no, but SCO yes. Only distribution cost may be asked. no more.
... which i doubt they actually are, it gives them a (cheap?) publicity boost.
Extract from part 1 of COPYING:
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
Further down, in part 4, it says:
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
Licencing requirements on Linux fall way beyond distribution costs. They might fall under warranty protection but I doubt it.
Note, more importantly, that the second part explicitly says that EV1 is not at fault for being stupid
Up to now there was never proof anybody payed for SCO's Linux licence (hear say etc...). This has now changed. Anybody who possess any IP in Linux, may now ask SCO not to distribute _their_ (and only their) IP.
This could be fun.
In context it usualy means "He did it!" (or "they" or whoever). Sometimes used next to a literal quote.
Ouside of official documents (lawmaker lingo), it is often used to demontrate a brown bag oops.
This is plain wrong :
... It's one of the most powerful weapons in the "war" against Microsoft ...
:
... to work.
you should not be at war with MS. War is counter productive. Just support Open Source. Ignore MS. you don't need them.
This, however, is absolutly right
It provides a real alternative to MS office and a way for business to move away from windows.
But not as a weapon! just
why ? they are getting screwed worse than anybody else.
Because then they would not have the noise.
Remember, contrary to MS, SCO does not need it's web site to for their income (MS and Sun are their income source).
If the site goes down, they don't care. And in the mean time they will try to get the people to blame linux fanatics.
His name is Mike Rowe not Mike Rowe Soft.
There is a tiny difference (I know, only the normally intelligent can see it, so you are excused)
This has nothing to do with emulating the API
I think if it wasn't MS doing the beating, everybody here would have noded saying: "Yeah, I could see That coming".
Nobody here can possibly claim Lindows wasn't trying to ride Windows's fame. It's such an obvious trademark infringement, MS would have been mad _not_ to hit it. They would risk loosing the right to the trademark if they didn't.
BS
He didn't need to call his company MikeRoweSoft. He could have called it MikeRoweSystems, even MikeRoweSoftware might have been ok
but MikeRoweSoft is obviously a trademark copy.
You should read better, many posts don't sound so upset at all. Actually, most posts here seem to simply agree with you.
/., mostly because of what you just outlined.
And so do I.
Lindows has never been such a hotshot here on
Euh ?
... _if_ they can get there hands on the document.
There is nothing anticonstitutional about using a document format that any software package can read
In other words (just as it is now) secrecy and privacy must be garantied by some other mean than by hiding the document in some obscure, and probably proprietary, format.
I have clearly far greater confidence in the auto pilot than you. However, maybe my trust is misplaced.
Note: That plane that drop into the Potomac a while back, because of the ice on the wings, was *not* (as far as I remember) on the auto pilot. But then, it would have crashed even if it had.
For your information I'm also against the whole idea, but only because I believe it's impossible to implement in the first place. There are just way too many places that need protecting, and there is just no way anybody can keep a DB that much up to date.
So only "important" places will get any protection (read: places where rich people live), the White House, the Pentagon, and maybe the Empire State Building (to keep that symbol at least). But I bet the local school next door will not be on that list.
And I'm dead set against that kind of selective protection.
I would prefere the US would try to see why anybody would get so desperate to do this kind of dramatic thing to attract attention (as nobody kills this many people for fun, especially if you get killed in the process), and to get rid of the *cause* of the problem instead of trying to fight the symtoms.
Wishfull thinking ?
>... the autopilot kicks in and executes a control movement that causes the plane to stall.
Good greef! I most seriously doubt *any* serious auto pilot would ever cause a plane to stall!
That would defeat it's purpose.