IBM has no need to sign the NDA. IBM has the SysV sources and can diff it against Linux and establish the provenance of any matches themselves. I have little doubt they have already done this.
Anyway, SCO's NDA cannot supersede pre-trial discovery rights. IBM wouldn't have to sign it anyway.
Anyone who signs the NDA is playing into SCO's hand.
I want to know if linus kept the copyright and trade mark when he released Linux under GPL.If he did and choses to be nasty then may be SCO could be in for copyright violation and unauthorised trademark use.
For trademark violation? Probably not. Linus needed to hammer them as soon they abused it. Copyright law is another kettle of fish altogether. Linus almost certainly has more of his IP in the kernel than (allegedly) SCO does. Either Linus sues and then SCO countersues him or the other way around. Since there is one disputed work that (allegedly) contains both their IP then it is a wrestling match.
That's really funny! I wish I were an artist so I could execute something like the following.
A flaming 747 with the SCO logo plastered all over it is going down in the background. SCO management is in the foreground with huge D.B Cooper grins as they waft to earth hanging from their Golden Parachutes.
For added effect, there can be red and blue F-16s behind the flaming SCO jet guns blazing.
SCO is more like a little mouse trying to sodomize a big blue elephant. If you get close you can hear it squeeking "Take it all bitch!". It'll suck to be the mouse when the elephant's butt starts itching.
In the fifties, there was a Superman live action TV series. An actor named George Reeves played Superman. In the late seventies and through the eighties Christopher Reeve (no "s") played Superman in a series of three movies. Let us not speak of IV, it scared my psyche so badly that I deny it ever happened to this day. We're talking big budget MST3K fodder.
That the two actors names are almost identical is a coincidence.
45 pages of legalese takes awhile to comprehend fully, and doing an off-the-cuff response could torpedo their entire suit
Sheesh! The pirate ship SCO must be full of large gaping holes by now then. Like I said the other day, every time something makes their stock stall or drop they put out something outrageous to counter it. There is no slow deliberate responding when you have a stock slide to stop.
I wonder what SCO going to say to recover the stock after this one? SCO's announcements used to make me really angry; now they're so far off the deep end that I can only spray Mountain Dew all over my monitor.
Picture this: A Mortal-Kombat fight ring with a bloodied slack postured Daryl McBride wearing a SCO themed "gi". His opponent is the RedHat "Shadow Dude" wearing an ultra stylish Humphrey Bogart looking trench coat and mirror shined shoes. "Shadow Dude" will be depicted administering a mean looking uppercut and of course the screen will have the "Finish Him!" banner on it.
1.SCO also had a 2.4.19 kernel. Maybe that should be mirrored. In any case, I've downloaded my copy.
2. Those source RPMS contain the kernel.org sources plus SCO's patches. Extract the tarballs from the RPM, patch the 2.4.13 kernel.org source up to any kernel you like. That 2.4.13 kernel is GPLed from SCO themselves....with everything that implies. Patching it up current should be good cover.
It would be even better to patch up from the 2.4.19 but whatever you can get......
Andways, what happened to a law-suit that puts SCO as the code stealer? I figure that Linux is open sourced, and SCO's isn't. What happened to claim that SCO did it backwards?
If that is the case, SCO will go out of their way to make it hard to prove; I wouldn't put altering developer logs above them. Even if true, if our hypothetical litigator can't prove it then SCO could probably countersue for defamation. I'm not saying it's impossible but some serious ducks would need to be in a row to do it. Something on the order of an entire chorus of Unixware developers willing to testify in court that this is the case.
In other words, they still refuse to take action in defending their trade secrets and rectifying the problem. No moral judge is going to cut them any slack with this kind of behaviour.
A moral judge isn't necessarily a warranted assumption. All SCO needs is a somewhat viable legal theory to hang their case on. That isn't to say a "amoral" judge wouldn't find SCO's legal theories wanting but morality needn't enter into it.
I know you're joking but from a strictly speculator point of view, it might not be a bad idea. I've been watching the SCOX price for a few months and have noticed a tendency of SCO's PR. Whenever the price drops or plateau's, you can count on yet another outrageous PR release from SCO to pump it back up. Before the week is out, expect SCO to make some sort of apocalyptic statement in regard to RedHat.
debs are actually renamed ar archives that conform to a specification and have been renamed. I have come across guides on unaring a deb,altering it and then packing it back up. I've never had to do it but the guides on how to do it didn't seem too bad.
I've never had a dependency problem I couldn't fix in Debian with a little noodling around with the system. On the other hand, I do sometimes recompile source debs to get options that I need. For instance, I deploy Netatalk with dhx authentication. I have to install the crypto devel libs and tweak the rules file to get it. Thankfully, I can build on one box and deploy the custom deb whereever needed.
I suspect that I could get most of the benefit of Gentoo by rebuilding the kernel, glibc, and maybe the xlib source debs with i686 options. At some point, I would like to see where the most benefit is reaped from custom compilation.
For a while, many people have been speculating that SCO-Caldera is looking to get bought out. The usual assumption is that the purchasing party would be IBM....
I present to you, gentle reader, another possibility. One that has the purchaser as not IBM, but Microsoft... think about it for a bit.. MS buys a SCO license at the first possible minute (more or less), then later starts openly postulating similar things as SCO...
Antitrust law still has teeth in Europe and elsewhere. When Bush leaves office, it may gain teeth here as well. MS buying SCO would entail extreme risks for dubious gain. MS is far better off pulling Darl's strings at a distance.
there is any way to stop the RIAA from getting a list of your shared files, but if you check the "don't share files" box (which would screw everyone else) does that stop a file list command?
Most clients have a "show other files this user has" search option. Disable that and if the client allows it set a "show no more than 1 search result from this computer". That way, a would be litigator has to search for particular items on your machine. They can with effort determine that you are sharing files but it will be difficult to see how many you are sharing.
When are they going to learn that we wont stop sharing files, we'll just keep switching to more obscure networks.
Thats just good old fashioned security by obscurity. Since the primary purpose of the RIAA's actions are public relations then they can really put a scare into people by busting a few from the "obscure" networks. And yes, this has to be a PR move. There are millions of P2P users. They can't sue them all so they are going to sue a cross-section of large to small traders on a variety of networks.
If you insist on using P2P "safely" in this climate then you are going to have to wait for the next generation of P2P apps. Those will at least attempt to engineer in "plausable deniability".
The problem with this is that SCO's story keeps changing. First it was just a contract beef with IBM. Then SCO owned by proxy every modern operating system. Then it was a small amount of code in the Linux kernel: less than 80 lines. Then it was hundreds of thousands of lines and hundreds of files. Then SCO starting making noises that the BSD's weren't safe either.
The bottom line is that nothing SCO says can be trusted. They are a lawsuit company now and will use any pretext to harass developers and users and pump their stock price. I fully expect that if everyone did revert to 2.2 kernels that SCO would find something to extort with there as well.
What the hell is a "Bloomin' Onions" ? Some kind of cockney foodstuff ? 'cause it ain't Australian.
Probably the same way French (no excuse me "freedom") fries aren't french....
A blooming onion is an onion that has been sliced across the top in a kind of star pattern then lightly seasoned, battered, and fried. It is often served as an appetizer in some of the newer family restaurants and steakhouses. I find them tasty at first but don't want very many bites of it. In my case, a strong onion aftertaste builds up and it starts not looking good in a hurry.
Well you can't setup software intentionally to not compile if you look at the open source definition it says that a free software (Open source) program can not be restricted in how it is used. Similarly the GPL says that an author can not restrict how a program is used if it under the GPL.
This is all true but project maintainers can still refuse to support renegade vendors. Also, the GPL doesn't rule out technical shenanigans. For instance, the build scripts for nmap try to detect SCO products and refuse to build binaries on them. Yes, a SCO user can remove those checks but his binary will be orphaned. Nobody will help him with any problems it has. The problem gets thornier. Say a SCO product needs some patches to the source to operate correctly, they won't be included by the maintainer. Since SCO is anathema now, there won't be enough community to maintain forks. Much of the value of Open Source comes from maintainer and community support. If that support is removed then running OS on renegade platforms will still be legal but hideously difficult.
Even if a maintainer doesn't go as far as nmap's author did, the build scripts can still inform SCO users that they are on their own until SCO starts behaving ethically.
Why aren't they issuing any statements with some short reasons why these claims are ridiculous?
IBM is going to fight this in a court of law. SCO is fighting this in the court of public opinion. The rules are different. Anyone who truly intends to fight in a court of law doesn't run his mouth unnecessarily. IBM's lawyers are going to have a field day with SCO's public statements.
IBM is SLOW. Every move is calculated, weighed, optioned, signed off by multiple layers of beauracracy, and conditioned in sherry casks, before actually being acted upon.
What SCO is doing is like taking a chainsaw to one of those black 2001 monoliths. It'll just sit there like a rock for several months before swallowing up the chainsaw wielder without a trace. The monolith won't have so much as a scratch on it either.
You can't actually invoke Godwin's law. It simply an understood convention that anyone who drags Nazis into online discussion is incapable of framing a good argument. I do the same thing with people who drag communism and socialism into discussions about software licensing and development. I don't point it out to them anymore, I simple mentally write them off as 16 year old randbot or rushroom losers.
All SCO has really done up to this point is file a breach of contract suit against IBM and run their mouth a lot. The contract suit may be somewhat meritorious but IBM will still hand them their heads on a platter. SCO's diarrhea of the mouth is another kettle of fish altogether. There's easy to enforce laws against it in Germany and Poland at least but maybe not elsewhere.
Yeah, I suppose RedHat may have a case at this point but they have to weigh the costs of suing SCO against what their mouth flapping is losing them. Basically, a company RH's size isn't going to sue over mere FUD. Once SCO starts actually mailing the nastygrams to RH's customers then the situation will change drastically. RH's customers paid money for what they believe is legal product and if RH wants to sell any more then they will have to do something "about those SCO guys that are hassling us" pronto.
For now, the distros don't have much to gain by filing a suit. Once the distros' customers are getting pinched then they'll have to. This probably means that SCO will just run their mouth as long as possible without actually doing anything. It won't help their little pump-n-dump scheme once the countersuits start flying.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM has no need to sign the NDA. IBM has the SysV sources and can diff it against Linux and establish the provenance of any matches themselves. I have little doubt they have already done this.
Anyway, SCO's NDA cannot supersede pre-trial discovery rights. IBM wouldn't have to sign it anyway.
Anyone who signs the NDA is playing into SCO's hand.
I want to know if linus kept the copyright and trade mark when he released Linux under GPL.If he did and choses to be nasty then may be SCO could be in for copyright violation and unauthorised trademark use.
For trademark violation? Probably not. Linus needed to hammer them as soon they abused it. Copyright law is another kettle of fish altogether. Linus almost certainly has more of his IP in the kernel than (allegedly) SCO does. Either Linus sues and then SCO countersues him or the other way around. Since there is one disputed work that (allegedly) contains both their IP then it is a wrestling match.
That's really funny! I wish I were an artist so I could execute something like the following.
A flaming 747 with the SCO logo plastered all over it is going down in the background. SCO management is in the foreground with huge D.B Cooper grins as they waft to earth hanging from their Golden Parachutes.
For added effect, there can be red and blue F-16s behind the flaming SCO jet guns blazing.
SCO is more like a little mouse trying to sodomize a big blue elephant. If you get close you can hear it squeeking "Take it all bitch!". It'll suck to be the mouse when the elephant's butt starts itching.
Until we're individually sued whinging is all most of us can do. The following groups of people can fight back and I hope they do:
Direct copyright and patent holders
Linus himself - He'll probably stay out as long as possible. I think his commendably amiable instincts aren't appropriate here.
kernel contributors - Most them aren't well heeled enough to battle a multimillion dollar corp.
GPL patent holders with rights in the kernel. I can't help but notice this is one weapon RH seems to be holding in reserve.
Anyone I've missed with copyrights in the kernel
Contract grievances
SCO's UnitedLinux "partners"
Paid up Caldera users
Novell
Economic Laws
Citizens of Germany, Poland, Australia and other places with strong consumer protection laws or laws against damaging unsubstantiated allegations.
Unless I've missed something, those are the people who can actually carry the fight to SCO. Just who would you have challenge them?
In the fifties, there was a Superman live action TV series. An actor named George Reeves played Superman. In the late seventies and through the eighties Christopher Reeve (no "s") played Superman in a series of three movies. Let us not speak of IV, it scared my psyche so badly that I deny it ever happened to this day. We're talking big budget MST3K fodder.
That the two actors names are almost identical is a coincidence.
45 pages of legalese takes awhile to comprehend fully, and doing an off-the-cuff response could torpedo their entire suit
Sheesh! The pirate ship SCO must be full of large gaping holes by now then. Like I said the other day, every time something makes their stock stall or drop they put out something outrageous to counter it. There is no slow deliberate responding when you have a stock slide to stop.
I wonder what SCO going to say to recover the stock after this one? SCO's announcements used to make me really angry; now they're so far off the deep end that I can only spray Mountain Dew all over my monitor.
Picture this: A Mortal-Kombat fight ring with a bloodied slack postured Daryl McBride wearing a SCO themed "gi". His opponent is the RedHat "Shadow Dude" wearing an ultra stylish Humphrey Bogart looking trench coat and mirror shined shoes. "Shadow Dude" will be depicted administering a mean looking uppercut and of course the screen will have the "Finish Him!" banner on it.
I'd love to see Daryl spend some quality time with this guy. McBitch indeed.
1.SCO also had a 2.4.19 kernel. Maybe that should be mirrored. In any case, I've downloaded my copy.
2. Those source RPMS contain the kernel.org sources plus SCO's patches. Extract the tarballs from the RPM, patch the 2.4.13 kernel.org source up to any kernel you like. That 2.4.13 kernel is GPLed from SCO themselves....with everything that implies. Patching it up current should be good cover.
It would be even better to patch up from the 2.4.19 but whatever you can get......
To hell with that, just swith to Free BSD :)
What are you going to do once SCO finishes up with Linux and starts making outrageous claims about the BSDs?
Andways, what happened to a law-suit that puts SCO as the code stealer? I figure that Linux is open sourced, and SCO's isn't. What happened to claim that SCO did it backwards?
If that is the case, SCO will go out of their way to make it hard to prove; I wouldn't put altering developer logs above them. Even if true, if our hypothetical litigator can't prove it then SCO could probably countersue for defamation. I'm not saying it's impossible but some serious ducks would need to be in a row to do it. Something on the order of an entire chorus of Unixware developers willing to testify in court that this is the case.
In other words, they still refuse to take action in defending their trade secrets and rectifying the problem. No moral judge is going to cut them any slack with this kind of behaviour.
A moral judge isn't necessarily a warranted assumption. All SCO needs is a somewhat viable legal theory to hang their case on. That isn't to say a "amoral" judge wouldn't find SCO's legal theories wanting but morality needn't enter into it.
As seen on Yahoo Finance. Time to buy? :)
I know you're joking but from a strictly speculator point of view, it might not be a bad idea. I've been watching the SCOX price for a few months and have noticed a tendency of SCO's PR. Whenever the price drops or plateau's, you can count on yet another outrageous PR release from SCO to pump it back up. Before the week is out, expect SCO to make some sort of apocalyptic statement in regard to RedHat.
debs are actually renamed ar archives that conform to a specification and have been renamed. I have come across guides on unaring a deb,altering it and then packing it back up. I've never had to do it but the guides on how to do it didn't seem too bad.
I've never had a dependency problem I couldn't fix in Debian with a little noodling around with the system. On the other hand, I do sometimes recompile source debs to get options that I need. For instance, I deploy Netatalk with dhx authentication. I have to install the crypto devel libs and tweak the rules file to get it. Thankfully, I can build on one box and deploy the custom deb whereever needed.
I suspect that I could get most of the benefit of Gentoo by rebuilding the kernel, glibc, and maybe the xlib source debs with i686 options. At some point, I would like to see where the most benefit is reaped from custom compilation.
For a while, many people have been speculating that SCO-Caldera is looking to get bought out. The usual assumption is that the purchasing party would be IBM....
I present to you, gentle reader, another possibility. One that has the purchaser as not IBM, but Microsoft... think about it for a bit.. MS buys a SCO license at the first possible minute (more or less), then later starts openly postulating similar things as SCO...
Antitrust law still has teeth in Europe and elsewhere. When Bush leaves office, it may gain teeth here as well. MS buying SCO would entail extreme risks for dubious gain. MS is far better off pulling Darl's strings at a distance.
there is any way to stop the RIAA from getting a list of your shared files, but if you check the "don't share files" box (which would screw everyone else) does that stop a file list command?
Most clients have a "show other files this user has" search option. Disable that and if the client allows it set a "show no more than 1 search result from this computer". That way, a would be litigator has to search for particular items on your machine. They can with effort determine that you are sharing files but it will be difficult to see how many you are sharing.
When are they going to learn that we wont stop sharing files, we'll just keep switching to more obscure networks.
Thats just good old fashioned security by obscurity. Since the primary purpose of the RIAA's actions are public relations then they can really put a scare into people by busting a few from the "obscure" networks. And yes, this has to be a PR move. There are millions of P2P users. They can't sue them all so they are going to sue a cross-section of large to small traders on a variety of networks.
If you insist on using P2P "safely" in this climate then you are going to have to wait for the next generation of P2P apps. Those will at least attempt to engineer in "plausable deniability".
The problem with this is that SCO's story keeps changing. First it was just a contract beef with IBM. Then SCO owned by proxy every modern operating system. Then it was a small amount of code in the Linux kernel: less than 80 lines. Then it was hundreds of thousands of lines and hundreds of files. Then SCO starting making noises that the BSD's weren't safe either.
The bottom line is that nothing SCO says can be trusted. They are a lawsuit company now and will use any pretext to harass developers and users and pump their stock price. I fully expect that if everyone did revert to 2.2 kernels that SCO would find something to extort with there as well.
What the hell is a "Bloomin' Onions" ? Some kind of cockney foodstuff ? 'cause it ain't Australian.
Probably the same way French (no excuse me "freedom") fries aren't french....
A blooming onion is an onion that has been sliced across the top in a kind of star pattern then lightly seasoned, battered, and fried. It is often served as an appetizer in some of the newer family restaurants and steakhouses. I find them tasty at first but don't want very many bites of it. In my case, a strong onion aftertaste builds up and it starts not looking good in a hurry.
Well you can't setup software intentionally to not compile if you look at the open source definition it says that a free software (Open source) program can not be restricted in how it is used. Similarly the GPL says that an author can not restrict how a program is used if it under the GPL.
This is all true but project maintainers can still refuse to support renegade vendors. Also, the GPL doesn't rule out technical shenanigans. For instance, the build scripts for nmap try to detect SCO products and refuse to build binaries on them. Yes, a SCO user can remove those checks but his binary will be orphaned. Nobody will help him with any problems it has. The problem gets thornier. Say a SCO product needs some patches to the source to operate correctly, they won't be included by the maintainer. Since SCO is anathema now, there won't be enough community to maintain forks. Much of the value of Open Source comes from maintainer and community support. If that support is removed then running OS on renegade platforms will still be legal but hideously difficult.
Even if a maintainer doesn't go as far as nmap's author did, the build scripts can still inform SCO users that they are on their own until SCO starts behaving ethically.
Why aren't they issuing any statements with some short reasons why these claims are ridiculous?
IBM is going to fight this in a court of law. SCO is fighting this in the court of public opinion. The rules are different. Anyone who truly intends to fight in a court of law doesn't run his mouth unnecessarily. IBM's lawyers are going to have a field day with SCO's public statements.
IBM is SLOW. Every move is calculated, weighed, optioned, signed off by multiple layers of beauracracy, and conditioned in sherry casks, before actually being acted upon.
What SCO is doing is like taking a chainsaw to one of those black 2001 monoliths. It'll just sit there like a rock for several months before swallowing up the chainsaw wielder without a trace. The monolith won't have so much as a scratch on it either.
You can't actually invoke Godwin's law. It simply an understood convention that anyone who drags Nazis into online discussion is incapable of framing a good argument. I do the same thing with people who drag communism and socialism into discussions about software licensing and development. I don't point it out to them anymore, I simple mentally write them off as 16 year old randbot or rushroom losers.
All SCO has really done up to this point is file a breach of contract suit against IBM and run their mouth a lot. The contract suit may be somewhat meritorious but IBM will still hand them their heads on a platter. SCO's diarrhea of the mouth is another kettle of fish altogether. There's easy to enforce laws against it in Germany and Poland at least but maybe not elsewhere.
Yeah, I suppose RedHat may have a case at this point but they have to weigh the costs of suing SCO against what their mouth flapping is losing them. Basically, a company RH's size isn't going to sue over mere FUD. Once SCO starts actually mailing the nastygrams to RH's customers then the situation will change drastically. RH's customers paid money for what they believe is legal product and if RH wants to sell any more then they will have to do something "about those SCO guys that are hassling us" pronto.
For now, the distros don't have much to gain by filing a suit. Once the distros' customers are getting pinched then they'll have to. This probably means that SCO will just run their mouth as long as possible without actually doing anything. It won't help their little pump-n-dump scheme once the countersuits start flying.