Ahh, but the problem there is that the whole 'ownership of derivative work' thing only works when there is a contract in place. If I copy a chapter of a book and put it in my book, that's copyright infringement, but it doesn't make my book now owned by the plagarized author. Same with trade secrets and any other form of IP "protection".
There is no contract between SCO and "Linux", so the derivative work angle will not work. It also wouldn't work even if IBM did do something wrong, since they don't own the rights to the rest of Linux either so nothing they could have done could change the ownership of any of that copyright or any other IP besides that which they added.
Surely copyright ("copy right") is there just to give the creator of the work the ability to control their creation and to make money from it, right?
As this article describes, the creator's copy right was meant to be held only for a limited time after which the work would enter the public domain. So the true reason that this copy right is given is not so that the creator or the 'owner' of the copyright could make money, but instead to give motivation for the creation of content for the good of society.
So I say we need to start giving the term 'copyright' a different spin. It isn't just the right of the owners to prevent copying, but also (perhaps moreso) the right of everyone to copy. We should talk of these copyright extensions not as strengthening the rights of the owners, but weakening those of everyone else.
Remember that it is your tax dollars that pay to give this limited right to the authors and to protect it. When copyrights were 14-28 years, there was an excellent chance that all the work which your tax dollars were paying to protect (and therefore effectively partially subsidizing) would be free for your use within your lifetime. That is no longer the case.
As much as Google (and all relatively unbiased search engines) try to return the most relavent information for a particular query, there are people who make a living and spend their lives trying to spin/rewrite/rework web content so that search engines will rank it higher no matter what search terms as long as they're related. This type of work is not cheap, so it is more likely that FTD has done this than, say, a site on botany.
Heck, it'll be in the source but if you don't compile it into the kernel then it might as well not be in the source!
And yes, certainly there are people (well, at least one;) who do use the NUMA support. No offense, but if those people have to pay SCO $1500 to use Linux on their $15000 ($150000? I'm not even sure what order of magnitude these systems are on) machines, I'm not so concerned.
While this case has been nothing if not intentionally confusing on SCO's part, what seems to be clear from the video interview is that SCO is now concentrating on the NUMA code.
Now, I'll admit that I only have a vague notion of how NUMA support affects the kernel. But how many people actually use hardware that requires NUMA support? While I assume that adding NUMA support has had an impact on code used for simple 2-4 CPU SMP and even single-processor code like the scheduler and memory management techniques, I doubt that it is required for such support. It seems that simply removing support for NUMA systems would take away most of the weight behind their claims.
I use Linux on systems having from 1 to 6 CPUs, nothing that couldn't have been used with a 2.2 kernel. Am I using anything in the 2.4 kernels that relates to their NUMA claims? I doubt it. If I'm not, then most likely anyone who hasn't compiled in NUMA support (which I think is just the "Multi-node NUMA system support" and maybe a couple other options) isn't really using that code anyway.
I'm very much looking forward to seeing some sort of license agreement I can print out. I fully intend to augment it by doing essentially what I proposed that IBM do in this comment a while ago.
I think I'll add a "P.S. Show me the code, you asshats. I'm not paying unless you show me why I should." to the FAX.
Uhm, I think a Department of Commerce building is as 1400 Pennsylvania Ave. The last time I was in DC, the only people living there were a few homeless persons, but yes, I think that court order probably has something to do with there being more of them as well.
Do you really believe that Saturday Night Live parodies are reality?
No.
I figured the post would be modded "Funny" if at all, certainly not "Insightful".
It was meant mostly as a joke, but I do doubt that he could use it. I used to think that you had to be on the high end of the smart scale to be in a position like that, but then I got laughed off the stage (almost literally) for making a similar "but he can't be that dumb, he got elected!" argument for Quayle many years ago. In this age of nothing but scripted answers (from debates to press conferences), it isn't what you know, its who you know that gets you elected. I say "in this age" because it sure seems like things have changed but honestly I don't know -- it could always have been this way. If nothing else, GW has made it very hard to find out what/how much he knows.
And I haven't watched SNL regularly since it was funny, and that was at least back when Carvey was Bush and Hartman was Clinton.
What? I think you replied to the wrong post. I didn't say I expected him (or anyone) to sift through all the crap that lands in his inbox. I'm just suggesting in that post that the system is that the current POTUS probably couldn't use to email himself.
That's evidentally a moot point, since he has evidentally made it clear he will not use email to avoid incriminating himself or others. Yes, Nixon was a great teacher in some regards.
Oops. Sorry, I guess I started trolling there a little, eh?
While I agree with you, the main way that we, the public, communicate with "the government" is through elections. Being not a democracy but a representative democracy, we chose those who make the decisions for us (in most cases). Other than situations where public comment is explicitly called for, they don't have to listen to us or even pretend to, unless they want to get re-elected.
So if you find that those representing you aren't paying attention to your needs or, in this case, are trying to make it hard for you to contact them, DON'T VOTE FOR THEM NEXT TIME.
[I could be wrong about this, though -- does anyone know of any sort of requirement for the federal government to read/respond to correspondence?]
Contacting the President should be a process simple enough that anyone in the USA, even those with limited technical, communication, and cognitive abilities could perform.
There's no excuse for a confusing system like this reaching the public, as the White House has someone "in-house", so to speak, who is a great benchmark for the lowest common denominator in those three areas. From the description, I believe there is no chance this procedure would have passed the "Dubya" test.
Notice I said "starting to wane". I'd still prefer the Zaurus, though it is quite a pain in the ass to get right now unless you want to pay Dynamism's prices.
I bought the SL-5500 (within the past couple months, actually) basically so I could have a PDA and have Linux running in my pants. Well, the builtin PDA apps (even the brand new ones) do various explicit things to the appendages of barnyard animals. It doesn't quite fit in my pants, either.
The Zaurus (I'm speaking of the SL-5500, but the environment is roughly the same between all the models AFAIK) has other issues too. Too many things can lock up the GUI for seconds at a time, like connecting to a wireless network for instance.
The new Clie is pretty ugly compared to the 760 too.
No, I get it. They don't have to do a damn thing for it, and yet they have for years. What happens when most companies no longer want to pursue a project? Normally dumping a project/program means it gets left where it is or trashed. They're actually sponsoring additional work on it, when they really have no reason to that I can see.
As much as we might hate AOL for littering the physical world with their signup CDs and the virtual world with their users, one has to give them props for continuing to support Mozilla.
Granted, they mainly have used Mozilla as a barganing chip to get a deal with MS, but I suspect that isn't a long term situation anyway.
The 5600 only has 32MB of RAM for runtime memory, the rest is builtin flash RAM for storage. The 5500 had 64MB of RAM, with 32MB being battery-backed. With OpenZaurus or other third party images, you can actually use all 64MB of RAM in the 5500 for runtime, and just use an SD/MMC or CF card for long-term storage.
The 400mhz XScale used in the 5600 and the C700 isn't a whole lot faster than the 200mhz CPU used in the 5500, but the CPU contributes to the much better battery life of the 5600 vs the 5500.
But yes, I have a feeling the 5600 or even the 5500 would be a better choice for most due to the existing user/dev base, though some might like the form factor or the newness of the Yopy.
Personally, I'm using a 5500 while waiting for prices on the new Zaurus C760s to come down -- they're evidentally about 70000yen (US$600) in Japan right now, and about $800 from importers like Dynamism.
Actually, I recently saw a story somewhere about a rather comprehensive onboard GPS navigation tool for small aircraft which even took into account weather and TFRs. The TFR and weather information was updated in roughly realtime.
But yes, I do agree with everything else in your comment. Any type of external control that isn't able to be overridden by the pilots sounds bad.
As for hackability, if the 'soft wall' (or TFR, should such a system also take these into account) information were compromised, it might be as simple as setting up a path of fake wall/TSR information in the system that leads the plane directly to a 'target'.
the rest of the comment (as I see it)
on
Gates and Security
·
· Score: 3, Funny
'didn't come true, and I don't believe it will.'
...until everyone switches to Palladium
Removal now irrelevant to their case
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 1
"[SCO] said that until the parties go to court, it doesn't want the Linux community to remove the code in question. SCO thinks it's more than changing a few lines of code."
How could the removal of the code from the current Linux kernel possibly matter in their case against IBM? If IBM did it, they did it. Changing the kernel code to remove the [potentially?] offending code can't change that. Their suit would be just as valid if tomorrow all that code was removed from the kernel.
They think that by leaving the code undisclosed and therefore in the Linux kernel they'll be able to say that if you're running Linux, you're using our code and so you must buy a license. That's such a bizarre concept, that I'm unable to come up with even a mediocre analogy to explain it.
Can anyone think of either an analogy for this *or* another reason why they want to leave the code in?
Also, they've critized Linus' ability to track where IP that ends up in the Linux kernel comes from. How do they plan to account for all the IP that has entered "their" codebase over the past 20 years?
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh, but the problem there is that the whole 'ownership of derivative work' thing only works when there is a contract in place. If I copy a chapter of a book and put it in my book, that's copyright infringement, but it doesn't make my book now owned by the plagarized author. Same with trade secrets and any other form of IP "protection".
There is no contract between SCO and "Linux", so the derivative work angle will not work. It also wouldn't work even if IBM did do something wrong, since they don't own the rights to the rest of Linux either so nothing they could have done could change the ownership of any of that copyright or any other IP besides that which they added.
Surely copyright ("copy right") is there just to give the creator of the work the ability to control their creation and to make money from it, right?
As this article describes, the creator's copy right was meant to be held only for a limited time after which the work would enter the public domain. So the true reason that this copy right is given is not so that the creator or the 'owner' of the copyright could make money, but instead to give motivation for the creation of content for the good of society.
So I say we need to start giving the term 'copyright' a different spin. It isn't just the right of the owners to prevent copying, but also (perhaps moreso) the right of everyone to copy. We should talk of these copyright extensions not as strengthening the rights of the owners, but weakening those of everyone else.
Remember that it is your tax dollars that pay to give this limited right to the authors and to protect it. When copyrights were 14-28 years, there was an excellent chance that all the work which your tax dollars were paying to protect (and therefore effectively partially subsidizing) would be free for your use within your lifetime. That is no longer the case.
As much as Google (and all relatively unbiased search engines) try to return the most relavent information for a particular query, there are people who make a living and spend their lives trying to spin/rewrite/rework web content so that search engines will rank it higher no matter what search terms as long as they're related. This type of work is not cheap, so it is more likely that FTD has done this than, say, a site on botany.
Damn. I usually barely *drive* 70 miles a week.
i forget -- is this "uncertainty" or "doubt"?
Heck, it'll be in the source but if you don't compile it into the kernel then it might as well not be in the source!
;) who do use the NUMA support. No offense, but if those people have to pay SCO $1500 to use Linux on their $15000 ($150000? I'm not even sure what order of magnitude these systems are on) machines, I'm not so concerned.
And yes, certainly there are people (well, at least one
While this case has been nothing if not intentionally confusing on SCO's part, what seems to be clear from the video interview is that SCO is now concentrating on the NUMA code.
Now, I'll admit that I only have a vague notion of how NUMA support affects the kernel. But how many people actually use hardware that requires NUMA support? While I assume that adding NUMA support has had an impact on code used for simple 2-4 CPU SMP and even single-processor code like the scheduler and memory management techniques, I doubt that it is required for such support. It seems that simply removing support for NUMA systems would take away most of the weight behind their claims.
I use Linux on systems having from 1 to 6 CPUs, nothing that couldn't have been used with a 2.2 kernel. Am I using anything in the 2.4 kernels that relates to their NUMA claims? I doubt it. If I'm not, then most likely anyone who hasn't compiled in NUMA support (which I think is just the "Multi-node NUMA system support" and maybe a couple other options) isn't really using that code anyway.
For this, I have schematics for reverse engineering proof hardware, but the comment box is too small to contain them.
I'm very much looking forward to seeing some sort of license agreement I can print out. I fully intend to augment it by doing essentially what I proposed that IBM do in this comment a while ago.
I think I'll add a "P.S. Show me the code, you asshats. I'm not paying unless you show me why I should." to the FAX.
Uhm, I think a Department of Commerce building is as 1400 Pennsylvania Ave. The last time I was in DC, the only people living there were a few homeless persons, but yes, I think that court order probably has something to do with there being more of them as well.
No.
I figured the post would be modded "Funny" if at all, certainly not "Insightful".
It was meant mostly as a joke, but I do doubt that he could use it. I used to think that you had to be on the high end of the smart scale to be in a position like that, but then I got laughed off the stage (almost literally) for making a similar "but he can't be that dumb, he got elected!" argument for Quayle many years ago. In this age of nothing but scripted answers (from debates to press conferences), it isn't what you know, its who you know that gets you elected. I say "in this age" because it sure seems like things have changed but honestly I don't know -- it could always have been this way. If nothing else, GW has made it very hard to find out what/how much he knows.
And I haven't watched SNL regularly since it was funny, and that was at least back when Carvey was Bush and Hartman was Clinton.
What? I think you replied to the wrong post. I didn't say I expected him (or anyone) to sift through all the crap that lands in his inbox. I'm just suggesting in that post that the system is that the current POTUS probably couldn't use to email himself.
That's evidentally a moot point, since he has evidentally made it clear he will not use email to avoid incriminating himself or others. Yes, Nixon was a great teacher in some regards.
Oops. Sorry, I guess I started trolling there a little, eh?
While I agree with you, the main way that we, the public, communicate with "the government" is through elections. Being not a democracy but a representative democracy, we chose those who make the decisions for us (in most cases). Other than situations where public comment is explicitly called for, they don't have to listen to us or even pretend to, unless they want to get re-elected.
So if you find that those representing you aren't paying attention to your needs or, in this case, are trying to make it hard for you to contact them, DON'T VOTE FOR THEM NEXT TIME.
[I could be wrong about this, though -- does anyone know of any sort of requirement for the federal government to read/respond to correspondence?]
Contacting the President should be a process simple enough that anyone in the USA, even those with limited technical, communication, and cognitive abilities could perform.
There's no excuse for a confusing system like this reaching the public, as the White House has someone "in-house", so to speak, who is a great benchmark for the lowest common denominator in those three areas. From the description, I believe there is no chance this procedure would have passed the "Dubya" test.
Notice I said "starting to wane". I'd still prefer the Zaurus, though it is quite a pain in the ass to get right now unless you want to pay Dynamism's prices.
I bought the SL-5500 (within the past couple months, actually) basically so I could have a PDA and have Linux running in my pants. Well, the builtin PDA apps (even the brand new ones) do various explicit things to the appendages of barnyard animals. It doesn't quite fit in my pants, either.
The Zaurus (I'm speaking of the SL-5500, but the environment is roughly the same between all the models AFAIK) has other issues too. Too many things can lock up the GUI for seconds at a time, like connecting to a wireless network for instance.
The new Clie is pretty ugly compared to the 760 too.
No, I get it. They don't have to do a damn thing for it, and yet they have for years. What happens when most companies no longer want to pursue a project? Normally dumping a project/program means it gets left where it is or trashed. They're actually sponsoring additional work on it, when they really have no reason to that I can see.
Ooh. I feel my previously-unwavering desire for a Zaurus 760 beginning to wane...
Very nice.
As much as we might hate AOL for littering the physical world with their signup CDs and the virtual world with their users, one has to give them props for continuing to support Mozilla.
Granted, they mainly have used Mozilla as a barganing chip to get a deal with MS, but I suspect that isn't a long term situation anyway.
I'm not sure if HP-UX should fit into that scheme, since it mainly just PH-UX's you over.
The 5600 only has 32MB of RAM for runtime memory, the rest is builtin flash RAM for storage. The 5500 had 64MB of RAM, with 32MB being battery-backed. With OpenZaurus or other third party images, you can actually use all 64MB of RAM in the 5500 for runtime, and just use an SD/MMC or CF card for long-term storage.
The 400mhz XScale used in the 5600 and the C700 isn't a whole lot faster than the 200mhz CPU used in the 5500, but the CPU contributes to the much better battery life of the 5600 vs the 5500.
But yes, I have a feeling the 5600 or even the 5500 would be a better choice for most due to the existing user/dev base, though some might like the form factor or the newness of the Yopy.
Personally, I'm using a 5500 while waiting for prices on the new Zaurus C760s to come down -- they're evidentally about 70000yen (US$600) in Japan right now, and about $800 from importers like Dynamism.
Hell, I get confused sometimes. For instance, I'm still not sure what a CowboyNeal is.
Actually, I recently saw a story somewhere about a rather comprehensive onboard GPS navigation tool for small aircraft which even took into account weather and TFRs. The TFR and weather information was updated in roughly realtime.
But yes, I do agree with everything else in your comment. Any type of external control that isn't able to be overridden by the pilots sounds bad.
As for hackability, if the 'soft wall' (or TFR, should such a system also take these into account) information were compromised, it might be as simple as setting up a path of fake wall/TSR information in the system that leads the plane directly to a 'target'.
How could the removal of the code from the current Linux kernel possibly matter in their case against IBM? If IBM did it, they did it. Changing the kernel code to remove the [potentially?] offending code can't change that. Their suit would be just as valid if tomorrow all that code was removed from the kernel.
They think that by leaving the code undisclosed and therefore in the Linux kernel they'll be able to say that if you're running Linux, you're using our code and so you must buy a license. That's such a bizarre concept, that I'm unable to come up with even a mediocre analogy to explain it.
Can anyone think of either an analogy for this *or* another reason why they want to leave the code in?
Also, they've critized Linus' ability to track where IP that ends up in the Linux kernel comes from. How do they plan to account for all the IP that has entered "their" codebase over the past 20 years?
...MSWindows inches closer to where BeOS was 7 or 8 years ago.