This was pointed out by someone else so I'm just passing it along.
If SCO's argument against GPL is the ability to make more than one copy than ANY site/OEM license would be null and void. Think about how MS sends Dell one CD that they then use to load all the PC's that they sell and also to create that oh-so-obnoxious Recovery CD. Wouldn't this fall under the same issue?
How about the ol' MS Select License and their current Licensing 6.0 scheme where a company gets one set of install CD's and installs the software on every machine? Wouldn't this fall under the same issue?
Anyone have the script to the "To The Pain" section? That sounds more like what IBM is going to be doing to SCO.
I can see it now...
IBM: First, I'll drive down the value of your stock. Then, I'll raid your entire patent portfolio...
SCO: Yes, then you'll drive us into bankruptcy...
IBM: No, your company I shall leave intact so that every business who worked with you can stare upon your hideousness and say, "My god, what a hideous company"...
Actually, it is going to be relatively easy for IBM to put the big slap-down on SCO. The Lanham Act specifically goes towards finding against companies that make knowingly false statements that injure another company.
In IBM's case you have SCO's press release claiming that they pulled the AIX license when in fact Novell contractually forbade SCO from doing any such thing.
The complaint on SCO's side is that Sequent did this work for their Sys V Unix and thus should be considered a derivative work and protected thusly.
However, if you look at a lot of the work it was originally done (and patented) in a non-OS specific manner. Thus, the work was done and then IMPLEMENTED under their version of Unix. This makes a huge difference in that the original source of the work is not their Unix and thus isn't derived from their Unix.
I bet SCO would probably charge him even extra in an attempt to claim that the second child was an obvious derivative work of the first one so he'd have to pay extra as he is now a distributor. (I just pray to Ghu that he wouldn't have to post the "source code".:-D )
First off, the car analogy falls flat in that when your brakes start malfunctioning there's a rather noticable effect on the car's performance. In the computer world, you could have your PC zombied and not even know about it. (Let alone trying to explain to some people about zombies...)
It would actually be quite simple to get unwanted pictures onto a computer's HD. Simply use the resize capability of most modern browsers and send 1x1 pixel sized versions of the pics you don't want them to have. The PC will download the whole thing and then not really display it but it'll be in your cache.
Actually this is even MORE relevant to the case that was just being decided here in the US. In that one you have a "vigilante" who deliberately used a virus (SubSeven I believe) to infect and investigate computers. At the very least that action should seriously taint the evidence in question.
Since SCO has been very specific in alleging that the violations in question occur in the Linux kernel, then the proper agent to address this violation would be the entity that maintains the copyrighted version of the kernel.
Now, were SCO to prevail (that assumes that they were to actually file) in legal claims against Linux then they could demand that the further distribution of the kernel be stopped immediately. It would be extremely difficult for them to attempt to extract damages for the use of the kernel installed prior to any such judgement.
SCO is distributing a body of copyrighted work. The GPL is what is giving them the right to distribute that work.
Now, they have 2 options. Option 1 is that all work contained must be covered by that license. Option 2 is to immediately cease any and all distribution of the collected work.
Since they've foregone option 2 one would say that they are thus obliged under option 1.
First, they have steadfastly refused to offer ANY proof or description of what proprietary code of theirs is contained within Linux.
Second, they have been, and continue to be, a distributor of the Linux kernel.
Go read Eblen Moglen's analysis and pay attention to the copyright analogy portion about the book. (paraphrased)Publisher Y accuses Publisher X of including some of their copyrighted work in the latest and greated best seller. Instead of suing Publisher X they inform everyone who bought a copy of the book that they'll have to buy a "reader's license" in order to read the book.
The GPL isn't a contract. It is a copyright license.
That means that unless you agree to the terms of the license you do not have any rights to use the copyrighted work. Pure and simple.
Now you can go back to the owners of the copyright and try to negotiate a different license, but since SCO did not do that, then the only way they have any rights to distribute the copyrighted works in question is by agreeing to the terms of the GPL.
I found this quote from one article quite amusing: IBM claims SCO's case has no merit or supporting facts. The company is countersuing SCO for several issues: violation of the Linux General Public License (GPL) (source: http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/31287.htm l)
Now while I don't have much truck with the whole GNU/Linux debate it's funny how the GNU has been replaced by Linux in that line.
If that's the case, then they won't be upset even if they lose the right to distribute their software due to the patent claims.
Isn't SCO essentially "licensing" Linux by selling a license of their software to you? If they can't distribute then they might not be able to sell this new license either...
Has anyone seen the actual "license" that SCO is offerring? It would be interesting to see if one could be purchased and then demand the exact details of the "IP" being licensed by SCO. We could then sue them for selling a fraudulent license AND violating the GPL.
Yes people are doing lots of interesting things with every tool out there. The issue is when you look at something like TiVo it wasn't the OS evolving to fill demands. In that case, it was an idea that used an OS to create a demand.
The point I got from the article was that if you focus too much on the end product you could lose the real advantage/power of Linux.
The distro's do a great job of addressing the needs of the server and desktop worlds by providing a "finished" product and running their own process to update and evolve that product.
The thing is if you want to do something really unique and creative you have to go back to before that product and work from there.
While all OS's are "dynamic systems" in that they change and evolve over time, it is the *BSD and Linux's that are truely evolutionary.
Why? Because they have the ability to mutate and are subjected to survival tests.
Mutate you say? Look at TiVo. That was an obvious mutation/adaptation of the OS to fit a particular need. The great thing was that the mutation found it's way back into the mainstream and improved the "species".
Compare this to Windows XP Media Center edition. First off, it only came around after MS was shown that there was a potential market for something like this. Second, it's growth will be artificially controlled by MS.
So, we have two examples of "dynamic" growth but only the first one has the process that allows people to truely run off and explore those mutant possibilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Read Copywrong Update?!?
This was pointed out by someone else so I'm just passing it along.
If SCO's argument against GPL is the ability to make more than one copy than ANY site/OEM license would be null and void. Think about how MS sends Dell one CD that they then use to load all the PC's that they sell and also to create that oh-so-obnoxious Recovery CD. Wouldn't this fall under the same issue?
How about the ol' MS Select License and their current Licensing 6.0 scheme where a company gets one set of install CD's and installs the software on every machine? Wouldn't this fall under the same issue?
...would have been better.
Anyone have the script to the "To The Pain" section? That sounds more like what IBM is going to be doing to SCO.
I can see it now...
IBM: First, I'll drive down the value of your stock. Then, I'll raid your entire patent portfolio...
SCO: Yes, then you'll drive us into bankruptcy...
IBM: No, your company I shall leave intact so that every business who worked with you can stare upon your hideousness and say, "My god, what a hideous company"...
Or something like that.
Actually, it is going to be relatively easy for IBM to put the big slap-down on SCO. The Lanham Act specifically goes towards finding against companies that make knowingly false statements that injure another company.
In IBM's case you have SCO's press release claiming that they pulled the AIX license when in fact Novell contractually forbade SCO from doing any such thing.
Turns out Steve Jobs is filing suit against the possible confusion with OSX.
At least according to the SCO licensing FAQ. They're saying that people who bought SCO's Linux are going to have to buy an IP License as well.
That claim would probably work, but you'd have to leave one kid in the corner while the other is out playing until there's a "crash".
The complaint on SCO's side is that Sequent did this work for their Sys V Unix and thus should be considered a derivative work and protected thusly.
However, if you look at a lot of the work it was originally done (and patented) in a non-OS specific manner. Thus, the work was done and then IMPLEMENTED under their version of Unix. This makes a huge difference in that the original source of the work is not their Unix and thus isn't derived from their Unix.
Unix development methods:
printf( "Got here!/n" );
I bet SCO would probably charge him even extra in an attempt to claim that the second child was an obvious derivative work of the first one so he'd have to pay extra as he is now a distributor. (I just pray to Ghu that he wouldn't have to post the "source code". :-D )
(The eldest, by two minutes, is disassembling his toys, God Love Him! -sniff!-)
:-}
You'd better nip that right in the bud before someone gets all DMCA on his diaper clad behind.
First off, the car analogy falls flat in that when your brakes start malfunctioning there's a rather noticable effect on the car's performance. In the computer world, you could have your PC zombied and not even know about it. (Let alone trying to explain to some people about zombies...)
It would actually be quite simple to get unwanted pictures onto a computer's HD. Simply use the resize capability of most modern browsers and send 1x1 pixel sized versions of the pics you don't want them to have. The PC will download the whole thing and then not really display it but it'll be in your cache.
Actually this is even MORE relevant to the case that was just being decided here in the US. In that one you have a "vigilante" who deliberately used a virus (SubSeven I believe) to infect and investigate computers. At the very least that action should seriously taint the evidence in question.
Since SCO has been very specific in alleging that the violations in question occur in the Linux kernel, then the proper agent to address this violation would be the entity that maintains the copyrighted version of the kernel.
Now, were SCO to prevail (that assumes that they were to actually file) in legal claims against Linux then they could demand that the further distribution of the kernel be stopped immediately. It would be extremely difficult for them to attempt to extract damages for the use of the kernel installed prior to any such judgement.
SCO is distributing a body of copyrighted work. The GPL is what is giving them the right to distribute that work.
Now, they have 2 options. Option 1 is that all work contained must be covered by that license. Option 2 is to immediately cease any and all distribution of the collected work.
Since they've foregone option 2 one would say that they are thus obliged under option 1.
First, they have steadfastly refused to offer ANY proof or description of what proprietary code of theirs is contained within Linux.
Second, they have been, and continue to be, a distributor of the Linux kernel.
Go read Eblen Moglen's analysis and pay attention to the copyright analogy portion about the book.
(paraphrased)Publisher Y accuses Publisher X of including some of their copyrighted work in the latest and greated best seller. Instead of suing Publisher X they inform everyone who bought a copy of the book that they'll have to buy a "reader's license" in order to read the book.
Sounds pretty silly doesn't it?
The GPL isn't a contract. It is a copyright license.
That means that unless you agree to the terms of the license you do not have any rights to use the copyrighted work. Pure and simple.
Now you can go back to the owners of the copyright and try to negotiate a different license, but since SCO did not do that, then the only way they have any rights to distribute the copyrighted works in question is by agreeing to the terms of the GPL.
I found this quote from one article quite amusing:m l)
IBM claims SCO's case has no merit or supporting facts. The company is countersuing SCO for several issues: violation of the Linux General Public License (GPL)
(source: http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/31287.ht
Now while I don't have much truck with the whole GNU/Linux debate it's funny how the GNU has been replaced by Linux in that line.
Masterful.
A funny rating complete with slap down of the FSF and a sneak in of the GNAA troll. Truely a masterful work.
If that's the case, then they won't be upset even if they lose the right to distribute their software due to the patent claims.
Isn't SCO essentially "licensing" Linux by selling a license of their software to you? If they can't distribute then they might not be able to sell this new license either...
The whole thing is just stupifying confusing...
Has anyone seen the actual "license" that SCO is offerring? It would be interesting to see if one could be purchased and then demand the exact details of the "IP" being licensed by SCO. We could then sue them for selling a fraudulent license AND violating the GPL.
While we're at it, can we manufacture the shirts so that deoderant is somehow embedded in the fabric so that they'll take effect when being worn
This cannot be allowed to happen. The "slashdot effect" cannot be used for good.
Yes people are doing lots of interesting things with every tool out there. The issue is when you look at something like TiVo it wasn't the OS evolving to fill demands. In that case, it was an idea that used an OS to create a demand.
The point I got from the article was that if you focus too much on the end product you could lose the real advantage/power of Linux.
The distro's do a great job of addressing the needs of the server and desktop worlds by providing a "finished" product and running their own process to update and evolve that product.
The thing is if you want to do something really unique and creative you have to go back to before that product and work from there.
No prob. I'm capped anyways. Our "friend" Bit is usually sitting there throwing up comments that we feel obligated to shoot down.
It's funny to see stuff migrating back and forth between discussion boards.
While all OS's are "dynamic systems" in that they change and evolve over time, it is the *BSD and Linux's that are truely evolutionary.
Why? Because they have the ability to mutate and are subjected to survival tests.
Mutate you say? Look at TiVo. That was an obvious mutation/adaptation of the OS to fit a particular need. The great thing was that the mutation found it's way back into the mainstream and improved the "species".
Compare this to Windows XP Media Center edition. First off, it only came around after MS was shown that there was a potential market for something like this. Second, it's growth will be artificially controlled by MS.
So, we have two examples of "dynamic" growth but only the first one has the process that allows people to truely run off and explore those mutant possibilities.
We were having a wonderful discussion over there. I should have thought of copying it and having my "cake" and eating it too. :-D