There is very exacting language in the GPL that states if any section/code is tainted then the whole license is invalid.
So, either the license is valid and thus all is GPL'd or SCO was illegally selling unlicensed work. (Either way they're in trouble.) You see, if they prevail on their case then they lost all rights to the rest of the code being distributed. Additionally, they continued to distribute the code (both clean and "tainted") in source code form with the GPL stamped on each file for two months beyond the time they made a formal legal challenge.
Your example fails unless you add in the following: in order to sell Dr. Pepper, Pepsi agrees that all contained ingredients are fully licensed and immune to any claims that they (Pepsi) might have against Dr. Pepper. You see this is the real crux of the matter.
By releasing the code, SCO obstensibly agreed to the terms of the GPL. It's kind of late to try and say "I didn't mean it" now.
The IRS asks you to provide receipts as proof of deductions or claims that you are making to change your tax liability.
They could care less what you are buying or if you bought it or not, they only care when you are claiming it towards your taxes.
They can use a visual inspection of your home as an attempt to prove that you may be underdeclaring your income (say you report an income of $25,000/year but have two Ferrari's in your front driveway that are registered in your name) but they can't simply order you to produce a receipt on any old purchase that you may have made.
DRM does NOT protect copyrights. DRM protects copy restrictions. Why? Well look at CSS as the case of DRM-light. It keeps the normal person from viewing out-of-region material or using non-approved viewers. It doesn't do a thing to stop the technically savvy copier/user.
Second of all, if a clothing store wanted to, it could go to your house, and say "show us the receipt for the shirt you're wearing or we'll take you to court," and if you didn't show them the receipt, they could file a lawsuit.
I'd love to see a clothing store try to do that. Is there any particular relevant law that they would be using to prosecute you? (Note there's no law that I can think of that would allow the filing of a lawsuit [which is civil tort as opposed to a criminal case which is what shoplifting is].)
There is absolutely no parallel between the two as there is no "license" attached to a shirt. (This has to do with the fact that there is no "property" atached to the song.)
The Hormel group has really been good natured about the whole thing going back to the Monty Python skit and going forward from there. They provide the following page explaining their position: http://www.spam.com/ci/ci_in.htm
I think they might be objecting to combining Spam and Arrest. (Considering what their (Hormel's) product does to the cholestorally challenged they may have cause for complaint.:-D )
Trademark protection and dilution are certainly a strange area of the law to deal in.
Maybe instead of "Best Practices" we can come up with a new term or two: HBUY (Haven't Blown Up Yet) Practices WNRSWTW (We're Not Really Sure Why They Work) Practices DSABAATO (Doesn't Suck As Bad As All The Others) Practices
I think the idea of "Best Practices" really does aim at security, reliability, and robustness. The idea is that someone/some group has found a set of methods that seems to work quite well in regard to these. So, let's use these as the baseline and improve from their instead of creating the same screwups all over again.
Re:Then why does IIS keep getting hacked?!?
on
Bill Gates On Linux
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The contention was that Windows was getting hacked because it was the biggest target. Well, IIS isn't the biggest target and it's still getting hacked.
And I'm sure if I rooted your Apache box, I could depend on your password files and other important files sitting in/etc.
You can certainly expect to find some files in/etc. The big if in your scenario is rooting the box in the first place. Was there any particular 'sploit that you planned to use or are you going to just keep trying things? And, oh yeah, what if I'm running Apache on Windows? Not much in the way of/etc files then...
The point is that in the case of Apache it's an application running on a whole range of OS's. Additionally, it can run the web server with reduced or non-existant user permissions so if you hack it you're not going to get anywhere.
While there are certainly methods that can be used to perform OS typing, exploit searches, and the like the issue is size and time. A good Linux worm is going to take too much time to write unless you can find one vulnerable service that is running everywhere (BIND hacks, etc.).
MS OSes get hacked because they're EASY tagets, not because they're LARGE targets.
You realize that he was saying that Mr. Lif would clear (conservatively mind you) $5 of that $15 for each ticket. Well, by that math there's $500,000 to cover all of those expenses. (Or are we saying that the venues get to pocket 2x the money for little to no effort?)
We've already seen the numbers run by Steve Albini and Janis Ian about how much money most artists make from recording contracts (I believe it was less than the average 7-11 worker.) Just go look at TLC's having to declare bankruptcy (and they were certainly no small act) while their records were selling like hot cakes.
Even if all of the numbers you quote are correct (and they very well could be) then where is there ANY income for artists?
Then why does IIS keep getting hacked?!?
on
Bill Gates On Linux
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Ah, the ol' "largest target" falacy.
IIS enjoys only one half the market share of Apache for web servers. Meanwhile IIS enjoys the majority of actual hacking events.
Why? Monocultured soft target. Look at Nimda and Code Red they're working on the hopes that you have your files located in C:\winnt\system32\...
Easy target. Pushover even. But NOT the largest target.
Your Linux scenario neglects a few things about priviledges needed to open up ports and the like. You also need to give that program execute priviledges and hope that (in your scenario) they are using the/home directory structure instead of something like/usr/home or who cares/knows.
I think we need to rename the CLR. LCLR = Lowest Common Language Runtime
The thing is that for languages to work under CLR they have to be changed (sometimes quite dramatically) to fit into the object oriented environment that CLR is. The only language that fits cleanly is the new one they wrote JAV^h^h^hC# (yeah, cheap shot).
The point about anything compiling to Java byte-code, but not well, applies to most other languages that work within the CLR. (Just look at how much pain it causes VB "programmers".)
The only company that was making public statements about merging Unix and Linux together was SCO/Caldera. In fact they went so far as to create their Linux Personality Module for running Linux code on their Unix offerring.
So, I guess Darl can go around making "true" statements by being very careful to not define/understand the "meaning of 'it'".
no treading at all. There's certainly no lack of confused people in the world.:-D I was just amused by it is all. (Honestly I checked the UID's to see if I should be apologizing to you instead.)
First they didn't bother to implement core Java functionality in their VM. (JNI was one main example.) Second, they made changes to core Java classes.
MS could have very easily had all of the new functionality that they wanted if they were just willing to implement Java as it was and put all of the other functionality in the com.microsoft packages area.
Instead they were busy deliberately polluting Java, threatening other companies (see the whole Intel "advice"), and writing restrictive contracts with programmers to force them to use MS's VM in exchange for getting technical information for Windows.
Note that the current case is ONLY about the damage that MS did to Java via their anti-trust actions. All other complaints regarding the initial contract were settled already. (Though they did address the fact that MS isn't complying with the settlement terms.)
Sun's case for forcing Microsoft to carry Java is pretty ludicrous. They sued Microsoft to stop them carrying Java.
Wrong. Completely wrong. Totally devoid of fact.
Sun sued Microsoft in an attempt to force Microsoft to comply with a contract that they voluntarily entered into.
Interesting thing that. You sign a contract and you're expected to actually live up to the terms of the contract. In MS's case they completely failed to live up to the terms of the contract. Additionally, they refused to make changes to come into compliance with the terms of the contract. At that point there was no other option but to void the contract.
As for the rest of your comment. I'll put that down to simple opinion and non-sequitors.
Let's see: usage rights - according to SCO they can't use it for anything except AIX. resale - can't sell it for anything except AIX. ownership - only own distribution rights in the context of AIX
If that's not trying to claim control than I don't know what it.
Go read Cringely's article about the development of RCU. here.
Sequent developed the concept and the initial code before they looked at ANY OS. They happened to implement it first in DYNIX but that was merely the final step of testing the theory through implementation.
So, Sequent didn't copy code from AIX/DYNIX into Linux, they used the same base code when working on both.
The point of the ol' DoJ vs MS trial was to show that MS ran around pointing a lot of guns at a lot of people to get them to stop supporting Java.
The point now is that MS has been found guilty of gun waving and there should be some compensation/restitution. The Appeals Court decision (based on a prelim scan/read) is interesting in that they're saying Sun can't prove immediate harm but they can come back and ask for an injunction when/if they can. Motz's original order was based on the fact that there's no way except after the fact to go and point at the exact date when a market tip occurred. Seems to be a bit of a circular gotcha there.
I think you need the separate VM or at least separate out memory spaces to avoid potential object conflicts.
Say you have an applet that uses a Singleton type object in the core VM. So, you're counting on this one instance and probably are setting values on it. (Oh, let's say the System.properties object as an example.) Now along comes another applet that wants to load in it's own set of properties to work with. Obviously you both expect things to remain the way they are and changes could be quite "interesting".
So, there are definitely some implications behind running multiple applets/applications in the same VM beyond mere RAM.
SCO does not lay claim to the Sequent code. IBM owns that free and clear. SCO's opinion is that because it was first integrated to AIX, it is a derivative work of UNIX, and can not be released to anyone without a UNIX liscense. But SCO does not lay claim to it, since they did not write it.
SCO is certainly laying claim to the code. They're saying that you need one of THEIR licenses in order to use IBM's code. Now they aren't saying the invented the code certainly, but they are trying to lay claim to any and all sublicensing rights.
Taking the civilians (on the planes) hostage was the means, not the end. It was the only way to control the plane, so they did it. They could have gotten their own plane and tried to dive bomb the Pentagon. They were in fact counting on the hijacker doctrine to allow them unfettered movement and to not be shot down/engaged by military forces. The civilians were shields. This is directly reflected on the cowardice charge.
The Pentagon was not a military target because there was no state of war. The fact that it is a military institution means that it becomes a target if there is an actual state of war. (Note that a lot of essentially civilian buildings/locations become military targets during war time.)
Look at your final sentence and you have the crucial difference (at least as how I parse the whole military/non-military target): In wartime, practically all of Washington DC is Fair Game.(emphasis added)
First off, the code in question was implemented on PTx(?) which was a variant based off the licensed IP. Second off, the code they're debating was in fact written for OS/2 and ported from there.
SCO is trying ot claim that since the writers worked on both the Unix variant and the OS/2 one that the knowledge used from the one extends the license to the other.
They're trying to lay claim to a derivative of a derivative of a derivative. To make matters more entertaining the actual derivative was a paper about a generic RCU implementation with nothing tied to a particular OS. (See Cringely's article: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030619. html for details.)
SCO is claiming that IBM licensed some code (from AT&T mind you) and since they (actually Sequent) wrote some code that ran on top of that licensed code then they had to obey the license for the new, original work created without any help or IP from the "licensor".
That would be like saying since McAfee wrote Virus Scan on top of Windows and using the information from Windows then they can't reuse any of that code in writing a Virus Scanner for any other OS.
The members of the French Resistence were in fact involved in a war and fighting an occupying force. There are absolutely no parallels to be drawn in this case.
The terrorists of 9/11 chose to strike in a cowardly fashion and attempted to extract as many civilian deaths as possible. Terrorists. Cowards. End of discussion.
Mr. McVeigh at best was mentally deranged. There are already well established methods within this country to bring about change. These methods go up to things like civil disobedience. They do not cover wanton mass murder. The fact that only 7 people killed in the building were actually federal officers should give you a hint about that.
He believed the FedGov was hopelessly perverted from it's original design and had become a threat. Views I tend to also agree with. Well now isn't that interesting. Is there anything in particular that you find particularly threatening about the current government? Did you vote in the last election? Have you considered running for office yourself? Maybe you volunteered to work on a campaign of someone who's views you agree with? I would recommend pursuing any and all of those courses if you find the government such a threat to your wellbeing and happiness.
I would also hope that you articulate your problems much better than Mr. McVeigh did.
Mr. McVeigh does not deserve nor warrant the title revolutionist.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you say "Suck it, bitch!" in Japanese?
...Microsoft. :-D
Same as you do in the US...
Beware if it's kool-aid. :-D
(Introducing BPOD - The Blue Punch of Death.)
There is very exacting language in the GPL that states if any section/code is tainted then the whole license is invalid.
So, either the license is valid and thus all is GPL'd or SCO was illegally selling unlicensed work. (Either way they're in trouble.) You see, if they prevail on their case then they lost all rights to the rest of the code being distributed. Additionally, they continued to distribute the code (both clean and "tainted") in source code form with the GPL stamped on each file for two months beyond the time they made a formal legal challenge.
Your example fails unless you add in the following: in order to sell Dr. Pepper, Pepsi agrees that all contained ingredients are fully licensed and immune to any claims that they (Pepsi) might have against Dr. Pepper. You see this is the real crux of the matter.
By releasing the code, SCO obstensibly agreed to the terms of the GPL. It's kind of late to try and say "I didn't mean it" now.
The IRS asks you to provide receipts as proof of deductions or claims that you are making to change your tax liability.
They could care less what you are buying or if you bought it or not, they only care when you are claiming it towards your taxes.
They can use a visual inspection of your home as an attempt to prove that you may be underdeclaring your income (say you report an income of $25,000/year but have two Ferrari's in your front driveway that are registered in your name) but they can't simply order you to produce a receipt on any old purchase that you may have made.
DRM does NOT protect copyrights. DRM protects copy restrictions. Why? Well look at CSS as the case of DRM-light. It keeps the normal person from viewing out-of-region material or using non-approved viewers. It doesn't do a thing to stop the technically savvy copier/user.
Second of all, if a clothing store wanted to, it could go to your house, and say "show us the receipt for the shirt you're wearing or we'll take you to court," and if you didn't show them the receipt, they could file a lawsuit.
I'd love to see a clothing store try to do that. Is there any particular relevant law that they would be using to prosecute you? (Note there's no law that I can think of that would allow the filing of a lawsuit [which is civil tort as opposed to a criminal case which is what shoplifting is].)
There is absolutely no parallel between the two as there is no "license" attached to a shirt. (This has to do with the fact that there is no "property" atached to the song.)
The judge ruled that a reasonable person was not going to confuse a canned meat product with a foam rubber hand puppet.
:-D
Did the judge also rule on which tasted better?
The Hormel group has really been good natured about the whole thing going back to the Monty Python skit and going forward from there. They provide the following page explaining their position:
:-D )
http://www.spam.com/ci/ci_in.htm
I think they might be objecting to combining Spam and Arrest. (Considering what their (Hormel's) product does to the cholestorally challenged they may have cause for complaint.
Trademark protection and dilution are certainly a strange area of the law to deal in.
Maybe instead of "Best Practices" we can come up with a new term or two:
HBUY (Haven't Blown Up Yet) Practices
WNRSWTW (We're Not Really Sure Why They Work) Practices
DSABAATO (Doesn't Suck As Bad As All The Others) Practices
I think the idea of "Best Practices" really does aim at security, reliability, and robustness. The idea is that someone/some group has found a set of methods that seems to work quite well in regard to these. So, let's use these as the baseline and improve from their instead of creating the same screwups all over again.
The contention was that Windows was getting hacked because it was the biggest target. Well, IIS isn't the biggest target and it's still getting hacked.
/etc.
/etc. The big if in your scenario is rooting the box in the first place. Was there any particular 'sploit that you planned to use or are you going to just keep trying things? And, oh yeah, what if I'm running Apache on Windows? Not much in the way of /etc files then...
And I'm sure if I rooted your Apache box, I could depend on your password files and other important files sitting in
You can certainly expect to find some files in
The point is that in the case of Apache it's an application running on a whole range of OS's. Additionally, it can run the web server with reduced or non-existant user permissions so if you hack it you're not going to get anywhere.
While there are certainly methods that can be used to perform OS typing, exploit searches, and the like the issue is size and time. A good Linux worm is going to take too much time to write unless you can find one vulnerable service that is running everywhere (BIND hacks, etc.).
MS OSes get hacked because they're EASY tagets, not because they're LARGE targets.
You realize that he was saying that Mr. Lif would clear (conservatively mind you) $5 of that $15 for each ticket. Well, by that math there's $500,000 to cover all of those expenses. (Or are we saying that the venues get to pocket 2x the money for little to no effort?)
We've already seen the numbers run by Steve Albini and Janis Ian about how much money most artists make from recording contracts (I believe it was less than the average 7-11 worker.) Just go look at TLC's having to declare bankruptcy (and they were certainly no small act) while their records were selling like hot cakes.
Even if all of the numbers you quote are correct (and they very well could be) then where is there ANY income for artists?
Ah, the ol' "largest target" falacy.
/home directory structure instead of something like /usr/home or who cares/knows.
IIS enjoys only one half the market share of Apache for web servers. Meanwhile IIS enjoys the majority of actual hacking events.
Why? Monocultured soft target. Look at Nimda and Code Red they're working on the hopes that you have your files located in C:\winnt\system32\...
Easy target. Pushover even. But NOT the largest target.
Your Linux scenario neglects a few things about priviledges needed to open up ports and the like. You also need to give that program execute priviledges and hope that (in your scenario) they are using the
I think we need to rename the CLR.
LCLR = Lowest Common Language Runtime
The thing is that for languages to work under CLR they have to be changed (sometimes quite dramatically) to fit into the object oriented environment that CLR is. The only language that fits cleanly is the new one they wrote JAV^h^h^hC# (yeah, cheap shot).
The point about anything compiling to Java byte-code, but not well, applies to most other languages that work within the CLR. (Just look at how much pain it causes VB "programmers".)
The only company that was making public statements about merging Unix and Linux together was SCO/Caldera. In fact they went so far as to create their Linux Personality Module for running Linux code on their Unix offerring.
:-D )
So, I guess Darl can go around making "true" statements by being very careful to not define/understand the "meaning of 'it'".
(We can call it the Clinton + 1 defense.
no treading at all. There's certainly no lack of confused people in the world. :-D I was just amused by it is all. (Honestly I checked the UID's to see if I should be apologizing to you instead.)
Amazing thing eh? The thing burned because of the lacquer that they used to keep the hydrogen in.
:-D
BTW, I was confused before you were.
There were two other problems with MS's VM.
First they didn't bother to implement core Java functionality in their VM. (JNI was one main example.) Second, they made changes to core Java classes.
MS could have very easily had all of the new functionality that they wanted if they were just willing to implement Java as it was and put all of the other functionality in the com.microsoft packages area.
Instead they were busy deliberately polluting Java, threatening other companies (see the whole Intel "advice"), and writing restrictive contracts with programmers to force them to use MS's VM in exchange for getting technical information for Windows.
Note that the current case is ONLY about the damage that MS did to Java via their anti-trust actions. All other complaints regarding the initial contract were settled already. (Though they did address the fact that MS isn't complying with the settlement terms.)
Sun's case for forcing Microsoft to carry Java is pretty ludicrous. They sued Microsoft to stop them carrying Java.
Wrong. Completely wrong. Totally devoid of fact.
Sun sued Microsoft in an attempt to force Microsoft to comply with a contract that they voluntarily entered into.
Interesting thing that. You sign a contract and you're expected to actually live up to the terms of the contract. In MS's case they completely failed to live up to the terms of the contract. Additionally, they refused to make changes to come into compliance with the terms of the contract. At that point there was no other option but to void the contract.
As for the rest of your comment. I'll put that down to simple opinion and non-sequitors.
Let's see: usage rights - according to SCO they can't use it for anything except AIX.
resale - can't sell it for anything except AIX.
ownership - only own distribution rights in the context of AIX
If that's not trying to claim control than I don't know what it.
Go read Cringely's article about the development of RCU. here.
Sequent developed the concept and the initial code before they looked at ANY OS. They happened to implement it first in DYNIX but that was merely the final step of testing the theory through implementation.
So, Sequent didn't copy code from AIX/DYNIX into Linux, they used the same base code when working on both.
The point of the ol' DoJ vs MS trial was to show that MS ran around pointing a lot of guns at a lot of people to get them to stop supporting Java.
The point now is that MS has been found guilty of gun waving and there should be some compensation/restitution. The Appeals Court decision (based on a prelim scan/read) is interesting in that they're saying Sun can't prove immediate harm but they can come back and ask for an injunction when/if they can. Motz's original order was based on the fact that there's no way except after the fact to go and point at the exact date when a market tip occurred. Seems to be a bit of a circular gotcha there.
I think you need the separate VM or at least separate out memory spaces to avoid potential object conflicts.
Say you have an applet that uses a Singleton type object in the core VM. So, you're counting on this one instance and probably are setting values on it. (Oh, let's say the System.properties object as an example.) Now along comes another applet that wants to load in it's own set of properties to work with. Obviously you both expect things to remain the way they are and changes could be quite "interesting".
So, there are definitely some implications behind running multiple applets/applications in the same VM beyond mere RAM.
SCO does not lay claim to the Sequent code. IBM owns that free and clear. SCO's opinion is that because it was first integrated to AIX, it is a derivative work of UNIX, and can not be released to anyone without a UNIX liscense. But SCO does not lay claim to it, since they did not write it.
SCO is certainly laying claim to the code. They're saying that you need one of THEIR licenses in order to use IBM's code. Now they aren't saying the invented the code certainly, but they are trying to lay claim to any and all sublicensing rights.
Taking the civilians (on the planes) hostage was the means, not the end. It was the only way to control the plane, so they did it.
They could have gotten their own plane and tried to dive bomb the Pentagon. They were in fact counting on the hijacker doctrine to allow them unfettered movement and to not be shot down/engaged by military forces. The civilians were shields. This is directly reflected on the cowardice charge.
The Pentagon was not a military target because there was no state of war. The fact that it is a military institution means that it becomes a target if there is an actual state of war. (Note that a lot of essentially civilian buildings/locations become military targets during war time.)
Look at your final sentence and you have the crucial difference (at least as how I parse the whole military/non-military target):
In wartime, practically all of Washington DC is Fair Game.(emphasis added)
First off, the code in question was implemented on PTx(?) which was a variant based off the licensed IP. Second off, the code they're debating was in fact written for OS/2 and ported from there.
. html for details.)
SCO is trying ot claim that since the writers worked on both the Unix variant and the OS/2 one that the knowledge used from the one extends the license to the other.
They're trying to lay claim to a derivative of a derivative of a derivative. To make matters more entertaining the actual derivative was a paper about a generic RCU implementation with nothing tied to a particular OS. (See Cringely's article: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030619
SCO is claiming that IBM licensed some code (from AT&T mind you) and since they (actually Sequent) wrote some code that ran on top of that licensed code then they had to obey the license for the new, original work created without any help or IP from the "licensor".
That would be like saying since McAfee wrote Virus Scan on top of Windows and using the information from Windows then they can't reuse any of that code in writing a Virus Scanner for any other OS.
The members of the French Resistence were in fact involved in a war and fighting an occupying force. There are absolutely no parallels to be drawn in this case.
The terrorists of 9/11 chose to strike in a cowardly fashion and attempted to extract as many civilian deaths as possible. Terrorists. Cowards. End of discussion.
Mr. McVeigh at best was mentally deranged. There are already well established methods within this country to bring about change. These methods go up to things like civil disobedience. They do not cover wanton mass murder. The fact that only 7 people killed in the building were actually federal officers should give you a hint about that.
He believed the FedGov was hopelessly perverted from it's original design and had become a threat. Views I tend to also agree with.
Well now isn't that interesting. Is there anything in particular that you find particularly threatening about the current government? Did you vote in the last election? Have you considered running for office yourself? Maybe you volunteered to work on a campaign of someone who's views you agree with? I would recommend pursuing any and all of those courses if you find the government such a threat to your wellbeing and happiness.
I would also hope that you articulate your problems much better than Mr. McVeigh did.
Mr. McVeigh does not deserve nor warrant the title revolutionist.