I don't think that [taking away their publicity by ignoring them on Slashdot] works here. The problem is that the effect they are aiming for is to stop businesses from adopting Linux. In this way they hope to encourage IBM and other organizations to buy them out to avoid more damage to the Linux market. We could ignore them here, but their version of this story would stil be all over the mainstream (Internet-based) tech press.
I think publicity here helps, because I'm sure that many readers here will be in a position to influence opinion regarding SCO and their so-called claims on Linux IP.
I didn't know that. I think the fact that it was running until 1998 is also significant, as it will have "experienced" something like the modern Internet during its life. I still wonder whether the fact that there were very few Multics systems would not have helped its security record; after all, what hacker would target that OS?
Either way, I've learned something new today, for which thanks.
Multics didn't operate in today's environment, however. How would it have done if it was attached to the Internet? This isn't to knock Multics, about which I know precisely nothing. But a large part of the security landscape these days is the fact that J Random Hacker has the means to access your computer from a remote location all the time. Of course universities and the military were on the forerunner of the Internet in those days, but the number of people with access to a connection was miniscule compared to today.
Yep. You're right of course (as is schon, below). And the point you make about Section 7 of the GPL is well made too. Yet more questions for SCO to answer when this gets into court.
I don't know about you, but if I worked for SCO, I'd be utterly humiliated by all of this. It's like the owner of the company getting up in public and saying, "we can make more money from a ludicrous stunt like this than we can from the efforts of those bozos we employ".
I thought this originally, but I think I was wrong. What SCO is claiming is that the SCO code was placed in the Linux kernel by someone other than the copyright holder. In such a situation, they are right about the fact that the GPL doesn't apply.
None of this proves that there is actually SCO code in the kernel of course. The longer they delay in revealing exactly what it is, the more I think they're bluffing.
Re:Bah, the GPL is not the "core of the ... moveme
on
FSF Threatens GPL Lawsuit
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
No, it isn't. My whole premise is that the free software "movement" (as in, the process of providing software for others to modify, use, or abuse as they see fit) would probably be chugging along just as well if the GPL never existed.
Yes, it is. Nowadays, "Free Software" means pretty much what the FSF suggests it means. It's not a term you can "re-apply" any more, because the FSF definition is established. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a different kettle of fish, or a "philosophical argument that no one will win", as you so eloquently put it. But I don't think it's terribly productive in 2003 do be debating the meaning of "Free Software".
The GPL is the core of the Free Software movement. "Free" in this context doesn't mean "no price", it refers to "freedom". I would recommend reading, say, this to see what we're all talking about when we say "free".
The answer seems obvious to me: different licenses have different purposes, and there are some purposes for which the GPL is simply unfit; for which the GPL, in fact, reduces freedom.
How can it reduce freedom when it grants more rights?
I fail to see the difference between the two stories. Both entities (SCO & FSF) are just trying to maintain the integrity of their licenses.
The difference is that SCO's case is completely without merit, while the FSF's case here is completely watertight. Of course, this is my opinion. You could form your own opinion by reading SCO's deposition, plus whatever other materials are available (I'd recommend Eric Raymond's OSI position paper for a start).
We should start a petition / web site to ban the FSF just as the community has done to SCO.
What do you mean, "we"? You start a petition in support of OpenTV if you like. Why do we have to waste our time with your petty complaint?
Do you know how to read? Try reading the GPL. It requires any derivative works to also be GPL. That's a restriction, because it means you can never make software that is available for sale from anything that has been opened as GPL. Pretty serious restriction, if you ask a professional programmer. I am one, I know.
If some code doesn't have the GPL and just has standard copyright applied to it, you don't get to use it at all. You can't copy it. You can't change it and use the changed stuff you have made. You can't do anything with it. Apply the GPL and others get the right to copy, change, re-use and a whole host of other rights. It makes no sense to talk about the GPL as "restrictive", unless you compare it with some other arrangement (ie not standard copyright). So the GPL imposes a restriction as compared to (say) BSD licences, but so what? What is relevant is what you would have without a licence (nothing) versus what the originator grants you by applying the GPL (considerably more than nothing). You can't sensibly say that some other programmer should have applied (eg) BSD to some code so as not to "restrict" users. If you like BSD, you apply it to your code.
Coool!! We're going to start assessing legal documents based on how many words there are in them? That's great: The Law as TV! Perhaps we should have pictures, or even adverts in licences so that people don't get bored!
There is no chance of any court finding against the GPL. The GPL grants rights that you would not have without it. If the court decided that the GPL was unenforceable in this case, OpenTV would simply lose all rights to use the software. So there is no possibility that OpenTV will allow this to go to court. Remember that nobody forced this company to use GPLed software. They chose to do that; and the only basis on which they could choose to do that is under the terms that are very generously offered by the GPL.
After he became famous by stealing the Jargon File and publishing it for his own benefit, he's moved on to writing fluffy, irrelevant, legally moot junk in an attempt to deprive SCO of any of its legal rights to the intellectual property it owns.
Seriously, you should try to read the article. You have to at least try to understand the issues, otherwise you're just humiliating yourself.
Microsoft is trying to create publicity for the court case. At this stage, all that SCO has achieved is to raise a few doubts about Linux, specifically in the area of "intellectual property". By licensing SCO's IP, they are drawing attention to the issue, and putting it onto Internet news sites' front pages. It's easy to then segue from there to the discussion of how Linux raises IP questions for those business that use it. From MS's point of view, this is just an extremely cheap negative advertising campaign, without the risk that MS will get criticized for negative advertising.
Re:Slightly OT: Linking static libs w/GPL'd code?
on
What if SCO is Right?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What happens if you're a software company that buys some closed source static libraries from another company and link them to your proprietary product and sell the result to customers and later discover the library company included GPL'd code without telling you?
What happens if you're a software company that buys some closed source static libraries from another company and link them to your proprietary product and sell the result to customers and later discover the library company included someone else's copyrighted code without telling?
The concept of copyright violation seems like a nasty can of worms.
Really, it doesn't matter if it's GPLed code or code under some other licence.
That's great. Now tell them to run up to Wal-Mart and buy a new game and install it. Or one of the several PrintShop clones... or, heck, anything.
Why would a business want its staff to install games? You do understand of course that there are two types of desktop user in this context? Business desktop users (which the article talks about) and home desktop users. Arguably, you could split the home users up into those who just use their computers for email etc and don't want them to ever change (often "silver surfers"), and those who like to fiddle with their systems. But I'm sure you knew all that!
I've been watching this out of curiosity. I was curious about something and looked it up today...SCO's current market capitalization is $43.3 million. Of course, that's based on a $4-per-share price...they've been down to 60 cents over the last year (which would be a market cap of about $10 million dollars).
If they really annoy IBM, IBM can just buy them and throw them away.
This is true of course, but I feel that this sort of sharp practice should not be encouraged. My views on this are neatly summarised in my sig.:-)
It's quite simple: SCO have NOTHING that approaches the power and sophistication of Linux. They have had the "benefit" of this prehistoric source code for years, and they have been unable to produce a version of Unix which scales to > 4 processors. And yet they have the bare-faced cheek to suggest that the only way the Linux community could have produced an OS that could scale to 32 processors was by copying code from an OS which had no SMP, no LVM, no NUMA, no fucking anything.
There are two reasons they have expanded the scope of their suit in this way:
According to their own lawsuit, they have been distributing their own code under the GPL for years, thereby explicitly preventing themselves from restricting IBM, SuSE, RedHat and the rest of us from redistributing it.
They realize that they have no chance of ever getting any business in the future from any competent organization because they have exposed themselves to be bereft of ideas; given free and unrestricted access to a resource that they say is the basis of an OS that can scale to 32 processors, they have signally failed to create anything that can work on more than 4.
In my opinion, SCO are the lowest form of useless amateurs in the history of computing.
There are some comments that Linus Torvalds made about the issue here. It seems that they were made before SCO started to widen the scope (and the potential target population) of the suit.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a nice picture in this version of the article.
I don't think that [taking away their publicity by ignoring them on Slashdot] works here. The problem is that the effect they are aiming for is to stop businesses from adopting Linux. In this way they hope to encourage IBM and other organizations to buy them out to avoid more damage to the Linux market. We could ignore them here, but their version of this story would stil be all over the mainstream (Internet-based) tech press.
I think publicity here helps, because I'm sure that many readers here will be in a position to influence opinion regarding SCO and their so-called claims on Linux IP.
I didn't know that. I think the fact that it was running until 1998 is also significant, as it will have "experienced" something like the modern Internet during its life. I still wonder whether the fact that there were very few Multics systems would not have helped its security record; after all, what hacker would target that OS?
Either way, I've learned something new today, for which thanks.
Multics didn't operate in today's environment, however. How would it have done if it was attached to the Internet? This isn't to knock Multics, about which I know precisely nothing. But a large part of the security landscape these days is the fact that J Random Hacker has the means to access your computer from a remote location all the time. Of course universities and the military were on the forerunner of the Internet in those days, but the number of people with access to a connection was miniscule compared to today.
He's holding the gun to his own head, and saying, "Give me your money or the fuckwit gets it!"
... as you Americans would put it.
Check out SCO's sinking stock price (24% down when I posted).
I can't speak for the efficacy of the method, but apparently you can get away without a sync-on-green monitor. Good luck.
Yep. You're right of course (as is schon, below). And the point you make about Section 7 of the GPL is well made too. Yet more questions for SCO to answer when this gets into court.
I don't know about you, but if I worked for SCO, I'd be utterly humiliated by all of this. It's like the owner of the company getting up in public and saying, "we can make more money from a ludicrous stunt like this than we can from the efforts of those bozos we employ".
I thought this originally, but I think I was wrong. What SCO is claiming is that the SCO code was placed in the Linux kernel by someone other than the copyright holder. In such a situation, they are right about the fact that the GPL doesn't apply.
None of this proves that there is actually SCO code in the kernel of course. The longer they delay in revealing exactly what it is, the more I think they're bluffing.
Yes, it is. Nowadays, "Free Software" means pretty much what the FSF suggests it means. It's not a term you can "re-apply" any more, because the FSF definition is established. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a different kettle of fish, or a "philosophical argument that no one will win", as you so eloquently put it. But I don't think it's terribly productive in 2003 do be debating the meaning of "Free Software".
The GPL is the core of the Free Software movement. "Free" in this context doesn't mean "no price", it refers to "freedom". I would recommend reading, say, this to see what we're all talking about when we say "free".
I'd love to hear about even one of these.
How can it reduce freedom when it grants more rights?
The difference is that SCO's case is completely without merit, while the FSF's case here is completely watertight. Of course, this is my opinion. You could form your own opinion by reading SCO's deposition, plus whatever other materials are available (I'd recommend Eric Raymond's OSI position paper for a start).
What do you mean, "we"? You start a petition in support of OpenTV if you like. Why do we have to waste our time with your petty complaint?
If some code doesn't have the GPL and just has standard copyright applied to it, you don't get to use it at all. You can't copy it. You can't change it and use the changed stuff you have made. You can't do anything with it. Apply the GPL and others get the right to copy, change, re-use and a whole host of other rights. It makes no sense to talk about the GPL as "restrictive", unless you compare it with some other arrangement (ie not standard copyright). So the GPL imposes a restriction as compared to (say) BSD licences, but so what? What is relevant is what you would have without a licence (nothing) versus what the originator grants you by applying the GPL (considerably more than nothing). You can't sensibly say that some other programmer should have applied (eg) BSD to some code so as not to "restrict" users. If you like BSD, you apply it to your code.
Coool!! We're going to start assessing legal documents based on how many words there are in them? That's great: The Law as TV! Perhaps we should have pictures, or even adverts in licences so that people don't get bored!
There is no chance of any court finding against the GPL. The GPL grants rights that you would not have without it. If the court decided that the GPL was unenforceable in this case, OpenTV would simply lose all rights to use the software. So there is no possibility that OpenTV will allow this to go to court. Remember that nobody forced this company to use GPLed software. They chose to do that; and the only basis on which they could choose to do that is under the terms that are very generously offered by the GPL.
Seriously, you should try to read the article. You have to at least try to understand the issues, otherwise you're just humiliating yourself.
Microsoft is trying to create publicity for the court case. At this stage, all that SCO has achieved is to raise a few doubts about Linux, specifically in the area of "intellectual property". By licensing SCO's IP, they are drawing attention to the issue, and putting it onto Internet news sites' front pages. It's easy to then segue from there to the discussion of how Linux raises IP questions for those business that use it. From MS's point of view, this is just an extremely cheap negative advertising campaign, without the risk that MS will get criticized for negative advertising.
What happens if you're a software company that buys some closed source static libraries from another company and link them to your proprietary product and sell the result to customers and later discover the library company included someone else's copyrighted code without telling?
The concept of copyright violation seems like a nasty can of worms.
Really, it doesn't matter if it's GPLed code or code under some other licence.
Thanks for the mini-review! Did you get any indication of the likely price of the thing?
Why would a business want its staff to install games? You do understand of course that there are two types of desktop user in this context? Business desktop users (which the article talks about) and home desktop users. Arguably, you could split the home users up into those who just use their computers for email etc and don't want them to ever change (often "silver surfers"), and those who like to fiddle with their systems. But I'm sure you knew all that!
This is true of course, but I feel that this sort of sharp practice should not be encouraged. My views on this are neatly summarised in my sig.
There are two reasons they have expanded the scope of their suit in this way:
In my opinion, SCO are the lowest form of useless amateurs in the history of computing.
There are some comments that Linus Torvalds made about the issue here. It seems that they were made before SCO started to widen the scope (and the potential target population) of the suit.