The article (it isn't slashdotted at the moment) on the Fox site doesn't contain the spelling error you're having so much fun criticizing. It seems that you've leapt to a conclusion when you should have read the original article to verify it first.
There are plenty of reasons to bash Fox news, this just isn't one of them.
Speed limits wouldn't be the only issue in the US. In the US (perhaps in other countries as well) you have to display your watercraft registration numbers plainly on the side of the craft. Who wants a registration number painted in large block lettering on the front fenders of their car? Add to that a large hood ornament with a green light on one side and a red one on the other and your expensive sports car suddenly looks much less cool. I don't know if exceptions would be made for multipurpose vehicles since none are in wide use here( there have been a few concept cars in the past), but the state I live in would likey fine you the minute you drove into the water with one of these.
From the commentwire.com article: While the amount of evidence revealed by SCO is not great, it does appear that it may have a case against IBM and other Unix licensees, particularly given the strength of the Unix licensing agreements passed down to SCO from AT&T [T].
Given that virtually all the evidence revealed by SCO so far only underscores how weak their case truely is, this writer clearly has its head burried in the sand. The only license agreement that is questionable is the one with Sequent, but if SCO can't definitively show that there is SCO owned (derivitive) code in linux, their case falls apart and they're not off to a good start.
The main thrust is that he's betting on the fact that Copyright law trumps whatever provisions are in the GPL, so IBM's GPL defense doesn't hold water...
Copyright law gives a consumer the right to make one backup copy of a work without the copyright holder's permission. It does not prevent the copyright holder from granting someone permission for limited or unlimited reproduction and distribution if they so choose(publishers would be out of business if this were the case). SCO is implying the GPL doesn't constitute legally granted permisson. Perhaps they think a signed contract is required. A bit of a stretch to anyone's imagination, I think.
I tend to agree that text messaging probably only accounts for a small part of this phenomenon and the movie industry is missing the bigger picture by placing most of the blame there. Other forms of electronic communication also play a part (email, IRC, voice, slashdot, etc). Lets face it, we're a connected society now and word gets around pretty quickly when we want it to.
Consider what you just asked and the ultra-light tap on the wrist Microsoft got for their lousy behaviour, which was a continuation of their lousy behaviour which got them in trouble with courts and prosecutors and well-meaning people at least once before. In short, you'd get jack.
Consider the number of cpus the government has running linux on clusters, supercomputers, servers and desktops in its several National Labs, etc. Consider then the 10s of millions of dollars it will cost to relicense all those cpus from SCO or some other OS vendor if SCO's claims are upheld. Perhaps Joe Taxpayer should be told about the big chunk of money Uncle Sam might have to hand over to SCO. He might write a letter to his congresscritter.
They're not denying that the movies stink. They're complaining about the word getting out sooner that it used to.
From the article: "In the old days, there used to be a term, 'buying your gross,' " Rick Sands, chief operating officer at Miramax, told the Los Angeles Times. "You could buy your gross for the weekend and overcome bad word of mouth, because it took time to filter out into the general audience."
But those days are over, because the technology of hand-held text-message devices has drastically cut down the time it takes for movie-goers to tell their friends that a heavily promoted summer action movie is a waste of time and money.
The fact that the movie industry depends on hype and an uninformed public to recoup their investment in a bomb doesn't surprise me, but their blatant admission does. Perhaps the realization that this won't work anymore will result in better quality pictures. Well, one can only hope.
How would anyone know if SCO were to steal some source code from Linux and then claim the stealibng was the other way around?
When the cvs logs show that the code was contributed by someone that had absolutely no access to unix source and couldn't possibly have stolen it. Unless, of course, SCO was careful enough to research *who* made the cotributions prior to making their claims on the code.
This is also turning out to be an attack on the GPL. If kernel contributors don't act to defend this rape of their code it could invalidate the GPL entirely. What is needed is a class action suit forcing SCO to honor the GPL for those portions of the kernel source not identified by them as contaminated by their IP. Of course they'll be unwilling since it would reveal which source files are in question, allowing them to be rewritten and replaced. Nevertheless, a suit may be necessary in order to defend both OSS and the GPL.
Even though i consider this man an important figure worthy of deep admiration, the truth is that i have not read a statement from Mr Stallman that was not about the GNUness of things.
At first glance I read that as Guinness and thought: RMS ain't such a bad guy after all.
This is what makes me wonder about their true motivations. Can't see the code unless you sign an NDA. If you're a linux developer, once the NDA has been signed, you couldn't remove the infringing code if you wanted to since that would violate the NDA (since linux is open source, simply taking out the infringing code would reveal what it was). They're trying to create a catch 22, but for what purpose? To 'own' linux or to force a rollback to 2.2 (suposed to be infringement free), or what? They must think have a good case, otherwise they have set themselves up for investigation by the Justice Dept. and possibly a jail term. They can't expect to just say "oops, guess we were wrong" and get away with it.
It also seems to me that if this is just a pump-n-dump ruse, they're pretty close to topping out before investors start to lose confidence and it starts to slide back down.
Well, my employer allows virtually any os that a given user might need to run (we're a research facility). The IT people do regular vulnerability scans of the network and the linux users that I know (myself included) have never failed to pass the scan. The same can't be said for most of the MS users, or event the Solaris users for that matter. I don't hear much from the MAC users.
I guess my point is that it is not so much what os a person runs as it is the IT policies and how well they're enforced. Keep up with security patches, don't install untrusted software, good password policy, etc. These things aren't unique to any particular desktop OS and any user could potentially violate them. However, any user that depends on their system for everyday tasks isn't going to intentionally munge it up since they lose the use of it while you may be inconvenienced with rebuilding it. There is always the danger of the 'malicious insider' and we risk it every summer with an influx of student help that always includes some idiot that will try 'bad things'. Deal with them swiftly and harshly and make sure everyone knows about it and you can keep it to a minimum, but you can never eliminate the risks completely.
I suppose it's possible that the records could be unsealed for the purposes of this suit, but that doesn't mean they'll be made public. It's likely only the attorneys and the judge would get to see them (and in the judge's chambers at that). As a matter of fact, it's likely that any documents that SCO's lawers successfully argue contain SCO's trade secrets will be kept out of the public record. Of course IANAL.
On a related note, a recent statement by the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) espouses destroying computers suspected of illegal behavior remotely. You may read the AP article here.
In what way could the destruction of someones personal property, based on no more than a suspicion, be considered legal or just? What the hell is Orrin thinking? If you have a suspicion, gather evidence and have the proper authorities get a bench warrant for a search damnit! Don't circumvent due process!
I was one of them, so I looked it up, although it seems to me I must have known this way back when. Here's the full text.
The Star Spangled Banner By Francis Scott Key
Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming? Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight, O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming? And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep, Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes, What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep, As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses? Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam, In full glory reflected now shines in the stream: 'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion, A home and a country should leave us no more! Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution. No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave: And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand Between their loved home and the war's desolation! Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation. Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: "In God is our trust." And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Slashdot Mirror
The article (it isn't slashdotted at the moment) on the Fox site doesn't contain the spelling error you're having so much fun criticizing. It seems that you've leapt to a conclusion when you should have read the original article to verify it first.
There are plenty of reasons to bash Fox news, this just isn't one of them.
Speed limits wouldn't be the only issue in the US. In the US (perhaps in other countries as well) you have to display your watercraft registration numbers plainly on the side of the craft. Who wants a registration number painted in large block lettering on the front fenders of their car? Add to that a large hood ornament with a green light on one side and a red one on the other and your expensive sports car suddenly looks much less cool. I don't know if exceptions would be made for multipurpose vehicles since none are in wide use here( there have been a few concept cars in the past), but the state I live in would likey fine you the minute you drove into the water with one of these.
$110 billion / 2000 processors = $55 million per cpu.
SCO is raising their licensing fees again? Sheesh.
From the commentwire.com article:
While the amount of evidence revealed by SCO is not great, it does appear that it may have a case against IBM and other Unix licensees, particularly given the strength of the Unix licensing agreements passed down to SCO from AT&T [T].
Given that virtually all the evidence revealed by SCO so far only underscores how weak their case truely is, this writer clearly has its head burried in the sand. The only license agreement that is questionable is the one with Sequent, but if SCO can't definitively show that there is SCO owned (derivitive) code in linux, their case falls apart and they're not off to a good start.
Let's hope he wins a Darwin award before you do.
The main thrust is that he's betting on the fact that Copyright law trumps whatever provisions are in the
GPL, so IBM's GPL defense doesn't hold water...
Copyright law gives a consumer the right to make one backup copy of a work without the copyright holder's permission. It does not prevent the copyright holder from granting someone permission for limited or unlimited reproduction and distribution if they so choose(publishers would be out of business if this were the case). SCO is implying the GPL doesn't constitute legally granted permisson. Perhaps they think a signed contract is required. A bit of a stretch to anyone's imagination, I think.
I tend to agree that text messaging probably only accounts for a small part of this phenomenon and the movie industry is missing the bigger picture by placing most of the blame there. Other forms of electronic communication also play a part (email, IRC, voice, slashdot, etc). Lets face it, we're a connected society now and word gets around pretty quickly when we want it to.
Consider what you just asked and the ultra-light tap on the wrist Microsoft got for their lousy behaviour, which was a continuation of their lousy behaviour which got them in trouble with courts and prosecutors and well-meaning people at least once before. In short, you'd get jack.
Consider the number of cpus the government has running linux on clusters, supercomputers, servers and desktops in its several National Labs, etc. Consider then the 10s of millions of dollars it will cost to relicense all those cpus from SCO or some other OS vendor if SCO's claims are upheld. Perhaps Joe Taxpayer should be told about the big chunk of money Uncle Sam might have to hand over to SCO. He might write a letter to his congresscritter.
They're not denying that the movies stink. They're complaining about the word getting out sooner that it used to.
From the article:
"In the old days, there used to be a term, 'buying your gross,' " Rick Sands, chief operating officer at Miramax, told the Los Angeles Times. "You could buy your gross for the weekend and overcome bad word of mouth, because it took time to filter out into the general audience."
But those days are over, because the technology of hand-held text-message devices has drastically cut down the time it takes for movie-goers to tell their friends that a heavily promoted summer action movie is a waste of time and money.
The fact that the movie industry depends on hype and an uninformed public to recoup their investment in a bomb doesn't surprise me, but their blatant admission does. Perhaps the realization that this won't work anymore will result in better quality pictures. Well, one can only hope.
How would anyone know if SCO were to steal some source code from Linux and then claim the stealibng was the other way around?
When the cvs logs show that the code was contributed by someone that had absolutely no access to unix source and couldn't possibly have stolen it. Unless, of course, SCO was careful enough to research *who* made the cotributions prior to making their claims on the code.
This is also turning out to be an attack on the GPL. If kernel contributors don't act to defend this rape of their code it could invalidate the GPL entirely. What is needed is a class action suit forcing SCO to honor the GPL for those portions of the kernel source not identified by them as contaminated by their IP. Of course they'll be unwilling since it would reveal which source files are in question, allowing them to be rewritten and replaced. Nevertheless, a suit may be necessary in order to defend both OSS and the GPL.
FSF are you listening?
SCO is actually listed as an exhibitor. I pity the booth babes, although the waterballons should wash off some of the paintball splatter.
Even though i consider this man an important figure worthy of deep admiration, the truth is that i have not read a statement from Mr Stallman that was not about the GNUness of things.
At first glance I read that as Guinness and thought: RMS ain't such a bad guy after all.
It'll probably be Microsoft. After all, SCO need cash to answer RedHat's suit.
This is what makes me wonder about their true motivations. Can't see the code unless you sign an NDA. If you're a linux developer, once the NDA has been signed, you couldn't remove the infringing code if you wanted to since that would violate the NDA (since linux is open source, simply taking out the infringing code would reveal what it was). They're trying to create a catch 22, but for what purpose? To 'own' linux or to force a rollback to 2.2 (suposed to be infringement free), or what? They must think have a good case, otherwise they have set themselves up for investigation by the Justice Dept. and possibly a jail term. They can't expect to just say "oops, guess we were wrong" and get away with it.
It also seems to me that if this is just a pump-n-dump ruse, they're pretty close to topping out before investors start to lose confidence and it starts to slide back down.
IBM = Andre The Giant
Microsoft = Hacksaw Jim Duggin
Red Hat = Hulk Hogan
SCO = Golddust
Microsoft/SCO = The Bushwhackers!
Well, my employer allows virtually any os that a given user might need to run (we're a research facility). The IT people do regular vulnerability scans of the network and the linux users that I know (myself included) have never failed to pass the scan. The same can't be said for most of the MS users, or event the Solaris users for that matter. I don't hear much from the MAC users.
I guess my point is that it is not so much what os a person runs as it is the IT policies and how well they're enforced. Keep up with security patches, don't install untrusted software, good password policy, etc. These things aren't unique to any particular desktop OS and any user could potentially violate them. However, any user that depends on their system for everyday tasks isn't going to intentionally munge it up since they lose the use of it while you may be inconvenienced with rebuilding it. There is always the danger of the 'malicious insider' and we risk it every summer with an influx of student help that always includes some idiot that will try 'bad things'. Deal with them swiftly and harshly and make sure everyone knows about it and you can keep it to a minimum, but you can never eliminate the risks completely.
I wonder how many of those originate in the US. The article doesn't say if bayTSP's authority extends beyond the borders of the US.
and hysterical laughter can lead to ruptured blood vessels, stroke, and even death.
Given a choice between the two, I'd rather be blind than dead.
The French had a tank in 1940 that was superior to the panzer? Pray tell, what tank was this?
I suppose it's possible that the records could be unsealed for the purposes of this suit, but that doesn't mean they'll be made public. It's likely only the attorneys and the judge would get to see them (and in the judge's chambers at that). As a matter of fact, it's likely that any documents that SCO's lawers successfully argue contain SCO's trade secrets will be kept out of the public record. Of course IANAL.
On a related note, a recent statement by the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) espouses destroying computers suspected of illegal behavior remotely. You may read the AP article here.
In what way could the destruction of someones personal property, based on no more than a suspicion, be considered legal or just? What the hell is Orrin thinking? If you have a suspicion, gather evidence and have the proper authorities get a bench warrant for a search damnit! Don't circumvent due process!
And don't forget the Biblical parable of the widow and the judge (Luke 18:1-5). Persistence (and pestering) pays.
I was one of them, so I looked it up, although it seems to me I must have known this way back when. Here's the full text.
The Star Spangled Banner
By Francis Scott Key
Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!