Actually "probable cause" is why the supreme court is interested. The Neveda law states that reasonable suspicion is all thats required for an ID detainment, and that you are then *required* to ID yourself. They can then detain you up to one hour to verify the ID you gave them. The legal question is whether "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" is necessary in order to require ID.
NRS 171.123 provides:
1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.
4. A person may not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes.
IANAL but I am a citizen. My take is that we are to be consider innocent until proven quilty, and that we have an expectation of privacy. Resonable suspicion is not probable cause. No one says "innocent until reasonably suspected". At what point does their suspicion outweigh my rights? I say they need to more than suspect its possible, they need to have proof that its probable.
Can't reach the site, but kuro5hin's site's preamble states:"Dudley Hiibel was standing by his pickup truck near Winnemucca, Nevada." I think it would be relevant as to whether you are in the vehicle or not as to whether you were "stopped in a car". Otherwise, anyone walking down the sidewalk is "next to" all those parked cars.
"Japhar is the Hungry Programmers' Java VM. It has been built from the ground up without consulting Sun's sources.
Japhar is released under the LGPL, which should make it much more attractive for companies interested in embedding an open source JVM in their proprietary/commercial products."
"Kaffe is a clean room implementation of the Java virtual machine, plus the associated class libraries needed to provide a Java runtime environment. The Kaffe virtual machine is free software, licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License."
"The Classpath project aims to develop a free and portable implementation of the Java API (the classes in the Java package). The Classpath project does not have a complete implementation of the API yet but it is almost complete to version 1.2. Unfortunately, Classpath does not yet run with Kaffe - but we are working on it!"
"The Classpathx project is developing free implementations of all the extention libraries in popular use. This is a large and varied list, from XML processing to voice and image manipulation."
GCJ is a portable, optimizing, ahead-of-time compiler for the Java Programming Language. It can compile:
* Java source code directly to native machine code,
* Java source code to Java bytecode (class files),
* and Java bytecode to native machine code.
Compiled applications are linked with the GCJ runtime, libgcj, which provides the core class libraries, a garbage collector, and a bytecode interpreter. libgcj can dynamically load and interpret class files, resulting in mixed compiled/interpreted applications.
Most of the APIs specified by "The Java Class Libraries" Second Edition and the "Java 2 Platform supplement" are supported, including collections, networking, reflection, and serialization. AWT is currently unsupported, but work to implement it is in progress.
Well but I notice that they won't accept anything that is GPLed. So they care enough to sidestep. The fact that they won't come after you doesn't make it legal. So lets say you do illegally combine this software, and then you distribute it. It can't be under either liscense. So whats the point? That "whats the difference."
Actually BSD is considered part of the GPL-Compatible, Free Software Licenses. So, "Everybody (except GPL users appearently) can use my code", makes less than good sense to me.
Rather, FSF says about the current BSD, "It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL."
I'm afraid your "True, but we don't need to...", sounds to me like your wanting to say "I'm pro-OpenSource", but also, "I don't really care about free-as-in-freedom". Perhaps it would depend on the "certain categories" of restrictions you'd be willing to have allowed placed on software.
"6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License."
Are you wanting to restrict the license to copy? Or is it the liscence to distriubte? Or to modify? Sounds like a potentially bad thing to me.
You ask how could code under a nonexpired patent ever count as free? Well how about if you release your patented work under the GPL? Should I care if you own the patent if you've granted me a license to copy, distribute or modify the Program? Why? It seems to me that the way you own the code is less important than the way you release it. (Of course IANAL...)
The SCO Group Inc. said Tuesday it would sue a major
user of Linux within 90 days, as the company prepared to launch a new
legal assault in its claims that the open-source operating system
contains the computer maker's copyrighted code.
The Lindon, Utah, company, which has a $3 billion lawsuit pending
against IBM, told reporters and analysts in a teleconference that it
would begin suing companies that use Linux, but refuse to pay licensing
fees to SCO.
"One of things that we will be looking to do is to identify a
defendant that we believe will illustrate the nature of the problem,"
David Boies, managing partner of SCO's law firm Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, said. "I don't want to try and identify that defendant on
this call, for obvious reasons . . . but you will be seeing the
identification of a significant user that has not paid license fees and
is in fact using proprietary and copyrighted material. I think you'll
certainly be seeing that within the next 90 days."
This was addressed by the CEO in the comments below the article. The limitations aren't in the OS, and those numbers refer to onboard chips. You can always pop in external memory cards. Thats not a problem.
Re:Bill Gates, Hall of Fame Hacker? (P.S. First Po
on
Hackers Hall of Fame
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Couldn't you perhaps say that BG hacked the business system?
Re:Bill Gates, Hall of Fame Hacker? (P.S. First Po
on
Hackers Hall of Fame
·
· Score: 1
I thought microsoft brought desktop computing to the home user... Then microsoft copied it poorly. I do remember Win3.1, and 2.0, and 1.0. It was quite awhile before MS ever got "desktop" close to right. MacHeads had it for awhile, first.
Its not just HTML. Its way more XHTML. Its really more like saying: "We choose GTK or we choose QT for our cross platform development".
Longhorn and Mozilla: Birds of a Feather
"Mozilla has a complete, separate, and enhanced implementation of Microsoft's COM, called XPCOM. XPCOM has its own QueryInterface() method, which acts just like the equivalent method in traditional COM. The 3000 object-interface combinations are due to over a thousand XPCOM components, most of which are bundled with the platform in compiled form.
To support these components, the basic infrastructure of the platform consists of several pieces:
* A fancy application-level GUI display system called Gecko. This is a layout and rendering engine.
* A very high-level networking library, called Necko
* Comprehensive XML support for various standards like XHTML, MathML, SVG, RDF, SOAP, WSDL, and UDDI. Additional support for several unique XML dialects, particularly XUL and XBL, which are used to define GUIs.
Mozilla binds these pieces together in several ways:
* By use of XPCOM and JavaScript at the object/code level
* Using data models expressed as XML RDF and by systems that exploit these models at the XML level
* By programmers using XUL and XBL as a starting and integration point for applications.."
"As a result, the focus on digital licensing has switched to scattered music publishers and songwriters, which typically receive between 7 and 8 cents for each physical copy of a song sold."
check it out
Subj: AT&T donated rights
By: radicimo
Date: 12/22/03 10:21 pm
from Groklaw thread on Linus' code
(h++p://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031222 174158852#c41366)
--
Standards
Authored by: meissner on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:10 PM EST
I was a member of the ANSI X3J11 C standards committee from its founding in 1983 until after the first ANSI and later ISO standards were released in 1989 and 1990 respecitively. As part of the process, AT&T through its official representive (Lawrence Rosler) specificially gave the rights to the C language and its library (including the ctype.h, signal.h, and errno.h header files) to the committe. I believe they did the same thing officially to the POSIX committee at the same time (which would cover ioctl.h and more of the errnos in errno.h, and more of the signals in signal.h). Unfortunately, I no longer retain paper documents from that period, but if it becomes important to establish a clear paper trail, I suspect Jim Brody (chair), Tom Plum (Vice
char), and P. J. Plauger (secretary) probably do retain their copies.
Of course, as has been shown in the past, SCO really has no institutional memory of the past.
bash-2.05b$ perl -e 'print "seconds left: ", ((2**30) - time), "\n"'
seconds left: 1686570
bash-2.05b$ octave
GNU Octave, version 2.1.44 (i586-mandrake-linux-gnu).
Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 John W. Eaton.
This is free software; see the source code for copying conditions.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; not even for MERCHANTIBILITY or
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. For details, type `warranty'.
Please contribute if you find this software useful.
For more information, visit http://www.octave.org/help-wanted.html
Report bugs to .
octave:1> 1686570/60/60/24
ans = 19.520
Its worse than that. Its not about work IBM "wrote for SCO". SCO claims that all work IBM or anyone else ever did "extending" Unix is "derived". This is how they claim infringement for code written by IBM and SGI. They admit IBM (or SGI) own the copyrights and/or patents, but that since the code involved "extended" Unix it is "tainted" with SCO-ness. SCO takes this so far as to suggest that all modern OS "derive" from Unix, and so even MS might have problems. Audacity.
Gore was popularizing the term "information superhighway" in the early 1990s (when few people outside academia or the computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet) and did introduce a few bills dealing with education and the Internet.
According to Vint Cerf (Widely known as one of the "Fathers of the Internet," Cerf is the co-designer of the TCP/IP protocols and the architecture of the Internet. ): "VP Gore was the first or surely among the first of the members of Congress to become a strong supporter of advanced networking while he served as Senator. As far back as 1986, he was holding hearings on this subject (supercomputing, fiber networks...) and asking about their promise and what could be done to realize them. Bob Kahn, with whom I worked to develop the Internet design in 1973, participated in several hearings held by then-Senator Gore and I recall that Bob introduced the term ``information infrastructure'' in one hearing in 1986. It was clear that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it.
As Senator, VP Gore was highly supportive of the research community's efforts to explore new networking capabilities and to extend access to supercomputers by way of NSFNET and its successors, the High Performance Computing and Communication program (which included the National Research and Education Network initiative), and as Vice President, he has been very responsive to recommendations made, for example, by the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee that endorsed additional research funding for next generation fundamental research in software and related topics. If you look at the last 30-35 years of network development, you'll find many people who have made major contributions without which the Internet would not be the vibrant, growing and exciting thing it is today. The creation of a new information infrastructure requires the willing efforts of thousands if not millions of participants and we've seen leadership from many quarters, all of it needed, to move the Internet towards increased availability and utility around the world.
While it is not accurate to say that VP Gore invented Internet, he has played a powerful role in policy terms that has supported its continued growth and application, for which we should be thankful.
We're fortunate to have senior level members of Congress and the Administration who embrace new technology and have the vision to see how it can be put to work for national and global benefit. "
Really that depends on how you define "the real world". If you consider WYSIWYG word processing "real", then you might be right. Some of us are more interested in parallel matrix operations. Is an excel macro "real"? Or is that quantum chemistry simulation "real". I've got news for you, the number of people doing original *real* work is pretty small. As long as good open source code is available I only care about linux on the desktop for peripheral reasons. If linux on the desktop can promote linux for "real" work, then its a good thing. But that means only if it pays for (via driver availability, etc...) the drain on developer time. Does anybody in your real world care about the things that my world considers real? Ask them what they think of the new muon...if they don't get excited, then why should I care about them? Oh yeah, unless their numbers happen to help the source...
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a
work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding
machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms
of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for
at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more
than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you
received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This
alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if
you received the program in object code or executable form with such an
offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Oh so wrong: "No one else is entitled to the source, only those that have received the distribution." They distributed a binary without sourcecode. This means that any and everyone has the right to their sourcecode, regardless. If they wanted to limit the their distribution obligations, all they'd have had to do was distribute the source with the binary.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually "probable cause" is why the supreme court is interested. The Neveda law states that reasonable suspicion is all thats required for an ID detainment, and that you are then *required* to ID yourself. They can then detain you up to one hour to verify the ID you gave them. The legal question is whether "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" is necessary in order to require ID.
NRS 171.123 provides:
1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.
4. A person may not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes.
IANAL but I am a citizen. My take is that we are to be consider innocent until proven quilty, and that we have an expectation of privacy. Resonable suspicion is not probable cause. No one says "innocent until reasonably suspected". At what point does their suspicion outweigh my rights? I say they need to more than suspect its possible, they need to have proof that its probable.
Can't reach the site, but kuro5hin's site's preamble states:"Dudley Hiibel was standing by his pickup truck near Winnemucca, Nevada." I think it would be relevant as to whether you are in the vehicle or not as to whether you were "stopped in a car". Otherwise, anyone walking down the sidewalk is "next to" all those parked cars.
We have a GPLed JVM. What we need are GPLed versions of all those class libraries.
"Japhar is the Hungry Programmers' Java VM. It has been built from the ground up without consulting Sun's sources.
Japhar is released under the LGPL, which should make it much more attractive for companies interested in embedding an open source JVM in their proprietary/commercial products."
"Kaffe is a clean room implementation of the Java virtual machine, plus the associated class libraries needed to provide a Java runtime environment. The Kaffe virtual machine is free software, licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License."
"The Classpath project aims to develop a free and portable implementation of the Java API (the classes in the Java package). The Classpath project does not have a complete implementation of the API yet but it is almost complete to version 1.2. Unfortunately, Classpath does not yet run with Kaffe - but we are working on it!"
"The Classpathx project is developing free implementations of all the extention libraries in popular use. This is a large and varied list, from XML processing to voice and image manipulation."
GCJ is a portable, optimizing, ahead-of-time compiler for the Java Programming Language. It can compile: * Java source code directly to native machine code, * Java source code to Java bytecode (class files), * and Java bytecode to native machine code. Compiled applications are linked with the GCJ runtime, libgcj, which provides the core class libraries, a garbage collector, and a bytecode interpreter. libgcj can dynamically load and interpret class files, resulting in mixed compiled/interpreted applications. Most of the APIs specified by "The Java Class Libraries" Second Edition and the "Java 2 Platform supplement" are supported, including collections, networking, reflection, and serialization. AWT is currently unsupported, but work to implement it is in progress.
Excuse me, but if its not compatible with the GPL, then you can't legally distribute "derived works" under the GPL. Right?
Well but I notice that they won't accept anything that is GPLed. So they care enough to sidestep. The fact that they won't come after you doesn't make it legal. So lets say you do illegally combine this software, and then you distribute it. It can't be under either liscense. So whats the point? That "whats the difference."
Actually BSD is considered part of the GPL-Compatible, Free Software Licenses. So, "Everybody (except GPL users appearently) can use my code", makes less than good sense to me.
Rather, FSF says about the current BSD, "It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL."
I'm afraid your "True, but we don't need to...", sounds to me like your wanting to say "I'm pro-OpenSource", but also, "I don't really care about free-as-in-freedom". Perhaps it would depend on the "certain categories" of restrictions you'd be willing to have allowed placed on software.
"6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License."
Are you wanting to restrict the license to copy? Or is it the liscence to distriubte? Or to modify? Sounds like a potentially bad thing to me.
You ask how could code under a nonexpired patent ever count as free? Well how about if you release your patented work under the GPL? Should I care if you own the patent if you've granted me a license to copy, distribute or modify the Program? Why? It seems to me that the way you own the code is less important than the way you release it. (Of course IANAL...)
SCO Targets Major Linux User
November 18, 2003 (2:47 p.m. EST)
By Antone Gonsalves, TechWeb News
The SCO Group Inc. said Tuesday it would sue a major user of Linux within 90 days, as the company prepared to launch a new legal assault in its claims that the open-source operating system contains the computer maker's copyrighted code.
The Lindon, Utah, company, which has a $3 billion lawsuit pending against IBM, told reporters and analysts in a teleconference that it would begin suing companies that use Linux, but refuse to pay licensing fees to SCO.
"One of things that we will be looking to do is to identify a defendant that we believe will illustrate the nature of the problem," David Boies, managing partner of SCO's law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, said. "I don't want to try and identify that defendant on this call, for obvious reasons . . . but you will be seeing the identification of a significant user that has not paid license fees and is in fact using proprietary and copyrighted material. I think you'll certainly be seeing that within the next 90 days."
Wow...thats one lawsuit they could actually win!
This was addressed by the CEO in the comments below the article. The limitations aren't in the OS, and those numbers refer to onboard chips. You can always pop in external memory cards. Thats not a problem.
Couldn't you perhaps say that BG hacked the business system?
I thought microsoft brought desktop computing to the home user... Then microsoft copied it poorly. I do remember Win3.1, and 2.0, and 1.0. It was quite awhile before MS ever got "desktop" close to right. MacHeads had it for awhile, first.
Its not just HTML. Its way more XHTML. Its really more like saying: "We choose GTK or we choose QT for our cross platform development". Longhorn and Mozilla: Birds of a Feather
"Mozilla has a complete, separate, and enhanced implementation of Microsoft's COM, called XPCOM. XPCOM has its own QueryInterface() method, which acts just like the equivalent method in traditional COM. The 3000 object-interface combinations are due to over a thousand XPCOM components, most of which are bundled with the platform in compiled form.
To support these components, the basic infrastructure of the platform consists of several pieces:
* A fancy application-level GUI display system called Gecko. This is a layout and rendering engine.
* A very high-level networking library, called Necko
* Comprehensive XML support for various standards like XHTML, MathML, SVG, RDF, SOAP, WSDL, and UDDI. Additional support for several unique XML dialects, particularly XUL and XBL, which are used to define GUIs.
Mozilla binds these pieces together in several ways:
* By use of XPCOM and JavaScript at the object/code level
* Using data models expressed as XML RDF and by systems that exploit these models at the XML level
* By programmers using XUL and XBL as a starting and integration point for applications.."
"As a result, the focus on digital licensing has switched to scattered music publishers and songwriters, which typically receive between 7 and 8 cents for each physical copy of a song sold."
"Not only is Linux unstoppable, but IBM has abandoned using Lotus Notes inside the organisation because it's far too fat, said Deborah."
check it out
2 174158852#c41366)
Subj: AT&T donated rights
By: radicimo Date: 12/22/03 10:21 pm
from Groklaw thread on Linus' code
(h++p://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2003122
--
Standards
Authored by: meissner on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:10 PM EST
I was a member of the ANSI X3J11 C standards committee from its founding in 1983 until after the first ANSI and later ISO standards were released in 1989 and 1990 respecitively. As part of the process, AT&T through its official representive (Lawrence Rosler) specificially gave the rights to the C language and its library (including the ctype.h, signal.h, and errno.h header files) to the committe. I believe they did the same thing officially to the POSIX committee at the same time (which would cover ioctl.h and more of the errnos in errno.h, and more of the signals in signal.h). Unfortunately, I no longer retain paper documents from that period, but if it becomes important to establish a clear paper trail, I suspect Jim Brody (chair), Tom Plum (Vice char), and P. J. Plauger (secretary) probably do retain their copies.
Of course, as has been shown in the past, SCO really has no institutional memory of the past.
bash-2.05b$ perl -e 'print "seconds left: ", ((2**30) - time), "\n"' seconds left: 1686570 bash-2.05b$ octave GNU Octave, version 2.1.44 (i586-mandrake-linux-gnu). Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 John W. Eaton. This is free software; see the source code for copying conditions. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; not even for MERCHANTIBILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. For details, type `warranty'. Please contribute if you find this software useful. For more information, visit http://www.octave.org/help-wanted.html Report bugs to . octave:1> 1686570/60/60/24 ans = 19.520
Its worse than that. Its not about work IBM "wrote for SCO". SCO claims that all work IBM or anyone else ever did "extending" Unix is "derived". This is how they claim infringement for code written by IBM and SGI. They admit IBM (or SGI) own the copyrights and/or patents, but that since the code involved "extended" Unix it is "tainted" with SCO-ness. SCO takes this so far as to suggest that all modern OS "derive" from Unix, and so even MS might have problems. Audacity.
Gore was popularizing the term "information superhighway" in the early 1990s (when few people outside academia or the computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet) and did introduce a few bills dealing with education and the Internet.
:
According to Vint Cerf (Widely known as one of the "Fathers of the Internet," Cerf is the co-designer of the TCP/IP protocols and the architecture of the Internet. )
"VP Gore was the first or surely among the first of the members of Congress to become a strong supporter of advanced networking while he served as Senator. As far back as 1986, he was holding hearings on this subject (supercomputing, fiber networks...) and asking about their promise and what could be done to realize them. Bob Kahn, with whom I worked to develop the Internet design in 1973, participated in several hearings held by then-Senator Gore and I recall that Bob introduced the term ``information infrastructure'' in one hearing in 1986. It was clear that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it. As Senator, VP Gore was highly supportive of the research community's efforts to explore new networking capabilities and to extend access to supercomputers by way of NSFNET and its successors, the High Performance Computing and Communication program (which included the National Research and Education Network initiative), and as Vice President, he has been very responsive to recommendations made, for example, by the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee that endorsed additional research funding for next generation fundamental research in software and related topics. If you look at the last 30-35 years of network development, you'll find many people who have made major contributions without which the Internet would not be the vibrant, growing and exciting thing it is today. The creation of a new information infrastructure requires the willing efforts of thousands if not millions of participants and we've seen leadership from many quarters, all of it needed, to move the Internet towards increased availability and utility around the world. While it is not accurate to say that VP Gore invented Internet, he has played a powerful role in policy terms that has supported its continued growth and application, for which we should be thankful. We're fortunate to have senior level members of Congress and the Administration who embrace new technology and have the vision to see how it can be put to work for national and global benefit. "
Really that depends on how you define "the real world". If you consider WYSIWYG word processing "real", then you might be right. Some of us are more interested in parallel matrix operations. Is an excel macro "real"? Or is that quantum chemistry simulation "real". I've got news for you, the number of people doing original *real* work is pretty small. As long as good open source code is available I only care about linux on the desktop for peripheral reasons. If linux on the desktop can promote linux for "real" work, then its a good thing. But that means only if it pays for (via driver availability, etc...) the drain on developer time. Does anybody in your real world care about the things that my world considers real? Ask them what they think of the new muon...if they don't get excited, then why should I care about them? Oh yeah, unless their numbers happen to help the source...
I'm not aware of any distributions that include nvidia's drivers. Please enlighten me.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
Oh so wrong: "No one else is entitled to the source, only those that have received the distribution." They distributed a binary without sourcecode. This means that any and everyone has the right to their sourcecode, regardless. If they wanted to limit the their distribution obligations, all they'd have had to do was distribute the source with the binary.
I'm sincerely hoping that IBM is subpoening Canopus in order to pierce the corporate veil. ... They have to not only take down SCO, but also Canopus.
The most encouraging thought I've read today. Thanks!