Spelling nazi...Then someone'll suggest he might make a good nazi prision guard... then comparisons of SCO's D. McBride and Hitler with der furhur seeming not so evil...add a MS conspiracy theorist and its all there, 'cept for the goat.
But they want to continue to support their linux customers, including updates. If they prove (which I doubt) that any linux distribution is illegal, then their distribution is also illegal. The rights they derived from the GPL to modify and distribute evaporated too. What they should have to do (under their claimed scenerio) is buy back every copy they sold.
What makes it "unlikely" is how SCO is basing their claim on whats "their" code.
'We believe that UNIX System V provided the basic building blocks for all subsequent computer operating systems, and that they all tend to be derived from UNIX System V (and therefore are claimed as SCO's intellectual property).'
"In more detail, SCO claim to have full IP rights to several major components of any high-spec OS:
But you also said "First, he claims that Linux is fine becuase SCO indemnified users. No, only customers of SCO linux." I find this an interesting and new twist, though. They did release under the GPL and still they are saying, "SCO will continue to support our SCO Linux and OpenLinux customers and partners who have previously implemented those products and we will hold them harmless from any SCO intellectual property issues regarding Linux. SCO will continue to honor all contractual obligations with existing customers including product updates, service, and support."
Now the GPL is what grants them the right to distribute, and they can't attach further restrictions to the GPL. It seems either we must all me safe, or else the restrictions on me force the distribution to their customers to have been illegal.
"If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
Seems like SCO wants to have it both ways, though. Any lawyers out there willing to comment?
Actually the fact that SCO continued to distribute is well documentated. Thats a fact. BSD's continued existence after the ATT mistake is also a fact, futher muddying SCO's claim. Historical fact. Rather that "blind speculation" I'd suggest that claims were laid next to facts. Facts are evidence.
"They said they won't sue people using SCO Linux", and in fact that they would continue supporting them (even to the point of updates)...not that it was ok with them for the code to be used.
"If I jaywalk and don't get charged, it's not that jaywalking is not illegal, it's that the law was not enforced." Yes, but the point is that having released (knowingly) under the GPL the code is now GPL-ed. Thus its more like after the Gov'nr grants a pardon the Supreme Court extends the pardon for everyone else convicted under a given law. After they've painted crosswalks its not jaywalking anymore!
Oh please. To compare Tricky Dick favorably to anyone on your list is absurd. Even in a politically biased discussion the crimes of R.M. Nixon stand as facts. "Forgiven for what he did and whatever he might have done."
Judge Goes Way
Below Minimum
"On Wednesday, June 4th, Ed Rosenthal walked out of federal court in San Francisco a free man, thanks to the generous support of the community."
So what they "went for" and what they got are two very different outcomes. Also note: "As a direct result of Ed's case, the Truth in Trials Act has been introduced
in Congress to allow a medical defense in certain federal marijuana trials.
But a crucial difference (in my mind) is that Redhat, Debian, SuSE, etc..., are distributing software but aren't aware of *which* lines of code aren't kosher by SCO's viewpoint. SCO is the only one who knows. And SCO is distributing under the GPL even as we type. Therefor it seems that to distribute code under the GPL that you have public claimed is tained with your IP is in fact knowingly GPLing the code. Redhat can't GPL someone else's code. Only SCO could GPL their code. And it sure looks like they are doing so.
I browse with javascript and java disabled (mostly). If I find I need javascript, I need to reload after toggling javascript on. Reloading from cache is faster.
"Irony is naming the national airport after the man that fired all the air traffic controllers." Actually thats just to remind the current controllers just who is really in control.
"Dissimulation; ignorance feigned for the purpose of
confounding or provoking an antagonist." If we'd found it funny, it wouldn't have been ironic. I'm not confounded, but I am provoked. Thus, its ironic.
You are both right. It is because you can't make the code "less restrictive" that stops others from restricting the code even further. Its no longer a Commons if people are allowed to build fences and squat. More on target is the question: should tax dollars go towards a public commons? How do you feel about federal parks? Should I be able to turn part of a public park into a hotel?
My point was that employers use NDAs. Thus proof of technical ability is shutoff. OSS projects are a way to demonstrate actual code. Prof.s are real, yes. I've never known anyone (at least in Physics) who has ever listened to a coach's recommendation.
We have 5 levels of Physics, in decreasing order: 1. Physics for Physicists. 2. Physics for Engineers. 3. Physics for PreMed. 4. Physical Science for G.E. 5. Physics for Plants, and 6. Physics for Football Players. We only consider the first 5 to be real classes.
What we care about is publications. NDAs would prevent publication. OSS is by its nature a form of publication. Your hiring managers might be more interested in general personality, but from what I've seen people who hire are interested in what the person can actually do. They measure this with results.
Except that SCO is still distributing GPL-ed code (under the GPL, notices intact) that includes the alleged "illegal inclusion by a third party". The fact that today you can go to their ftp site seems to me to indicate that whats there is there with their full knowledge. Its more like (today) you sold your house "as is", after telling the world that your car was put in the garage, then you drove the car around the block and put it back into the garage yourself. After telling the world that you put the car back into the garage yourself, you then sign the contract for sell "as-is".
Actually this was a prelim injuction that was overturned. The $Billion lawsuit is still ongoing. A little early to be calling it a slap on the wrist. God willing it could still be $1,000,000,000.00
"At the same time, the appeals judges upheld a lower court ruling that Microsoft had broken a 2001 legal settlement between the companies and infringed on Sun's copyrights. They sent the case back to the lower-court judge, U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz, for further proceedings."
...
" Sun, which is seeking $1 billion in damages, charges Microsoft's acts against Java include polluting a version of the software and dropping it from Windows XP"
Its not MS's "job", but it could be their legal responsibility to clean up the mess that they made. Big difference. Comparing RedHat and Realplayer to MS/Java is like saying that since I have the right to drive across statelines then so should convicted felons, and damn those pesky prision guards. Its all about context.
"The GPL was placed on that code by someone who was not the copyright holder." Impossible, under the GPL. Perhaps you meant "no liscense was attatched". Then everyone is in violation of copyright (since parts would still be under GPL, and the combined work would fail the GPL).
Likewise its impossible for SCO to try to sell an end-user liscense, since the code in question is combined with GPL-ed code, and hence can't be distributed. Anyone who purchases such an end-user liscense would be buying the Golden Gate bridge based on SCO having a van on the bridge at the time.
SCO may have never intended to distribute the code...LOL...but they are distributing now, even as I type this. They were "duped" into continuing distribute? Is that what you really mean? If they don't grant their IP under the GPL, then distribuing their distribution is a violation of the GPL. If they had shutdown their FTP servers when they quite selling, your position might have be viable, but they didn't and they haven't.
"Choosing the GPL to release the code is a deliberate act of abnegation on the part of the author(s), they are putting control directly into the hands of the users and reserving almost no rights for themselves."
Wrong. If your code doesn't use other GPLed code (or you get all the other authors permissions), you can release it under multiple liscenses. If you release it under the GPL, you can still release it under other liscenses later. You own the copyright. Distributing under the GPL doesn't give me "control" at all. I can't distribute your code under multiple liscenses. My right to distribute your copyrighted code is based on the GPL. Its simple, really, but apparently often misunderstood. If you are really releasing under the GPL, I recommend you actually read it.
"Re your point about looking "at what the guy is doing", are you for real?? Don't you think a firm can do that ordinarily? Talk to profs, sports coaches, previous employers?"
What does a sports coach know about your coding? What can previous employers say without invoking NDAs which then even limit what you yourself can say?
Its not a myth, it is in the GPL. If you distribute a binary, then you are required to give any third person sourcecode. If you give Cmdr Taco a binary executable then I can request of you the source under the GPL. You did include the written offer to do so, yes? Even if you are distributing a binary for which you never saw the source, you needs must also distribute the agreement as you recieved it.
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.)
"But when development is done with everyone's dollars, it should be open for use by all."
Absolutely it should be open for use by all. GPL software is absolutely "open for use" by one and all. The GPL even states it has to be. So don't worry, your business can run linux, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Spelling nazi...Then someone'll suggest he might make a good nazi prision guard... then comparisons of SCO's D. McBride and Hitler with der furhur seeming not so evil...add a MS conspiracy theorist and its all there, 'cept for the goat.
But they want to continue to support their linux customers, including updates. If they prove (which I doubt) that any linux distribution is illegal, then their distribution is also illegal. The rights they derived from the GPL to modify and distribute evaporated too. What they should have to do (under their claimed scenerio) is buy back every copy they sold.
Amen, brother! Thats the best Matrix metaphor I've seen on slashdot yet.
What makes it "unlikely" is how SCO is basing their claim on whats "their" code.
'We believe that UNIX System V provided the basic building blocks for all subsequent computer operating systems, and that they all tend to be derived from UNIX System V (and therefore are claimed as SCO's intellectual property).'
"In more detail, SCO claim to have full IP rights to several major components of any high-spec OS:
* JFS (Journalling File System).
* NUMA (Non Uniform Memory Access).
* RCU (Read-Copy Update).
* SMP (Symmetrical Multi-Processing).
But you also said "First, he claims that Linux is fine becuase SCO indemnified users. No, only customers of SCO linux." I find this an interesting and new twist, though. They did release under the GPL and still they are saying, "SCO will continue to support our SCO Linux and OpenLinux customers and partners who have previously implemented those products and we will hold them harmless from any SCO intellectual property issues regarding Linux. SCO will continue to honor all contractual obligations with existing customers including product updates, service, and support."
Now the GPL is what grants them the right to distribute, and they can't attach further restrictions to the GPL. It seems either we must all me safe, or else the restrictions on me force the distribution to their customers to have been illegal.
"If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
Seems like SCO wants to have it both ways, though. Any lawyers out there willing to comment?
Actually the fact that SCO continued to distribute is well documentated. Thats a fact. BSD's continued existence after the ATT mistake is also a fact, futher muddying SCO's claim. Historical fact. Rather that "blind speculation" I'd suggest that claims were laid next to facts. Facts are evidence.
"They said they won't sue people using SCO Linux", and in fact that they would continue supporting them (even to the point of updates)...not that it was ok with them for the code to be used.
"If I jaywalk and don't get charged, it's not that jaywalking is not illegal, it's that the law was not enforced." Yes, but the point is that having released (knowingly) under the GPL the code is now GPL-ed. Thus its more like after the Gov'nr grants a pardon the Supreme Court extends the pardon for everyone else convicted under a given law. After they've painted crosswalks its not jaywalking anymore!
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't Windows CE a failure?
Oh please. To compare Tricky Dick favorably to anyone on your list is absurd. Even in a politically biased discussion the crimes of R.M. Nixon stand as facts. "Forgiven for what he did and whatever he might have done."
Judge Goes Way Below Minimum
"On Wednesday, June 4th, Ed Rosenthal walked out of federal court in San Francisco a free man, thanks to the generous support of the community."
So what they "went for" and what they got are two very different outcomes. Also note: "As a direct result of Ed's case, the Truth in Trials Act has been introduced in Congress to allow a medical defense in certain federal marijuana trials.
But a crucial difference (in my mind) is that Redhat, Debian, SuSE, etc..., are distributing software but aren't aware of *which* lines of code aren't kosher by SCO's viewpoint. SCO is the only one who knows. And SCO is distributing under the GPL even as we type. Therefor it seems that to distribute code under the GPL that you have public claimed is tained with your IP is in fact knowingly GPLing the code. Redhat can't GPL someone else's code. Only SCO could GPL their code. And it sure looks like they are doing so.
I browse with javascript and java disabled (mostly). If I find I need javascript, I need to reload after toggling javascript on. Reloading from cache is faster.
"Irony is naming the national airport after the man that fired all the air traffic controllers."
Actually thats just to remind the current controllers just who is really in control.
"Dissimulation; ignorance feigned for the purpose of confounding or provoking an antagonist." If we'd found it funny, it wouldn't have been ironic. I'm not confounded, but I am provoked. Thus, its ironic.
You are both right. It is because you can't make the code "less restrictive" that stops others from restricting the code even further. Its no longer a Commons if people are allowed to build fences and squat. More on target is the question: should tax dollars go towards a public commons? How do you feel about federal parks? Should I be able to turn part of a public park into a hotel?
My point was that employers use NDAs. Thus proof of technical ability is shutoff. OSS projects are a way to demonstrate actual code. Prof.s are real, yes. I've never known anyone (at least in Physics) who has ever listened to a coach's recommendation.
We have 5 levels of Physics, in decreasing order:
1. Physics for Physicists. 2. Physics for Engineers. 3. Physics for PreMed. 4. Physical Science for G.E. 5. Physics for Plants, and 6. Physics for Football Players. We only consider the first 5 to be real classes.
What we care about is publications. NDAs would prevent publication. OSS is by its nature a form of publication. Your hiring managers might be more interested in general personality, but from what I've seen people who hire are interested in what the person can actually do. They measure this with results.
Vote with my wallet: Like, "When they only to feel in the pocket, will stop with these attitudes anticonsuming."
Except that SCO is still distributing GPL-ed code (under the GPL, notices intact) that includes the alleged "illegal inclusion by a third party". The fact that today you can go to their ftp site seems to me to indicate that whats there is there with their full knowledge. Its more like (today) you sold your house "as is", after telling the world that your car was put in the garage, then you drove the car around the block and put it back into the garage yourself. After telling the world that you put the car back into the garage yourself, you then sign the contract for sell "as-is".
Actually this was a prelim injuction that was overturned. The $Billion lawsuit is still ongoing. A little early to be calling it a slap on the wrist. God willing it could still be $1,000,000,000.00
"At the same time, the appeals judges upheld a lower court ruling that Microsoft had broken a 2001 legal settlement between the companies and infringed on Sun's copyrights. They sent the case back to the lower-court judge, U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz, for further proceedings."
...
" Sun, which is seeking $1 billion in damages, charges Microsoft's acts against Java include polluting a version of the software and dropping it from Windows XP"
Its not MS's "job", but it could be their legal responsibility to clean up the mess that they made. Big difference. Comparing RedHat and Realplayer to MS/Java is like saying that since I have the right to drive across statelines then so should convicted felons, and damn those pesky prision guards. Its all about context.
"The GPL was placed on that code by someone who was not the copyright holder." Impossible, under the GPL. Perhaps you meant "no liscense was attatched". Then everyone is in violation of copyright (since parts would still be under GPL, and the combined work would fail the GPL).
Likewise its impossible for SCO to try to sell an end-user liscense, since the code in question is combined with GPL-ed code, and hence can't be distributed. Anyone who purchases such an end-user liscense would be buying the Golden Gate bridge based on SCO having a van on the bridge at the time.
SCO may have never intended to distribute the code...LOL...but they are distributing now, even as I type this. They were "duped" into continuing distribute? Is that what you really mean? If they don't grant their IP under the GPL, then distribuing their distribution is a violation of the GPL. If they had shutdown their FTP servers when they quite selling, your position might have be viable, but they didn't and they haven't.
"Choosing the GPL to release the code is a deliberate act of abnegation on the part of the author(s), they are putting control directly into the hands of the users and reserving almost no rights for themselves."
Wrong. If your code doesn't use other GPLed code (or you get all the other authors permissions), you can release it under multiple liscenses. If you release it under the GPL, you can still release it under other liscenses later. You own the copyright. Distributing under the GPL doesn't give me "control" at all. I can't distribute your code under multiple liscenses. My right to distribute your copyrighted code is based on the GPL. Its simple, really, but apparently often misunderstood. If you are really releasing under the GPL, I recommend you actually read it.
"Re your point about looking "at what the guy is doing", are you for real?? Don't you think a firm can do that ordinarily? Talk to profs, sports coaches, previous employers?" What does a sports coach know about your coding? What can previous employers say without invoking NDAs which then even limit what you yourself can say?
Its not a myth, it is in the GPL. If you distribute a binary, then you are required to give any third person sourcecode. If you give Cmdr Taco a binary executable then I can request of you the source under the GPL. You did include the written offer to do so, yes? Even if you are distributing a binary for which you never saw the source, you needs must also distribute the agreement as you recieved it.
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.)
"But when development is done with everyone's dollars, it should be open for use by all."
Absolutely it should be open for use by all. GPL software is absolutely "open for use" by one and all. The GPL even states it has to be. So don't worry, your business can run linux, too.