How dare you read the articles and the links in the articles to the background material and post a reasonable response to those who obviously haven't even read the flipping article. This is slashdot. Home of the knee-jerk reaction based on headlines and some weenie's self-serving synopsis of an article. I bet you even read up on the issues before voting.
Solid judgement based on experience, and an evaluation of the circumstances of the project at hand.
It must be revolutionary otherwise more people would be doing it! Management keeps looking for a way to not have RFC 1925 apply to their particular pet project because, if it does, it will cost too much and take too long. The evangelists for each new methodology always sell it as a "silver bullet" that will circumvent RFC 1925.No one has come up with one yet and my bet is that there isn't one.
The "waterfall" was great for determining exactly what the user wanted but then ended up delivering it five years later after the requirements had changed.
"Use-case" analysis was great for determining how the user would interact with the system but tended to automate the existing processes instead of figuring out how automation could make the process unnecessary.
OO was great for implementing the non-reusable objects determined to be needed by "use-case" analysis (see previous item).
Too many shops implement XP as an excuse for not understanding the user requirements but just bashing out a bunch of high quality code that solves *the wrong problem* in a short amount of time. This isn't a criticism of XP so much as a criticism of the way it is misused (as has every other innovative software development technique).
The basic problem is and always has been that inventing the future is difficult mainly because the future has a habit of changing while we're busy trying to invent it. No technique other than a time machine will ever solve this problem because it is inherent in the invention process.
If he succeeds, you may be right. I just don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell but then the Cubs are in the playoffs so hell may have cooled off a degree or two. My bet is Darl joins the other dispised, corrupt ex-CEOs like Ken Lay (Enron), Bernie Ebbers (MCI), Kozloski (Tyco), etc. who thought they could make a dishonest buck at other people's (including their shareholder's) expense.
How about Darl is number one on the list of most laughed at people in the computer world with Laura DiDio taking number two and the rest of the SCO upper management taking the remainder of the top spots.
Sadly, I agree with Robert Frost that, "A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer." Unfortunately, this is not only the only choice we have to rely on but also the best one devised so far. We either play the game by the rules as determined by someone else or we lose by default.
Assuming this thing ever gets to trial, my guess is it will not end with the jury verdict unless the people bankrolling* SCO decide that this strategy isn't working. This means that it goes to an appeals court on various points of law and I have a lot more faith in an appeals court coming to a valid judgement in a technical matter than a trial court with a jury made up of people who use Lysol to deal with a computer virus. This case is not about determining what actually happenned based on conflicting evidence and testimony but on fine points of contract and IP law. Juries are supposed to sort out facts; appeals courts decide which law applies and how. So this one goes to at least one level of appeals before its done because this issue is all about the different side asserting that different laws and contracts apply. --- * I'm not into deep dark conspiracies but I do believe the old detective maxum of "follow the money." Microsoft, Sun and HP have the most to gain by spreading FUD regarding a Linux user's liability for using Linux. I'm betting Microsoft and Sun are SCO's two licensees for the SCO Intellectual Property license and HP's "indemnification" offer is more a way to kill Linux than support it.
As a couple of other folks have pointed out, any sort of publication of the specific lines in question has the effect of proving SCO's case for them. SCO claims that SGI (and IBM) have *illegally disclosed* SCO IP by incorporating the code into Linux. Publishing the supposedly SCO proprietary lines would be just as illegal.
On the other hand, SGI may have a really interesting strategy behind their announcement. By saying they have rigorously compared the Linux kernel source to SCO's System V source and only found a trivial amount of overlap which they are doing everything in their power to remedy, SGI has raised the stakes to SCO. SCO has to come back with either agreeing that this is the extent of SGI's transgression or they have to further define/identify what SGI code is the problem. Either way, SCO is in a "put up or shut up" situation with regard to SGI.
You have to look at this in the context of the larger issues involved. SCO is trying to assert ownership of a bunch of Linux/AIX/Irix that was created independently by a number of different authors by claiming things like JFS, XFS, NUMA, etc. are derivative works. SGI has just said that there is a little bit of System V code in the Linux source tree and it has since been removed. They want to get SCO to tip their hand by "fessing up" to claiming things like XFS. This is the main issue and the sooner IBM, SGI, et al get it on the table the sooner the real battle can begin.
That's not going to happen; at least, not with a sane defendent.
We're talking SCO here; so what's your point?
On a more serious note, a poster to GROKLAW ran across this SCO product brochure from 2002 which points out that the very features that SCO says infringe on their intellectual property (XFS, JFS, NUMA, etc.) are selling points in SCO's version of Linux. This makes it kind of hard for SCO to claim that they didn't know these features had been included in Linux and their release of the code under the GPL doesn't constitute GPLing the code.
I could be wrong but this only leaves SCO with three choices:
They can't complain about the features, just individual code fragments. They have just told SGI that fixing the individual code fragments isn't sufficient.
They challenge the GPL.
Drop the suits against IBM and SGI and watch their stock tank.
If the suit succeeds, closed source software houses would have to provide a product that lives up to their hype. Microsoft has asserted an implied warranty that they will take care of their customers. To use the old open source analogy, Microsoft's closed source software is like a car with the hood welded shut and the salesman not just telling you, "You don't need to worry about anything that goes on under there," but also asserting that its dangerous if you do.
Open source, on the other hand, says you need to know how things work and that problems *will* occur in spite of everyone's best efforts. So, if a Linux vulnerability causes damages, you have no recourse and there is no one to sue. Even if you use a boxed distribution, the distro maker just packages things for your convenience and they don't claim that the constituent software is anything but what it is.
This is probably also the gist of the case, weasel words in EULAs and TOS agreements notwithstanding. Ford was found liable for selling a vehicle (the Explorer) in a configuration that was found to be dangerous is spite of the best efforts of their engineers and Firestones engineers. Who knows? Maybe Microsoft will be found liable for selling a demonstrably faulty product.
That being said, I wonder how hard it would be to create a set of form letters such that *everyone* who has contributed to Linux could easily send their own cease and desist letter to SCO for distributing each contributors copyrighted work without a license. As has been pointed out, the GPL is the only thing that gives anyone the right to copy and distribute Linux. SCO has not only violated the GPL but Darl and company have publicly attacked it. It would be fitting to let them know what it means to not have the GPL as a basis for distributing other people's work.
The next step would be to come up with a way to make SCO show that they have *not infringed* on anyone's copyrighted, GPLed code by incorporating it into their proprietary product(s). This would be trickier but SCO and Darl have shown they don't have a good handle on their own source code (e.g., showing some old packet filter code and claiming it was illegally incorporated into Linux). IANAL, so I don't know if demonstrated sloppy record keeping is sufficient cause for something like this. This would effectively turn the tables on SCO such that they would have to prove that they are not infringing on anyone else's work.
63 stories in 153 days =.41 stories per day. Why, that's not even 1 story every other day!
You missed the obvious reason. The whiner who was complaining is bad at math. He went through the same careful research as you but threw a decimal place in the arithmetic.
Probably one of the coolest things out of this specific turn of events is that it appears that IBM really *gets it* when it comes to Free/Open Source Software. On the other hand, I don't have any delusions that there is some altruistic motive on IBM's part to this. IBM sells service and support. With closed software, there is only so much you can do beyond installation and upgrades. I'm sure that IBM sees the ability of the customer to customize the system as a continuing revenue stream since it means the customer will always need someone with IBM's expertise to come in and fix things whenever something changes and their custom stuff suddenly is broken.
IBM is going to bat for Free/Open Source because they see Free/Open Source software as a way to make money. Nothing wrong with that and bottom feeders like SCO are why open source needs companies like IBM. It would have been somewhat ugly if Darl & company hadn't gotten greedy and gone for all the marbles instead of just quietly infringing on GPLed code.
Nah. John Bobbit has the right life experience to play Darl's role. I'm guessing Darl's going to wish he only had as few parts missing as John Bobbit when IBM's lawyers are done with him and SCO.
True, but do you think they would have still fired him if the paper had been a glowing endorsement of Microsoft?
Generally, "real" security companies put the security of the client first. This action by @stake strongly implies that the company puts their relationship with Microsoft first and the security of their clients second. "Real" security companies like to see their employees perceived as unbiased experts in the field and, thus, usually encourage them to get published independently, serve on expert panels, etc. These types of activities are generally seen as free advertising that further establishes the company's credentials.
Agree. I'm running 2.6.0-test5 on a dual Athlon 2400+ system and it flies compared to a 2.4 kernel. I started running development kernels with 2.5.22 and have been very pleasantly surprised by how stable the development kernels have been.
I'm pretty disappointed in CNN. What I quoted was at the top of their article and CNN's text implied that this was the basis of the finding. Now that I've actually read the ruling (yuck), it looks like it still isn't a "free speech" issue but just comes down to whether Congress really granted the FTC the authority to create a do not call list.
I find it interesting how the judge split hairs in the ruling. The FTC *has* the authority to regulate certain aspects of telemarketing (e.g., predictive dialers, abandoned calls, pre-acquired accounts) but apparently doesn't have the authority to promulgate a do not call list regulation even if Congress gives them money to do it.
It sounds like the DMA made significant use of the fact the Congress had previously given the authority to establish a do not call list to the FCC which had decided not to implement it. The judge must have been asleep for the twelve years between when the FCC legislation was enacted and now (and I guess didn't get any telemarketing calls to wake him up). Telemarketers have become a lot more agressive and intrusive since 1991.
Actually, you'll find that quite a wide variety of commercial speech is regulated. Examples:
A product can only claim to be "new" and/or "improved" for something like one year after its formula has changed.
Any sort of "forward looking statement" from a public company regarding finances and business prospects has to be accompanied by a disclaimer (the so called "safe harbor statement").
All sorts of truth in advertsing regulations.
Equal access regulations regarding political advertising in broadcast media (funny about that, old media such as newspapers can be as biased and one sided as they want to be subject only to what the market will bear; new media however is heavily regulated).
My main point was that commercial speech is anything but "protected, free speech." It is highly regulated and restricted with lots of precedents for restricting what, when and how a commercial message can be said. Its a different debate as to whether this is right or not. The point is that the governement has a well established precedent for restricting all sorts of commercial speech, including telemarketing.
It took reading all three articles (Yahoo, CNN and Fox) but CNN actually quoted from the ruling:
"The rulemaking process requires an agency to fairly apprise interested parties of all significant subjects and issues involved, so that they can participate in the process," the court paper said. The court said it ruled in favor of the plaintiffs' claims that "that portion of the final amended rule that pertains to the national 'do-not-call' registry is invalid."
If this is really the basis for the finding, then the court is simply saying that the FTC did not follow what the court considers to be a valid rule making process in creating the national do not call list. It doesn't say they don't have the authority nor does it say that the do not call list infringes on free speech.
Typically when a federal agency establishes rules that affect a particular industry, input into the rule making process from the affected industry is part of the process. I don't know to what extent the FTC can now hold a public hearing, invite the DMA and whoever else they want, and then say, "Thank you for your input." and establish the same do not call registry but that's what it sounds like is all they have to do.
Sorry, trying to stay out of the full legal treatiste on the difference between commercial speech and individual speech. Bottom line is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights only grant rights to individuals; not to corporations. Some of these spill over to an individual acting for a corporation and some grant to the ownership of a corporation as individuals (e.g., a corporation, even one as slimy as Enron, can still make statements to defend itself).
There are a number of cases (liquor and tobacco advertising come to mind) in which the "speech" of corporations is highly regulated in a manner that would not be tolerated if it were applied to an individual. Likewise, individuals can tell all the lies they want so long as they don't purger themselves or slander someone else; false advertising, however, is illegal. I can go on with a number of examples in which the speech of an individual is protected while the same speech from a corporation is either not protected or is prohibitted.
Ergo, commercial speech is not protected to anywhere near the extent that individual speech is protected (again, as Nike found out). To me, this means commercial speech is not a protected form of free speech; sort of protected under certain circumstances and at a lawmaker's, regulator's and/or judge's discretion doesn't cut it.
Slashdot Mirror
The dev box gets a new kernel whenever Linus decrees that it is time. As for the server:
[dave@fraud ~]# uptime
21:08:15 up 81 days, 7:46, 13 users, load average: 0.26, 0.15, 0.10
Its on a UPS.
Slackers:
/proc/version
[dave@bend ~]# cat
Linux version 2.6.0-test7 (dave@bend.local.davenjudy.org) (gcc version 3.2.2 20030222 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.2-5)) #1 SMP Wed Oct 8 19:09:28 MDT 2003
[dave@bend ~]# uptime
19:37:24 up 18 min, 8 users, load average: 0.62, 0.20, 0.13
So why haven't *YOU* built and booted with 2.6.0-test7 yet?
How dare you read the articles and the links in the articles to the background material and post a reasonable response to those who obviously haven't even read the flipping article. This is slashdot. Home of the knee-jerk reaction based on headlines and some weenie's self-serving synopsis of an article. I bet you even read up on the issues before voting.
It must be revolutionary otherwise more people would be doing it! Management keeps looking for a way to not have RFC 1925 apply to their particular pet project because, if it does, it will cost too much and take too long. The evangelists for each new methodology always sell it as a "silver bullet" that will circumvent RFC 1925. No one has come up with one yet and my bet is that there isn't one.
Isn't the technical term for a hardened POS a coprolite? I guess that really fits when it comes from a dinosaur like SCO.
The "waterfall" was great for determining exactly what the user wanted but then ended up delivering it five years later after the requirements had changed.
"Use-case" analysis was great for determining how the user would interact with the system but tended to automate the existing processes instead of figuring out how automation could make the process unnecessary.
OO was great for implementing the non-reusable objects determined to be needed by "use-case" analysis (see previous item).
Too many shops implement XP as an excuse for not understanding the user requirements but just bashing out a bunch of high quality code that solves *the wrong problem* in a short amount of time. This isn't a criticism of XP so much as a criticism of the way it is misused (as has every other innovative software development technique).
The basic problem is and always has been that inventing the future is difficult mainly because the future has a habit of changing while we're busy trying to invent it. No technique other than a time machine will ever solve this problem because it is inherent in the invention process.
If he succeeds, you may be right. I just don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell but then the Cubs are in the playoffs so hell may have cooled off a degree or two. My bet is Darl joins the other dispised, corrupt ex-CEOs like Ken Lay (Enron), Bernie Ebbers (MCI), Kozloski (Tyco), etc. who thought they could make a dishonest buck at other people's (including their shareholder's) expense.
How about Darl is number one on the list of most laughed at people in the computer world with Laura DiDio taking number two and the rest of the SCO upper management taking the remainder of the top spots.
Sadly, I agree with Robert Frost that, "A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer." Unfortunately, this is not only the only choice we have to rely on but also the best one devised so far. We either play the game by the rules as determined by someone else or we lose by default.
Assuming this thing ever gets to trial, my guess is it will not end with the jury verdict unless the people bankrolling* SCO decide that this strategy isn't working. This means that it goes to an appeals court on various points of law and I have a lot more faith in an appeals court coming to a valid judgement in a technical matter than a trial court with a jury made up of people who use Lysol to deal with a computer virus. This case is not about determining what actually happenned based on conflicting evidence and testimony but on fine points of contract and IP law. Juries are supposed to sort out facts; appeals courts decide which law applies and how. So this one goes to at least one level of appeals before its done because this issue is all about the different side asserting that different laws and contracts apply.
---
* I'm not into deep dark conspiracies but I do believe the old detective maxum of "follow the money." Microsoft, Sun and HP have the most to gain by spreading FUD regarding a Linux user's liability for using Linux. I'm betting Microsoft and Sun are SCO's two licensees for the SCO Intellectual Property license and HP's "indemnification" offer is more a way to kill Linux than support it.
As a couple of other folks have pointed out, any sort of publication of the specific lines in question has the effect of proving SCO's case for them. SCO claims that SGI (and IBM) have *illegally disclosed* SCO IP by incorporating the code into Linux. Publishing the supposedly SCO proprietary lines would be just as illegal.
On the other hand, SGI may have a really interesting strategy behind their announcement. By saying they have rigorously compared the Linux kernel source to SCO's System V source and only found a trivial amount of overlap which they are doing everything in their power to remedy, SGI has raised the stakes to SCO. SCO has to come back with either agreeing that this is the extent of SGI's transgression or they have to further define/identify what SGI code is the problem. Either way, SCO is in a "put up or shut up" situation with regard to SGI.
You have to look at this in the context of the larger issues involved. SCO is trying to assert ownership of a bunch of Linux/AIX/Irix that was created independently by a number of different authors by claiming things like JFS, XFS, NUMA, etc. are derivative works. SGI has just said that there is a little bit of System V code in the Linux source tree and it has since been removed. They want to get SCO to tip their hand by "fessing up" to claiming things like XFS. This is the main issue and the sooner IBM, SGI, et al get it on the table the sooner the real battle can begin.
We're talking SCO here; so what's your point?
On a more serious note, a poster to GROKLAW ran across this SCO product brochure from 2002 which points out that the very features that SCO says infringe on their intellectual property (XFS, JFS, NUMA, etc.) are selling points in SCO's version of Linux. This makes it kind of hard for SCO to claim that they didn't know these features had been included in Linux and their release of the code under the GPL doesn't constitute GPLing the code.
I could be wrong but this only leaves SCO with three choices:
He left out what the /. crew has on their belts, in their pockets, on their heads, ... Only a few really cool geek toys fit up your sleeve.
If the suit succeeds, closed source software houses would have to provide a product that lives up to their hype. Microsoft has asserted an implied warranty that they will take care of their customers. To use the old open source analogy, Microsoft's closed source software is like a car with the hood welded shut and the salesman not just telling you, "You don't need to worry about anything that goes on under there," but also asserting that its dangerous if you do.
Open source, on the other hand, says you need to know how things work and that problems *will* occur in spite of everyone's best efforts. So, if a Linux vulnerability causes damages, you have no recourse and there is no one to sue. Even if you use a boxed distribution, the distro maker just packages things for your convenience and they don't claim that the constituent software is anything but what it is.
This is probably also the gist of the case, weasel words in EULAs and TOS agreements notwithstanding. Ford was found liable for selling a vehicle (the Explorer) in a configuration that was found to be dangerous is spite of the best efforts of their engineers and Firestones engineers. Who knows? Maybe Microsoft will be found liable for selling a demonstrably faulty product.
P.S. Darl, print a copy of this letter, fold it sharp edges out and stuff it you know where. Best regards, Rich.
That being said, I wonder how hard it would be to create a set of form letters such that *everyone* who has contributed to Linux could easily send their own cease and desist letter to SCO for distributing each contributors copyrighted work without a license. As has been pointed out, the GPL is the only thing that gives anyone the right to copy and distribute Linux. SCO has not only violated the GPL but Darl and company have publicly attacked it. It would be fitting to let them know what it means to not have the GPL as a basis for distributing other people's work.
The next step would be to come up with a way to make SCO show that they have *not infringed* on anyone's copyrighted, GPLed code by incorporating it into their proprietary product(s). This would be trickier but SCO and Darl have shown they don't have a good handle on their own source code (e.g., showing some old packet filter code and claiming it was illegally incorporated into Linux). IANAL, so I don't know if demonstrated sloppy record keeping is sufficient cause for something like this. This would effectively turn the tables on SCO such that they would have to prove that they are not infringing on anyone else's work.
If this works, it could really be fun to watch!
Not!
Probably one of the coolest things out of this specific turn of events is that it appears that IBM really *gets it* when it comes to Free/Open Source Software. On the other hand, I don't have any delusions that there is some altruistic motive on IBM's part to this. IBM sells service and support. With closed software, there is only so much you can do beyond installation and upgrades. I'm sure that IBM sees the ability of the customer to customize the system as a continuing revenue stream since it means the customer will always need someone with IBM's expertise to come in and fix things whenever something changes and their custom stuff suddenly is broken.
IBM is going to bat for Free/Open Source because they see Free/Open Source software as a way to make money. Nothing wrong with that and bottom feeders like SCO are why open source needs companies like IBM. It would have been somewhat ugly if Darl & company hadn't gotten greedy and gone for all the marbles instead of just quietly infringing on GPLed code.
Nah. John Bobbit has the right life experience to play Darl's role. I'm guessing Darl's going to wish he only had as few parts missing as John Bobbit when IBM's lawyers are done with him and SCO.
... but *you* just contributed two more!
Would you prefer that we start writing and pronouncing it, "circa-stake?"
True, but do you think they would have still fired him if the paper had been a glowing endorsement of Microsoft?
Generally, "real" security companies put the security of the client first. This action by @stake strongly implies that the company puts their relationship with Microsoft first and the security of their clients second. "Real" security companies like to see their employees perceived as unbiased experts in the field and, thus, usually encourage them to get published independently, serve on expert panels, etc. These types of activities are generally seen as free advertising that further establishes the company's credentials.
Agree. I'm running 2.6.0-test5 on a dual Athlon 2400+ system and it flies compared to a 2.4 kernel. I started running development kernels with 2.5.22 and have been very pleasantly surprised by how stable the development kernels have been.
I'm pretty disappointed in CNN. What I quoted was at the top of their article and CNN's text implied that this was the basis of the finding. Now that I've actually read the ruling (yuck), it looks like it still isn't a "free speech" issue but just comes down to whether Congress really granted the FTC the authority to create a do not call list.
I find it interesting how the judge split hairs in the ruling. The FTC *has* the authority to regulate certain aspects of telemarketing (e.g., predictive dialers, abandoned calls, pre-acquired accounts) but apparently doesn't have the authority to promulgate a do not call list regulation even if Congress gives them money to do it.
It sounds like the DMA made significant use of the fact the Congress had previously given the authority to establish a do not call list to the FCC which had decided not to implement it. The judge must have been asleep for the twelve years between when the FCC legislation was enacted and now (and I guess didn't get any telemarketing calls to wake him up). Telemarketers have become a lot more agressive and intrusive since 1991.
Actually, you'll find that quite a wide variety of commercial speech is regulated. Examples:
A product can only claim to be "new" and/or "improved" for something like one year after its formula has changed.
Any sort of "forward looking statement" from a public company regarding finances and business prospects has to be accompanied by a disclaimer (the so called "safe harbor statement").
All sorts of truth in advertsing regulations.
Equal access regulations regarding political advertising in broadcast media (funny about that, old media such as newspapers can be as biased and one sided as they want to be subject only to what the market will bear; new media however is heavily regulated).
My main point was that commercial speech is anything but "protected, free speech." It is highly regulated and restricted with lots of precedents for restricting what, when and how a commercial message can be said. Its a different debate as to whether this is right or not. The point is that the governement has a well established precedent for restricting all sorts of commercial speech, including telemarketing.
Typically when a federal agency establishes rules that affect a particular industry, input into the rule making process from the affected industry is part of the process. I don't know to what extent the FTC can now hold a public hearing, invite the DMA and whoever else they want, and then say, "Thank you for your input." and establish the same do not call registry but that's what it sounds like is all they have to do.
Sorry, trying to stay out of the full legal treatiste on the difference between commercial speech and individual speech. Bottom line is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights only grant rights to individuals; not to corporations. Some of these spill over to an individual acting for a corporation and some grant to the ownership of a corporation as individuals (e.g., a corporation, even one as slimy as Enron, can still make statements to defend itself).
There are a number of cases (liquor and tobacco advertising come to mind) in which the "speech" of corporations is highly regulated in a manner that would not be tolerated if it were applied to an individual. Likewise, individuals can tell all the lies they want so long as they don't purger themselves or slander someone else; false advertising, however, is illegal. I can go on with a number of examples in which the speech of an individual is protected while the same speech from a corporation is either not protected or is prohibitted.
Ergo, commercial speech is not protected to anywhere near the extent that individual speech is protected (again, as Nike found out). To me, this means commercial speech is not a protected form of free speech; sort of protected under certain circumstances and at a lawmaker's, regulator's and/or judge's discretion doesn't cut it.