MS & Co. would have **way** too much to lose if they got caught. I know they've already bent a few laws, but this would be going WAY far out. Imagine the outrage!
And I'm guessing Eric doesn't live in a vacuum, and I'm betting he's probably got a pretty tight little network.
Still, there was that movie, not too many years ago, starring Tim Robbins as the "Bill Gates" act-alike (name escapes me).
FWIW *my* calendar has 23 August 2003 as being a Saturday, and 20 August 2003 being a Wednesday.
***
That detail aside, I love this letter. Thank you, Mr Raymond. That was inspired.
I'm a little concerned about the side threat "As the president of OSI, defending the community of open-source hackers against predators and carpetbaggers is mine -- and if you don't stop trying to destroy Linux and everything else we've worked for I guarantee you won't like what our alliance is cooking up next." It worries me that Raymond would phrase things this way.
I suppose there are a lot of non-violent actions that he could mean: tens of thousands of small claims actions (an idea which I love), protesting, etc. But there are some illegal ones that could be inferred from his statement: DOS, DDOS, DRDOS, etc, that would cause quite a stir; after all, aren't the ones that SCO's going after (the Open Source Community) in possession of (and the authors of) "subversive" source code (in McBride's eyes) that could be used against him on the Internet if the Community deemed it necessary?
No, no, don't flame me; I'm merely trying to put McBride's way of "thinking" (if you can call it that) onto Raymond's letter.
I am sure Raymond meant nothing of sort; however, in McBride's state of dementia and loose grip on reality, I wonder what he will think.
I hope, if it's necessary, that IBM (or more likely the EFF) will be able to send in the lawyers on Raymond's behalf. But I hope even more that it won't be needed.
I can't speak for all branch prediction models, but in the PowerPC, the answer is yes, but it's static.
In the PowerPC, unless a hint is given by the programmer/compiler, forward branches (positive offset) are predicted as NOT taken, and backward branches are predicted as BEING taken.
This is simply because lots of branching (aside from function calls) takes place in for, while and do-while loops (or for, while, and repeat-until for you Pascal geeks:)
I don't know... but it seems unlikely that they could enforce any kind of license if a user didn't even download the source, but just had the kernel installed on their 32-bit machine.
Yes, the source tree may have contained the offending file(s) during compilation, but if they weren't used to build the kernel image, how is that copyright infringement??
Maybe the *local* newspaper could protect his identity, but the local *school* newspaper probably could not.
See, everyone who works at the paper is under the jurisdiction of the school's president/chancellor/high-up-mucky-muck. I'm not so sure that the student journalists' rights would be protected. I know I've read of stories in the past where, if education is involved, it's up to the school administration, other rights being set aside in favor of the school's right to enforce its rules and policies (which you agree to, implicitly or explicitly, by paying tuition).
Nah, don't be sorry; you were right, and I was wrong.
I still feel like "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck."
If someone downloads something, and doesn't buy the CD, ethically that seems like theft. (Nuts to all of the folks who pointed out the trivial cases like "I made it".)
If someone/else/ created the music, had it put on a CD/for sale/, and someone rips an MP3 of it, and scatters it far and wide to the four corners of the earth, and someone else downloads it, how is that not theft (not the legal definition, but the ethical definition)??
I don't really care about the p2p stuff. Yeah, as people pointed out, there are lots of//legitimate// uses of it. Fine, wonderful, and all that. Attacking p2p isn't the problem.
I don't know what the solution is. IANAL. I hope you're right about the future way -- something easy to use, where everyone gets their fair share, and the RIAA gets shoved out an air lock and the outer door opened.
I understand being tired about it. I lit a powder keg.
But the artists (screw the RIAA) have the right to get paid for their work. If one person goes out and buys a copy, and distributes it to 1,000,000 thus depriving them of income, aren't they deprived of the money?
Well, if you borrow it and make copies, you're committing a copyright violation (thanks to all the folks who pointed out the difference between copyright infringement and theft -- strictly speaking).
What's this got to do with freedom and liberty? They're talking about theft of copyrighted material.
As for needing another law on the books, I agree with you. Why add another law to the books to further define who owns what they've created? The existing copyright laws already cover this kind of theft.
If you have a music (or other copyrighted work) file, and you didn't buy it, technically you stole it. If you've only done this a couple times, why should they bother? I'm normally a more "law and order" type person, but there comes a time when the RIAA et al have to cut their losses and HOPE that by being intelligent (read: lenient), they'll actually INCREASE sales because more of their music is being played! The more of their music that's played, the more likely people will actually want to go out and BUY it.
Unfortunately, this seems to be a point that the RIAA just can't get through its collective thick skull.
I think the RIAA should ask the artists how they individually want their music to be treated, and then ask for law enforcement help.
Well... I know the point you're making, but for those less informed or whose sarcasm meter is on the fritz:
Technically, you aren't trading them to another user, violating copyright law. They're still being used by you, the "owner" (a slippery term, it seems, when it comes to CD's) of the CD, and you have the right to make a backup copy and to play them for yourself however you wish.
As long as you are not offering them on a peer-to-peer network for/others/ to use, you'll be fine.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh... but IIRC, +Funny doesn't add to Karma, you karmawhore ;)
It was a sort of tongue-in-cheek joke about SCO, Caldera, and DR DOS (the disk operating system).
Someone else saw it, too.
In general, I don't think so either.
But there are MORE than a few of us who don't go into The Big Room much, and in some ways have lost their grip on reality (McBride, for example).
So, while those motives certainly are not common in our community, they quite likely exist.
MS & Co. would have **way** too much to lose if they got caught. I know they've already bent a few laws, but this would be going WAY far out. Imagine the outrage!
And I'm guessing Eric doesn't live in a vacuum, and I'm betting he's probably got a pretty tight little network.
Still, there was that movie, not too many years ago, starring Tim Robbins as the "Bill Gates" act-alike (name escapes me).
Umm... which is it?
FWIW *my* calendar has 23 August 2003 as being a Saturday, and 20 August 2003 being a Wednesday.
***
That detail aside, I love this letter. Thank you, Mr Raymond. That was inspired.
I'm a little concerned about the side threat "As the president of OSI, defending the community of open-source hackers against predators and carpetbaggers is mine -- and if you don't stop trying to destroy Linux and everything else we've worked for I guarantee you won't like what our alliance is cooking up next." It worries me that Raymond would phrase things this way.
I suppose there are a lot of non-violent actions that he could mean: tens of thousands of small claims actions (an idea which I love), protesting, etc. But there are some illegal ones that could be inferred from his statement: DOS, DDOS, DRDOS, etc, that would cause quite a stir; after all, aren't the ones that SCO's going after (the Open Source Community) in possession of (and the authors of) "subversive" source code (in McBride's eyes) that could be used against him on the Internet if the Community deemed it necessary?
No, no, don't flame me; I'm merely trying to put McBride's way of "thinking" (if you can call it that) onto Raymond's letter.
I am sure Raymond meant nothing of sort; however, in McBride's state of dementia and loose grip on reality, I wonder what he will think.
I hope, if it's necessary, that IBM (or more likely the EFF) will be able to send in the lawyers on Raymond's behalf. But I hope even more that it won't be needed.
I can't speak for all branch prediction models, but in the PowerPC, the answer is yes, but it's static.
:)
In the PowerPC, unless a hint is given by the programmer/compiler, forward branches (positive offset) are predicted as NOT taken, and backward branches are predicted as BEING taken.
This is simply because lots of branching (aside from function calls) takes place in for, while and do-while loops (or for, while, and repeat-until for you Pascal geeks
Right, then.
Well, if you have the kernel but didn't install the source, then what??
So how can they say they're going after the **users** and not the **distributors**?
I don't know... but it seems unlikely that they could enforce any kind of license if a user didn't even download the source, but just had the kernel installed on their 32-bit machine.
Yes, the source tree may have contained the offending file(s) during compilation, but if they weren't used to build the kernel image, how is that copyright infringement??
Am I incorrect in understanding that this is for 64-bit implementations of linux?
If so, how can SCO demand that we give them money for code that's distributed but that 99% of linux users ARE NOT USING?
According to this this page at Yahoo! Financial, "The SCO Group, Inc. develops and markets software based onthe (sic) Linux operating system."
REALLY? I thought they did UNIX!
Doesn't this mean all of this is for nothing, if they develop and market software based on Linux?
This implies that THEY put the contested code into Linux, and they're too stupid to know it.
Ummm... 20 - 6 = 14.
HTH HAND
Maybe the *local* newspaper could protect his identity, but the local *school* newspaper probably could not.
See, everyone who works at the paper is under the jurisdiction of the school's president/chancellor/high-up-mucky-muck. I'm not so sure that the student journalists' rights would be protected. I know I've read of stories in the past where, if education is involved, it's up to the school administration, other rights being set aside in favor of the school's right to enforce its rules and policies (which you agree to, implicitly or explicitly, by paying tuition).
Nah, don't be sorry; you were right, and I was wrong.
/else/ created the music, had it put on a CD /for sale/, and someone rips an MP3 of it, and scatters it far and wide to the four corners of the earth, and someone else downloads it, how is that not theft (not the legal definition, but the ethical definition)??
//legitimate// uses of it. Fine, wonderful, and all that. Attacking p2p isn't the problem.
I still feel like "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck."
If someone downloads something, and doesn't buy the CD, ethically that seems like theft. (Nuts to all of the folks who pointed out the trivial cases like "I made it".)
If someone
I don't really care about the p2p stuff. Yeah, as people pointed out, there are lots of
I don't know what the solution is. IANAL. I hope you're right about the future way -- something easy to use, where everyone gets their fair share, and the RIAA gets shoved out an air lock and the outer door opened.
Yes, I misspoke using the word "theft."
I understand being tired about it. I lit a powder keg.
But the artists (screw the RIAA) have the right to get paid for their work. If one person goes out and buys a copy, and distributes it to 1,000,000 thus depriving them of income, aren't they deprived of the money?
Well, if you borrow it and make copies, you're committing a copyright violation (thanks to all the folks who pointed out the difference between copyright infringement and theft -- strictly speaking).
Yeah, you're right... I should have phrased it as "wasn't paid for".
Thanks.
Agreed. That's not a troll. Too bad I've already posted and don't have any mod points.
It'll probably get modded up again when enough moderators get to it.
What's this got to do with freedom and liberty? They're talking about theft of copyrighted material.
As for needing another law on the books, I agree with you. Why add another law to the books to further define who owns what they've created? The existing copyright laws already cover this kind of theft.
If you have a music (or other copyrighted work) file, and you didn't buy it, technically you stole it. If you've only done this a couple times, why should they bother? I'm normally a more "law and order" type person, but there comes a time when the RIAA et al have to cut their losses and HOPE that by being intelligent (read: lenient), they'll actually INCREASE sales because more of their music is being played! The more of their music that's played, the more likely people will actually want to go out and BUY it.
Unfortunately, this seems to be a point that the RIAA just can't get through its collective thick skull.
I think the RIAA should ask the artists how they individually want their music to be treated, and then ask for law enforcement help.
Well... I know the point you're making, but for those less informed or whose sarcasm meter is on the fritz:
/others/ to use, you'll be fine.
Technically, you aren't trading them to another user, violating copyright law. They're still being used by you, the "owner" (a slippery term, it seems, when it comes to CD's) of the CD, and you have the right to make a backup copy and to play them for yourself however you wish.
As long as you are not offering them on a peer-to-peer network for
Oy... we had to use our FINGERNAILS on stone...
I think they've ALREADY stuck their foot in their collective mouth... NOW what someone needs to do is stuff some SOCKS into their collective mouth :)
And it's not just restricted to being in the country with the law WHEN you break the law... look at the Skylarov (sp?) case.
REALLY stupid action on the part of the U.S.
I read the article you linked... what a hoot!
It would be interesting to see if a) SCO ever replies, and b) what they would say, and c) if the guy ever reaps any benefit over it.
Why is this flamebait?
It supports the concept that OO is worth using...
I think you forgot:
6. PROFIT!!!