What's that? You say GnuCash is programmed in Whitespace
In that case, how many of the ~250,000 lines are blank - or are ALL of them blank...
(For the humor impaired or clueless, Whitespace is a programming language that consists of spaces, tabs, newlines, etc - so that a print out of the program is totally blank)
NO! There is no counter claim on the link you entered. I followed several of the links on the page your link brings up, but there is still no listing of the counter claims.
There IS references to a 45 page document, but no link or reposting.
So to repeat squashed's question, Is there a reason that./ is giving front page coverage to SCO's press release spinning an IBM counterclaim, rather than reporting on the counterclaim itself?
I would sure like to know what is in it. THAT would be news, not spin-doctoring.
What the HELL is this press release talking about?
We view IBM's counterclaim filing today as an effort to distract attention from its flawed Linux business model. It repeats the same unsubstantiated allegations made in Red Hat's filing earlier this week. If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license. As the stakes continue to rise in the Linux battles, it becomes increasingly clear that the core issue is bigger than SCO, Red Hat, or even IBM. The core issue is about the value of intellectual property in an Internet age. In a strange alliance, IBM and the Free Software Foundation have lined up on the same side of this argument in support of the GPL. IBM urges its customers to use non- warranted, unprotected software. This software violates SCO's intellectual property rights in UNIX, and fails to give comfort to customers going forward in use of Linux. If IBM wants customers to accept the GPL risk, it should indemnify them against that risk. The continuing refusal to provide customer indemnification is IBM's truest measure of belief in its recently filed claims.
SCO has stated that their lawsuit with IBM is about contract issues, NOT ABOUT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. So what does the GPL, IBM's business model, or indemnification of customers have to do WITH CONTRACT ISSUES?
S/N = zero, as no signal divided by infinite noise is still no signal.
Anyone see that SCO is losing money on products, but making money on licenses? Remember who has just lately bought licenses? Two hints: Microsoft and SUN
I the top frame, besure to note the "Submit Your Article for Publication" link!
The articles WERE NOT NECESSARILY WRITTEN BY A LAWYER, even though they are posted on his site. There is nothing I saw in the article that stated it WAS written by a legal expert (or even a lawyer:> ) and the vernacular used suggests it was NOT written by a lawyer.
but hey, perhaps I'm not that intellectually advanced either?
Could be...:-)
At the top of the web page, be sure to note the "Submit your article for publication" link.
Means ANY YING/YANG HEADED YAHOO can post on this lawyers site - presumably with, possibly without the concurrence of the lawyer as to the opinions presented.
I did read the posting on the site, and nowhere does it say that that is the opinion of anyone in the legal profession. In fact, the "Welcome" link page states "everyone is welcome to prepare their own articles and submit them for publication. No article will be refused on the basis of the position taken nor views expressed. " (my emphasis).
Using vernacular is not wrong or bad, but it does tend, when used in intellectually advanced papers, to cause people to question the writers intellect, knowledge, and in this case, their age. Personally I don't think a lawyer wrote the piece. Lawyers make a living on distinguishing nuances between similar words. I don't think a professional with that kind of knowledge of language would use vernacular in this instance.
It's not about winning or losing, it's about making sure SCO can't make Linux look bad.
Didn't German Linux users do something simular? A lawsuit saying "put up or shut up", and what did SCO do (hint - they did not 'put up')?
If SCO stock prices go up when they spread more lies, then making them stop telling lies would seem to do several things good, and nothing bad that I can come up with. In fact, if their lies are labeled as such BY THE COURTS, then perhaps they will be headed back to sub-dollar stock prices - as well as opening them up to MANY more lawsuits.
SCO can believe what ever they want, but until they present evidence of their claims then they have no legal standing for anything they are doing - and the number or cost of their lawyers means nothing about the legality of what they are doing.
Even after NDAs, people are not (from the articles that have been written that I have seen) being shown the code bases and being able to say definitely that, yes, there is the same code in both or no, there isn't. They are being shown a powerpoint presentation - who knows what was manipulated between the code and the screen?
I do agree that SCO seems to be fighting a two-front war, one being the CONTRACT dispute with IBM and the other being this "derived work" issue with Linux users.
I believe you are mistaken, though, about the third parties who use copyright works in good faith. In the examples above, unlike "people who trade MIDI files and sheet music, and people who write songs which sound a lot like other songs" (without permission of the copyright holder), the copyright holder has given permission to the third party to use their copyrighted creation, even though the copyright holder had a contract with someone - in these examples Disney - stating they would not allow anyone else to use their creation.
In addition, in reguard to your comments on the GPL, I think you are both right and wrong. I think SCO, by purchasing whatever Unix rights they did, and by the way AT&T worded their licensing contract, HAD (past tense, no longer true) the world on a string. Because of the pervasive nature of computing and the Unix history of almost all computing - either based on Unix, or derived from Unix, or built using tools created for (or on) Unix - I have in other posts likened it to patenting sunshine. They would have had a key to the mint and a license to print money! HOWEVER, I think they destroyed all their possibilities when they released under the GPL.
I think, in this case, the GPL is the trump card, and SCO has lost the game - they just might not know it yet.
The AT&T license says SCO owns everything, but by then releasing under the GPL, SCO said I OWN IT, BUT ANYONE CAN USE IT FOR FREE.
This is saying that if you license Mickey Mouse from Disney AND the license you agree to states that you agree that any characters you create will not be used in any other movies, then if you
1) use Dangerous Darl in another movie, or 2) let someone else use Dangerous Darl in another movie
you can be sued - BUT NOT UNDER COPYRIGHT law. You would have broken your CONTRACT with Disney, but would still have the copyright to Dangerous Darl.
Disney could sue YOU for breaking your contract limiting who you would let use your characters (SCO v. IBM), but I don't think they would have any recourse against the people/companies you let use your characters as they used them in good faith that you had the right to license them (SCO v. AIX users).
IBM is saying their License is "perpetual and irrevocable" as well as paid up. SCO is saying IBM has broken the terms of the contract, has not remedied the situation, and now has no legal standing to continue to license AIX to their customers.
In the parent post, "they" refers to IBM staying quiet, not SCO.
In your post, the first 'they' should be 'IBM', the second should be 'SCO'.
Gotta watch those pronouns, they can be slippery creatures...
I may be all wrong, but I thought the beef was that, although developements by IBM were IBMs IP, anything else, under the AT&T licensing wording, belongs to the owners of the Unix IP - currently SCO.
IBM had a special dispensation to keep their developement as their own IP, something that was not afforded to other Unix licensees.
But the special exclusion given to IBM did/does not extend to developements made by other companies that were eventually bought by IBM, and SCO seems to be claiming that IBM gave away IP (from companies they bought???) when that IP (according to SCO) did not belong to them. If I am reading the claims correctly, they might have some validity, although I really think there is more to this than just that.
Based on SCOs inability to state plainly 'These are our claims, here are our reasons, and here is our evidence', I think they are blowing smoke, but there may be a shred of truth to their FUD. I just wish someone would discover what it is so it could be addressed...
Serious question - What can a US citizen do in this case?
Exactly which US laws are being broken when SCO lies in a press release, or makes outrageous claims? Is there a public commission that could, as in Australia, make SCO "put up or shut up" - if so, which one, and how does a person get them moving?
Germany found a legal 'OFF' button, it looks like Australia may have found one as well, where is the US equivalent?
As a user of Linux, I can not claim injury - YET - so I seem to have no standing in our (the US) legal system. Is there some legal hammer that can be used to squash the SCO gadfly - and how does it get set into motion?
Wanted to point out that SCO is claiming IP rights to AT&T Unix through purchase. Those rights include, due to the language of the AT&T contract which accompanied Unix, ownership of ANYTHING DEVELOPED WITH OR FOR AT&T UNIX but exclude specifically those developements made by IBM - BUT NOT THOSE IBM BOUGHT.
I don't agree with their reasoning, but what we have to deal with is what a judge agrees with or not.
They seem to be saying that if grep was developed for or on AT&T Unix, then grep belongs to SCO now. And if grep was used to develope C, C belongs to SCO. If C was used to develope Windows, then Windows belongs to SCO. Likewise, if grep was used to develope any part of the Linux kernel, then the linux kernel is now SCO IP.
If their legal theories are upheld, then they could potentially be looking at a MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR payday; on another thread I likened it to patenting sunshine.
I think the chances of their winning are less than 1:20,000,000 - but I put $5 in the lottery with about the same odds! I can't fault them for going for it, I just wish the legal portion would hurry and be over and done.
I would like to know if Bill G will drop from being the richest man alive to somewhere behind the stock holders of SCO...
Slashdot Mirror
What's that? You say GnuCash is programmed in Whitespace
In that case, how many of the ~250,000 lines are blank - or are ALL of them blank...
(For the humor impaired or clueless, Whitespace is a programming language that consists of spaces, tabs, newlines, etc - so that a print out of the program is totally blank)
I have used kartoo and like it.
It does not "learn" per se, but allows you to select from multiple possibilities using a GUI - and it has been available for a while.
If I have problems finding something with Google, I use Kartoo.
Kidding aside, Microsoft did but [sic] an SCO license with 'monopoly' money just a few weeks ago.
Don't you just hate it when you have to explain a joke?
Kidding aside, Microsoft did but [sic] an SCO license with money made from being a monopoly just a few weeks ago.
Sigh...
+14, Informative!!
NO! There is no counter claim on the link you entered. I followed several of the links on the page your link brings up, but there is still no listing of the counter claims.
./ is giving front page coverage to SCO's press release spinning an IBM counterclaim, rather than reporting on the counterclaim itself?
There IS references to a 45 page document, but no link or reposting.
So to repeat squashed's question, Is there a reason that
I would sure like to know what is in it. THAT would be news, not spin-doctoring.
Yeah, and my car is red and my motorcycle is black.
I am correct in my statement, but what the fsck does it have to do with whether IBM violated their contract with SCO?
When dealing with any enemy, the first thing one must assume is that he is not stupid, not matter how stupid he seems. They are not morons.
;->
Oh, yes they are, they are from Utah aren't they. Oh, wait a minute, I thought you said Mormons!
What the HELL is this press release talking about?
We view IBM's counterclaim filing today as an effort to distract attention from its flawed Linux business model. It repeats the same unsubstantiated allegations made in Red Hat's filing earlier this week. If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license. As the stakes continue to rise in the Linux battles, it becomes increasingly clear that the core issue is bigger than SCO, Red Hat, or even IBM. The core issue is about the value of intellectual property in an Internet age. In a strange alliance, IBM and the Free Software Foundation have lined up on the same side of this argument in support of the GPL. IBM urges its customers to use non- warranted, unprotected software. This software violates SCO's intellectual property rights in UNIX, and fails to give comfort to customers going forward in use of Linux. If IBM wants customers to accept the GPL risk, it should indemnify them against that risk. The continuing refusal to provide customer indemnification is IBM's truest measure of belief in its recently filed claims.
SCO has stated that their lawsuit with IBM is about contract issues, NOT ABOUT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. So what does the GPL, IBM's business model, or indemnification of customers have to do WITH CONTRACT ISSUES?
S/N = zero, as no signal divided by infinite noise is still no signal.
-1, Wrong.
Sun is the other licensee. Google on SUN, microsoft, SCO, license.
Yes, SUN is the other licensee.
h tm l (or link)
g =f d_top (link)
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0711scodocum.
or
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1024633.html?ta
Some people just don't seem to 'get' the stock market, or know what is involved in a buyout...
"I am going to hurt you. Here is several million dollars, and you are fired."
"Thank you, sir! May I have another!!"
(with appologies to 'Animal House')
Anyone see that SCO is losing money on products, but making money on licenses? Remember who has just lately bought licenses? Two hints:
Microsoft and SUN
So who is REALLY running the SCO show?
I think I need another layer of aluminum foil.
Redunancy alert!
:> ) and the vernacular used suggests it was NOT written by a lawyer.
I have posted this before, posting it again!
I the top frame, besure to note the "Submit Your Article for Publication" link!
The articles WERE NOT NECESSARILY WRITTEN BY A LAWYER, even though they are posted on his site. There is nothing I saw in the article that stated it WAS written by a legal expert (or even a lawyer
My version of a clue-by-four...
The WEB SITE is for a law firm/lawyer, but the article probably isn't. See the "Submit your article for publication" link in the top pane...
ANYONE can submit an article an dget it published on this web site.
I don't know when the last time I've heard a lawyer use "jerkheads" was, but it was probably a long time ago, if ever
You still haven't.
but hey, perhaps I'm not that intellectually advanced either?
:-)
:-)
Could be...
At the top of the web page, be sure to note the "Submit your article for publication" link.
Means ANY YING/YANG HEADED YAHOO can post on this lawyers site - presumably with, possibly without the concurrence of the lawyer as to the opinions presented.
I did read the posting on the site, and nowhere does it say that that is the opinion of anyone in the legal profession. In fact, the "Welcome" link page states " everyone is welcome to prepare their own articles and submit them for publication. No article will be refused on the basis of the position taken nor views expressed. " (my emphasis).
Using vernacular is not wrong or bad, but it does tend, when used in intellectually advanced papers, to cause people to question the writers intellect, knowledge, and in this case, their age. Personally I don't think a lawyer wrote the piece. Lawyers make a living on distinguishing nuances between similar words. I don't think a professional with that kind of knowledge of language would use vernacular in this instance.
I could be wrong, it happened once...
It's not about winning or losing, it's about making sure SCO can't make Linux look bad.
Didn't German Linux users do something simular? A lawsuit saying "put up or shut up", and what did SCO do (hint - they did not 'put up')?
If SCO stock prices go up when they spread more lies, then making them stop telling lies would seem to do several things good, and nothing bad that I can come up with. In fact, if their lies are labeled as such BY THE COURTS, then perhaps they will be headed back to sub-dollar stock prices - as well as opening them up to MANY more lawsuits.
Yes, but I am still puzzled how he does that with Microsoft's hand up there...
SCO can believe what ever they want, but until they present evidence of their claims then they have no legal standing for anything they are doing - and the number or cost of their lawyers means nothing about the legality of what they are doing.
Even after NDAs, people are not (from the articles that have been written that I have seen) being shown the code bases and being able to say definitely that, yes, there is the same code in both or no, there isn't. They are being shown a powerpoint presentation - who knows what was manipulated between the code and the screen?
I do agree that SCO seems to be fighting a two-front war, one being the CONTRACT dispute with IBM and the other being this "derived work" issue with Linux users.
I believe you are mistaken, though, about the third parties who use copyright works in good faith. In the examples above, unlike "people who trade MIDI files and sheet music, and people who write songs which sound a lot like other songs" (without permission of the copyright holder), the copyright holder has given permission to the third party to use their copyrighted creation, even though the copyright holder had a contract with someone - in these examples Disney - stating they would not allow anyone else to use their creation.
In addition, in reguard to your comments on the GPL, I think you are both right and wrong. I think SCO, by purchasing whatever Unix rights they did, and by the way AT&T worded their licensing contract, HAD (past tense, no longer true) the world on a string. Because of the pervasive nature of computing and the Unix history of almost all computing - either based on Unix, or derived from Unix, or built using tools created for (or on) Unix - I have in other posts likened it to patenting sunshine. They would have had a key to the mint and a license to print money! HOWEVER, I think they destroyed all their possibilities when they released under the GPL.
I think, in this case, the GPL is the trump card, and SCO has lost the game - they just might not know it yet.
The AT&T license says SCO owns everything, but by then releasing under the GPL, SCO said I OWN IT, BUT ANYONE CAN USE IT FOR FREE .
I doubt it will go down that way, seeing as how SCO didn't know it was there
So SCO could not be bothered to check to see if their IP was in the OPEN SOURCE code they were distributing?
That would be like playing poker with a marked deck -- AND LOSING!
What an ultra maroon! (tm) -- Bugs Bunny
SOOOO Cloose...
This is saying that if you license Mickey Mouse from Disney AND the license you agree to states that you agree that any characters you create will not be used in any other movies, then if you
1) use Dangerous Darl in another movie, or
2) let someone else use Dangerous Darl in another movie
you can be sued - BUT NOT UNDER COPYRIGHT law. You would have broken your CONTRACT with Disney, but would still have the copyright to Dangerous Darl.
Disney could sue YOU for breaking your contract limiting who you would let use your characters (SCO v. IBM), but I don't think they would have any recourse against the people/companies you let use your characters as they used them in good faith that you had the right to license them (SCO v. AIX users).
IANAL
IBM is saying their License is "perpetual and irrevocable" as well as paid up. SCO is saying IBM has broken the terms of the contract, has not remedied the situation, and now has no legal standing to continue to license AIX to their customers.
In the parent post, "they" refers to IBM staying quiet, not SCO.
In your post, the first 'they' should be 'IBM', the second should be 'SCO'.
Gotta watch those pronouns, they can be slippery creatures...
I may be all wrong, but I thought the beef was that, although developements by IBM were IBMs IP, anything else, under the AT&T licensing wording, belongs to the owners of the Unix IP - currently SCO.
IBM had a special dispensation to keep their developement as their own IP, something that was not afforded to other Unix licensees.
But the special exclusion given to IBM did/does not extend to developements made by other companies that were eventually bought by IBM, and SCO seems to be claiming that IBM gave away IP (from companies they bought???) when that IP (according to SCO) did not belong to them. If I am reading the claims correctly, they might have some validity, although I really think there is more to this than just that.
Based on SCOs inability to state plainly 'These are our claims, here are our reasons, and here is our evidence', I think they are blowing smoke, but there may be a shred of truth to their FUD. I just wish someone would discover what it is so it could be addressed...
+1, Funny!
Serious question - What can a US citizen do in this case?
Exactly which US laws are being broken when SCO lies in a press release, or makes outrageous claims? Is there a public commission that could, as in Australia, make SCO "put up or shut up" - if so, which one, and how does a person get them moving?
Germany found a legal 'OFF' button, it looks like Australia may have found one as well, where is the US equivalent?
As a user of Linux, I can not claim injury - YET - so I seem to have no standing in our (the US) legal system. Is there some legal hammer that can be used to squash the SCO gadfly - and how does it get set into motion?
Wanted to point out that SCO is claiming IP rights to AT&T Unix through purchase. Those rights include, due to the language of the AT&T contract which accompanied Unix, ownership of ANYTHING DEVELOPED WITH OR FOR AT&T UNIX but exclude specifically those developements made by IBM - BUT NOT THOSE IBM BOUGHT.
I don't agree with their reasoning, but what we have to deal with is what a judge agrees with or not.
They seem to be saying that if grep was developed for or on AT&T Unix, then grep belongs to SCO now. And if grep was used to develope C, C belongs to SCO. If C was used to develope Windows, then Windows belongs to SCO. Likewise, if grep was used to develope any part of the Linux kernel, then the linux kernel is now SCO IP.
If their legal theories are upheld, then they could potentially be looking at a MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR payday; on another thread I likened it to patenting sunshine.
I think the chances of their winning are less than 1:20,000,000 - but I put $5 in the lottery with about the same odds! I can't fault them for going for it, I just wish the legal portion would hurry and be over and done.
I would like to know if Bill G will drop from being the richest man alive to somewhere behind the stock holders of SCO...