Half an year from now, Microsoft pulls out of the hat a new Office (replace with OS, Visual Studio etc. as needed) due to peer/boss/underling pressure the net-admins/IT officers/whatchucallemthings has to do an upgrade - because upgrades are free - almost, aren't they? Sooner, rather than later and certainly sooner than they would choose to (if win98 was stable would you have upgraded? - mine worked fine enough). So you sweep the cost of the upgrade, time, hardware - 'cause you have to change some, you didn't think it would behave on your old hardware, did you? - under the rug, grind your teeth to the gums, and do the upgrade - welcome the brave new world - no stabler, no cleaner, no faster than before, and yet still an all out eye sore.
Are you calling the guillotine a painful and barbaric device? I concede it's visually disgusting and it seems barbaric to separate the head from the body. But unlike hanging, lethal injection, electrocution, one could die with a smile on his face. And that's because the "subject" blacks out instantly, before the pain kicks in.
Can't RedHat, or SuSE or IBM for that matter get an injunction against SCO similar to that granted in Germany? You know, along the lines: stop flapping and show the evidence...
Re:OSS is in fact very much like communism.
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 1
You're quite confused. A lot of OSS development takes place in corporations and a many more people get PAID for doing it.
Small Claims Courts have jurisdiction over civil disputes with claims under a certain limit (depending on the state). Even if it's violation of contract. I don't know if the GPL classifies as a contract - more as an agreement.
(1) register your copyright. (2) collect evidence that SCO distributed your work after the registration date on the copyright. (3) Send SCO a registered letter demanding that they comply with the GPL. (4) Wait a while. (5) Send SCO another registered letter, a cease-and-desist. (5) Wait some more. (6) Sue SCO for GPL infringement in Small Claims Court.
Advantages: you don't have to deal with a lawyer of your own. The judge - given the alternative - the GPL (which is civil) or infringement (which is criminal) of copyrights will probably pick the first as valid.
If you win you get the money and a trail of paperwork for others to follow and get their money.
If you lose you have to pay about 200$ court expenses. No legal precedent is constituted (I believe).
Reformulated Claim
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Suppose:
1. I am a small time kernel contributor. I have about 10-20 lines of code in the linux kernel.
2. My copyrighted work is available to SCO for distribution only under the GPL (which is a copyright licence).
3. Caldera/SCO sold my code for 4 years (and complied to the agreement) - attach press releases detailing Caldera/SCO contributions to the kernel - including their praise of the GPL.
4. As of May Caldera/SCO has breached the GPL as follows: 4.a. Section 3 - SCO does not make the source code to the program available. 4.b. Section 4 blah blah - SCO is licensing Linux. 4.c. Section 6 somewhat disputable - accompany with SCO press releases - especially when they threaten to sue GNU/Linux users - again licensing. 4.d. Section 7 - SCO continues to distribute although it seeks to apply additional retrictions through yet unfounded copyright claims - the key term of secton 7 is "believe" - SCO "believes" additional restrictions apply.
Claims:
They breached contract. My hourly consultant fee is 200$. It took me one hour to write it. I want 20$/loc + court expenses. Nothing else.
Their guy: This is an obvious copyright dispute. Me: What do you mean? Do you mean you didn't break the GPL and you stole my copyrighted work?
Their guy: We never agreed to the GPL. Me: If you didn't agree to the GPL then how come you sold my code for four years? Did you simply steal it?
Re:Suing SCO in small claims court?
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 1
Agreement violations - there's no need for contracts in Small Claims Court. I don't make any copyright infringement claims either.
They have sold the kernel containing this agreement and in particular my copyright notices for about 4 years. They have the GPL on their site. They have supported the linux kernel, contributed works to the GPLed kernel, placed code under the GPL, had press releases that boast contributing to the kernel (under the GPL).
Re:Suing SCO in small claims court?
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 1
I believe I have both a copyright case and a violation of agreement case. The SCO case (filed with the State Court of Utah) shows that you can sue outside of federal court even if you allege more than contract violations. In particular, in their claim SCO alleges that part of their IP was contributed into Linux. And as my claim is for less than 5000$ (limit for SCC claims in CA) I should be able to go to SCC.
Re:Suing SCO in small claims court?
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 1
Why small claims court:
This dispute is for a lot less than 5000$. There's no copyright dispute. SCO doesn't claim ownership of my code. I don't claim ownership of any of theirs.
Suing SCO in small claims court?
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 1
Suppose:
1. I am a small time kernel contributor. I have about 10-20 lines of code in the linux kernel.
2. SCO distributes the linux kernel in binary form only.
3. My copyrighted work is available to SCO for distribution only under the GPL (which is a licence - a contract).
4. SCO breaches the GPL as follows: 4.a. Section 3 - SCO does not make the source code to the program available. 4.b. Section 4 blah blah - SCO is licensing Linux. 4.c. Section 6 somewhat disputable - accompany with SCO press releases - especially when they threaten to sue GNU/Linux users - again licensing. 4.d. Section 7 - SCO continues to distribute although it seeks to apply additional retrictions through yet unfounded copyright claims - the key term of secton 7 is "believe" - SCO "believes" additional restrictions apply.
Claims:
I want 20$/loc + court expenses. Nothing else.
Questions to lawyers out there...
1. Can this be done through small claims court because it's a contract breach? 2. If I'm outside US can a lawyer do this?
Really - boyz an girlz and aliens reading slashdot - this is a really interesting piece. What major distro nowadays doesn't let you choose/change window manager in a user friendly way?
I'm using Debian (which btw isn't a major distro) and I know I can (I use kdm to login into IceWM).
For the rest I say that if cut'n'paste works all I need is a systray (that spans all workspaces) (IceWM for me, probably GNOME and KDM for you guys) for my IM==Gaim needs.
Indeed you can't. Measuring PI in the "real" world is in fact a way of measuring space-time curvature. But it's pretty dull - the main contribution to space-time curvature is the earth gravitation - so basically anywhere on earth if you pull equal gees you get almost the same value for PI.
the interval between 1.4(9) (that's 1.49... - with an infinity of nines) and 1.5 is EXACTLY 0. In fact 1.4(9) == 1.4 + 9/99 == 1.5 . Just like 1.(3) == 1 + 3/9 == 1 + 1/3. He doesn't seem to understand the intricacies of real numbers.
No, that's not true - the constant will be influenced by local time-space curvature. Cause you're actually drawing the circle and that happesns in the real world - with a positive space-time curvature. Anyway you can circumvent Planck limitations by drawing a BIGGER circle...
April 1, 2004: Today The SCO Group(formerly known as SCO/Caldera) sued 27 of its Linux customers for breaching SCO's IP rights on UNIX (tm).
Darl McBride, SCO's CEO has made the following statement: "This move was made in the light of the fact that, like, you know, our case with IBM was thrown out of court on account that we were misleading the court in our complaint and like, you know, were trying to confuse the court on the issues of trade secrets and copyrights and like, you know, we didn't do anything to minimize our losses until we were waaaay down the drain."
Also, SCO's CEO declared that the company was strapped for cash, depriving the board of certain commodities: "Lately, there seems to be a crackdown of some kind... weed prices are going through the roof man... and we're like, you know in UTAH for god's sake..."
SCO's lawers declared that the grounds for the lawsuits are rock solid: "Well, it's obvious they stole it from us. Yes, we sold it to them, but we didn't know it was stolen from us. And even when we knew, we kept selling it for a couple of month, but look... this is Chewbacca..."
Suppose that:
There actually is original SCO code in the linux kernel.
Now we have: Thief steals code from SCO. Contributes it to Linux. SCO/Caldera gets that code and distributes it under GPL. Companies buy the stolen code from SCO/Caldera. IBM gets sued. SCO/Caldera warns companies that bought Linux from it that using Linux might be infringing SCO's copyright.
Translated: Thief stoles TV (code) from owner(SCO). Owner buys it back and sells it. After a couple of years realizes that it was his TV and sends warning letter to buyer.
My point:
By distributing (knowingly or not) its code under GPL SCO/Caldera.... well put this code under GPL. They cannot claim infringement of copyright or trade secrets from that moment on.
They can claim infringement before however, which means that the "original" thief is still responsible.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Half an year from now, Microsoft pulls out of the hat a new Office (replace with OS, Visual Studio etc. as needed) due to peer/boss/underling pressure the net-admins/IT officers/whatchucallemthings has to do an upgrade - because upgrades are free - almost, aren't they? Sooner, rather than later and certainly sooner than they would choose to (if win98 was stable would you have upgraded? - mine worked fine enough). So you sweep the cost of the upgrade, time, hardware - 'cause you have to change some, you didn't think it would behave on your old hardware, did you? - under the rug, grind your teeth to the gums, and do the upgrade - welcome the brave new world - no stabler, no cleaner, no faster than before, and yet still an all out eye sore.
Better off without, I reckon!
Well, there are obviously some people out there with a WAD of cash that think a dot.com is the way to dispose of it.
Are you calling the guillotine a painful and barbaric device? I concede it's visually disgusting and it seems barbaric to separate the head from the body. But unlike hanging, lethal injection, electrocution, one could die with a smile on his face. And that's because the "subject" blacks out instantly, before the pain kicks in.
Can't RedHat, or SuSE or IBM for that matter get an injunction against SCO similar to that granted in Germany?
You know, along the lines: stop flapping and show the evidence...
You're quite confused. A lot of OSS development takes place in corporations and a many more people get PAID for doing it.
A copy of Caldera's Open Linux will show that they agreed to the GPL regarding Linux as a whole and - of course - parts.
Small Claims Courts have jurisdiction over civil disputes with claims under a certain limit (depending on the state). Even if it's violation of contract. I don't know if the GPL classifies as a contract - more as an agreement.
How about:
(1) register your copyright. (2) collect evidence that SCO distributed your work after the registration date on the copyright. (3) Send SCO a registered letter demanding that they comply with the GPL. (4) Wait a while. (5) Send SCO another registered letter, a cease-and-desist. (5) Wait some more. (6) Sue SCO for GPL infringement in Small Claims Court.
Advantages: you don't have to deal with a lawyer of your own. The judge - given the alternative - the GPL (which is civil) or infringement (which is criminal) of copyrights will probably pick the first as valid.
If you win you get the money and a trail of paperwork for others to follow and get their money.
If you lose you have to pay about 200$ court expenses. No legal precedent is constituted (I believe).
Suppose:
1. I am a small time kernel contributor. I have about 10-20 lines of code in the linux kernel.
2. My copyrighted work is available to SCO for distribution only under the GPL (which is a copyright licence).
3. Caldera/SCO sold my code for 4 years (and complied to the agreement) - attach press releases detailing Caldera/SCO contributions to the kernel - including their praise of the GPL.
4. As of May Caldera/SCO has breached the GPL as follows:
4.a. Section 3 - SCO does not make the source code to the program available.
4.b. Section 4 blah blah - SCO is licensing Linux.
4.c. Section 6 somewhat disputable - accompany with SCO press releases - especially when they threaten to sue GNU/Linux users - again licensing.
4.d. Section 7 - SCO continues to distribute although it seeks to apply additional retrictions through yet unfounded copyright claims - the key term of secton 7 is "believe" - SCO "believes" additional restrictions apply.
Claims:
They breached contract. My hourly consultant fee is 200$. It took me one hour to write it. I want 20$/loc + court expenses. Nothing else.
Their guy:
This is an obvious copyright dispute.
Me:
What do you mean? Do you mean you didn't break the GPL and you stole my copyrighted work?
Their guy:
We never agreed to the GPL.
Me:
If you didn't agree to the GPL then how come you sold my code for four years? Did you simply steal it?
Agreement violations - there's no need for contracts in Small Claims Court. I don't make any copyright infringement claims either.
They have sold the kernel containing this agreement and in particular my copyright notices for about 4 years. They have the GPL on their site. They have supported the linux kernel, contributed works to the GPLed kernel, placed code under the GPL, had press releases that boast contributing to the kernel (under the GPL).
I believe I have both a copyright case and a violation of agreement case. The SCO case (filed with the State Court of Utah) shows that you can sue outside of federal court even if you allege more than contract violations. In particular, in their claim SCO alleges that part of their IP was contributed into Linux. And as my claim is for less than 5000$ (limit for SCC claims in CA) I should be able to go to SCC.
The GPL is an agreement so I do not claim copyright infringement but violation of this agreement.
Suppose my copyright is registered.
Why small claims court :
This dispute is for a lot less than 5000$. There's no copyright dispute. SCO doesn't claim ownership of my code. I don't claim ownership of any of theirs.
Suppose:
...
1. I am a small time kernel contributor. I have about 10-20 lines of code in the linux kernel.
2. SCO distributes the linux kernel in binary form only.
3. My copyrighted work is available to SCO for distribution only under the GPL (which is a licence - a contract).
4. SCO breaches the GPL as follows:
4.a. Section 3 - SCO does not make the source code to the program available.
4.b. Section 4 blah blah - SCO is licensing Linux.
4.c. Section 6 somewhat disputable - accompany with SCO press releases - especially when they threaten to sue GNU/Linux users - again licensing.
4.d. Section 7 - SCO continues to distribute although it seeks to apply additional retrictions through yet unfounded copyright claims - the key term of secton 7 is "believe" - SCO "believes" additional restrictions apply.
Claims:
I want 20$/loc + court expenses. Nothing else.
Questions to lawyers out there
1. Can this be done through small claims court because it's a contract breach?
2. If I'm outside US can a lawyer do this?
Really - boyz an girlz and aliens reading slashdot - this is a really interesting piece. What major distro nowadays doesn't let you choose/change window manager in a user friendly way?
I'm using Debian (which btw isn't a major distro) and I know I can (I use kdm to login into IceWM).
For the rest I say that if cut'n'paste works all I need is a systray (that spans all workspaces) (IceWM for me, probably GNOME and KDM for you guys) for my IM==Gaim needs.
Indeed you can't. Measuring PI in the "real" world is in fact a way of measuring space-time curvature. But it's pretty dull - the main contribution to space-time curvature is the earth gravitation - so basically anywhere on earth if you pull equal gees you get almost the same value for PI.
the interval between 1.4(9) (that's 1.49... - with an infinity of nines) and 1.5 is EXACTLY 0. In fact 1.4(9) == 1.4 + 9/99 == 1.5 . Just like 1.(3) == 1 + 3/9 == 1 + 1/3. He doesn't seem to understand the intricacies of real numbers.
No, that's not true - the constant will be influenced by local time-space curvature. Cause you're actually drawing the circle and that happesns in the real world - with a positive space-time curvature. Anyway you can circumvent Planck limitations by drawing a BIGGER circle ...
0.(9) == 1.
... really simple math.
A 0 followed by an infinity of 9s is equal to 1
What about Chewbacca? Do you believe in Chewbacca?
I suppose that confirms it: it's gonna be a cult movie ...
The Egyptians are probably swapping hot censored CDs of Matrix Reloaded (you know, the mpg version) right now.
April 1, 2004: Today The SCO Group(formerly known as SCO/Caldera) sued 27 of its Linux customers for breaching SCO's IP rights on UNIX (tm).
... weed prices are going through the roof man ... and we're like, you know in UTAH for god's sake ..."
... this is Chewbacca ..."
Darl McBride, SCO's CEO has made the following statement:
"This move was made in the light of the fact that, like, you know, our case with IBM was thrown out of court on account that we were misleading the court in our complaint and like, you know, were trying to confuse the court on the issues of trade secrets and copyrights and like, you know, we didn't do anything to minimize our losses until we were waaaay down the drain."
Also, SCO's CEO declared that the company was strapped for cash, depriving the board of certain commodities: "Lately, there seems to be a crackdown of some kind
SCO's lawers declared that the grounds for the lawsuits are rock solid: "Well, it's obvious they stole it from us. Yes, we sold it to them, but we didn't know it was stolen from us. And even when we knew, we kept selling it for a couple of month, but look
Good luck, SCO, you're gonna need it.
Suppose that:
.... well put this code under GPL. They cannot claim infringement of copyright or trade secrets from that moment on.
There actually is original SCO code in the linux kernel.
Now we have:
Thief steals code from SCO. Contributes it to Linux. SCO/Caldera gets that code and distributes it under GPL. Companies buy the stolen code from SCO/Caldera.
IBM gets sued. SCO/Caldera warns companies that bought Linux from it that using Linux might be infringing SCO's copyright.
Translated:
Thief stoles TV (code) from owner(SCO). Owner buys it back and sells it. After a couple of years realizes that it was his TV and sends warning letter to buyer.
My point:
By distributing (knowingly or not) its code under GPL SCO/Caldera
They can claim infringement before however, which means that the "original" thief is still responsible.