What about anonymous posting? It's entirely possible given that you could *easily* post anonymously to Slashdot by bouncing off an available open proxy, right?
Certainly anything is possible. Just like any legal matter, you're only in trouble if you get caught. An AC claiming to be a SCO employee would probably be able to give details -- but the veracity of his/her statements would be hard to confirm.
The only thing that worries me is that Linus should perhaps learn when to shut the fuck up and think before he speaks. Courts are not democracies and crap like his statments on patents can and will be used against him.
No, he shouldn't check his opinions at all. As has been pointed out, his thoughts on engineers reviewing patents are completely in-line with many of the corporate IP/legal deparments out there. Secondly, Linus isn't being sued (okay, "yet" I suppose), but even if he was he has his behind covered. It can be proven which code came from where, and as long as he didn't provide the "offending" code [which, by the way, is semantically incorrect, since code itself cannot commit an offense] (if there is any) and didn't know that the code was taken from somebody else, then he's off the hook.
Furthermore, his statements about patents have no bearing on the lawsuit as SCO never claimed any patent infringement -- only stolen code (which is a copyright claim).
Can SCO management legally gag their employees during this litigation?
It can certainly be an internal company policy. In fact, it is fairly standard policy for companies to not comment on pending litigation. Doing so may very possibly get you fired.
Only if they constitute a real contract. Thus, the old debate over the enforcability of EULAs continues...
So all we have to do is get Microsoft to claim copyright over their EULAs, which would then negate them as legitimate binding contracts.... Now, how do we accomplish that!
Out of curiosity, isn't the EULA automatically protected under copyright law like everything else? Even without a copyright statement attached to it I'm not sure anyone is allowed to reproduce it without permission. I think it would have to explicitly give permission in the doc.
No, EULAs are licenses, and therefore legal documents. Legal documents cannot be copyrighted.
I don't get the constant harping on this 'peer review' thing- that's part of the academic community and science, not for legal matters.
For legal reasons, you are correct. However, what's legal and what's believed by the masses (even the geek masses) are two different things. Just because a few "experts" hand-picked by SCO say there's a similarity in the code and can convince a judge of that 1) doesn't mean it's true, and 2) won't convince the general public. Only by peer review of the code will show the truth (which is probably why SCO doesn't want that).
BTW, what do you think computer code is? It's a science. Just because it was written for a business (supposedly) doesn't mean anything. Many businesses that do research and development follow the peer-review concept. Perhaps not with software so much per-se, but sometimes yes and often with other things.
Re:The articles your boss is reading...
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Gotta love the Stephen King quote (and the description of The Dark Tower as "sci-fi western")
Only enemies speak the truth. Friends and lovers lie endlessly, caught in the web of duty.
And, no, you can't just say "well if you don't file then it has no copyright" because that's a violation of the Berne convention.
So? Americans can decide for themselves what is best for themselves. If that means we don't support the Berne treaty, then screw the Berne treaty.
Personally, I feel that if somebody doesn't want to take the effort to copyright something, then it shouldn't be copyrighted. Also, registration of copyright would require a copy of the work to be kept on file at the CPO, which means that it would stick around for posterity's sake, which in my view is a good thing.
Re:Reverse the burden of proof
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 1
How can we be sure that SCO did not copy Linux code into the SCO codebase?
Why would we want to do that? Right now SCO (as the plaintiff) already has the burden of proof to 1) identify the portions of code that are "theirs", and 2) show that somebody took it from SCO and put it into linux illegally (as opposed to a) doing it legally [such as by Caldera or Lindows], or b) that code being developed separately).
Yes, this can be mentioned by the defense as one of several possibilities to show that SCO really doesn't know how the code got there.
DiDio says she's recommending that companies using AIX or Linux systems from IBM check the fine print in their contracts to see how well they're covered against potential claims from SCO Group. "Then I'd talk to IBM and say, 'How are you going to help me out?'"
Even if SCO has a claim here (which is a big if), is there no such thing as the "good faith" argument anymore? Wouldn't I (and millions of other individuals and companies) be able to say that we used linux on the basis that, to our own knowledge and the testimony of the developers, all the source code for linux was contributed legally under the GNU GPL? Why would I be held "liable" for using something I believed to be perfectly legal?
Now I was very much of the impression that this was smoke and mirrors from SCO . . . but if comments in the code are the same, then something's not right somewhere
Just like the code itself, it's only significant if the comments are significant. As one other poster already mentioned, if it's nothing more than/* open file */ or/* loop through the array */ or some crap like that, then they got nothing.
Essentially, this "new discovery" means nothing, since as the article pointed out, unless they filed the transfer with the copyright office they have no claim. Seems like SCO's lawyers should've thought of this earlier.
Only if they could prove that IBM was the one that gave the code to the linux community, which was something they've needed to do since day 1. You can't do that until the code is available for public peer review.
Some white people? Geez, where are you from? There are far more poor white people than poor black in USA.
If you're talking sheer numbers, then you are correct, but that's only because there are more white people than blacks total. However, from the March 2002 Current Population Survey:
The poverty rate, which was 12 percent for the entire population, was 23 percent for Blacks and 8 percent for non-Hispanic Whites.
Additionally,
Among all children under age 18, the poverty rate was 16 percent, but it was three times as high for Black children (30 percent) as for non-Hispanic White children (10 percent).
The statistics prove it. You have much better odds as a white person of living in a non-economically repressed area than you do as a minority.
Having said all that, my point was that it's just as ridiculous to say someone is more likely to commit a crime because of where they live as it is to say the same thing because of their race.
The problem is, however, that geographic (and economic) profiling usually does correlate to racial profiling. Minorities are generally poorer and live in more economically depressed areas. Yes, Snoop-Dog lives in a nice house in a good (economically stimulated) neighborhood; and yes some white people live in bad (economically retarded) neighborhoods. But these are exceptions.
No, most likely what will happen is they'll get data supporting the idea that neighborhoods consisting primarily of minorities have higher violent crime rates than other neighborhoods. Then they'll be accused of racial profiling. Bad cops (and unfortunately, probably some good cops, few though they may be) will have their lives ruined.
What they're suggesting is that if a man from a neighborhood that has a lot of crime is out and about they will watch him under the suspicion that he will commit a crime.
Yes, you gotta love this logic. God forbid the man might be a victim. But no, to a cop everybody is guilty.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly anything is possible. Just like any legal matter, you're only in trouble if you get caught. An AC claiming to be a SCO employee would probably be able to give details -- but the veracity of his/her statements would be hard to confirm.
No, he shouldn't check his opinions at all. As has been pointed out, his thoughts on engineers reviewing patents are completely in-line with many of the corporate IP/legal deparments out there. Secondly, Linus isn't being sued (okay, "yet" I suppose), but even if he was he has his behind covered. It can be proven which code came from where, and as long as he didn't provide the "offending" code [which, by the way, is semantically incorrect, since code itself cannot commit an offense] (if there is any) and didn't know that the code was taken from somebody else, then he's off the hook.
Furthermore, his statements about patents have no bearing on the lawsuit as SCO never claimed any patent infringement -- only stolen code (which is a copyright claim).
It can certainly be an internal company policy. In fact, it is fairly standard policy for companies to not comment on pending litigation. Doing so may very possibly get you fired.
You forgot the part where they say, "Now give us money!"
So all we have to do is get Microsoft to claim copyright over their EULAs, which would then negate them as legitimate binding contracts.... Now, how do we accomplish that!
Windows XP costs money? Where did you download it from?
No, EULAs are licenses, and therefore legal documents. Legal documents cannot be copyrighted.
That's about as effective as saying:
Like that matters! All you need to know is (repeat after me) SCO bad; Linux good. SCO bad; Linux good.
All of SCOs claims are non-sequiters. I would debunk them here, but OSI already did!
Now maybe everyone can figure out what the SCO is so pissed about in the kernel....
Bill Gates can already sign on to /. and say whatever he wants. Why make a law?
For legal reasons, you are correct. However, what's legal and what's believed by the masses (even the geek masses) are two different things. Just because a few "experts" hand-picked by SCO say there's a similarity in the code and can convince a judge of that 1) doesn't mean it's true, and 2) won't convince the general public. Only by peer review of the code will show the truth (which is probably why SCO doesn't want that).
BTW, what do you think computer code is? It's a science. Just because it was written for a business (supposedly) doesn't mean anything. Many businesses that do research and development follow the peer-review concept. Perhaps not with software so much per-se, but sometimes yes and often with other things.
Gotta love the Stephen King quote (and the description of The Dark Tower as "sci-fi western")
So? Americans can decide for themselves what is best for themselves. If that means we don't support the Berne treaty, then screw the Berne treaty.
Personally, I feel that if somebody doesn't want to take the effort to copyright something, then it shouldn't be copyrighted. Also, registration of copyright would require a copy of the work to be kept on file at the CPO, which means that it would stick around for posterity's sake, which in my view is a good thing.
Why would we want to do that? Right now SCO (as the plaintiff) already has the burden of proof to 1) identify the portions of code that are "theirs", and 2) show that somebody took it from SCO and put it into linux illegally (as opposed to a) doing it legally [such as by Caldera or Lindows], or b) that code being developed separately).
Yes, this can be mentioned by the defense as one of several possibilities to show that SCO really doesn't know how the code got there.
FTA:
Even if SCO has a claim here (which is a big if), is there no such thing as the "good faith" argument anymore? Wouldn't I (and millions of other individuals and companies) be able to say that we used linux on the basis that, to our own knowledge and the testimony of the developers, all the source code for linux was contributed legally under the GNU GPL? Why would I be held "liable" for using something I believed to be perfectly legal?
Just like the code itself, it's only significant if the comments are significant. As one other poster already mentioned, if it's nothing more than /* open file */ or /* loop through the array */ or some crap like that, then they got nothing.
Essentially, this "new discovery" means nothing, since as the article pointed out, unless they filed the transfer with the copyright office they have no claim. Seems like SCO's lawyers should've thought of this earlier.
Only if they could prove that IBM was the one that gave the code to the linux community, which was something they've needed to do since day 1. You can't do that until the code is available for public peer review.
Yes, I know. The point was that racial profiling is just as stupid as economic profiling.
See my other reply that gives statistics backing up my statements.
If you're talking sheer numbers, then you are correct, but that's only because there are more white people than blacks total. However, from the March 2002 Current Population Survey:
Additionally,
In addition, they have tables of Poverty Status of the Population in 2001 by Sex, Age, Race and Hispanic Origin. While "other minorities" don't have quite as high percentages as blacks for living in economically repressed areas, the percentages are still significantly higher than for whites.
The statistics prove it. You have much better odds as a white person of living in a non-economically repressed area than you do as a minority.
Having said all that, my point was that it's just as ridiculous to say someone is more likely to commit a crime because of where they live as it is to say the same thing because of their race.
Yeah. It was a joke.
The problem is, however, that geographic (and economic) profiling usually does correlate to racial profiling. Minorities are generally poorer and live in more economically depressed areas. Yes, Snoop-Dog lives in a nice house in a good (economically stimulated) neighborhood; and yes some white people live in bad (economically retarded) neighborhoods. But these are exceptions.
No, most likely what will happen is they'll get data supporting the idea that neighborhoods consisting primarily of minorities have higher violent crime rates than other neighborhoods. Then they'll be accused of racial profiling. Bad cops (and unfortunately, probably some good cops, few though they may be) will have their lives ruined.
Yes, you gotta love this logic. God forbid the man might be a victim. But no, to a cop everybody is guilty.