If the GPL is valid, then there is no infringement, since SCO has already distributed their own code under that license.
No court is going to let them say, "oops! we were too incompetent to make sure we weren't giving away our own code, despite the fact that we did it for over two years, major players worked on both Linux and Unix and a reasonable person would have been suspicious, and we continued to distribute after we stated publicly we believed Linux contained infringing code. We now want you to save us from our own business incompetence and allow us to charge for what we've freely distributed."
I'm guessing someone has a monetary interest in the outcome...
Anyway, consider the likelihood of picking "just one example of many" to show at a conference that turns out, with a tiny bit of research, to be completely bogus. It seems to me that the chances are good most of SCO's alleged examples are similarly groundless.
SCO already released the code under the GPL when they distributed Linux. It may not be fair (assuming that there actually is infringing code -- thus far, SCO hasn't inspired a lot of confidence), but the GPL *is* legit, and a court of law will assume SCO should have been competent enough not to release "their own code" under such a license.
"The GPL is illegal", huh? Funny how virtually every legal expert to weigh in on the topic disagrees. In fact, they say that bringing such an argument to court would result in sanctions -- for the idiot who made it.
Believe what you want, of course (assuming you're not just being facetious). No one ever said beliefs had to have any relation to reality...
I would imagine, if they won this round, they'd subsequently attempt to claim the copyrights individual authors hold on Linux are invalid, as the source code is freely available and now public domain.
They have no leverage, regardless. Additionally, the fact that they are disclosing the code in the way they are disclosing it indicates they're not interested in allowing good-faith efforts to resolve the situation. Rather, they're interested in extortion. I don't imagine that would sit well with the court, either -- if it even got that far.
Actually, it's too late for SCO to make any claims on the code, regardless, since they've already distributed it under the GPL. They can't now say "Oops -- we didn't mean to distribute our code for free. We have no idea how it got there, but we will now rescind our former license and force you to pay for a new one!"
"How are you going to feel if/when all sorts of government scientific data is challenged by creationists?"
Just fine - let them.
This isn't about censorship by narrowly focussed groups (although I'm sure some narrowly focussed groups will utilize it to try and censor).
It most certainly will be, when the practical effect is not to have the data defended, but to have it removed when those who are tasked with posting it on the web don't have the time, money or information on hand to post full rebuttals for every statistic. Which, I would imagine, is exactly what the law's proponents had in mind.
This isn't about challenging data. It's about eliminating the easy dissemination of data some people find inconvenient.
The heart of this is democracy in its most purre form. We should challenge the government, and make them/it own up to findings and declarations.
Hmmm...if anything, this seems geared specifically towards making it more difficult to obtain relevant government information and data that some people find inconvenient for financial or ideological reasons -- information you and I help to pay for, BTW, through taxes. Surely, something that forces the government to withhold information (other than national security stuff, etc.) whenever someone doesn't like what it says isn't in the best interests of democracy.
If a democracy is rule by the people, then the "most pure form" of democracy would be precisely the opposite--where you could not see the dividing line between "the people" and "the government." There would be no issue of whether you could "challenge the government figures"--it would just be sorta obvious that you could actively participate in any discussion and work on them.
For a direct democracy, the above is obviously true. However, a representative democracy clearly has dividing lines between the populace and those they elect to represent them. I'd say it's pretty much a matter of opinion which is more "pure" -- both meet definitions of the word "democracy".
However, I don't really agree with the original poster, either -- certainly, oversight and accountability are important parts of a representative democracy. Whether they are the "heart" is another matter.
If yahoo is offering all of it's features as a free and publically accessable system, don't they have the right to do whatever they want with the default settings?
IANAL, but as I see it, the cost is irrelevant. The only issues here are contractual and legal. Giving something away for free doesn't let you out of your obligations to obey the law and honor your contracts.
The short answer is "yes". The long is "yes, if they can make it work at near visible wavelengths, since that's what most photoresist is designed to react with".
Theoretically, perfect lensing utilizing materials with negative indeces of refraction would allow resolution at near nanometer scales using visible or ultraviolet light. Obviously, the cost savings for fabs would be enormous. It's too bad most of the comments here thus far have overlooked this.
That's not to say there aren't other things to overcome before we make circuits on those dimensions. But it's a potentially important development.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Re:The emperor looks great in those new clothes
on
FPGA Supercomputers
·
· Score: 1
Depends upon what you mean by "outperform".
A reconfigurable computer made of FPGA's, at least in theory, can outperform custom hardware when it comes to meeting the instantaneous needs of a task.
I think if your case were that strong you wouldn't need a straw man...Second, isn't it just plain wierd that everyone says that capitalism can't do long-term research, then talks about how immoral they are for trying?
Oh, capitalism is quite capable of doing long-term research. It's just not all that good at it, since the incentives tend to favor the short term. In the case of biotech, the payoffs are happening right now. It's not as though companies would need to wait 20 years for some sort of return.
And it's ironic you should complain about straw men. The problem isn't that capitalism is "trying to do long-term research". It's that people are trying to turn the basic components of life, which many people feel should belong to everyone, into intellectual property.
I'm sorry if the Napster kiddies will be forced to return to asking Mom and Dad for money to buy their music instead of stealing it, but that's how laissez faire capitalism works.
Strange definition of laissez faire capitalism you're using. Most people think intellectual property protection is at odds with it in the first place. Maybe you're not quite so gung-ho laissez faire as you think?
By "cutthroat", I'm referring to a level of competition so intense that relatively little is invested on R&D spending, especially on items unlikely to provide substantial short-term return to the company itself. Thus, there can be a conflict between "allocative" and "innovative" (Schumpeterian) efficiency.
For example, it seems to me a company has little incentive to invest in a new process that would save the company less money than putting the investment elsewhere, even though the process would result in substantial improvements to the economy's productivity if many companies then used the development. Capitalism can be rather short-sighted this way.
Robert Kuttner's "Everything for Sale" had a number of good tidbits on this.
I wanted to make clear that I'm not trying to claim more competition is better by definition. There are other issues, such as whether the competition becomes too cutthroat for companies involved to invest in R&D, for example.
However, I do claim some competition is better than none by definition. How much, like the optimum size for a company, constantly changes from time to time and industry to industry. My problem is with those who think the market can do no wrong, and therefore if it consolidates inexorably, it's for the best. This view ignores the issue of the power consolidation brings -- power to shape both the political and economic field to the wielder's advantage.
Despite the media spin about how efficient and "good for the consumer" these mergers are, that's not why they merge. They merge because their accumulated power gives them the ability to shape the political/economic landscape. It allows them to set up roadblocks to entry into the market, and avoid competition. It enables them to shut down the kind of threats you envision -- exactly as the RIAA is attempting to do right now (with no small success).
Furthermore, while it may be true that any one monopoly/conglomerate won't last forever, I hardly think this is a comfort. Using the same logic, dictators and tyrants are no big deal, since they won't last forever. either. As has been said so eloquently, "in the long run, we're all dead". We have a vested interest in maintaining competition and curbing corporate power right now.
This is the whole reason we have antitrust laws. For goodness' sake, if mergers are "natural" and less competition is better, why not just scrap capitalism entirely, and set up an aristocratic command economy? We might as well save ourselves the trouble of getting there.
I really don't know what the Feds are thinking, but I'm hoping someone will wake up soon and start saying "no" to the Robber Barons of the 2000's.
Sorry about my rant; I know you probably didn't mean to imply much of what I responded to. I'm just dreadfully tired of hearing about how whatever happens in capitalism is right by definition. We have a capitalistic system for good reasons. When those reasons are subverted, the system ain't working.
Slashdot Mirror
If the GPL is valid, then there is no infringement, since SCO has already distributed their own code under that license.
No court is going to let them say, "oops! we were too incompetent to make sure we weren't giving away our own code, despite the fact that we did it for over two years, major players worked on both Linux and Unix and a reasonable person would have been suspicious, and we continued to distribute after we stated publicly we believed Linux contained infringing code. We now want you to save us from our own business incompetence and allow us to charge for what we've freely distributed."
Which point, of course is moot, thanks to the fact that the "VCR" in this case was donated by the owner.
I see. So you can tell us, then, who stole what from whom, or whether all of SCO's "examples" are similary bogus?
You should be very popular...
I'm guessing someone has a monetary interest in the outcome...
Anyway, consider the likelihood of picking "just one example of many" to show at a conference that turns out, with a tiny bit of research, to be completely bogus. It seems to me that the chances are good most of SCO's alleged examples are similarly groundless.
Ummm...no. Sorry.
SCO already released the code under the GPL when they distributed Linux. It may not be fair (assuming that there actually is infringing code -- thus far, SCO hasn't inspired a lot of confidence), but the GPL *is* legit, and a court of law will assume SCO should have been competent enough not to release "their own code" under such a license.
Back to square one, huh?
All I'm "facing" is the fact that you're making unsupported inferences. SCO is claiming an awful lot. They need to put up or shut up.
I'll not deny that there may be "stolen code" in Linux. But the fact is, at this point we simply don't know. And neither do you.
"The GPL is illegal", huh? Funny how virtually every legal expert to weigh in on the topic disagrees. In fact, they say that bringing such an argument to court would result in sanctions -- for the idiot who made it.
Believe what you want, of course (assuming you're not just being facetious). No one ever said beliefs had to have any relation to reality...
I would imagine, if they won this round, they'd subsequently attempt to claim the copyrights individual authors hold on Linux are invalid, as the source code is freely available and now public domain.
Or somesuch.
They have no leverage, regardless. Additionally, the fact that they are disclosing the code in the way they are disclosing it indicates they're not interested in allowing good-faith efforts to resolve the situation. Rather, they're interested in extortion. I don't imagine that would sit well with the court, either -- if it even got that far.
Actually, it's too late for SCO to make any claims on the code, regardless, since they've already distributed it under the GPL. They can't now say "Oops -- we didn't mean to distribute our code for free. We have no idea how it got there, but we will now rescind our former license and force you to pay for a new one!"
Nice try, but SCO's already lost.
Skipping the legalese, it boils down to "go to hell, SCO".
How about a public works project (like rural electrification) to bring last-mile high speed internet (fiber?) to every home in America?
"How are you going to feel if/when all sorts of government scientific data is challenged by creationists?"
Just fine - let them.
This isn't about censorship by narrowly focussed groups (although I'm sure some narrowly focussed groups will utilize it to try and censor).
It most certainly will be, when the practical effect is not to have the data defended, but to have it removed when those who are tasked with posting it on the web don't have the time, money or information on hand to post full rebuttals for every statistic. Which, I would imagine, is exactly what the law's proponents had in mind.
This isn't about challenging data. It's about eliminating the easy dissemination of data some people find inconvenient.
Jonathan
The heart of this is democracy in its most purre form. We should challenge the government, and make them/it own up to findings and declarations.
Hmmm...if anything, this seems geared specifically towards making it more difficult to obtain relevant government information and data that some people find inconvenient for financial or ideological reasons -- information you and I help to pay for, BTW, through taxes. Surely, something that forces the government to withhold information (other than national security stuff, etc.) whenever someone doesn't like what it says isn't in the best interests of democracy.
Jonathan
If a democracy is rule by the people, then the "most pure form" of democracy would be precisely the opposite--where you could not see the dividing line between "the people" and "the government." There would be no issue of whether you could "challenge the government figures"--it would just be sorta obvious that you could actively participate in any discussion and work on them.
For a direct democracy, the above is obviously true. However, a representative democracy clearly has dividing lines between the populace and those they elect to represent them. I'd say it's pretty much a matter of opinion which is more "pure" -- both meet definitions of the word "democracy".
However, I don't really agree with the original poster, either -- certainly, oversight and accountability are important parts of a representative democracy. Whether they are the "heart" is another matter.
If yahoo is offering all of it's features as a free and publically accessable system, don't they have the right to do whatever they want with the default settings?
IANAL, but as I see it, the cost is irrelevant. The only issues here are contractual and legal. Giving something away for free doesn't let you out of your obligations to obey the law and honor your contracts.
Jonathan
Contgrats, Taco! Haven't posted in almost a year, but this brought me back.
Here's to many years of happily married geekdom!
Jonathan
The short answer is "yes". The long is "yes, if they can make it work at near visible wavelengths, since that's what most photoresist is designed to react with".
Theoretically, perfect lensing utilizing materials with negative indeces of refraction would allow resolution at near nanometer scales using visible or ultraviolet light. Obviously, the cost savings for fabs would be enormous. It's too bad most of the comments here thus far have overlooked this.
That's not to say there aren't other things to overcome before we make circuits on those dimensions. But it's a potentially important development.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Depends upon what you mean by "outperform". A reconfigurable computer made of FPGA's, at least in theory, can outperform custom hardware when it comes to meeting the instantaneous needs of a task.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
I think if your case were that strong you wouldn't need a straw man...Second, isn't it just plain wierd that everyone says that capitalism can't do long-term research, then talks about how immoral they are for trying?
Oh, capitalism is quite capable of doing long-term research. It's just not all that good at it, since the incentives tend to favor the short term. In the case of biotech, the payoffs are happening right now. It's not as though companies would need to wait 20 years for some sort of return.
And it's ironic you should complain about straw men. The problem isn't that capitalism is "trying to do long-term research". It's that people are trying to turn the basic components of life, which many people feel should belong to everyone, into intellectual property.
IOW, nice try, but you need better material.
Jonathan
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
I'm sorry if the Napster kiddies will be forced to return to asking Mom and Dad for money to buy their music instead of stealing it, but that's how laissez faire capitalism works.
Strange definition of laissez faire capitalism you're using. Most people think intellectual property protection is at odds with it in the first place. Maybe you're not quite so gung-ho laissez faire as you think?
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
In argumentation, begging the question usually refers to a statement in which "the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises" (Stephen's Guide to Logical Fallacies -- Begging the Question).
For example, stating "I hate school because it sucks" is begging the question.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
For example, it seems to me a company has little incentive to invest in a new process that would save the company less money than putting the investment elsewhere, even though the process would result in substantial improvements to the economy's productivity if many companies then used the development. Capitalism can be rather short-sighted this way.
Robert Kuttner's "Everything for Sale" had a number of good tidbits on this.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
However, I do claim some competition is better than none by definition. How much, like the optimum size for a company, constantly changes from time to time and industry to industry. My problem is with those who think the market can do no wrong, and therefore if it consolidates inexorably, it's for the best. This view ignores the issue of the power consolidation brings -- power to shape both the political and economic field to the wielder's advantage.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Despite the media spin about how efficient and "good for the consumer" these mergers are, that's not why they merge. They merge because their accumulated power gives them the ability to shape the political/economic landscape. It allows them to set up roadblocks to entry into the market, and avoid competition. It enables them to shut down the kind of threats you envision -- exactly as the RIAA is attempting to do right now (with no small success).
Furthermore, while it may be true that any one monopoly/conglomerate won't last forever, I hardly think this is a comfort. Using the same logic, dictators and tyrants are no big deal, since they won't last forever. either. As has been said so eloquently, "in the long run, we're all dead". We have a vested interest in maintaining competition and curbing corporate power right now.
This is the whole reason we have antitrust laws. For goodness' sake, if mergers are "natural" and less competition is better, why not just scrap capitalism entirely, and set up an aristocratic command economy? We might as well save ourselves the trouble of getting there.
I really don't know what the Feds are thinking, but I'm hoping someone will wake up soon and start saying "no" to the Robber Barons of the 2000's.
Sorry about my rant; I know you probably didn't mean to imply much of what I responded to. I'm just dreadfully tired of hearing about how whatever happens in capitalism is right by definition. We have a capitalistic system for good reasons. When those reasons are subverted, the system ain't working.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from