No, spews is only based on reports to a news group and some unknown persons responses to those reports.
Talk about false positives. When you block entire class C networks, you are going to get false positives. I can find a network listed with them, and send email to from a machine on that network (that has NEVER sent spam before) and spews will block it. Was my email spam? NO, therefore it's a false positive.
Plus when it takes over 6 months to get a network removed (if not longer), it is just about worthless.
I have not met one person who has REAL ADHD, meaning a person who cant even focus on doing what they like to do.
Well I'm one.
I actually enjoy programming, ham radio, drawing, etc.
I've got trouble getting focused on ANYTHING. Even on the projects I WANT do, I've got problems following through.
I've bought around 5 games in the last 3 years. I play about once a month. I may watch TV about 3 hours a week (if that). I don't have the drive/motivation to do ANYTHING, unless I've driven by outside events.
They are not claiming FreeBSD is UNIX, they are saying it is based on BSD Unix (which is a UNIX, I belive grandfathered).
They might be able to tag them for failing to put the little circle r on it, but thats about it.
Except for groups like scientology that use it to harass, not too many other groups/corps/people sue over simple use unless you are claiming your product is their product.
1) Out of curiosity, how does FreeBSD handle Linux binaries? Is it Linux kernel code included under the GPL somehow or did they implement it themselves? If the latter, isn't this accusation against SCO the same as SCO's argument of "Well, they must have misappropriated our code because, well, they must have!"?
FreeBSD translates the Linux syscalls to FreeBSD syscalls. There is a little bit more magic here and there, but none of it comes out of the Linux kernel and it is not GPLed. Now mind you, this is just for the kernel section, as far as userland goes (libs and such), FreeBSD installs a RedHat userland into/compat/linux. After you fire up a Linux shell, it's hard to tell your not running Linux. As a matter of fact I know people that run in "Linux mode" most of the time because they want the SysV way of doing things...
I'm not a programmer, but doesn't FreeBSD have linux binary compatibility? I don't believe Free BSD developers used Linux kernel code. Wouldn't that prove that no linux kernel code must be 'appropriated' to have linux binary compatibility? Can anyone clarify that for me?
Yes, FreeBSD does have Linux binary compat, and no, it does not contain Linux kernel internals. The GPL stuff that is available for the kernel (and is never compile into the GENERIC kernel) is a digiboard driver, a sound driver and the so called "GPLed" floating point emulator (it is not under a true GPL for BSD software (the author modified the license)).
Everybody pays sales tax, when the farmer sells his apples to the distributor, the distributor has to pay sales tax to the farmer, when the supermarket buys the apples from the distributor, the supermarket has to pay sales tax to the distributor, and when you, the consumer, buys the apples from the supermarket, you have to pay sales tax to the supermarket.
Everyone who sells anything has to collect sales tax for the governament, the difference in collected and paid tax (usually a positive number) is then paid to the goverment by the seller.
It depends on the state. Here in Texas only the end consumer has to pay sales tax. As an example, if I am a computer parts retailer (and I am) and I have sales tax permit for those parts (which I do), when I goto a computer parts wholesaler I will not pay sales tax (unless those parts are company consumption) on any parts I buy, instead the wholesaler will report to the state that I have claimed exemption and then the state will expect ME to collect the sales tax when I resale it. Unless it is to another retailer and THEY claim an exemption to it...
That is the bitch, everyplace is different; and wants a piece of the pie.
The latest version of the BSD license does not require inclusion of the original copyright notice/credits. The people who owned the original BSD code "backported" the new license to all of the old code that was under the original BSD license. This is why you might not see copyright notices for all BSD code (and why it can be mixed with GPL code).
Huh???
NO! The ONLY thing the 3 clause license does not have that the 4 clause does is in the 4 clause license you have to tell people "this software developed at Berkeley". You STILL have to include the copyright notice.
If they have been taking the source code and filing off the serial numbers again...
Don't much care for that either, but at least there is a reason I can follow: what version of perl with which options do you want? There are a lot of 'em...
Huh? Last time I checked there is only one stable perl and thats been 5.8.0 for a long time (maybe up to 5.8.1). Why install anything else?
That is one of the real nice things about the ports system. When they are installing it, they just tell the installer to add perl to the mix. (you can also add other stuff to auto installed also). After install you just run use.perl port and it's just like it was in the base system.
I'm the one that added perl to the 2.X to start with and I have no problems with that extra 20 seconds it takes to add perl to the port install segment...:)
Well anything from a BSD codebase would have to have a BSD Copyright header. Look for those. But from what I've seen, overall Linux developers have avoided taking code from a BSD.
If there is code from a BSD in there, but no copyright header, there is still a problem.
As for doing a diff? Forget it! The code in the two kernels is vastly different!
BWP
Little details do matter...
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
Come on ESR, you could have atleast made sure that your timeline was correct!
Even if he messed up the fact that FreeBSD has to different parents depending the version (FreeBSD 1.X is from 386BSD and FreeBSD > 2.0 is from 4.4BSD-Lite Release 2), 4.4BSD-Lite (FreeBSD is not from 4.4BSD, which was AT&T licensed) was release prior to 1993 (I think 90-91). The beginnings of 386BSD and Linux are both at about the same time.
That suit would never go anywhere, the link is just too remote. They would have to prove that SCO's primary purpose was to disrupt/destroy Linux sales. Side effects don't count...
If I accuse you of murder, with a good reason to belive that your commited the crime, then you can not come back and sue me for slander. If I did just to ruin your reputation, then you could.
And maybe not then. They may request a seal because some of it maybe trade secrets and while IBM has right to know what they are being charged with violating, that right does not extend to everyone else.
The "lite" releases are the basis for all the modern BSDs, though, aren't they?
Yes, all of the modern BSDs use 4.4BSD-Lite Release 2 as their foundations. Release 1 was tainted and that was one of the things the Novell lawsuit was about.
By law, a corporation is a person/entity, they can sue, be sued and enter into contracts. Thats why when you are a the president of a corp and sign papers, you make sure that you write your title on the papers (so you are speaking for the corporation), otherwise you are signing for yourself.
BUT, not everyone can speak for the corporation, sign contracts for the corp or make decisions affecting it. Programmer Joe Blow, unless authorized by the corp, does NOT speak for it and can not enter into contracts (such as releasing source code owned by the corporation in the public domain or GPLing it).
As for suing, they may not be able to get damages from the various companies distributing Linux, but they can keep them from distributing the offending code.
I work XYX, Inc. doing programming. We distribute both a proprietary and a GPL program. If I take code from OUR program (includes trade secrets) and insert it, without knowledge or apporoval of management, into the GPL program, is the company bound? I would not think so, as I don't have that ablility to bind the company to an agreement.
The same thing here. Unless Caldera/SCO were the ones that inserted the code in the distribution tree, I would not think the simple distribution would void trade secrets/patents on the code. I think the courts would find it unreasonable to require them to check every line of GPL code before it ships. If that were the case, then ALOT of companies will just stuff distributing GPL to protect themselves (unless all they do is GPL code).
BSD was never "purged" of AT&T code (except for the "Lite" releases and those were in the early '90's). There were a couple of half-hearted attempts to free a little code in the late '80's, but purge would be way too strong a word to apply...:)
To get a full copy of 4.4BSD still requires AT&T/Novell/SCO Unix source code license.
Slashdot Mirror
SPEWS does not block anything.
So what your saying is if someone uses a gun to kill someone, then that person has not killed someone, the gun has?
Can't have it both ways.
If it qucks like a duck and looks like a duck, most likely is will S*IT like a duck...
BWP
Huh?
No, spews is only based on reports to a news group and some unknown persons responses to those reports.
Talk about false positives. When you block entire class C networks, you are going to get false positives. I can find a network listed with them, and send email to from a machine on that network (that has NEVER sent spam before) and spews will block it. Was my email spam? NO, therefore it's a false positive.
Plus when it takes over 6 months to get a network removed (if not longer), it is just about worthless.
BWP
The only problem is that IBM's license is for SysV and the license distinctly excludes SysV...
BWP
I have not met one person who has REAL ADHD, meaning a person who cant even focus on doing what they like to do.
Well I'm one.
I actually enjoy programming, ham radio, drawing, etc.
I've got trouble getting focused on ANYTHING. Even on the projects I WANT do, I've got problems following through.
I've bought around 5 games in the last 3 years. I play about once a month. I may watch TV about 3 hours a week (if that). I don't have the drive/motivation to do ANYTHING, unless I've driven by outside events.
BWP
You don't think Enron contributed to the sitting gov of Texas at the time? Guess who that was? GW Bush.
They contributed to whoever was in power, and if they were friendly. Look at some of the power de-regulation, and see who got what money...
BWP
So, why isn't The Open Group suing the FreeBSD?
Maybe because they can prove they are BSD Unix based and Apple can't.
Sounds as good as any...
BWP
They are not claiming FreeBSD is UNIX, they are saying it is based on BSD Unix (which is a UNIX, I belive grandfathered).
They might be able to tag them for failing to put the little circle r on it, but thats about it.
Except for groups like scientology that use it to harass, not too many other groups/corps/people sue over simple use unless you are claiming your product is their product.
BWP
yeah, but I was offnet for about a year and well....
I don't know of a single ISP that will route a single class C anymore. The routing tables are just too full to handle small blocks like that.
I've got a legal class C that I got way back in 1991 or '92. I use it for my internal network, but it's worthless to me for the net at large...
BWP
1) Out of curiosity, how does FreeBSD handle Linux binaries? Is it Linux kernel code included under the GPL somehow or did they implement it themselves? If the latter, isn't this accusation against SCO the same as SCO's argument of "Well, they must have misappropriated our code because, well, they must have!"?
/compat/linux. After you fire up a Linux shell, it's hard to tell your not running Linux. As a matter of fact I know people that run in "Linux mode" most of the time because they want the SysV way of doing things...
FreeBSD translates the Linux syscalls to FreeBSD syscalls. There is a little bit more magic here and there, but none of it comes out of the Linux kernel and it is not GPLed. Now mind you, this is just for the kernel section, as far as userland goes (libs and such), FreeBSD installs a RedHat userland into
BWP
I'm not a programmer, but doesn't FreeBSD have linux binary compatibility? I don't believe Free BSD developers used Linux kernel code. Wouldn't that prove that no linux kernel code must be 'appropriated' to have linux binary compatibility? Can anyone clarify that for me?
Yes, FreeBSD does have Linux binary compat, and no, it does not contain Linux kernel internals. The GPL stuff that is available for the kernel (and is never compile into the GENERIC kernel) is a digiboard driver, a sound driver and the so called "GPLed" floating point emulator (it is not under a true GPL for BSD software (the author modified the license)).
BWP
Everybody pays sales tax, when the farmer sells his apples to the distributor, the distributor has to pay sales tax to the farmer, when the supermarket buys the apples from the distributor, the supermarket has to pay sales tax to the distributor, and when you, the consumer, buys the apples from the supermarket, you have to pay sales tax to the supermarket.
Everyone who sells anything has to collect sales tax for the governament, the difference in collected and paid tax (usually a positive number) is then paid to the goverment by the seller.
It depends on the state. Here in Texas only the end consumer has to pay sales tax. As an example, if I am a computer parts retailer (and I am) and I have sales tax permit for those parts (which I do), when I goto a computer parts wholesaler I will not pay sales tax (unless those parts are company consumption) on any parts I buy, instead the wholesaler will report to the state that I have claimed exemption and then the state will expect ME to collect the sales tax when I resale it. Unless it is to another retailer and THEY claim an exemption to it...
That is the bitch, everyplace is different; and wants a piece of the pie.
BWP
The latest version of the BSD license does not require inclusion of the original copyright notice/credits. The people who owned the original BSD code "backported" the new license to all of the old code that was under the original BSD license. This is why you might not see copyright notices for all BSD code (and why it can be mixed with GPL code).
Huh???
NO! The ONLY thing the 3 clause license does not have that the 4 clause does is in the 4 clause license you have to tell people "this software developed at Berkeley". You STILL have to include the copyright notice.
If they have been taking the source code and filing off the serial numbers again...
BWP
Don't much care for that either, but at least there is a reason I can follow: what version of perl with which options do you want? There are a lot of 'em...
Huh? Last time I checked there is only one stable perl and thats been 5.8.0 for a long time (maybe up to 5.8.1). Why install anything else?
BWP
That is one of the real nice things about the ports system. When they are installing it, they just tell the installer to add perl to the mix. (you can also add other stuff to auto installed also). After install you just run use.perl port and it's just like it was in the base system.
I'm the one that added perl to the 2.X to start with and I have no problems with that extra 20 seconds it takes to add perl to the port install segment...:)
BWP
You mean like - /* from 4.3BSD */
You had better hope it is NOT from 4.3BSD and is from 4.4BSD-Lite2.
4.4BSD-Lite2 is the ONLY BSD that was covered under the consent agreement... That is why FreeBSD had to be damn near re-written between 1.X and 2.0.
BWP
Loads of code in Linux has come from BSD, which in turn came from UNIX, just like SCO's code.
Then where are all of the BSD copyrights? There are not that many...
If this code does not have a BSD and/or AT&T copyright, then it was NOT covered under the agreement.
Can't have it both ways...
BWP
Well anything from a BSD codebase would have to have a BSD Copyright header. Look for those. But from what I've seen, overall Linux developers have avoided taking code from a BSD.
If there is code from a BSD in there, but no copyright header, there is still a problem.
As for doing a diff? Forget it! The code in the two kernels is vastly different!
BWP
Come on ESR, you could have atleast made sure that your timeline was correct!
Even if he messed up the fact that FreeBSD has to different parents depending the version (FreeBSD 1.X is from 386BSD and FreeBSD > 2.0 is from 4.4BSD-Lite Release 2), 4.4BSD-Lite (FreeBSD is not from 4.4BSD, which was AT&T licensed) was release prior to 1993 (I think 90-91). The beginnings of 386BSD and Linux are both at about the same time.
Little details do matter...:)
BWP
That suit would never go anywhere, the link is just too remote. They would have to prove that SCO's primary purpose was to disrupt/destroy Linux sales. Side effects don't count...
If I accuse you of murder, with a good reason to belive that your commited the crime, then you can not come back and sue me for slander. If I did just to ruin your reputation, then you could.
BWP
And maybe not then. They may request a seal because some of it maybe trade secrets and while IBM has right to know what they are being charged with violating, that right does not extend to everyone else.
BWP
The "lite" releases are the basis for all the modern BSDs, though, aren't they?
Yes, all of the modern BSDs use 4.4BSD-Lite Release 2 as their foundations. Release 1 was tainted and that was one of the things the Novell lawsuit was about.
BWP
There is no such person as Caldera/SCO
By law, a corporation is a person/entity, they can sue, be sued and enter into contracts. Thats why when you are a the president of a corp and sign papers, you make sure that you write your title on the papers (so you are speaking for the corporation), otherwise you are signing for yourself.
BUT, not everyone can speak for the corporation, sign contracts for the corp or make decisions affecting it. Programmer Joe Blow, unless authorized by the corp, does NOT speak for it and can not enter into contracts (such as releasing source code owned by the corporation in the public domain or GPLing it).
As for suing, they may not be able to get damages from the various companies distributing Linux, but they can keep them from distributing the offending code.
BWP
Ok, how about this scenario?
I work XYX, Inc. doing programming. We distribute both a proprietary and a GPL program. If I take code from OUR program (includes trade secrets) and insert it, without knowledge or apporoval of management, into the GPL program, is the company bound? I would not think so, as I don't have that ablility to bind the company to an agreement.
The same thing here. Unless Caldera/SCO were the ones that inserted the code in the distribution tree, I would not think the simple distribution would void trade secrets/patents on the code. I think the courts would find it unreasonable to require them to check every line of GPL code before it ships. If that were the case, then ALOT of companies will just stuff distributing GPL to protect themselves (unless all they do is GPL code).
BWP
Again, Huh?
BSD was never "purged" of AT&T code (except for the "Lite" releases and those were in the early '90's). There were a couple of half-hearted attempts to free a little code in the late '80's, but purge would be way too strong a word to apply...:)
To get a full copy of 4.4BSD still requires AT&T/Novell/SCO Unix source code license.
BWP