No, the reason that people like to be able to manufacture en masse is because it is cheaper.
You can patent a process for producing things, but you can't patent a plant--though, unfortunately, in some locales you can patent the plant's genome.
A wonderdrug like penicillin, that comes from naturally occurring processes, is not patentable, so you can't make money on it. An antibiotic produced via chemical, bioengineered, or nanoprocesses is patentable.
So, the only financial incentive for investigating new naturally occuring drugs in nature is simply to identify them, figure out their molecular structure and determine how to produce them because that you can patent and that you can make money on.
Not only is it normal, but I imagine if the magistrate initially opened the court up, it could lead to a charge of prejudice and a reversible error on appeal.
The court does not get a copy of discovery materials. They only see what the parties choose to submit into evidence. However, the next hearing will likely discuss that evidence in enough detail that, unfortunately, it makes sense for the hearing to be closed.
I suppose that IBM could move to have the transcript released if they can claim that there was nothing covered under the protective order discussed. And, particularly given that Kevin McBride admitted in court the last time that they have no evidence from Sys V and that they don't have a copy of AIX, I would imagine that any evidence SCO submits will only come from Linux and that it would then be easy for IBM to argue for opening the transcript.
Re:IBM 2 SCO 0 Motions to Compel granted
on
SCOrched Earth
·
· Score: 4, Informative
One other juicy piece to add to the above. All other discovery is halted while SCO is forced to comply to IBM's two motions to compel. So, until SCO ponies up, SCO cannot make and IBM doesn't have to respspond to any discovery requests.
Which usenet groups? I already read Groklaw, Slashdot, and the Yahoo! Finance SCOX message board.
comp.os.linux.advocacy has the most, but the signal to noise ratio is much worse than I remember it being back when I used to read regularly, and that is saying a lot.
I think one of the things that has truly amazed me as I have watched the developments of the SCO/IBM case has been this development of the Open Source concept as it is applied to legal defense.
Groklaw, Slashdot, the Yahoo SCOX board, Usenet groups and other places have all formed autonomously directed, self-organizing groups that have actively done paralegal work for IBM gratis.
IBM has to have one of the largest, most well-funded legal departments of any corporation, yet there is no question that Pamela and the many Groklaw posters have done an incredible amount of work in expanding IBM's (and Red Hat's) legal case.
Just as poor SCO was stuck with a few developers, meager funds and a mediocre proprietary product trying to fight a hopeless battle against the legions of highly motivated and skilled Linux/GNU/Apache/Samba/etc.... programmers, SCO now finds itself stuck with a few lawyers, meager funds and a mediocre legal case trying to fight a hopeless battle against a much wider group of highly motivated people all actively devoting their time and effort to do anything they can to help IBM grind them into the dust and salt the earth when they are done.
It is truly an amazing phenomenon. I hope that PJ uses her highly analytical mind and great writing skills to write a book when this is all over. It would be nice to see her get some monetary reward out of this, and I've seen her writing skill so I know it would be fascinating. I'll gladly buy a couple of copies.
IIRC, they are legally required to read DMCA takedown notices. Then they must give SCO a chance to file a counter-notice - if SCO doesn't file one, the ISP must cut off their service, otherwise they will become legally responsible for the infringement.
Plus, SCO would have to explain exactly why they do not believe they were infringing, in the face of clear copyright notices in the code. That could provide interesting ammo for the various existing and future lawsuits.
I mean, people act like some other systems don't have vulnerabilities; actually all the forms of Unix as well as Linux have had more vulnerabilities per line of code.
Now, that is the best justification for MS code bloat I have ever heard. It reduces your security vulnerability density!
Actually, no. I was thinking more along the lines of MS adds blacklisting capability into Longhorn--I mean with the spam epidemic we need it. Then, after some complaints of spam from some place like, Oh, say. . . redhat.com, messages that Red Hat sends out start bouncing, but because some people don't have auto-update turned on, it isn't happening with any consistency or even any error messages to Red Hat.
But when Red Hat attempts to examine the list to determine that they have been added, MS hits them with a DMCA suit.
Or, in place of Red Hat, in the above example, insert the name of a political group with little power trying to point out that the emperor has no clothes. I'd say that sealed blacklists in the control of MS or others have a large potential to reduce free speech.
As to spamming, I'd like to keep those blacklists open so that the word can be spread and information shared with other blacklists, but then I've been hanging around free software types too long.
but not including... lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to prevent receipt of email.
If I suspect some commercial entities blacklist software has blacklisted my domain, I can't reverse engineer the list to confirm that without running afoul of the DMCA.
I hope there's a case that allows a First Amendment challenge to that one real soon. That looks like a very dangerous exclusion.
If you check my posts, you'll see that I am far from a SCO apologist.
However, in this instance, I think Groklaw and others are misrepresenting SCO's filing. Not in terms of the derivative code issues--that representation is on target.
But, SCO is not asking for IBM to show it where the infringing lines are.
In IBM's discover, IBM asked SCO to be specific as to what is infringing. They also asked SCO to tell them who at IBM infringed and when. In SCO's response, they are saying that they do not know who had access to it and which specific IBM employee donated the code. They do say that once IBM answers some of SCO's discovery requests, then they will be able to answer the who/when. If you look at the relevant section Groklaw quotes from SCO, it says:
As a result, some of the information IBM requested will be known only to IBM, so the specifics of who at IBM was involved with improperly contributing this code to the public, how they did so, and the like will not be known until SCO gets the information from IBM, the party who contributed the protected materials in violation of its contractual obligations.
While I think SCO are a bunch of weasels who have probably not been specific as to lines of code. I do think that this particular objection to IBM discovery requests is quite reasonable and understandable. SCO isn't saying that IBM has to tell them what code was contributed just who did it how and when.
I also think that we as a community have to be very careful about trying to view SCO's statements with an open mind so that we don't sound like total idiots to disinterested parties because I think that is a danger in this instance.
I say that guardedly, view it with an open mind so we can understand what they are saying and debunk it.
SCOX buys MSFT license -- WTF? by: jqtechworker 10/18/03 12:40 am Msg: 53640 of 53642
[quote] Microsoft said in the joint report that it has "taken a number of significant steps to revise substantially" the Microsoft Communications Protocol Program, or MCPP, in response to feedback by the plaintiffs and potential licensees....
The company said that as a result of its efforts, four additional companies have executed MCPP licenses since the July 24 status conference: Cisco Systems Inc. (NasdaqNM:CSCO - News) , Tandberg Television Ltd., Laplink Software Inc. and SCO Group Inc. (NasdaqSC:SCOX - News; SCOX). [/quote]
This is the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This is the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This is SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This is the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This is the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This is the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This is the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This is the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This is the Red Hat lawsuit that discusses the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
Here is the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that discusses the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
Here is the SCOX stock propped up by the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that discusses the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
Here is the IBM countersuit that mentions the SCOX stock propped up by the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that discusses the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
Here are the SCOForum code samples referenced in the IBM countersuit that mentions the SCOX stock propped up by the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that discusses the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
Here is another NDA that once covered the SCOForum code samples referenced in the IBM countersuit that mentions the SCOX stock propped up by the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that discusses the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
Here are the clueless analysts who signed the NDA that once covered the SCOForum code samples referenced in the IBM countersuit that mentions the SCOX stock propped up by the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that discusses the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in th
"The following paragraph in the Forbes article is clearly an attempt at a summary of the GPL:
Under the license, if you distribute GPL software in a product, you must also distribute the software's source code. And not just the GPL code, but also the code for any "derivative works" you've created--even if publishing that code means anyone can now make a knockoff of your product.
The first part of that looks fair enough. The second is a combination of oversimplification and hyperbole, but it is no worse than most/. comments."
The first part looks fair enough to you and to most/. readers. However, you have to admire the mastery with which the author uses the 'derivative works' phrase. It's the exact opposite of racial code phrases used by good ole boy politicians--where the unwashed masses hear one thing and the select few hear the opposite. Generally, this is done to appeal to the racist few without tipping off the masses.
Here it is done to opposite effect. Anyone in the Free/Open software movement reading 'derivative works' in relation to the GPL is going to understand one thing. But the PHB's reading 'derivative works' the way it is used in the Forbes FUD are going to understand it to mean that any code you write, which runs on top of Linux, can be forced open by those commie, crunchies.
The author doesn't say that. His sentence doesn't really mean that, but it is phrased to clearly imply that to the unititiated. However, it is also phrased in such a way that it is not going to even register to most Linux defenders as FUD that needs to be fought. Brilliant.
While I disagree with most of the author's conclusions, I can understand how someone steeped in traditional business models would feel that way. However, I hope that enough people can call Forbes on this egregious misdefinition of what code is actually covered by the GPL that they publish a retraction. The article clearly implies that anything you write to run under Linux must be released for free.
Check out his website. You can get his Counterpoint product which is
Provides consulting services during the review process of a poorly founded negative piece on a vendor or its products and, should it be needed, showcases the research errors, statistical mistakes, and unfounded conclusions that often define such a piece.
or better yet try out a Certified Reference Account:
This acts as shield for a qualified reference account from unwanted exposure and attention by press and other IT managers. Enderle Group can provide the documentation, press contact and quotes about a product success while maintaining the integrity of the reference.
I wish that last quote could be published with every article he gets out there.
I know of no important native biological structure solved with the aid of prior simulation; this is not to say that none exist, but you're grossly overestimating the importance of theoretical methods.
Thanks for the clarification. As I indicated, the conversation was from the mid-90's and I was making the assumption of the applicability.
I still find work like this fascinating on a number of levels. It's not work I could ever do, but unlike the kinds of work that often wins Nobels in Physics, I can usually get a grasp of this if some knowledgeable person is willing to spend the time explaining it. No way I could ever go do the work or contribute anything to the field, but I can come close to understanding it--and then there is that moment of epiphany that comes when I realize some of the implications of work like this.
I remember a conversation with an undergrad friend of mine who went on to do Doctorate and Post-Doc work at John's Hopkins, working with the proteins that cell membranes use to connect to extracellular matrixes. I've lost touch with him in the last year (so Bob, if you read this, e-mail me), but from what I remember him saying about his work, I suspect he worked in this lab--though not on the project that was awarded the Nobel.
However, as he explained it to this layman, it is much easier to determine the molecular structure of a particular protein than it is to determine how that molecule fills up 3 dimensional space. In fact, if I am remembering correctly, part of the breakthrough on a similar project involved a protein that had typically been drawn as a baloon like structure--i.e. a large blob with a string hanging off. It was when people realized that the protein could act quite differently depending on how the 'string' was folded over the surface of the 'balloon' that led to a major breakthrough in work with that protein.
This conversation was mid-90's, well before Folding@Home--but I am willing to bet that it or other distributed computing projects are actually quite critical in the types of work represented by this Nobel prize.
Actually, wasn't MS-DOS based on the purchased QDOS, so seems to me that they can use anything they want from there. Also, MS can legally grab anything released under a BSD license. I think the more interesting possibility is that some of their embracing and extending may have started with some borrowing. Perhaps not, but I still can't see MS being happy at a court approved way to examine and compare their source code.
Better yet, a reason to get MS to stop funding SCO
on
ESR to Shred SCO Claims?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Actually, combine this with the "shared source" program from MS and it would be easy to see if MS did (or did not) copy GPL code into Windows as some suggest.
More importantly, get something like this accepted in a court of law as a legitimate way to do an initial assessment of code yet still preserve a litigants right to code privacy, and you are going to have not just MS but a number of big companies shaking in their boots. Not necessarily because they did steal anything but because they have to realize it is a possibility that one of their coders did without company knowledge. Doesn't matter, they are still liable.
But, get a method like this accepted in a court of law and you are going to see it used again. I think this has a huge potential to hurt closed software. And perhaps a potential to convince MS to stop funding SCO, perhaps even to apply pressure to get them to start backing down.
Now, you will remember that ESR last week all but threatened SCO with something it wouldn't like if it didn't start playing fair.
What if someone with legitimate access to SCO source code, shredded it and gave ESR the MD5's? Since there is no way to determine what the original lines are from the MD5's that would likely not be violating any NDA. Then, what if ESR compared that to Linux and other GPL'd code sources and only published those instances where it appears that SCO has stolen code.
That would probably result in some new discovery processes, even if IBM isn't already there.
Could it perhaps result in a method for other big software vendors to have their source code examined for illegal takings without them having to reveal any source code? And if so, is it possible that some of SCO's big backers might be more reluctant to let SCO keep this up? I can't imagine that MS would want to create a court approved method to compare its code to those that it might have stolen from in a way that doesn't give MS the cover of not wanting to reveal its code in public.
More to it, even if SCO does collect damages from IBM, there's no reason to believe that this money wouldn't be used for similar acquisitions. I'd be surprised if the folks buying into the SCOX stock lottery saw any real dividend.
If this anonymous post is to be believed, SCO has already tried to buy up more Canopy companies in July but was thwarted because of the spotlight thrown on it by places like Slashdot.
The latest SCO acquisition is Vultus, which even sounds evil. The SCO stockholders are the eventual losers, but I find it difficult to develop sympathy for someone who buys into a shakedown racket.
Worse, Vultus runs on Windows not Unix.
SCO even had a deal with a web services company called Vista.com that does run under unix and had the option to buy it, but they choose instead to go for the windows company Vultus. Presumably, this is because Vultus is also owned and controlled by the same parent company that owns SCO.
The whole idea of a mirror is that it actually mirrors what is on another site. If they've been rooted since March 2003, then it is somewhat unlikely that the www.mirror.ac.uk is actually going to have files any different than FSF.
Unless of course, the mirror hasn't been updated since sometime in mid-March.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the reason that people like to be able to manufacture en masse is because it is cheaper.
You can patent a process for producing things, but you can't patent a plant--though, unfortunately, in some locales you can patent the plant's genome.
A wonderdrug like penicillin, that comes from naturally occurring processes, is not patentable, so you can't make money on it. An antibiotic produced via chemical, bioengineered, or nanoprocesses is patentable.
So, the only financial incentive for investigating new naturally occuring drugs in nature is simply to identify them, figure out their molecular structure and determine how to produce them because that you can patent and that you can make money on.
Not only is it normal, but I imagine if the magistrate initially opened the court up, it could lead to a charge of prejudice and a reversible error on appeal.
The court does not get a copy of discovery materials. They only see what the parties choose to submit into evidence. However, the next hearing will likely discuss that evidence in enough detail that, unfortunately, it makes sense for the hearing to be closed.
I suppose that IBM could move to have the transcript released if they can claim that there was nothing covered under the protective order discussed. And, particularly given that Kevin McBride admitted in court the last time that they have no evidence from Sys V and that they don't have a copy of AIX, I would imagine that any evidence SCO submits will only come from Linux and that it would then be easy for IBM to argue for opening the transcript.
One other juicy piece to add to the above. All other discovery is halted while SCO is forced to comply to IBM's two motions to compel. So, until SCO ponies up, SCO cannot make and IBM doesn't have to respspond to any discovery requests.
Which usenet groups? I already read Groklaw, Slashdot, and the Yahoo! Finance SCOX message board.
comp.os.linux.advocacy has the most, but the signal to noise ratio is much worse than I remember it being back when I used to read regularly, and that is saying a lot.
I think one of the things that has truly amazed me as I have watched the developments of the SCO/IBM case has been this development of the Open Source concept as it is applied to legal defense.
Groklaw, Slashdot, the Yahoo SCOX board, Usenet groups and other places have all formed autonomously directed, self-organizing groups that have actively done paralegal work for IBM gratis.
IBM has to have one of the largest, most well-funded legal departments of any corporation, yet there is no question that Pamela and the many Groklaw posters have done an incredible amount of work in expanding IBM's (and Red Hat's) legal case.
Just as poor SCO was stuck with a few developers, meager funds and a mediocre proprietary product trying to fight a hopeless battle against the legions of highly motivated and skilled Linux/GNU/Apache/Samba/etc.... programmers, SCO now finds itself stuck with a few lawyers, meager funds and a mediocre legal case trying to fight a hopeless battle against a much wider group of highly motivated people all actively devoting their time and effort to do anything they can to help IBM grind them into the dust and salt the earth when they are done.
It is truly an amazing phenomenon. I hope that PJ uses her highly analytical mind and great writing skills to write a book when this is all over. It would be nice to see her get some monetary reward out of this, and I've seen her writing skill so I know it would be fascinating. I'll gladly buy a couple of copies.
Not unless they are outsourcing this work to Korea
IIRC, they are legally required to read DMCA takedown notices. Then they must give SCO a chance to file a counter-notice - if SCO doesn't file one, the ISP must cut off their service, otherwise they will become legally responsible for the infringement.
Plus, SCO would have to explain exactly why they do not believe they were infringing, in the face of clear copyright notices in the code. That could provide interesting ammo for the various existing and future lawsuits.
Gates said:
I mean, people act like some other systems don't have vulnerabilities; actually all the forms of Unix as well as Linux have had more vulnerabilities per line of code.
Now, that is the best justification for MS code bloat I have ever heard. It reduces your security vulnerability density!
Fuck You, Spammer!!!
Actually, no. I was thinking more along the lines of MS adds blacklisting capability into Longhorn--I mean with the spam epidemic we need it. Then, after some complaints of spam from some place like, Oh, say. . . redhat.com, messages that Red Hat sends out start bouncing, but because some people don't have auto-update turned on, it isn't happening with any consistency or even any error messages to Red Hat.
But when Red Hat attempts to examine the list to determine that they have been added, MS hits them with a DMCA suit.
Or, in place of Red Hat, in the above example, insert the name of a political group with little power trying to point out that the emperor has no clothes. I'd say that sealed blacklists in the control of MS or others have a large potential to reduce free speech.
As to spamming, I'd like to keep those blacklists open so that the word can be spread and information shared with other blacklists, but then I've been hanging around free software types too long.
but not including ... lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to prevent receipt of email.
If I suspect some commercial entities blacklist software has blacklisted my domain, I can't reverse engineer the list to confirm that without running afoul of the DMCA.
I hope there's a case that allows a First Amendment challenge to that one real soon. That looks like a very dangerous exclusion.
If you check my posts, you'll see that I am far from a SCO apologist.
However, in this instance, I think Groklaw and others are misrepresenting SCO's filing. Not in terms of the derivative code issues--that representation is on target.
But, SCO is not asking for IBM to show it where the infringing lines are.
In IBM's discover, IBM asked SCO to be specific as to what is infringing. They also asked SCO to tell them who at IBM infringed and when. In SCO's response, they are saying that they do not know who had access to it and which specific IBM employee donated the code. They do say that once IBM answers some of SCO's discovery requests, then they will be able to answer the who/when. If you look at the relevant section Groklaw quotes from SCO, it says:
As a result, some of the information IBM requested will be known only to IBM, so the specifics of who at IBM was involved with improperly contributing this code to the public, how they did so, and the like will not be known until SCO gets the information from IBM, the party who contributed the protected materials in violation of its contractual obligations.
While I think SCO are a bunch of weasels who have probably not been specific as to lines of code. I do think that this particular objection to IBM discovery requests is quite reasonable and understandable. SCO isn't saying that IBM has to tell them what code was contributed just who did it how and when.
I also think that we as a community have to be very careful about trying to view SCO's statements with an open mind so that we don't sound like total idiots to disinterested parties because I think that is a danger in this instance.
I say that guardedly, view it with an open mind so we can understand what they are saying and debunk it.
Yep, you read that right. From a Yahoo SCOX post:
...
l
SCOX buys MSFT license -- WTF?
by: jqtechworker 10/18/03 12:40 am
Msg: 53640 of 53642
[quote]
Microsoft said in the joint report that it has "taken a number of significant steps to revise substantially" the Microsoft Communications Protocol Program, or MCPP, in response to feedback by the plaintiffs and potential licensees.
The company said that as a result of its efforts, four additional companies have executed MCPP licenses since the July 24 status conference: Cisco Systems Inc. (NasdaqNM:CSCO - News) , Tandberg Television Ltd., Laplink Software Inc. and SCO Group Inc. (NasdaqSC:SCOX - News; SCOX).
[/quote]
http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/031017/1856000958_3.htm
This is the code that Jack wrote.
This is the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This is the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This is SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This is the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This is the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This is the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This is the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This is the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This is the Red Hat lawsuit that discusses the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
Here is the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that discusses the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
Here is the SCOX stock propped up by the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that discusses the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
Here is the IBM countersuit that mentions the SCOX stock propped up by the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that discusses the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
Here are the SCOForum code samples referenced in the IBM countersuit that mentions the SCOX stock propped up by the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that discusses the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
Here is another NDA that once covered the SCOForum code samples referenced in the IBM countersuit that mentions the SCOX stock propped up by the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that discusses the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
Here are the clueless analysts who signed the NDA that once covered the SCOForum code samples referenced in the IBM countersuit that mentions the SCOX stock propped up by the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that discusses the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in th
"The following paragraph in the Forbes article is clearly an attempt at a summary of the GPL:
/. comments."
/. readers. However, you have to admire the mastery with which the author uses the 'derivative works' phrase. It's the exact opposite of racial code phrases used by good ole boy politicians--where the unwashed masses hear one thing and the select few hear the opposite. Generally, this is done to appeal to the racist few without tipping off the masses.
Under the license, if you distribute GPL software in a product, you must also distribute the software's source code. And not just the GPL code, but also the code for any "derivative works" you've created--even if publishing that code means anyone can now make a knockoff of your product.
The first part of that looks fair enough. The second is a combination of oversimplification and hyperbole, but it is no worse than most
The first part looks fair enough to you and to most
Here it is done to opposite effect. Anyone in the Free/Open software movement reading 'derivative works' in relation to the GPL is going to understand one thing. But the PHB's reading 'derivative works' the way it is used in the Forbes FUD are going to understand it to mean that any code you write, which runs on top of Linux, can be forced open by those commie, crunchies.
The author doesn't say that. His sentence doesn't really mean that, but it is phrased to clearly imply that to the unititiated. However, it is also phrased in such a way that it is not going to even register to most Linux defenders as FUD that needs to be fought. Brilliant.
While I disagree with most of the author's conclusions, I can understand how someone steeped in traditional business models would feel that way. However, I hope that enough people can call Forbes on this egregious misdefinition of what code is actually covered by the GPL that they publish a retraction. The article clearly implies that anything you write to run under Linux must be released for free.
Check out his website. You can get his Counterpoint product which is
Provides consulting services during the review process of a poorly founded negative piece on a vendor or its products and, should it be needed, showcases the research errors, statistical mistakes, and unfounded conclusions that often define such a piece.
or better yet try out a Certified Reference Account:
This acts as shield for a qualified reference account from unwanted exposure and attention by press and other IT managers. Enderle Group can provide the documentation, press contact and quotes about a product success while maintaining the integrity of the reference.
I wish that last quote could be published with every article he gets out there.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!!
Oh, . . wait. . . . .
I know of no important native biological structure solved with the aid of prior simulation; this is not to say that none exist, but you're grossly overestimating the importance of theoretical methods.
Thanks for the clarification. As I indicated, the conversation was from the mid-90's and I was making the assumption of the applicability.
I still find work like this fascinating on a number of levels. It's not work I could ever do, but unlike the kinds of work that often wins Nobels in Physics, I can usually get a grasp of this if some knowledgeable person is willing to spend the time explaining it. No way I could ever go do the work or contribute anything to the field, but I can come close to understanding it--and then there is that moment of epiphany that comes when I realize some of the implications of work like this.
I remember a conversation with an undergrad friend of mine who went on to do Doctorate and Post-Doc work at John's Hopkins, working with the proteins that cell membranes use to connect to extracellular matrixes. I've lost touch with him in the last year (so Bob, if you read this, e-mail me), but from what I remember him saying about his work, I suspect he worked in this lab--though not on the project that was awarded the Nobel.
However, as he explained it to this layman, it is much easier to determine the molecular structure of a particular protein than it is to determine how that molecule fills up 3 dimensional space. In fact, if I am remembering correctly, part of the breakthrough on a similar project involved a protein that had typically been drawn as a baloon like structure--i.e. a large blob with a string hanging off. It was when people realized that the protein could act quite differently depending on how the 'string' was folded over the surface of the 'balloon' that led to a major breakthrough in work with that protein.
This conversation was mid-90's, well before Folding@Home--but I am willing to bet that it or other distributed computing projects are actually quite critical in the types of work represented by this Nobel prize.
Actually, wasn't MS-DOS based on the purchased QDOS, so seems to me that they can use anything they want from there. Also, MS can legally grab anything released under a BSD license. I think the more interesting possibility is that some of their embracing and extending may have started with some borrowing. Perhaps not, but I still can't see MS being happy at a court approved way to examine and compare their source code.
Actually, combine this with the "shared source" program from MS and it would be easy to see if MS did (or did not) copy GPL code into Windows as some suggest.
More importantly, get something like this accepted in a court of law as a legitimate way to do an initial assessment of code yet still preserve a litigants right to code privacy, and you are going to have not just MS but a number of big companies shaking in their boots. Not necessarily because they did steal anything but because they have to realize it is a possibility that one of their coders did without company knowledge. Doesn't matter, they are still liable.
But, get a method like this accepted in a court of law and you are going to see it used again. I think this has a huge potential to hurt closed software. And perhaps a potential to convince MS to stop funding SCO, perhaps even to apply pressure to get them to start backing down.
Now, you will remember that ESR last week all but threatened SCO with something it wouldn't like if it didn't start playing fair.
What if someone with legitimate access to SCO source code, shredded it and gave ESR the MD5's? Since there is no way to determine what the original lines are from the MD5's that would likely not be violating any NDA. Then, what if ESR compared that to Linux and other GPL'd code sources and only published those instances where it appears that SCO has stolen code.
That would probably result in some new discovery processes, even if IBM isn't already there.
Could it perhaps result in a method for other big software vendors to have their source code examined for illegal takings without them having to reveal any source code? And if so, is it possible that some of SCO's big backers might be more reluctant to let SCO keep this up? I can't imagine that MS would want to create a court approved method to compare its code to those that it might have stolen from in a way that doesn't give MS the cover of not wanting to reveal its code in public.
More to it, even if SCO does collect damages from IBM, there's no reason to believe that this money wouldn't be used for similar acquisitions. I'd be surprised if the folks buying into the SCOX stock lottery saw any real dividend.
If this anonymous post is to be believed, SCO has already tried to buy up more Canopy companies in July but was thwarted because of the spotlight thrown on it by places like Slashdot.
The latest SCO acquisition is Vultus, which even sounds evil. The SCO stockholders are the eventual losers, but I find it difficult to develop sympathy for someone who buys into a shakedown racket.
Worse, Vultus runs on Windows not Unix.
SCO even had a deal with a web services company called Vista.com that does run under unix and had the option to buy it, but they choose instead to go for the windows company Vultus. Presumably, this is because Vultus is also owned and controlled by the same parent company that owns SCO.
The whole idea of a mirror is that it actually mirrors what is on another site. If they've been rooted since March 2003, then it is somewhat unlikely that the www.mirror.ac.uk is actually going to have files any different than FSF.
Unless of course, the mirror hasn't been updated since sometime in mid-March.