holy crap... as if Mozilla wasn't the most bloated piece of software itself. It's sure better than IE. I'd use phoenix if I bother ever compiling it. Secondly, what java programs have you not been able to try? I don't have java so I can't use them programs Ever heard of J2EE. Stop using client-side java as an excuse. Which isn't in my distro. Is it even open source? I don't know really, because java needs better standards. And because of lack of good open source support, I don't even bother looking at anything to do with java. I would compile J2EE if I could, and if I could possibly benefit from it, but you see I just don't attempt these things blindly, without good open source support, And because it might not be worth the time compiling myself on a 333 Mhz processor.
I don't use java with mozilla because it's bloaty and not very open source friendly. This it sometimes a pain though, not having it available. And of course there are those java programs I can never try. Having an open source version with Sun's support will improve the current mess.
Somebody make a current open source shockwave plugin!
1)Joe Born Again watches a movie with without the censor feature on. 2)Joe gets disillusioned from seeing something he didn't want to see/hear in watching the movie. 3)Joe tells everybody he knows that the movie sucks. 4)Joe decides to not rent anything else by that director.
On a slighly different note (and in support of what previous posters have said), I looked a quite a few deals in and around the Utah area, developed primarily by the same type of people as described above. In more than thirty different companies I saw (through various venture workshops and meetings), I never saw a single technology, methodology, or other business practice that had not been executed in either the Bay area or Northern VA several years before it. Utah-based companies, their investors, managers, and employees clearly exhibited a blinder mentality with regard to the definition of INNOVATION.
This is bull crap. By your definition, Linus Torvalds shouldn't have set out to make a better Minix for himself because Minix was already out for years (or the behemoth of Unix on this matter). Microsoft shouldn't have made Windows, as the Mac already was the innovating one. Or Word would never have made it because _WordPerfect_ was the more successful product. Lastly, in your terms in what SCO said, Linux never could have been innovative, without stealing from Unix. Obviously your description of Utah companies is sickning and wrong.
Even if you believe what you said, there is alot of examples contrary. Your definition of innovation is no different than what Microsoft uses. We should be the opposite of Microsoft, and promote people to create any alternatives they want even if products already exist. Surely OpenOffice should be promoted even when MS Office already exists. Why can't Utah companies make their own competing products? Is it because they're Mormons? I'm not going to comment on that. Your other replies already have.
Moderators should read the other comments in this thread and mod the parent down. This parent post is crap.
The goal is to get Linux's fair share of revenue from Linux's intellectual property.
Ok, you're right... that line is poorly written as is in the article. But it's still saying they want something. If the McBride's quote was missplaced to be in the middle of another statement, and if you ignore the quote part, then the antecedent is really SCO Group -- which makes sense because it's SCO Group's goal.
The goal is to get SCO group's fair share of revenue from SCO group's intellectual property.
Even when with that, that statement associated their Linux action with their goal which still means they want to charge for licensing linux.
::I am not completely familiar with the details of it, but don't the last two, RCU and SMP, both exist in FreeBSD?
I never heard of RCU, so I did a Google search for it. From http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/rcupdate.html
Read-Copy Update was originally designed for DYNIX/ptx, a UNIX operating system from Sequent Computer Systems Inc., now a part of IBM.
The link you provide is part of the sourceforge project called Linux Scalability Effort. It also includes NUMA and other SMP related code. And it looks like much of this started right around the 2.4 kernel release.
Look at the page and try to realize SCO is claiming this code infringes on their Unix copyrights!
SCO Group's goal isn't to "chase every company that's selling Linux," McBride says. The goal is to get its fair share of revenue from its intellectual property.
While he is not quoted exactly, this is easy to decipher what the article means he really said. The antecedent for the "its" that is right before "intellectual property" is "Linux". The antecedent for the "its" that is right before "fair share" is "SCO Group's". So in another words he said, "The goal is to get SCO Group's fair share of revenue from Linux's intellectual property," or something very similar to this. So they want distro makers to pay them licensing fees?!
If they _really_ want people to actually use the patches, they should release the patches first, wait about a week, THEN release the full kernels. Evil, I know.:)
Even better: On releases, they should first post the patches and a torrent for the full thing, then like a day later, post the regular link for the full thing.
cd/usr/src/linux bzcat/blah/patch-2.4.21.bz2|patch -p1 make oldconfig blah blah blah
And you people still wonder why so many people stick to Windows instead of trying Linux? When I can double-click an icon and click OK and have it install the updates give me a call.
What do you expect? Vanilla kernel compiles/updates aren't for the average joe. They can wait for their easy distro update.
kernel.org was already slow before slashdot posted the story. And even then I was only trying to download patch-2.4.21-rc8-final.gz ! What good that did...
According to guy who reported Linksys possibly not providing source code, his contact within Linksys finally responded and said the lack of source with the WRT54G was unintential. His contact also said that previously they shipped their products with source code on a CD. I found this on the lkml shortly after the slashdot article.
1. Who sold IBM their Unix license for AIX? I know it wasn't SCO/Caldera because this predates that at least 10 years. And I don't think it was SCO either, because they didn't own the Unix licenses back then (again this predates 1995 Novell transfer... or 96?)
2. Where, if at any point, did this license control transfer to SCO? Was it really at the point of the Novell deal? This is not something I understood they gained when I read the details of the deal recently.
Yeah, but it is either: the code was in the kernel for years or it wasn't. If it was, then they had plently of time to stop it and to know about it, because Caldera themselves worked on the GPLed kernel. They already have plenty of knowledge of what's in there. So if it has been in for years, their argument here won't work at all still.
If it wasn't in there for years, then it was just inserted (like a few months ago). Their claim is linux was nothing before this code was inserted. So if linux was bicycle a few months ago, and you actually compare Linux to UnixWare over the years and compare their claims (read that OSI paper) , it makes UnixWare... what? A flat bicycle tire? I realize what I previously said doesn't go much beyond rationalization, but in any truth, SCO doesn't have a case. If they reveal the code and find this code been in there for years, it won't get any better for them. (even then I'd believe any copyright claim is true)
I don't know what it is, but when they're talking about pirating as they are, this just makes me think that they're describing it as if they were (SCO) robbed on the high-seas, and just as dramatically. Yeah, and they talk as if pirates need a license to do what they did...
They claim that the lack of copyright notices "placed by the copyright holder" means that the GPL does not protect the unmentioned code in question. "
So, their notices aren't there, but they still claim it. What about GPL copyright notices already there? Doesn't this mean GPL extend s to all added code? What about previous Caldera contributions? (these are undoubtably even when it is in their self-modified kernel or in the main tree).
"In other words, the GPL itself covers situations where code is improperly or accidentally contributed to the GPL without proper authorization (sic) of the true copyright holder."
Yeah but publishing linux for years even after this lawsuit constitutes as authorization for it doesn't it?
"The recount: The fair thing to have done would have been a complete
state-wide recount"
There was a state-wide recount. The certified vote was not election-night's count either, it was the state-wide recount's.
"The supreme court had no legitimate juristiction."
I understand you're not a US citizen, so here you go wrong. In the US Constitution, there is a "supremecy clause", which means, the US Supreme Court has power to supercede any decision made by lower or state courts. Now it is probably true that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction on the electoral college, however, that means the Florida Court doesn't either (the Constitution gives the electoral selection to the state legislature) THEREFORE, the US Supreme Court is allowed to overturn Florida's decision, because Florida had no jurisdiction (Which the Supreme Court did do) Not having the "Supremecy Clause" would allow state courts the possibility to violate the Constitution without retribution.
"(Had
Florida failed to provide delegates to the electral college by the
deadline, then it would have been up to the SC to decide whether to
wait for them to get their act together, or to elect the president
without them.)"
Sorry, you're wrong again. The US Constitution places the power in Congress if no cannidate receives enough electoral votes (In this case, Florida fails to provide their electors)
"Probably cost Gore the presidency, but the
parties had the chance to object to it beforehand, so tough. You can't
start reallocating votes by second guessing whether people
accidentally misvoted."
What happens under different atmospheric or weather conditions? Will it, in some places, never work when opened, or in another, they will never destruct? Are you sure it's caused by reacting gasses or some maybe some kind of timer?
English has always been an "open source" language -- evolving, changing, adapting and improving with its times and settings. There is no central committee regulating the English language, unlike, say, French.
Good Idea! I'll open source French! Can't let those stinky french committees have control over use of our favorite word 'libre'
They've been doing that since they were called Caldera. So it's a proven fact they published linux for years which is GPL. So they have no IP claims to linux whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
holy crap... as if Mozilla wasn't the most bloated piece of software itself.
It's sure better than IE. I'd use phoenix if I bother ever compiling it.
Secondly, what java programs have you not been able to try?
I don't have java so I can't use them programs
Ever heard of J2EE. Stop using client-side java as an excuse.
Which isn't in my distro. Is it even open source? I don't know really, because java needs better standards. And because of lack of good open source support, I don't even bother looking at anything to do with java. I would compile J2EE if I could, and if I could possibly benefit from it, but you see I just don't attempt these things blindly, without good open source support, And because it might not be worth the time compiling myself on a 333 Mhz processor.
I don't use java with mozilla because it's bloaty and not very open source friendly. This it sometimes a pain though, not having it available. And of course there are those java programs I can never try. Having an open source version with Sun's support will improve the current mess.
Somebody make a current open source shockwave plugin!
1)Joe Born Again watches a movie with without the censor feature on.
2)Joe gets disillusioned from seeing something he didn't want to see/hear in watching the movie.
3)Joe tells everybody he knows that the movie sucks.
4)Joe decides to not rent anything else by that director.
I don't see any difference, with or without.
On a slighly different note (and in support of what previous posters have said), I looked a quite a few deals in and around the Utah area, developed primarily by the same type of people as described above. In more than thirty different companies I saw (through various venture workshops and meetings), I never saw a single technology, methodology, or other business practice that had not been executed in either the Bay area or Northern VA several years before it. Utah-based companies, their investors, managers, and employees clearly exhibited a blinder mentality with regard to the definition of INNOVATION.
This is bull crap. By your definition, Linus Torvalds shouldn't have set out to make a better Minix for himself because Minix was already out for years (or the behemoth of Unix on this matter). Microsoft shouldn't have made Windows, as the Mac already was the innovating one. Or Word would never have made it because _WordPerfect_ was the more successful product. Lastly, in your terms in what SCO said, Linux never could have been innovative, without stealing from Unix. Obviously your description of Utah companies is sickning and wrong.
Even if you believe what you said, there is alot of examples contrary. Your definition of innovation is no different than what Microsoft uses. We should be the opposite of Microsoft, and promote people to create any alternatives they want even if products already exist. Surely OpenOffice should be promoted even when MS Office already exists. Why can't Utah companies make their own competing products? Is it because they're Mormons? I'm not going to comment on that. Your other replies already have.
Moderators should read the other comments in this thread and mod the parent down. This parent post is crap.
should read
The goal is to get Linux's fair share of revenue from Linux's intellectual property.
Ok, you're right... that line is poorly written as is in the article. But it's still saying they want something. If the McBride's quote was missplaced to be in the middle of another statement, and if you ignore the quote part, then the antecedent is really SCO Group -- which makes sense because it's SCO Group's goal.
The goal is to get SCO group's fair share of revenue from SCO group's intellectual property.
Even when with that, that statement associated their Linux action with their goal which still means they want to charge for licensing linux.
::I am not completely familiar with the details of it, but don't the last two, RCU and SMP, both exist in FreeBSD?
I never heard of RCU, so I did a Google search for it. From http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/rcupdate.html
Read-Copy Update was originally designed for DYNIX/ptx, a UNIX operating system from Sequent Computer Systems Inc., now a part of IBM.
The link you provide is part of the sourceforge project called Linux Scalability Effort. It also includes NUMA and other SMP related code. And it looks like much of this started right around the 2.4 kernel release.
Look at the page and try to realize SCO is claiming this code infringes on their Unix copyrights!
SCO Group's goal isn't to "chase every company that's selling Linux," McBride says. The goal is to get its fair share of revenue from its intellectual property.
While he is not quoted exactly, this is easy to decipher what the article means he really said. The antecedent for the "its" that is right before "intellectual property" is "Linux". The antecedent for the "its" that is right before "fair share" is "SCO Group's". So in another words he said, "The goal is to get SCO Group's fair share of revenue from Linux's intellectual property," or something very similar to this. So they want distro makers to pay them licensing fees?!
If they _really_ want people to actually use the patches, they should release the patches first, wait about a week, THEN release the full kernels. Evil, I know. :)
Even better: On releases, they should first post the patches and a torrent for the full thing, then like a day later, post the regular link for the full thing.
cd /usr/src/linux /blah/patch-2.4.21.bz2|patch -p1
bzcat
make oldconfig
blah blah blah
And you people still wonder why so many people stick to Windows instead of trying Linux? When I can double-click an icon and click OK and have it install the updates give me a call.
What do you expect? Vanilla kernel compiles/updates aren't for the average joe. They can wait for their easy distro update.
kernel.org was already slow before slashdot posted the story. And even then I was only trying to download patch-2.4.21-rc8-final.gz ! What good that did...
I agree with that. Keep at it. I was just showing that some progress has been made.
According to guy who reported Linksys possibly not providing source code, his contact within Linksys finally responded and said the lack of source with the WRT54G was unintential. His contact also said that previously they shipped their products with source code on a CD. I found this on the lkml shortly after the slashdot article.
hmmm... Caldera, Corel, and Novell are all related somehow, but I don't think Corel has anything to do with Unix -- That's Novell.
Just how many organistations are involved and how ?
SCO/Caldera
IBM
Novell (...replacing your Corel?)
AT&T
Linux & Linus Torvalds
SCO
BSD
The Open Group
Microsoft (In any way you take it, they are involved)
And others that have been threatened, but yet to be involved in any other action:
SuSE
Red Hat
Two questions:
1. Who sold IBM their Unix license for AIX? I know it wasn't SCO/Caldera because this predates that at least 10 years. And I don't think it was SCO either, because they didn't own the Unix licenses back then (again this predates 1995 Novell transfer... or 96?)
2. Where, if at any point, did this license control transfer to SCO? Was it really at the point of the Novell deal? This is not something I understood they gained when I read the details of the deal recently.
Please be nice... I'm not a lawyer.
ja, das finde ich auch, aber dies ist slashdot. sie verstehen nicht selbst wenn wir sprechen englisch.
All properly licensed pirates had letters of marque
yeah. I guess that's why microsoft uses licenses =)
(even then I'd believe any copyright claim is not true)
Yeah, but it is either: the code was in the kernel for years or it wasn't. If it was, then they had plently of time to stop it and to know about it, because Caldera themselves worked on the GPLed kernel. They already have plenty of knowledge of what's in there. So if it has been in for years, their argument here won't work at all still.
If it wasn't in there for years, then it was just inserted (like a few months ago). Their claim is linux was nothing before this code was inserted. So if linux was bicycle a few months ago, and you actually compare Linux to UnixWare over the years and compare their claims (read that OSI paper) , it makes UnixWare... what? A flat bicycle tire? I realize what I previously said doesn't go much beyond rationalization, but in any truth, SCO doesn't have a case. If they reveal the code and find this code been in there for years, it won't get any better for them. (even then I'd believe any copyright claim is true)
I don't know what it is, but when they're talking about pirating as they are, this just makes me think that they're describing it as if they were (SCO) robbed on the high-seas, and just as dramatically. Yeah, and they talk as if pirates need a license to do what they did...
They claim that the lack of copyright notices "placed by the copyright holder" means that the GPL does not protect the unmentioned code in question. "
So, their notices aren't there, but they still claim it. What about GPL copyright notices already there? Doesn't this mean GPL extend s to all added code? What about previous Caldera contributions? (these are undoubtably even when it is in their self-modified kernel or in the main tree).
"In other words, the GPL itself covers situations where code is improperly or accidentally contributed to the GPL without proper authorization (sic) of the true copyright holder."
Yeah but publishing linux for years even after this lawsuit constitutes as authorization for it doesn't it?
"The recount: The fair thing to have done would have been a complete
state-wide recount"
There was a state-wide recount. The certified vote was not election-night's count either, it was the state-wide recount's.
"The supreme court had no legitimate juristiction."
I understand you're not a US citizen, so here you go wrong. In the US Constitution, there is a "supremecy clause", which means, the US Supreme Court has power to supercede any decision made by lower or state courts. Now it is probably true that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction on the electoral college, however, that means the Florida Court doesn't either (the Constitution gives the electoral selection to the state legislature) THEREFORE, the US Supreme Court is allowed to overturn Florida's decision, because Florida had no jurisdiction (Which the Supreme Court did do) Not having the "Supremecy Clause" would allow state courts the possibility to violate the Constitution without retribution.
"(Had
Florida failed to provide delegates to the electral college by the
deadline, then it would have been up to the SC to decide whether to
wait for them to get their act together, or to elect the president
without them.)"
Sorry, you're wrong again. The US Constitution places the power in Congress if no cannidate receives enough electoral votes (In this case, Florida fails to provide their electors)
"Probably cost Gore the presidency, but the
parties had the chance to object to it beforehand, so tough. You can't
start reallocating votes by second guessing whether people
accidentally misvoted."
I believe you're right there =)
What happens under different atmospheric or weather conditions? Will it, in some places, never work when opened, or in another, they will never destruct? Are you sure it's caused by reacting gasses or some maybe some kind of timer?
English has always been an "open source" language -- evolving, changing, adapting and improving with its times and settings. There is no central committee regulating the English language, unlike, say, French.
Good Idea! I'll open source French! Can't let those stinky french committees have control over use of our favorite word 'libre'
They've been doing that since they were called Caldera. So it's a proven fact they published linux for years which is GPL. So they have no IP claims to linux whatsoever.