Re:Slightly OT: Linking static libs w/GPL'd code?
on
What if SCO is Right?
·
· Score: 1
You're defining application pretty specifically there. How about the enter GNU toolchain? And, of course, you're passing off value judgments as objective here - I find Mozilla to be faster, more stable, and less buggy than IE. And I prefer OpenOffice to MS Office. I'm not an artist, though, so I can't comment on the GIMP and Photoshop.
Know your audience - open source gets created because people have an itch to scratch. That itch rarely involves lowest-common demonominator UI, or even documentation in general. Just because you couldn't get something to work doesn't mean it sucks.
Just tossing off the names of applications won't really get us anywhere - in fact, I'm not sure why I'm even bothering, because it's pretty clear that you aren't interested in changing your opinions.
Open source is always going to suck for you because you aren't it's target audience - pay for commercial software if you want to be pandered to.
I'm not an attorney, but if I got a letter from someone telling me that a product I was selling - note that a Linux distro is 10s of millions of lines of code, many many gigabytes of files - contained in it, somewhere, IP that they claimed to own, without any specifics, I'd ignore them - certainly I wouldn't stop selling or distributing my product - that'd be tantamount to letting anyone put me out of buisness.
Just for clarification - to my knowledge, SCO has not sent any C&D letters to any Linux vendors. The letters we're talking about are hypothetical follow-ups to the open letter thats posted on thier website, which does include any details, simply claiming that Linux contains SCO IP, with no details, no authentication, and no collaborating evidence. There's not even enough information for the vendor to do a check themself. Based on SCOs behavior up to this point, however, it wouldn't suprise me a great deal to learn that they would in fact send C&Ds that nebulous.
Another clarification - I have no especial love for Linux - I'm actually a Windows user, myself - but I have a great hatred of manipulation of the legal system, which this clearly is. It's a grevious example of corporate misbehavior, and, like many people, I find SCOs behavior puzzling enough that I can't rationally explain it without resorting to conspiracy theories. Chief among these behaviors is that EVERY informed analysis of the case that I've come across, except SCOs, is extremely dismissive - for a great many reasons. And all the analysises(?) I've read are equally puzzled - SCO is doing a great deal of posturing and attempting to make a great deal of press, and not providing even the most reasonable amounts of information. It's childish, it's disrespectful, and it stinks of ulterior motives.
Go to ftp.caldera.org - they are STILL distributing it - either that, or the offending code is something that is in (many/all) other Linux distros but not OpenLinux. I'll assume the former, in which case they're releasing it, under GPL, knowingly and with full intent.
Re:Slightly OT: Linking static libs w/GPL'd code?
on
What if SCO is Right?
·
· Score: 1
You haven't looked hard enough, or have an unusual definition of "end-user". That said, things like a "polished user experience" are rarely on the list of priorities for OS projects. On the other hand, people who truly benefit from OS (rather than free as in beer) software generally don't care about that sort of thing. Know your audience. From your previous posts, you sound very bitter about something. From reading your webpage, I suspect I know that that is.
SCO contibues to distribute code which it has stated contains the code they claim IBM copied. This kinda puts a damper on your argument, which would otherwise be very compelling - the fact is that as I write this they're distributing, under the GPL, this code - which, under the terms of the GPL, grants a license to use it which is no more restrictive than the GPL itself to each and every person who aquires it.
If they're correct in thier court case, then they are either violating GPL by distributing Linux, or they have to comply with the GPL which makes any suit against independent Linux vendors impossible and one against IBM moot.
This is important - the SCO of today IS Caldera. It's not Unix company aquiring a Linux one and then discovering the unix code in it - it's an established Linux company intentionally aquiring some Unix IP - the original SCO is call Tarantula or something equally stupid now.
The clincher to all this is that they did not (and still have not) stopped distribution of Linux even (well) after the accusations - which raises a VERY large red flag as to both the legality and the reasons for the accusations they seem to like to sling - all in all, assuming that everything they've claimed is true (even the obviously, factually false parts), they STILL could have dealt with this much better, while still gaining all the restitution they're entitled to. The interviews they grant and the statements they make sound calculated to attack Linux in particular and the OSS model in general, and they've got nothing to gain from this - which is why you see the consipracy speculation so much.
This has happened before, and unless you're a hated company or are really annoying about it and try to cover it up and claim it never happened, you usually won't even have people asking to release your code. The normal procedure is to clean yourself up, re-evalaute your code processes (like teaching your programmers that copying code off the net is not acceptable, unless they've read and are familiar with the license. And some places would say not even then, and you have to go through legal).
As an aside, your implication is that the programmer can't be expected to know about things like the GPL and other ideologies - that's just stupid. If your programmer is writing code for your commercial product, then he has an obligation to at least be familiar with the concept of licenses. And if he's got final check-in authority, he should have alot more knowledge than that - and if he doesn't, then whoever does should have seen the (large) GPL header in his files and raised the flag then. And if he stripped the header then he should be fired - because even the most uninterested programmer should be familiar with copyright statements.
So, in summary - it's the sort of thing that can be easily resolved if everyone involved is reasonable, and second it's hardly a little oops - it's a pretty major failure of education and/or your buisness processes.
Nobody's talking about technical requirements. They're talking about more ephermal things, like the goodwill of the Linux community (as well as thier partnes in United Linux), not ostracising thier customers, the legality of them absolving Corel Linux customers from any legal responibility, the courtesy of allowing the Linux community to fix something they may have inadvertently allowed to be broken, and just generally not talking the kind of smack they're talking (they don't HAVE to be giving all those interviews, you know, any more than they HAVE to publically release evidence) without something to back it up.
Here's a conspiracy theory for you (note: none of this has been confirmed by an independant source)
Supposedly, some consulting company got the contract to set up SMTP in almost all the grammar and middle schools in Korea. Almost every one of the servers this company set up allows open relay. Supposedly this same company has contacts with some of the US spam kings.
Grandparent post is either being unclear or a moron - he's claiming that the fact that anyone can connect to a mail server for a domain and send mail to any user on that domain is somehow a security flaw. That's not a flaw, and the reason why people don't do it is because when you spam directly to someones mail server they blacklist you.
This is why spammers use open relays, so they can bounce traffic and use multiple originating IPs, so it's non-trivial to blacklist. If all the spammers did was send mail directly, there wouldn't be any damn spam problem.
I don't believe that, because it wouldn't be legal for the clerk to keep the pennies. And making it ILLEGAL to do so is just stupid. For example, it'd be tremendously inconvenient to use cash for anything that cost more than 2500 dollars. I can believe that it would be policy to not accept more than 25 of any given denomination...
The claims section, which is the only legally meaniningful part of the patent, does specify that the output is in hypertext markup language. It doesn't specify that it's valid, however:P
The "specific method" is both obvious and non-inventive. The claims section more or less reads exactly as I would sketch out a DNS batch query lookup. Interestingly, though, the claims also specifically refrence "a data processing system comprising: a plurality of DNS servers", implying that you're only in violation if you operate your own DNS servers and run the script against them.
And the really interesting bit - for country TLDs (.uk), it "display[s] a predetermined number of domains based on the gross domestic product of the associated countries". Wierd.
One last point - the WHOIS lookup at register.com actually doesn't meet this patent - the patent specifically says that the output is formatted into HTML, while WHOIS at register.com outputs an image (no doubt to prevent cut & pasting of the output).
So then, when your VP of ClosedWidgets finds out that there's been some paoching by the Slimy Widget Company, and you've been distributing your own code under the Free Widget license, you do... what? You keep selling, distributing, and supporting the product for 2 months? Or you lock everything down and make sure you have your ducks in a row before you go public?
The CEO actually says as much in the interview - that they'll use the AIX license issue to pressure IBM to "resolve the suit quickly", which pretty much translates into "settle".
As some other people have mentioned, in a case like this you have an obligation to reduce damages if you're going to ask for them from the courts - you can't refuse to allow people the opportunity to cease the violation but still claim damages. So the extent of damages they could claim is severely damaged by the way they're handling this case. Then again, IANAL, and SCO does have some, so they must know something I don't. The more I think about it, the more I'm willing to accept that this is some sort of scam to destroy corporate acceptance of Linux - FUD taken to a whole new level. The quotes in the linked interview seem calculated to intimidate or frighten, almost EVERYONE with an interest in this case, except SCO, seems very dismissive of it, and yet SCO isn't backing down in any way - it's like they have a magic ace up thier sleeve. And yet, as others have pointed out, dropping bombshells like that secretly is actually a pretty poor legal tactic. So I'm confused.
Well, there's wiggle room (morally, perhaps legally) because they didn't know they were releasing the code under the GPL. On the other hand, they certainly CONTINUED doing it, and are continuing to support it even when they know about it claim to know exactly which sections of code, so who knows.
And yes, doing this on purpose was exactly what that clause is intended to prevent.
While proving no details, the implication of thier complaint is that the code is integeral to Linux's use in the enterprise - SMP scalability, reliability, that sort of thing. If it's true (I doubt it) then that WOULD be fundamental to Linux.
I want you to do a little expiriment. Go pick up the phone. Now call the cops. Tell them that someone has stolen some of your stuff. When they ask you what was stolen, tell them you don't want to say. See what happens.
Even better - call one of your friends, someone who might plausibly have taken something of yours, accidently or (convievably) on purpose. Tell them they have some of your stuff. They're going to ask what it is. Don't tell them. Say that you're going to call the cops, but you aren't going to tell the cops what it is either. See what they do.
Clause 7 of the GPL, which states that anything you release under the GPL either has to be unencumbered by patents or other forms of licensing protection, or that you have to offer royalty and condition-free licenses to any and everyone who aquires it under the terms of the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
Know your audience - open source gets created because people have an itch to scratch. That itch rarely involves lowest-common demonominator UI, or even documentation in general. Just because you couldn't get something to work doesn't mean it sucks.
Just tossing off the names of applications won't really get us anywhere - in fact, I'm not sure why I'm even bothering, because it's pretty clear that you aren't interested in changing your opinions.
Open source is always going to suck for you because you aren't it's target audience - pay for commercial software if you want to be pandered to.
Just for clarification - to my knowledge, SCO has not sent any C&D letters to any Linux vendors. The letters we're talking about are hypothetical follow-ups to the open letter thats posted on thier website, which does include any details, simply claiming that Linux contains SCO IP, with no details, no authentication, and no collaborating evidence. There's not even enough information for the vendor to do a check themself. Based on SCOs behavior up to this point, however, it wouldn't suprise me a great deal to learn that they would in fact send C&Ds that nebulous.
Another clarification - I have no especial love for Linux - I'm actually a Windows user, myself - but I have a great hatred of manipulation of the legal system, which this clearly is. It's a grevious example of corporate misbehavior, and, like many people, I find SCOs behavior puzzling enough that I can't rationally explain it without resorting to conspiracy theories. Chief among these behaviors is that EVERY informed analysis of the case that I've come across, except SCOs, is extremely dismissive - for a great many reasons. And all the analysises(?) I've read are equally puzzled - SCO is doing a great deal of posturing and attempting to make a great deal of press, and not providing even the most reasonable amounts of information. It's childish, it's disrespectful, and it stinks of ulterior motives.
Go to ftp.caldera.org - they are STILL distributing it - either that, or the offending code is something that is in (many/all) other Linux distros but not OpenLinux. I'll assume the former, in which case they're releasing it, under GPL, knowingly and with full intent.
You haven't looked hard enough, or have an unusual definition of "end-user". That said, things like a "polished user experience" are rarely on the list of priorities for OS projects. On the other hand, people who truly benefit from OS (rather than free as in beer) software generally don't care about that sort of thing. Know your audience. From your previous posts, you sound very bitter about something. From reading your webpage, I suspect I know that that is.
If they're correct in thier court case, then they are either violating GPL by distributing Linux, or they have to comply with the GPL which makes any suit against independent Linux vendors impossible and one against IBM moot.
The clincher to all this is that they did not (and still have not) stopped distribution of Linux even (well) after the accusations - which raises a VERY large red flag as to both the legality and the reasons for the accusations they seem to like to sling - all in all, assuming that everything they've claimed is true (even the obviously, factually false parts), they STILL could have dealt with this much better, while still gaining all the restitution they're entitled to. The interviews they grant and the statements they make sound calculated to attack Linux in particular and the OSS model in general, and they've got nothing to gain from this - which is why you see the consipracy speculation so much.
As an aside, your implication is that the programmer can't be expected to know about things like the GPL and other ideologies - that's just stupid. If your programmer is writing code for your commercial product, then he has an obligation to at least be familiar with the concept of licenses. And if he's got final check-in authority, he should have alot more knowledge than that - and if he doesn't, then whoever does should have seen the (large) GPL header in his files and raised the flag then. And if he stripped the header then he should be fired - because even the most uninterested programmer should be familiar with copyright statements.
So, in summary - it's the sort of thing that can be easily resolved if everyone involved is reasonable, and second it's hardly a little oops - it's a pretty major failure of education and/or your buisness processes.
Nobody's talking about technical requirements. They're talking about more ephermal things, like the goodwill of the Linux community (as well as thier partnes in United Linux), not ostracising thier customers, the legality of them absolving Corel Linux customers from any legal responibility, the courtesy of allowing the Linux community to fix something they may have inadvertently allowed to be broken, and just generally not talking the kind of smack they're talking (they don't HAVE to be giving all those interviews, you know, any more than they HAVE to publically release evidence) without something to back it up.
A cease and desist letter that didn't specify what you were supposed to cease and desist would be laughed out of... anywhere.
Supposedly, some consulting company got the contract to set up SMTP in almost all the grammar and middle schools in Korea. Almost every one of the servers this company set up allows open relay. Supposedly this same company has contacts with some of the US spam kings.
The other 60% are made up BEFORE you type them.
This is why spammers use open relays, so they can bounce traffic and use multiple originating IPs, so it's non-trivial to blacklist. If all the spammers did was send mail directly, there wouldn't be any damn spam problem.
http://www.cdex.n3.net
And the cents add up. Alot, over time.
I don't believe that, because it wouldn't be legal for the clerk to keep the pennies. And making it ILLEGAL to do so is just stupid. For example, it'd be tremendously inconvenient to use cash for anything that cost more than 2500 dollars. I can believe that it would be policy to not accept more than 25 of any given denomination...
The claims section, which is the only legally meaniningful part of the patent, does specify that the output is in hypertext markup language. It doesn't specify that it's valid, however :P
And the really interesting bit - for country TLDs (.uk), it "display[s] a predetermined number of domains based on the gross domestic product of the associated countries". Wierd.
One last point - the WHOIS lookup at register.com actually doesn't meet this patent - the patent specifically says that the output is formatted into HTML, while WHOIS at register.com outputs an image (no doubt to prevent cut & pasting of the output).
Linus could sue them for misrepresenting the Linux trade mark (1-800-GO-LINUX) and causing confusion in the marketplace :P
So then, when your VP of ClosedWidgets finds out that there's been some paoching by the Slimy Widget Company, and you've been distributing your own code under the Free Widget license, you do... what? You keep selling, distributing, and supporting the product for 2 months? Or you lock everything down and make sure you have your ducks in a row before you go public?
The CEO actually says as much in the interview - that they'll use the AIX license issue to pressure IBM to "resolve the suit quickly", which pretty much translates into "settle".
As some other people have mentioned, in a case like this you have an obligation to reduce damages if you're going to ask for them from the courts - you can't refuse to allow people the opportunity to cease the violation but still claim damages. So the extent of damages they could claim is severely damaged by the way they're handling this case. Then again, IANAL, and SCO does have some, so they must know something I don't. The more I think about it, the more I'm willing to accept that this is some sort of scam to destroy corporate acceptance of Linux - FUD taken to a whole new level. The quotes in the linked interview seem calculated to intimidate or frighten, almost EVERYONE with an interest in this case, except SCO, seems very dismissive of it, and yet SCO isn't backing down in any way - it's like they have a magic ace up thier sleeve. And yet, as others have pointed out, dropping bombshells like that secretly is actually a pretty poor legal tactic. So I'm confused.
And yes, doing this on purpose was exactly what that clause is intended to prevent.
While proving no details, the implication of thier complaint is that the code is integeral to Linux's use in the enterprise - SMP scalability, reliability, that sort of thing. If it's true (I doubt it) then that WOULD be fundamental to Linux.
Even better - call one of your friends, someone who might plausibly have taken something of yours, accidently or (convievably) on purpose. Tell them they have some of your stuff. They're going to ask what it is. Don't tell them. Say that you're going to call the cops, but you aren't going to tell the cops what it is either. See what they do.
Clause 7 of the GPL, which states that anything you release under the GPL either has to be unencumbered by patents or other forms of licensing protection, or that you have to offer royalty and condition-free licenses to any and everyone who aquires it under the terms of the GPL.