"This is simply another step in a long legal process," says a Microsoft spokesman, putting the best face on it. "Microsoft will continue to defend itself against what we believe are groundless and overbroad claims."
And from the comments that Microsoft has made concerning the SCO vs IBM situation they also are very committed to respecting other people's IP rights.
I'm not so sure that a court will conclude that it is reasonable that a contributor to one part of a GNU/Linux distribution be familiar with every line of code in the entire distribution. If they can claim ignorance that the code existed and demonstrate to the Judge that when they did find out they took appropriate action in a timely manner then their code probably wouldn't be placed under the GPL license.
It is the fact that even after they knew for what? a month? they continued to distribute Linux that will probably kill them even if the allegations of copyright violations can be proven.
"And seeing as how SCO has been distributing Linux which had their code in the kernel. They have thusly, knowingly or not, distributed their rights, to the GPLd code in question, to the public."
I don't totally agree.
1. SCO has distributed Linux but it has not been proven that any code in the kernel belongs to them.
2. Assuming that there is code in the kernel that belongs to SCO that was put there by a third party, it does not mean that they gave up their rights.
If a third party put SCO code into the kernel without asking SCO then it will be up to a judge to determine when SCO became aware of the code and if they acted in a appropriate and timely manner to protect their rights.
Although I doubt that SCO acted in a timely manner, it's only my opinion we'll have to wait to see the Judge's opinion.
When the RIAA goes after the sharing technology slash-dotters get pissed. I'm one of them that gets really pissed at that. Going after the technology is wrong. However, going after the people who violate copyright law IS the correct response.
So what is the problem people?? Yes, we all hate the RIAA. Yes, they are the scum of the earth but the great thing about our country is that even scum have rights.
Stop sharing copyrighted material. Don't buy copyrighted material. Don't support assholes in Washington who would circumvent our constitution by endlessly extending the copyright period **Cough, Clinton, Cough**. And if you are driving along and see one of these assholes crossing the street remember that claiming diminished capacity can sometimes get you off a manslaughter charge... (Just joking on that last one...)
When a company attempts extortion on this scale are there not criminal charges on the horizon?
If a company like SCO attempts extortion on this scale are there any civil laws that would allow a class action suit for the "pain and suffering" suffered by the group being extorted?
In the old days money was extorted through the threat of physical violence. Now days it can be done through the threat of legal harassment.
When (if at all) does the threat of legal violence on a persons assets through the filing of frivolous law suits constitute extortion?
"Then "slander" is stealing too. If slander isn't stealing then neither is copyright infringment."
I never said that copyright infringement was stealing. In fact is specifically stated that it was not technically "stealing." My point is not that there is no difference but that in the context of/. discussion it is not an important difference and correcting non-lawyers for using "stealing" instead of "copyright infringement" is being rather pretentious.
"I really wish the copyright lobby would stop trying to CHANGE THE FREAKING LANGUAGE in an effort to CHANGE THE LAW."
First of all I am not part of the "copyright lobby." What ever that is. Second, I am not trying to change the language. I am stating that nit picking the way a normal non-lawyer talks about copying music adds nothing to the discussion and as stated before is pretentious.
The remainder of your post is a rant that sets up a straw man so I don't feel compelled to respond.
I will say, however, that there are criminal penalties for violating copyright laws not just civil penalties. So when the common man talks about "stealing music" instead of "copyright infringement" is really is a nit that should not be picked.
We are not talking about calling a Senator, we are talking about normal people discussing issues on this web site. The nit picking that I have seen adds nothing.
As far as draconian punishments, the copyright laws have both civial and criminal penalties already. Further, I doubt that the inaccurate terminology used here on/. is going to effect existing or future law. People know what the common man is talking about when he refers to stealing music. They know he means copying. You need to lighten up.
"Because we are discussing laws and there has evolved very specific language that is key to understanding and discussing the law."
We are discussing law but in the context of a lay person. Lawyers use very specific language not non-lawyers. If someone says that stealing music is wrong, they are correct. You and I know what they mean and the fact that they really are talking about copyright infringement is irrelevant. They got their point across and correcting them is, frankly, being pretentious.
Man, I get so tired of this argument! No, making an illegal copy is not technically "stealing" it is copywriter infringement. So what? It's still illegal, it still can cause damage.
People just call it stealing because it's simple to understand.
So people stop using a technicality to justify breaking the law.
"Ayala declares, Under NO circumstances lose against Linux.'' He authorizes $118 million in consulting service discounts"
Microsoft offers discounts in consulting services? Oh good. That means we can pay less to have Microsoft recommend its own products! I'm just thrilled!
That's what we need. Linux associated with training camps in Afghanistan!
In the News Today: Ashcroft had the entire Linux community rounded up and held at an undisclosed location. When asked why they are being held he remarked "These are enemy combatants that have training camps in Afghanistan and are going under a new code name. Linux! We are still trying to locate their leader who calls himself Tux"
"What do the hardware companies have to lose by GPLing the driver?"
I don't know but it doesn't matter. For whatever their reasons, many hardware companies don't want to GPL their drivers. It doesn't have to make sense it just is a fact.
Well that is debatable. Any software that is derived from GPL'd code must be put under the GPL license. The question is: If your code links to a piece of GPL'd code does that mean that the GPL'd code has become part of it and therefore your code is derived from the GPL'd code?
Drivers must link with the kernel so most feel that they must be GPL'd. There are companies that put out proprietary drivers NVIDIA etc. If you use these drivers they "taint" your kernel. Most people don't care.
I am of the opinion that exceptions need to be made for drivers. If the Linux community wants companies to support their kernels then we need to allow proprietary drivers to link with the kernel.
It's unfortunate in a simular way that it is unfortunate that some people drive there cars and never check the oil. The difference is with a computer you can effect other people.
"And the fact is they're still spamming, and would still be affected by the law."
I think the point of the parent post is that spammers have no regard for the law anyway and by hijacking computers they can remain anonymous.
You can't even go after the company that hires them because that company can claim that they didn't. Well, unless they're stupid enough to leave a paper trail.
"The answer is a technical one.
Why, exactly? Spam is a social problem, just like any other type of fraud. Please list one social problem that had a technological solution."
Spam may be a social problem but it could well have a technical solution. Not only by preventing spam but also by providing a sure way of identifying the spammer. We would ALSO need laws so that once identified they could be punished.
" The systems we use for email were designed without any regard for trust.
Why is this an issue? I've seen dozens of papers outlining a "spam-free" email system, and in every one of them, there are two outcomes: email becomes useless, or spamming is no more difficult than it is today."
I don't believe the prospects for a technical solution are as gloomy as you suggest.
"Anti-spam laws are a good start, because they send a clear message that it's unacceptable. The average computer user finds spam annoying, but doesn't do anything about it, because it's not illegal. Some stupid people even say "well, people do it, and it's not illegal, so I might as well do it too."
This is one point were I agree. I don't think that either law nor technology alone is the answer. I believe it will require both working for a common goal.
Although what you say about C is true, you need to recompile on every platform. With JAVA you don't. Well as long as the target PC isn't using the Microsoft version that was made incompatible in an attempt to hijack JAVA.
Slashdot Mirror
"This is simply another step in a long legal process," says a Microsoft spokesman, putting the best face on it. "Microsoft will continue to defend itself against what we believe are groundless and overbroad claims."
And from the comments that Microsoft has made concerning the SCO vs IBM situation they also are very committed to respecting other people's IP rights.
Well ignorance of the law in criminal cases is no excuse but this type of ignorance typically is.
We will just have to wait to see what a judge has to say.
I'm not so sure that a court will conclude that it is reasonable that a contributor to one part of a GNU/Linux distribution be familiar with every line of code in the entire distribution. If they can claim ignorance that the code existed and demonstrate to the Judge that when they did find out they took appropriate action in a timely manner then their code probably wouldn't be placed under the GPL license.
It is the fact that even after they knew for what? a month? they continued to distribute Linux that will probably kill them even if the allegations of copyright violations can be proven.
Repeat after me... Do you want fries with that...
It's always a good idea to have a backup plan.
"And seeing as how SCO has been distributing Linux which had their code in the kernel. They have thusly, knowingly or not, distributed their rights, to the GPLd code in question, to the public."
I don't totally agree.
1. SCO has distributed Linux but it has not been proven that any code in the kernel belongs to them.
2. Assuming that there is code in the kernel that belongs to SCO that was put there by a third party, it does not mean that they gave up their rights.
If a third party put SCO code into the kernel without asking SCO then it will be up to a judge to determine when SCO became aware of the code and if they acted in a appropriate and timely manner to protect their rights.
Although I doubt that SCO acted in a timely manner, it's only my opinion we'll have to wait to see the Judge's opinion.
When the RIAA goes after the sharing technology slash-dotters get pissed. I'm one of them that gets really pissed at that. Going after the technology is wrong. However, going after the people who violate copyright law IS the correct response.
So what is the problem people?? Yes, we all hate the RIAA. Yes, they are the scum of the earth but the great thing about our country is that even scum have rights.
Stop sharing copyrighted material. Don't buy copyrighted material. Don't support assholes in Washington who would circumvent our constitution by endlessly extending the copyright period **Cough, Clinton, Cough**. And if you are driving along and see one of these assholes crossing the street remember that claiming diminished capacity can sometimes get you off a manslaughter charge... (Just joking on that last one...)
Wasn't it Gandi who said: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
They did ignore Linux, they have made fun of Linux, now they're fighting.
When a company attempts extortion on this scale are there not criminal charges on the horizon?
If a company like SCO attempts extortion on this scale are there any civil laws that would allow a class action suit for the "pain and suffering" suffered by the group being extorted?
In the old days money was extorted through the threat of physical violence. Now days it can be done through the threat of legal harassment.
When (if at all) does the threat of legal violence on a persons assets through the filing of frivolous law suits constitute extortion?
"Then "slander" is stealing too. If slander isn't stealing then neither is copyright infringment."
/. discussion it is not an important difference and correcting non-lawyers for using "stealing" instead of "copyright infringement" is being rather pretentious.
I never said that copyright infringement was stealing. In fact is specifically stated that it was not technically "stealing." My point is not that there is no difference but that in the context of
"I really wish the copyright lobby would stop trying to CHANGE THE FREAKING LANGUAGE in an effort to CHANGE THE LAW."
First of all I am not part of the "copyright lobby." What ever that is. Second, I am not trying to change the language. I am stating that nit picking the way a normal non-lawyer talks about copying music adds nothing to the discussion and as stated before is pretentious.
The remainder of your post is a rant that sets up a straw man so I don't feel compelled to respond.
I will say, however, that there are criminal penalties for violating copyright laws not just civil penalties. So when the common man talks about "stealing music" instead of "copyright infringement" is really is a nit that should not be picked.
We are not talking about calling a Senator, we are talking about normal people discussing issues on this web site. The nit picking that I have seen adds nothing.
/. is going to effect existing or future law. People know what the common man is talking about when he refers to stealing music. They know he means copying. You need to lighten up.
As far as draconian punishments, the copyright laws have both civial and criminal penalties already. Further, I doubt that the inaccurate terminology used here on
Hey... How come all these inkblots look like butterflys?
"Because we are discussing laws and there has evolved very specific language that is key to understanding and discussing the law."
We are discussing law but in the context of a lay person. Lawyers use very specific language not non-lawyers. If someone says that stealing music is wrong, they are correct. You and I know what they mean and the fact that they really are talking about copyright infringement is irrelevant. They got their point across and correcting them is, frankly, being pretentious.
Man, I get so tired of this argument! No, making an illegal copy is not technically "stealing" it is copywriter infringement. So what? It's still illegal, it still can cause damage.
People just call it stealing because it's simple to understand.
So people stop using a technicality to justify breaking the law.
Any law that so broadly prohibits communication will be held unconstitutional.
The only question is: How many lives will be destroyed by a law like this before it makes its way to the Supreme Court?
We won't be more secure but Microsoft will come up with a marketing strategy that will make us all fell better! :-D
"Ayala declares, Under NO circumstances lose against Linux.'' He authorizes $118 million in consulting service discounts"
Microsoft offers discounts in consulting services? Oh good. That means we can pay less to have Microsoft recommend its own products! I'm just thrilled!
In a corporate world decisions are made based on profit.
Why does that surprise anyone?
That's what we need. Linux associated with training camps in Afghanistan!
In the News Today: Ashcroft had the entire Linux community rounded up and held at an undisclosed location. When asked why they are being held he remarked "These are enemy combatants that have training camps in Afghanistan and are going under a new code name. Linux! We are still trying to locate their leader who calls himself Tux"
"What do the hardware companies have to lose by GPLing the driver?"
I don't know but it doesn't matter. For whatever their reasons, many hardware companies don't want to GPL their drivers. It doesn't have to make sense it just is a fact.
Well that is debatable. Any software that is derived from GPL'd code must be put under the GPL license. The question is: If your code links to a piece of GPL'd code does that mean that the GPL'd code has become part of it and therefore your code is derived from the GPL'd code?
Drivers must link with the kernel so most feel that they must be GPL'd. There are companies that put out proprietary drivers NVIDIA etc. If you use these drivers they "taint" your kernel. Most people don't care.
I am of the opinion that exceptions need to be made for drivers. If the Linux community wants companies to support their kernels then we need to allow proprietary drivers to link with the kernel.
It's unfortunate in a simular way that it is unfortunate that some people drive there cars and never check the oil. The difference is with a computer you can effect other people.
I'm shocked.... I thought SCO was a champion of IP rights! My faith in corporate America has been shaken to its core!!!
"And the fact is they're still spamming, and would still be affected by the law."
I think the point of the parent post is that spammers have no regard for the law anyway and by hijacking computers they can remain anonymous.
You can't even go after the company that hires them because that company can claim that they didn't. Well, unless they're stupid enough to leave a paper trail.
"The answer is a technical one.
Why, exactly? Spam is a social problem, just like any other type of fraud. Please list one social problem that had a technological solution."
Spam may be a social problem but it could well have a technical solution. Not only by preventing spam but also by providing a sure way of identifying the spammer. We would ALSO need laws so that once identified they could be punished.
" The systems we use for email were designed without any regard for trust.
Why is this an issue? I've seen dozens of papers outlining a "spam-free" email system, and in every one of them, there are two outcomes: email becomes useless, or spamming is no more difficult than it is today."
I don't believe the prospects for a technical solution are as gloomy as you suggest.
"Anti-spam laws are a good start, because they send a clear message that it's unacceptable. The average computer user finds spam annoying, but doesn't do anything about it, because it's not illegal. Some stupid people even say "well, people do it, and it's not illegal, so I might as well do it too."
This is one point were I agree. I don't think that either law nor technology alone is the answer. I believe it will require both working for a common goal.
may be that they continued to release a version of Linux for two months after they notified IBM that they felt some code was infringing.
It will be up to a Judge to determine if SCO acted in a timely manner but I don't think that they did.
Although what you say about C is true, you need to recompile on every platform. With JAVA you don't. Well as long as the target PC isn't using the Microsoft version that was made incompatible in an attempt to hijack JAVA.