Remember the *other* O'Gara story? About IBM's "discovery abuse"? Funny, that may well have been put out by SCO--see here. Groklaw refutes yet another wild story.
As an aside, though, that sure looks like a direct quote of the article in the story above. I wish submitter had at least put it in quotes... *sigh*:]
Some of that is new to me (I missed part of the Groklaw exchange, for one), but yeah, that helps me explain this a lot better.
My view? Well, the Native American religion bit is to use peyote legally (although I think it requires at least some tribal descent? I confess to being unclear about the law surrounding it). However, I do know that they are allowed to posess and use limited quantities of it legally.
Anyhow, I figure him for just a random nut, and I wouldn't take the things he says at face value. I tend to doubt that even SCO would deliberately set this guy up to do anything on their behalf. As for his claims, I would tend to ascribe them to a mixture of psychotic episodes & hallucinogen use (e.g. the peyote). I seem to recall that peyote is not good for schizophrenics (or for anyone who cannot tell reality from fantasy--think about it, it just can't be good for you to deliberately hallucinate when you already have problems with reality).
Now then, to be fair to him, in no way could even a trained doctor diagnose this guy over the internet. I would tend to defer to the judge PJ found as to him being delusional (the delusion of grandeur--"saving" Linux for $50,000--is what makes me think schizophrenic), and if he admits to peyote use (again, to be fair, I haven't seen him say this), I would tend to think that this is just some random person who has issues with reality.
In short, I don't think he's a SCO "agent" of any sort. There are ways to make even a nut useful, but employing one as a messenger or negotiator when they're so unpredictable would be rather stupid even for SCO. On the other hand, SCO has never held conventional wisdom in high esteem, and they've been anything but predictable. Birds of a feather?
SCO had, from their count, about 12 lawyers there, but only three sat at the table and only two spoke, one of the new attorneys on the case, Sean Eskovitz, and Frederick Frei. The silent third was the other new SCO attorney, Edward Normand. Brent Hatch was there and so was Kevin McBride.
I see no mention of Mr. Silver (the SCO lawyer who fell asleep last time), so it's quite possible he was napping elsewhere (e.g. the unemployment line). Of course, the report doesn't really say. They should be glad they don't have a harsh judge--some poor observer (not even a party to either case) who drove her friend to court on very little rest got *jailed* for a few days and charged with contempt for doing just that! (Mind you, that was IMHO a tad harsh for some poor non-lawyer observer who could've just been ejected. Then again, this is why you get to vote judges out of office, rather than into it. You might want to fill in some "no" votes on certain judges this election if you have any bad local judges!)
Well, I concluded that some time ago, but I still keep hearing the "they must have *something* right?" comments every so often, usually in stories like this where SCO has managed to do something we don't have the information to research:]
Just you watch--I see the "all our *good* evidence is sealed/secret/hidden by IBM" line of arguements get more play with that new pro SCO website coming out... Of course, we've always retorted to that with "it'd have to be secret because every scrap you've shown the public was debunked in hours" line:]
I wonder what's up with her, though? Enderle was pissed because he had sour business dealings with IBM ages ago, and because he got flamed for posting some anti-Linux articles his bosses apparently thought unprofessional (gee, that's such a surprise...).
I'm just curious as to why she's made the SCO short list for people to whom they leak information? I think another poster noted that she doesn't seem to like IBM, either, and a search for her on Groklaw turns up a lot (see my other comment on her). Probably an interesting story in there, somewhere...
Well, after reading that article, I have to *seriously* wonder if this isn't part of a SCO plot. Or, if not a plot per se, they would seem to be opportunistic about the court sealing the transcript of the last hearing.
Think about it--read a priviledged document to get the court to seal the transcript so we can't very easily comment on it (hard when you don't have the exact words to start researching things) and use that to spread FUD.
Maureen O'Gara? Funny, I could swear she's on the list of SCO schills. Or at least the short list of people they talk about pending litigation with (something you're not *supposed* to do).
Call my cynical, but it's not like *any* of SCO's claims have panned out thus far. That's why they seem to come up with new ones every few days...
It's funny, but the transcript of that court hearing is sealed. Why? SCO read a priviledged email out loud in open court, strangely enough, concerning this very architecture (and that's all we'll know unless SCO & co. leak information, or the court releases a redacted transcript). As you may or may not realize, that's bad. As in the kind of thing that gets the lawyers in trouble.
So that makes it hard to comment on what this all means, but it does make me suspicious here. What better way to spread FUD than to get the court transcript sealed and blather whatever you like to the media in the mean time? Whether by accident or design, that's exactly what SCO has been doing.
And, as for this code, I sincerely doubt it contains anything helpful to SCO. By all accounts, they've filed an utterly baseless lawsuit that has forever been in search of any wrongdoing by IBM, and they haven't exactly come up with a lot.
Every single piece of "evidence" they have ever put forth that we can actually see and analyze has been shown not to support SCO's position. Rather, they pounce on anything the least bit out of place and use innuendo to imply that there "must" be something more to it, because we cannot assume they would be so stupid as to do something like this without some proof...
Given that that's how they've been operating, I conclude that this is nothing more than an unscripted bluff. That's right--they have no master plan, they're just making up crap as they go along, using whatever story is most convenient at the time. That's why the story keeps changing--they're bluffing and they have been the whole time. It was never anything but a shakedown premised on the theory that a company the size of IBM must have something to hide.
So, to anyone who says "there must be something to this, or SCO wouldn't have done that," I say: SCO really is that dumb.
Now, as for the other story, we're getting legal threats, etc. from that fellow who tried to buy Linux for $50,000 over on Groklaw, all due to some old court documents where people called him delusional. He did say something about a secret, personal mission to "save" Linux (or something--I don't claim to have his story straight any more than someone can claim to understand what SCO's current claims are).
I wonder when this will be turned into a geek soap opera? "As the SCO Burns" or something?:]
It most certainly is illegal, thanks to our screwy IP laws, but since you actually paid for it, it's highly questionable exactly what harm they would suffer as a result of your actions. Let me repeat that: it is illegal in any country which has signed the Berne treaty recognizing copyrights. There are damned few countries that haven't signed that treaty. If you're in an english-speaking country, you're probably covered by it, with the possible exception of Sealand.
Given the lack of harm suffered by the publisher in that case, however, it's an open question as to how wrong it was. And for parent, I'd like to remind you that not everything that is legal is moral, just as not everything illegal is necessarily immoral--we don't have the power to change laws for nothing.
If our laws work against the many for the benefit of the few, is it so unreasonable to rethink them?
The reason people react so with the debate over whether or not it's "stealing" is because until quite recently it wasn't. Let me repeat that: it wasn't considered wrong. Why should someone own an idea just because they thought it first? If it's really "property," why do the rights to it expire? Have our laws not forgotten the public domain--the very thing they were meant to *enrich* by encouraging publication?
So then, in my view, one should obey the law as it is for now, but work to change it into something more reasonable and more workable.
If what you say is true, it would be unenforceable to sign a non-disclosure agreement, as you are giving up your first ammendment rights to free speech.
Not all rights are inalienable. And even in your circumstance, you may have a duty to disclose certain things (e.g. in order to save someone's life, and you cannot contract with someone not to disclose a felony--think of the implications of that for crime families--and I'm sure there are other examples, too). Mind you, such things are riddled with loopholes and other things that rest upon very specific facts unique to each case. Get a real lawyer's oppinion instead of mine, because the above is not intended as legal advice.
As for the military, you're allowed to give up more of your rights to them than to other parties. They even have their own justice system, separate from that for civilians. Perhaps you've heard of the UCMJ? If not, Google it.
Anyhow, slavery is one I'm rather sure is inalienable, and we do NOT have an "unlimited" right to contract! While some seem to believe in that position, it is neither the position of the law (judges are empowered to void particularly odious contracts--but you should NEVER rely on such a hope in signing one, they are reluctant to do so), nor is it a wise position. I shudder even to think what lopsided contracts might be foisted upon us were it so. And certain states, most notably California, will in fact invoke the fact that slavery is outlawed by the constitution to void certain portions of non-compete clauses in contracts which would otherwise prevent you from working in your field.
Now, once again, please get an actual legal oppinion from a lawyer admitted to the bar in your state, rather than relying on any statement I, a non-lawyer, have made. The particular facts of a given situation may make all the difference, and I am only speaking in broad generalities about a complex subject.
Courts only have jurisdiction over "cases and controversies" -- this means that they cannot just issue advisory oppinions about what might or might not hypothetically be legal, there has to be some real controversy over it.
In other words, if they saw through the scam, they'd say that it wasn't really a controversy, and throw it out of court because they had no jurisdiction over it. Mind you, IANAL, so I don't know if they'd do anything else to you for trying to game the court like that, but I can at least say that they'd toss it out of court.
Sadly, the rest of the schemes I'm seeing mentioned would also be unhelpful. Yes, you could try to make your own crazy contracts, but the court gets to decide *which* contracts it wants to find "unconscionable." So they can say that merely because it's click-thru, we don't find it unconscionable, but instead because you attached it to a virus, or just mailed it to the software company. Mind you, they seem to be finding that clicking that "okay" (or designating some agent to do that for you--your kids, a friend, a company, etc.--the fact that YOU asked them to makes them an agent of yourself here), you actually enter into these crazy contracts.
Alas, the only one I remember being found "unconscionable" was one where you couldn't benchmark or review it without prior consent. IIRC, it was in the EULA of some A/V product... I can understand why they might want that, to avoid misleading claims of which product kills more viruses or whatever, but it was still a terrible clause, and I seem to remember it running afoul of the 1st ammendment (thankfully, some rights are *inalienable* -- you cannot contract yourself into slavery, for example).
So, sadly, this court is apparently too shortsighted to see that its ruling could kill reverse engineering (what product will allow it save by oversight?). All I can say is that I hope for a more savvy court on appeal.
Frankly, I wish the courts would make certain rights with respect to software *inalienable* so that we don't have to put up with EULAs trying to steal them from us. I'm sure that reverse engineering and making the software product interoperate with the other software should be on the shortlist of inalienable computer rights, though there are probably others...
That's somewhat short sighted in terms of strategy.
The strategy which dominates is to do that to all the competetors stronger than you, and maybe a few below--whether or not you know who was behind the attacks on you. Of course, you concentrate on the ones at the top, but that (ironically) leads to a cycle of tearing down whoever is currently top dog.
In other words, something rather like we see today.
No. @stake "merged" with the l0pht guys, then fired them one by one. Almost everyone with a clue left @stake long ago. @stake sold out practically from the start.
Look for a posts by spacerog, he was actually a part of all this.
I remember enjoying your articles on HNN what seems like ages ago, but you're right--many such things seem to be falling by the wayside.
I've long felt like @stake "sold out" (IIRC, it seemed like things went to crap just about when HNN stopped) and now I know why--they don't seem to have much of anyone left with a clue in control.
Wish I knew how to help--I liked HNN. It was a lot more informative than almost anything published, and all the mailing lists are filling up with "Foocorp has finally discovered that format strings can be dangerous, please download updated packages before you get 0wned." C'est la vie:/
Hell, the termination clause of it is "you may be terminated";] I think you also give up your rights to liberty, the persuit of happiness, and Bouncy Bubble Beverage in there somewhere, too, but my memory seems to have been erased in order to better server Friend Computer...
As yet another regular Groklaw reader, I can tell you that PJ had no such plans last I knew, simply because she commented over here a few times, only to be ignored in favor of highly-moderated (but incorrect) legal advice someone gave out. Thus, she's no fan of moderation.
That said, there are generally only a few threads worth reading--some of the new information under OT and corrections (which are generally started by someone right at the top of each new story), and comments by some of the more knowledgeable legal types on Groklaw. AllParadox & Marbux come to mind--you can search for their comments via the Groklaw search page. Quartermass is another who provides interesting legal insight, but he always posts anonymously, merely signing his messages, to encourage people not to filter the anonymous posts out over there. Sadly, that makes his insights harder to find, with them being somewhat burried.
Keeping the code--even code that merely interfaces with code SCO purportedly owns--confidential might have actually made sense back when there might have been trade secrets in it. As of now, it would be quite difficult to find any such trade secrets. While SCO has made protestations about trade secrets, they have NEVER identified a single one in any of the public court documents I have ever seen, in spite of repeated prompting from IBM.
And don't forget about the question of who owns what code--even this issue isn't settled, you remember--thanks to BSD, they may have precious little interest in anything, even assuming SCO got the rights they say they did from Novell...
So yeah, I guess they *might* create enough of a cloud to survive a summary judgement motion. But that may well just delay some of this for later.
Oh, and thanks to SCO's motion (I don't know whether they or the court are at fault here), we may well know about that priviledged document SCO attached to its memo in violation of their agreement with IBM. It was probably concerning this very issue of the inconsistant testimony (because they protest that IBM knew about it).
Of course, this could very well backfire. I think that someone on Groklaw said that attaching a priviledged document to one's own court filings was a risky maneuver--they court may well have to exclude that from evidence, and sanction SCO's counsel. Of course, IANAL, and we shall have to wait and see. Frankly, I'm still wondering how & why this information may have escaped the court's seal... (or if indeed this was the thing that was sealed).
Heh, I use a perfectly secure browser--I don't get the popups and crap.
However, I still would never use them. I don't trust people who have such sleazy sites. They have such a sleazy site. So I don't trust them. I don't give money to people I don't trust. So I don't use them. Period.
They want to do business with me? They'll have to reform. And no, I don't give a damn if my business is insignificant to them. Enough of us do that, and they'll eventually have to change.
* Golly, I wonder why Gargoyles reminded me of Star Trek?
Since others here might not know, the voices in Gargoyles reads like the ST:TNG cast list--Marina Sirtis, Michael Dorn & Jonathen Frakes are all in there for sure. Not sure if I missed anyone else.
Hell, I still remember seeing it the first time and thinking "man, those voices sound *really* familiar for some reason?" The dichtomy between thinking of Frakes as "number two" and an evil Illuminatus is pretty crazy, too. I keep expecting him to invent a phaser or a photon torpedo to stop the gargoyles in one of the episodes. I did like what they did with the Illuminati, though--always making you wonder whether the Illuminati had actually lost or had some even crazier plan in mind...
Slashdot Mirror
Remember the *other* O'Gara story? About IBM's "discovery abuse"? Funny, that may well have been put out by SCO--see here. Groklaw refutes yet another wild story.
:]
As an aside, though, that sure looks like a direct quote of the article in the story above. I wish submitter had at least put it in quotes... *sigh*
Some of that is new to me (I missed part of the Groklaw exchange, for one), but yeah, that helps me explain this a lot better.
My view? Well, the Native American religion bit is to use peyote legally (although I think it requires at least some tribal descent? I confess to being unclear about the law surrounding it). However, I do know that they are allowed to posess and use limited quantities of it legally.
Anyhow, I figure him for just a random nut, and I wouldn't take the things he says at face value. I tend to doubt that even SCO would deliberately set this guy up to do anything on their behalf. As for his claims, I would tend to ascribe them to a mixture of psychotic episodes & hallucinogen use (e.g. the peyote). I seem to recall that peyote is not good for schizophrenics (or for anyone who cannot tell reality from fantasy--think about it, it just can't be good for you to deliberately hallucinate when you already have problems with reality).
Now then, to be fair to him, in no way could even a trained doctor diagnose this guy over the internet. I would tend to defer to the judge PJ found as to him being delusional (the delusion of grandeur--"saving" Linux for $50,000--is what makes me think schizophrenic), and if he admits to peyote use (again, to be fair, I haven't seen him say this), I would tend to think that this is just some random person who has issues with reality.
In short, I don't think he's a SCO "agent" of any sort. There are ways to make even a nut useful, but employing one as a messenger or negotiator when they're so unpredictable would be rather stupid even for SCO. On the other hand, SCO has never held conventional wisdom in high esteem, and they've been anything but predictable. Birds of a feather?
Don't be so sure ;]
From Groklaw's coverage of the hearing:
SCO had, from their count, about 12 lawyers there, but only three sat at the table and only two spoke, one of the new attorneys on the case, Sean Eskovitz, and Frederick Frei. The silent third was the other new SCO attorney, Edward Normand. Brent Hatch was there and so was Kevin McBride.
I see no mention of Mr. Silver (the SCO lawyer who fell asleep last time), so it's quite possible he was napping elsewhere (e.g. the unemployment line). Of course, the report doesn't really say. They should be glad they don't have a harsh judge--some poor observer (not even a party to either case) who drove her friend to court on very little rest got *jailed* for a few days and charged with contempt for doing just that! (Mind you, that was IMHO a tad harsh for some poor non-lawyer observer who could've just been ejected. Then again, this is why you get to vote judges out of office, rather than into it. You might want to fill in some "no" votes on certain judges this election if you have any bad local judges!)
Well, I concluded that some time ago, but I still keep hearing the "they must have *something* right?" comments every so often, usually in stories like this where SCO has managed to do something we don't have the information to research :]
:]
Just you watch--I see the "all our *good* evidence is sealed/secret/hidden by IBM" line of arguements get more play with that new pro SCO website coming out... Of course, we've always retorted to that with "it'd have to be secret because every scrap you've shown the public was debunked in hours" line
I noticed that, too.
I wonder what's up with her, though? Enderle was pissed because he had sour business dealings with IBM ages ago, and because he got flamed for posting some anti-Linux articles his bosses apparently thought unprofessional (gee, that's such a surprise...).
I'm just curious as to why she's made the SCO short list for people to whom they leak information? I think another poster noted that she doesn't seem to like IBM, either, and a search for her on Groklaw turns up a lot (see my other comment on her). Probably an interesting story in there, somewhere...
Speaking of Maureen, here is what I mean by her being on the short list for SCO press releases.
See what I mean?
Well, after reading that article, I have to *seriously* wonder if this isn't part of a SCO plot. Or, if not a plot per se, they would seem to be opportunistic about the court sealing the transcript of the last hearing.
Think about it--read a priviledged document to get the court to seal the transcript so we can't very easily comment on it (hard when you don't have the exact words to start researching things) and use that to spread FUD.
Maureen O'Gara? Funny, I could swear she's on the list of SCO schills. Or at least the short list of people they talk about pending litigation with (something you're not *supposed* to do).
Call my cynical, but it's not like *any* of SCO's claims have panned out thus far. That's why they seem to come up with new ones every few days...
It's funny, but the transcript of that court hearing is sealed. Why? SCO read a priviledged email out loud in open court, strangely enough, concerning this very architecture (and that's all we'll know unless SCO & co. leak information, or the court releases a redacted transcript). As you may or may not realize, that's bad. As in the kind of thing that gets the lawyers in trouble.
:]
So that makes it hard to comment on what this all means, but it does make me suspicious here. What better way to spread FUD than to get the court transcript sealed and blather whatever you like to the media in the mean time? Whether by accident or design, that's exactly what SCO has been doing.
And, as for this code, I sincerely doubt it contains anything helpful to SCO. By all accounts, they've filed an utterly baseless lawsuit that has forever been in search of any wrongdoing by IBM, and they haven't exactly come up with a lot.
Every single piece of "evidence" they have ever put forth that we can actually see and analyze has been shown not to support SCO's position. Rather, they pounce on anything the least bit out of place and use innuendo to imply that there "must" be something more to it, because we cannot assume they would be so stupid as to do something like this without some proof...
Given that that's how they've been operating, I conclude that this is nothing more than an unscripted bluff. That's right--they have no master plan, they're just making up crap as they go along, using whatever story is most convenient at the time. That's why the story keeps changing--they're bluffing and they have been the whole time. It was never anything but a shakedown premised on the theory that a company the size of IBM must have something to hide.
So, to anyone who says "there must be something to this, or SCO wouldn't have done that," I say: SCO really is that dumb.
Now, as for the other story, we're getting legal threats, etc. from that fellow who tried to buy Linux for $50,000 over on Groklaw, all due to some old court documents where people called him delusional. He did say something about a secret, personal mission to "save" Linux (or something--I don't claim to have his story straight any more than someone can claim to understand what SCO's current claims are).
I wonder when this will be turned into a geek soap opera? "As the SCO Burns" or something?
Erhm, I'm afraid you're quite wrong.
It most certainly is illegal, thanks to our screwy IP laws, but since you actually paid for it, it's highly questionable exactly what harm they would suffer as a result of your actions. Let me repeat that: it is illegal in any country which has signed the Berne treaty recognizing copyrights. There are damned few countries that haven't signed that treaty. If you're in an english-speaking country, you're probably covered by it, with the possible exception of Sealand.
Given the lack of harm suffered by the publisher in that case, however, it's an open question as to how wrong it was. And for parent, I'd like to remind you that not everything that is legal is moral, just as not everything illegal is necessarily immoral--we don't have the power to change laws for nothing.
If our laws work against the many for the benefit of the few, is it so unreasonable to rethink them?
The reason people react so with the debate over whether or not it's "stealing" is because until quite recently it wasn't. Let me repeat that: it wasn't considered wrong. Why should someone own an idea just because they thought it first? If it's really "property," why do the rights to it expire? Have our laws not forgotten the public domain--the very thing they were meant to *enrich* by encouraging publication?
So then, in my view, one should obey the law as it is for now, but work to change it into something more reasonable and more workable.
If what you say is true, it would be unenforceable to sign a non-disclosure agreement, as you are giving up your first ammendment rights to free speech.
Not all rights are inalienable. And even in your circumstance, you may have a duty to disclose certain things (e.g. in order to save someone's life, and you cannot contract with someone not to disclose a felony--think of the implications of that for crime families--and I'm sure there are other examples, too). Mind you, such things are riddled with loopholes and other things that rest upon very specific facts unique to each case. Get a real lawyer's oppinion instead of mine, because the above is not intended as legal advice.
As for the military, you're allowed to give up more of your rights to them than to other parties. They even have their own justice system, separate from that for civilians. Perhaps you've heard of the UCMJ? If not, Google it.
Anyhow, slavery is one I'm rather sure is inalienable, and we do NOT have an "unlimited" right to contract! While some seem to believe in that position, it is neither the position of the law (judges are empowered to void particularly odious contracts--but you should NEVER rely on such a hope in signing one, they are reluctant to do so), nor is it a wise position. I shudder even to think what lopsided contracts might be foisted upon us were it so. And certain states, most notably California, will in fact invoke the fact that slavery is outlawed by the constitution to void certain portions of non-compete clauses in contracts which would otherwise prevent you from working in your field.
Now, once again, please get an actual legal oppinion from a lawyer admitted to the bar in your state, rather than relying on any statement I, a non-lawyer, have made. The particular facts of a given situation may make all the difference, and I am only speaking in broad generalities about a complex subject.
Courts only have jurisdiction over "cases and controversies" -- this means that they cannot just issue advisory oppinions about what might or might not hypothetically be legal, there has to be some real controversy over it.
In other words, if they saw through the scam, they'd say that it wasn't really a controversy, and throw it out of court because they had no jurisdiction over it. Mind you, IANAL, so I don't know if they'd do anything else to you for trying to game the court like that, but I can at least say that they'd toss it out of court.
Sadly, the rest of the schemes I'm seeing mentioned would also be unhelpful. Yes, you could try to make your own crazy contracts, but the court gets to decide *which* contracts it wants to find "unconscionable." So they can say that merely because it's click-thru, we don't find it unconscionable, but instead because you attached it to a virus, or just mailed it to the software company. Mind you, they seem to be finding that clicking that "okay" (or designating some agent to do that for you--your kids, a friend, a company, etc.--the fact that YOU asked them to makes them an agent of yourself here), you actually enter into these crazy contracts.
Alas, the only one I remember being found "unconscionable" was one where you couldn't benchmark or review it without prior consent. IIRC, it was in the EULA of some A/V product... I can understand why they might want that, to avoid misleading claims of which product kills more viruses or whatever, but it was still a terrible clause, and I seem to remember it running afoul of the 1st ammendment (thankfully, some rights are *inalienable* -- you cannot contract yourself into slavery, for example).
So, sadly, this court is apparently too shortsighted to see that its ruling could kill reverse engineering (what product will allow it save by oversight?). All I can say is that I hope for a more savvy court on appeal.
Frankly, I wish the courts would make certain rights with respect to software *inalienable* so that we don't have to put up with EULAs trying to steal them from us. I'm sure that reverse engineering and making the software product interoperate with the other software should be on the shortlist of inalienable computer rights, though there are probably others...
That's somewhat short sighted in terms of strategy.
The strategy which dominates is to do that to all the competetors stronger than you, and maybe a few below--whether or not you know who was behind the attacks on you. Of course, you concentrate on the ones at the top, but that (ironically) leads to a cycle of tearing down whoever is currently top dog.
In other words, something rather like we see today.
They said they could take down the Internet in 30 minutes by confusing core routers with a now-outdated vulnerability.
@stake sold out ages ago, after firing one of the last l0pht people because he put out a report critical of Microsoft, one of their clients...
No. @stake "merged" with the l0pht guys, then fired them one by one. Almost everyone with a clue left @stake long ago. @stake sold out practically from the start.
Look for a posts by spacerog, he was actually a part of all this.
I'm sorry to see how things have gone.
:/
I remember enjoying your articles on HNN what seems like ages ago, but you're right--many such things seem to be falling by the wayside.
I've long felt like @stake "sold out" (IIRC, it seemed like things went to crap just about when HNN stopped) and now I know why--they don't seem to have much of anyone left with a clue in control.
Wish I knew how to help--I liked HNN. It was a lot more informative than almost anything published, and all the mailing lists are filling up with "Foocorp has finally discovered that format strings can be dangerous, please download updated packages before you get 0wned." C'est la vie
Didio, last I heard, was also a long-time friend of Darl's...
As if we don't have enough other reasons to question her credibility otherwise...
Remember the airpwn project?
:/
You're not the first to think of this--someone posted about just exactly that in this old Bugtraq post, from back when airpwn was first exhibited.
Looks like it will be getting a lot more use at this rate...
That's not half as bad as the EULA in the new PARANOIA XP rulebook.
;] I think you also give up your rights to liberty, the persuit of happiness, and Bouncy Bubble Beverage in there somewhere, too, but my memory seems to have been erased in order to better server Friend Computer...
Hell, the termination clause of it is "you may be terminated"
As yet another regular Groklaw reader, I can tell you that PJ had no such plans last I knew, simply because she commented over here a few times, only to be ignored in favor of highly-moderated (but incorrect) legal advice someone gave out. Thus, she's no fan of moderation.
That said, there are generally only a few threads worth reading--some of the new information under OT and corrections (which are generally started by someone right at the top of each new story), and comments by some of the more knowledgeable legal types on Groklaw. AllParadox & Marbux come to mind--you can search for their comments via the Groklaw search page. Quartermass is another who provides interesting legal insight, but he always posts anonymously, merely signing his messages, to encourage people not to filter the anonymous posts out over there. Sadly, that makes his insights harder to find, with them being somewhat burried.
Keeping the code--even code that merely interfaces with code SCO purportedly owns--confidential might have actually made sense back when there might have been trade secrets in it. As of now, it would be quite difficult to find any such trade secrets. While SCO has made protestations about trade secrets, they have NEVER identified a single one in any of the public court documents I have ever seen, in spite of repeated prompting from IBM.
And don't forget about the question of who owns what code--even this issue isn't settled, you remember--thanks to BSD, they may have precious little interest in anything, even assuming SCO got the rights they say they did from Novell...
So yeah, I guess they *might* create enough of a cloud to survive a summary judgement motion. But that may well just delay some of this for later.
Oh, and thanks to SCO's motion (I don't know whether they or the court are at fault here), we may well know about that priviledged document SCO attached to its memo in violation of their agreement with IBM. It was probably concerning this very issue of the inconsistant testimony (because they protest that IBM knew about it).
Of course, this could very well backfire. I think that someone on Groklaw said that attaching a priviledged document to one's own court filings was a risky maneuver--they court may well have to exclude that from evidence, and sanction SCO's counsel. Of course, IANAL, and we shall have to wait and see. Frankly, I'm still wondering how & why this information may have escaped the court's seal... (or if indeed this was the thing that was sealed).
Heh, I use a perfectly secure browser--I don't get the popups and crap.
However, I still would never use them. I don't trust people who have such sleazy sites. They have such a sleazy site. So I don't trust them. I don't give money to people I don't trust. So I don't use them. Period.
They want to do business with me? They'll have to reform. And no, I don't give a damn if my business is insignificant to them. Enough of us do that, and they'll eventually have to change.
Yes.
;-] Think about that prediction for a minute...
It gets even worse if I predict that one of us will be proven wrong
* Golly, I wonder why Gargoyles reminded me of Star Trek?
Since others here might not know, the voices in Gargoyles reads like the ST:TNG cast list--Marina Sirtis, Michael Dorn & Jonathen Frakes are all in there for sure. Not sure if I missed anyone else.
Hell, I still remember seeing it the first time and thinking "man, those voices sound *really* familiar for some reason?" The dichtomy between thinking of Frakes as "number two" and an evil Illuminatus is pretty crazy, too. I keep expecting him to invent a phaser or a photon torpedo to stop the gargoyles in one of the episodes. I did like what they did with the Illuminati, though--always making you wonder whether the Illuminati had actually lost or had some even crazier plan in mind...
Damnit, it'd be nicer if Slashdot didn't remove the space from the URL. I knew I should've URL encoded it properly...
Try this link instead.
It will be interesting to see if he, being a Slasdot reader, will comment on this...