They may have directly licensed the non-GPL code, methods, etc from Caldera while using that as a base. Much like Xandros [purchased all the proprietary code parts from Corel], not all Lycoris' code is necessarly GPL. Such agreements usually cover past and future liability as well. i.e. you get coverage from exactly this sort of "past" liability and access to some future tech [exchanges if you will] of both your companies. Caldera most likely has many of these agreements with other distro makers...that's why they can't sue them. Only if they can somehow show the GPL parts of the kernel itself [because "no one" checks it!?] to be corrupted can they really have a leg to stand on in court against the other distro makers.
These type of agreements are standard in the software world...McBride has got some pretty big balls to consider going to court against companies like Lycoris, Suse, TurboLinux, etc...after his predecessors signed such agreements to share technology with other companies. They seem to be counting on Boise to pull some "legal magic" out of his arse and make all the previous [legally binding & damaging to their cause] fully-valid contracts go away.
Note also: in the original filing, SCO described Linux as a "public domain" operating system. They left out GPL particulars. It would look from that as if they were trying to "liberate" the code for other companies [M$] to use. Of course, that claim of PD pretty much shoots any copyright/trade secret issues out the window.
IBM has only taught Suse and Red Hat how to make Linux run on their hardware. If you buy an "IBM eServer with Linux" product from IBM, you get a standard blank server and a boxed distro from Red Hat or SuSe to install. Any pre-installs are performed by consultants or resellers...IBMs hands never actually "sell" Linux.
Therefore, IBM cannot indemnify anyone against linux use because it's not their product, they didn't sell it to anyone, they can't legally offer protection for someone else's product!
Also, check out search400.com for searchable info. A company Manta makes training material, but they're fairly expensive to spring for on your own.
I went looking for links and found this http://www.ts400.com/ that looks like someone poor could afford it. AS400 is really easy to do simple things, and complicated things are only moderately hard. The standard AS400 interface is really goofy, but makes sense when you really use it...far simpler than Linux!
The coolest thing is that most of the standard OSS tools are ported to AS400--may by IBM directly. The trouble for newbies is setting them up with the new features that make life easy...most of the time in the 400 world, you deal with admins that have been doing the same thing for 10-15 years the same way. You run into a lot of people that don't like change in a very bad way. Admin-ing an AS400 is less complex than a Win2K box. AS400 is very literal [much like BSD] and forces you to turn everything new on explicitly.
Programming a 400 usually involves RPG II, III, and ILE as well as Cobol or Java [depending on the company] The RPG is the hardest to learn--it's been really hard to find anything that's not super expensive that you can take home to try out. I work with one, but even then it's difficult to "just play" with it because you can't learn enough on your own to not hose things. Also, most AS400 shops are small [DR.office, credit union, insurance co, etc..mom & pop stuff], and usually have 1 or 2 guys with 6 other jobs and the 400 is just a minor priority...training is almost non-existant in that relm.
I was also considering that under the United Linux agreements there would have to be a remedy for this situation..How could SCO hold other members distros liable...more than that, how could they refuse to give other members the info about the liability to allow them to be compliant per the agreement.
This could be the backdoor Linux needs. If SCO lawyers visit a UL shop and demand $$ then the partners have a contractual complaint against SCO. Suse could demand remedy [under NDA of the current agreement of course!] and make the neccessary changes to their kernel. BUT...that kernel would be under GPL and of course redistributable. We would have our patch. SCO would have IP protection. GPL would be saved.
Don't expect any common sense to come from really expensive lawyers though...sorry.
Suse & co have a fine line to walk with United Linux. Generally, to create such a product there are "cease-fire" and cross-license aggrements put into place at the start. Being as the "linux" that SCO sells was directly derived from Suse code [and file system layouts, UI, and other SuSe trade secrets..all that you can have in Linux], Suse would have some pretty good protection for it's version of Linux to be cleared by SCO...they don't really want to mess that up.
also, the agreement provides another establishment that SCO had [or should have had] due dilegence in the knowladge of the contents of the linux kernel and other supporting code...They engaged actively and willingly in cross-licensing the technology from/to other Linux distros! McBride has already hinted that SCO will try to get out of that contract or that it's worthless to the lawsuits...Suse will beg to differ.
SuSe already has one of those contract thingies with SCO, Conectiva, and TurboLinux for United Linux...full of the usual cross license, cease-fires, etc...Currently, that contract is just as valid as the ATT/IBM contract SCO is trying to enforce.
Besides, It's mostly Suse's implementation that SCO is distributing RIGHT NOW. They're best to remain quiet and stick by the terms of their current contract. Should SCO try to weasle out..then SuSe will have lots of ammo!
What Red Hat is trying to do it to draw out an actual DMCA C&D letter so that they can take LEGAL action to reduce the FUD. The DMCA was created as remedy for exactly the accusations SCO is making! It is the approperate legal thing for SCO to do if they are serious about IP.
BUT...A DMCA letter being a instant shutdown of their operation would require SCO to go to a court and validate the need for such a shutdown of Red Hat's business....No sane judge would allow a SCO to shut another down and refuse in court to tell why the offender is liable and refuse to allow the company C&D'd to become compliant. A DMCA C&D would be horrible, but it's something tangible that Red Hat can fight against rather than the "will be open to.." or "We may sue..." that SCO has been spewing lately.
Remember that Linux installs could keep people from buying MS...the enemy of my enemy type stuff...
Suse desktops don't really take away from Sun's sales...MS already did that. Now if Sun would work for a decent Java GUI bindings they'd have someting..QT or GTK work on almost all major plaftorms...use 'um!
I've noticed it too on photo paper. The way inkjets [i think that's what they're using] layer the ink can create a raised effect on certian printers...though I mostly use HPs. The idea would be that someone couldn't just grab a document out of a file folder on your desk and color copy it--there's no change to the color..it's not really reproducable..it's too subtle. Heck, you could even put a serial number in a black box and number every copy you print! Then even with access to the hardware you couldn't just reprint something.
It doesn't look really useful for preventing professional counterfieting, but for "casual" things [retail reciepts, HR files, inter-company corrospandance, etc.] It could come in handy for quick verification.
Every time free-trade comes up, someone mentions farm subsidies that the US gives their farmers. The policy was made after the depression which was partially caused by a huge drought [dust belt anyone?] due to horrible farmimg practices of the time that decimated thousands of farms in the midwest. My local farmers have had 1-2 thirds of their crops wiped out by drought [mid-michigan if you have to ask, we've been running about 5"-12" of rain short for several years now] in recent years, yet my cost at the supermarket has not risen accordingly--not because of lack of foreign competion, but because US policy is to pay farmers to stay in the game--even at a loss--so we never run out of food.
Stability of food prices is one of the fundamental reasons for US corperate success, you can worry about the price of CD & DVD being inflated instead of where your next meal is comming from. The fact that the US can "dump" huge amouts of food on the world market is a good/bad thing.
As far as about the Dragon processor [hey let's get on topic!] the free trade arguement really doesn't apply. After all, it was "free-trade" that let the US companies take all the jobs and equipment from the US to Taiwan, and "free-trade" that let the Taiwanise board-makers relocate to the mainland. Now China has the tools to build their own Chip fabs bought by judiceously skimming the profits and talent from the American companies looking for "cheap" labor. Now the Corperate heads themselves are looking at being put out of work...just like they did to the rest of us. They taught us really, really well to buy the cheapest no matter what!
but some of that price difference is based on geography...that's not price discrimination. The uptown store has many higher costs: taxes, property/rent, employees, etc that the downtown store doesn't have.
price discrimination would be asking for your zip code and the "Poor" store charging you the "uptown" price. Don't think they can't just grab it off your credit card either!
everyone forgets, they have the "last" 5000 years of isolationism already under their belts. 5000 of reletive peace vs. 200 years of perpetual war--I'd say they might be onto something. The current management sux, but hey, it was a failed experiment in "not" being isolationist--look what happened.
yesterday I was at Babbages and they had pre-orders in the catalog for nokia n-gage, along with nintendo sp and sony psp, the next 6-12 months looks to be very intersting!
Frankly, I'm partial to this palm based idea. A true gaming-form factor PDA would be really cool. I'm in the group that wants to play games, but also use it for something serious [palms at work, etc] as well.
I'm always tired of hearing about farm subsidies as some horrible restraint of free-trade and capitalism. The US farm markets have been destroyed by the Warmarts of the world--first by destroying the value of the products farmers make, then by taking advantage of the economic situation of farmers to build more malls.
The US Govt subsidizes foodstuffs because the free-market has failed. Most people don't realize that large portions of the US have been in drought conditions for several years now. If the free-market had it's way there wouldn't be enough food to go around!!! Unless of course you really want to be like the rest of the world and spend 60-80% of your income on food to survive, stop dogging farm subsidies.
The only real "crime" involved is that subsidies allow the mass-market capitalists to continue to abuse the system and keep prices artifically low in the US...good for everyone except farmers.
The surplus food the US has is just a bonus of the policy, not an attempt to hurt anyone. After all, Why should people starve when we really do have more than enough. [we can afford to give it to them, but we don't] But it's true, it can wreck an agrian economy.
What I'd be more interested in are things that dramatically reduce electric usage. Using notebook computers or Palms insead of MegaTower PCs, using LCDs instead of incadecants, etc. Obviously, certian things may need to be reduced or made more public [mostly things with motors like washer, dryers, etc that are power hogs...think laundry-mat, not to mention the reduced need for "things" in general]
With the comming advent of robots, the need for electric power will outstrip the ability to provide it...even when you burn dinos. Even living in Michigan, the summertime usage peaks break the grid..Something must be done at a design/planning stage to reduce power needs. For all the technology we have, we here in the US are particularly bad at wasting vast amounts of the power we generate. I think that should change.
There's more documented incompatibility between certified versions of "Unix" such as Irix, HP, Sun, etc. than between Linux and any other single "Unix". More than that though, why does the OpenGroup care? These are people who would be very glad for linux to please fall off the earth tommorrow. Why does some minor [OK it could be a big deal later] incompatibility matter...
Unless, Linux is becoming the "Standard" Unix anyway, without OpenGroup's "permission" and they're trying to hold on for dear life. After all, there is still capitalism at work...the "person" with the most seats sets the standard. Linux is rapidly approaching that point where more people write specificly for Linux than specifically for any of the "offical" unices!
For all those who pointed out that standards are good. There will be a standard Linux! Everyone else will just have to follow along! The market is slowly choosing...If the OpenGroup is this scared it must be true!
What part of GNU's not Unix don't they understand? As well as the fact that Linux is not an "offical" unix either. Why do they care about what some "fringe" group does?
Could it be that more people are writing apps for the "unoffical" version because it has more seats than all of the offical Unixes put together? Is everybody just going away from "Unix" and leaving them holding their useless rubber "Unix" stamper? Oops!
It's about the same as loaning your car to a buddy who fills the trunk with coke and leaves it at a rest stop. It's registered to you--your responsible for the content.
In the same way it's your computer--your property that is distributing the forbidden files. The only way to recognize the computer is by ISP records---that means YOU if you pay the bill! You would be responsible for your computer to follow the TOS even if your not personally on it. There's no way to prove it ISN'T you.
With all the interviews the SCO crew likes to give could the community "social engineer" them into doing what we want?
The linux news sites should consult council and come up with a list of questions to at at interviews to "lead" SCO's mindset where WE want it to go. For instance, one thing that comes to mind as a showstopper would be talking SCO into filing a DMCA violation against someone hosting the linux kernel. While a fautisian bargian, using the DMCA would force SCO to show it's hand before it's legally ready to do so.
It's like brer rabbit beggin' not to be thrown in the briar patch. They have the mindset of brer fox and are blinded by glory of their own boastings. If such lots of people at interviews repeated the same questions over and over they'd either shut up from fustration, or stop giving interviews!
Yep! It's called Monopoly. 99% market penetration. The funny thing about monopoly is that once everyone has one, it's not new and shiny anymore--and they pay too much. The company in this position goes from being "cool" to being "annoying" we don't really look upon our electric compainies with awe and wonder anymore do we? all we see is that they still want our money.
In a down economy, the next cool thing better be cheap! and online! and be really useful!...did I mention cheap...
Remember Bill made his money selling STOCK in something cool and using legal contracts to keep the ball rolling. MS as just a software company with profit is a dime-a-dozen [look at what wall street did to IBM with profits!] They have to be cool to justify their stock price or the whole thing collapses.
Linux doesn't have to do anything but be itself. What it's always been...get the picture.
Actually this would prevent "Witchhunts" because you the administrator have pre-knowladge about what's going on. Typically, a private word or two to a single employee about a security faux pas travels faster than a company-wide memo...and gains you respect for being sneakier than them too.
My experience is that company-wide emails are ignored by most, and often cause witchhunts from the deskbound execs...this causes sys admin to loose respect.
You also gain knowladge about who really needs particular access and why. That way you can know when you have a real security threat and someone just data mining.
Re:Clarification from FSF on Section 6 of LGPL
on
LGPL is Viral for Java
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I think the issue is that in java you can use OOP to overload all the classes in a LGPL lib to do your own bidding. Then you can wrap up that LGPL.jar in another.jar for your project. At that point you've effectively rewritten the lib but are trying to bury the evidence in your.jar bytecode file. All the FSF is saying is that you can't bury stuff like that...you have to use proper calls--or make darn sure your overloading is version independant! You have to keep the LGPL.jar seperate from the rest of the program. The only issue with java is that it allows you many more ways to cheat...they're just clarifying their position on "cheating"
Because Java makes such extensive use of OOP priciples, it would be possible to "rewrite" entire libraries by operator overloading the entire class. You'd be changing their libraries but claim you're not technically breaking the rules of LGPL. The FSF says you need to maintain a clear distinction between the seperate file. You should be able to drop-in-replace any newer version...again, if you're following the rules then you're OK. This really only applies to a small number of rules lawyers attempting to "play" the rules.
Note: this was also an issue in the design of the 2.5 kernel with driver developers "overwriting" large portions of the kernel in their closed drivers by calling a lib properly but then "redirecting" all the stuff internally to their own stuff. [a certian GPU developer may get bit by this]
Will you be enforcing all copyright laws or just those for large corporations with money?
Before you write this off as sarcastic, realize that every major IP corporation at some point or another has knowingly and willfully infringed on other individuals' IP rights. Many of those same CEOs are now trying to restrict legal practices that pale in comparison to the IP "theft" they themselves committed. Several companies "borrowed" IP and resources from the Universities they attended/professored. Microsoft admits to "dumpster diving". Most of the hobby "garage" inventors aquired their materials/computing resource from behind their employers' backs. Will you be actively and agressively presuing those crimes, the details of which are public knowladge?
Also, will you be willing to investigate Open Source license violations, covert or overt. Will we, the small people at Slashdot be able to count on you to investigate the violations we dig up?
Slashdot Mirror
These type of agreements are standard in the software world...McBride has got some pretty big balls to consider going to court against companies like Lycoris, Suse, TurboLinux, etc...after his predecessors signed such agreements to share technology with other companies. They seem to be counting on Boise to pull some "legal magic" out of his arse and make all the previous [legally binding & damaging to their cause] fully-valid contracts go away.
Note also: in the original filing, SCO described Linux as a "public domain" operating system. They left out GPL particulars. It would look from that as if they were trying to "liberate" the code for other companies [M$] to use. Of course, that claim of PD pretty much shoots any copyright/trade secret issues out the window.
Therefore, IBM cannot indemnify anyone against linux use because it's not their product, they didn't sell it to anyone, they can't legally offer protection for someone else's product!
Also, check out search400.com for searchable info. A company Manta makes training material, but they're fairly expensive to spring for on your own.
I went looking for links and found this http://www.ts400.com/ that looks like someone poor could afford it. AS400 is really easy to do simple things, and complicated things are only moderately hard. The standard AS400 interface is really goofy, but makes sense when you really use it...far simpler than Linux!
The coolest thing is that most of the standard OSS tools are ported to AS400--may by IBM directly. The trouble for newbies is setting them up with the new features that make life easy...most of the time in the 400 world, you deal with admins that have been doing the same thing for 10-15 years the same way. You run into a lot of people that don't like change in a very bad way. Admin-ing an AS400 is less complex than a Win2K box. AS400 is very literal [much like BSD] and forces you to turn everything new on explicitly.
Programming a 400 usually involves RPG II, III, and ILE as well as Cobol or Java [depending on the company] The RPG is the hardest to learn--it's been really hard to find anything that's not super expensive that you can take home to try out. I work with one, but even then it's difficult to "just play" with it because you can't learn enough on your own to not hose things. Also, most AS400 shops are small [DR.office, credit union, insurance co, etc..mom & pop stuff], and usually have 1 or 2 guys with 6 other jobs and the 400 is just a minor priority...training is almost non-existant in that relm.
This could be the backdoor Linux needs. If SCO lawyers visit a UL shop and demand $$ then the partners have a contractual complaint against SCO. Suse could demand remedy [under NDA of the current agreement of course!] and make the neccessary changes to their kernel. BUT...that kernel would be under GPL and of course redistributable. We would have our patch. SCO would have IP protection. GPL would be saved.
Don't expect any common sense to come from really expensive lawyers though...sorry.
also, the agreement provides another establishment that SCO had [or should have had] due dilegence in the knowladge of the contents of the linux kernel and other supporting code...They engaged actively and willingly in cross-licensing the technology from/to other Linux distros! McBride has already hinted that SCO will try to get out of that contract or that it's worthless to the lawsuits...Suse will beg to differ.
Besides, It's mostly Suse's implementation that SCO is distributing RIGHT NOW. They're best to remain quiet and stick by the terms of their current contract. Should SCO try to weasle out..then SuSe will have lots of ammo!
BUT...A DMCA letter being a instant shutdown of their operation would require SCO to go to a court and validate the need for such a shutdown of Red Hat's business....No sane judge would allow a SCO to shut another down and refuse in court to tell why the offender is liable and refuse to allow the company C&D'd to become compliant. A DMCA C&D would be horrible, but it's something tangible that Red Hat can fight against rather than the "will be open to.." or "We may sue..." that SCO has been spewing lately.
Suse desktops don't really take away from Sun's sales...MS already did that. Now if Sun would work for a decent Java GUI bindings they'd have someting..QT or GTK work on almost all major plaftorms...use 'um!
It doesn't look really useful for preventing professional counterfieting, but for "casual" things [retail reciepts, HR files, inter-company corrospandance, etc.] It could come in handy for quick verification.
But...Most people would consider a lawyer to be a legal expert.
Stability of food prices is one of the fundamental reasons for US corperate success, you can worry about the price of CD & DVD being inflated instead of where your next meal is comming from. The fact that the US can "dump" huge amouts of food on the world market is a good/bad thing.
As far as about the Dragon processor [hey let's get on topic!] the free trade arguement really doesn't apply. After all, it was "free-trade" that let the US companies take all the jobs and equipment from the US to Taiwan, and "free-trade" that let the Taiwanise board-makers relocate to the mainland. Now China has the tools to build their own Chip fabs bought by judiceously skimming the profits and talent from the American companies looking for "cheap" labor. Now the Corperate heads themselves are looking at being put out of work...just like they did to the rest of us. They taught us really, really well to buy the cheapest no matter what!
price discrimination would be asking for your zip code and the "Poor" store charging you the "uptown" price. Don't think they can't just grab it off your credit card either!
everyone forgets, they have the "last" 5000 years of isolationism already under their belts. 5000 of reletive peace vs. 200 years of perpetual war--I'd say they might be onto something. The current management sux, but hey, it was a failed experiment in "not" being isolationist--look what happened.
Frankly, I'm partial to this palm based idea. A true gaming-form factor PDA would be really cool. I'm in the group that wants to play games, but also use it for something serious [palms at work, etc] as well.
The US Govt subsidizes foodstuffs because the free-market has failed. Most people don't realize that large portions of the US have been in drought conditions for several years now. If the free-market had it's way there wouldn't be enough food to go around!!! Unless of course you really want to be like the rest of the world and spend 60-80% of your income on food to survive, stop dogging farm subsidies.
The only real "crime" involved is that subsidies allow the mass-market capitalists to continue to abuse the system and keep prices artifically low in the US...good for everyone except farmers.
The surplus food the US has is just a bonus of the policy, not an attempt to hurt anyone. After all, Why should people starve when we really do have more than enough. [we can afford to give it to them, but we don't] But it's true, it can wreck an agrian economy.
With the comming advent of robots, the need for electric power will outstrip the ability to provide it...even when you burn dinos. Even living in Michigan, the summertime usage peaks break the grid..Something must be done at a design/planning stage to reduce power needs. For all the technology we have, we here in the US are particularly bad at wasting vast amounts of the power we generate. I think that should change.
Unless, Linux is becoming the "Standard" Unix anyway, without OpenGroup's "permission" and they're trying to hold on for dear life. After all, there is still capitalism at work...the "person" with the most seats sets the standard. Linux is rapidly approaching that point where more people write specificly for Linux than specifically for any of the "offical" unices!
For all those who pointed out that standards are good. There will be a standard Linux! Everyone else will just have to follow along! The market is slowly choosing...If the OpenGroup is this scared it must be true!
Could it be that more people are writing apps for the "unoffical" version because it has more seats than all of the offical Unixes put together? Is everybody just going away from "Unix" and leaving them holding their useless rubber "Unix" stamper? Oops!
In the same way it's your computer--your property that is distributing the forbidden files. The only way to recognize the computer is by ISP records---that means YOU if you pay the bill! You would be responsible for your computer to follow the TOS even if your not personally on it. There's no way to prove it ISN'T you.
The linux news sites should consult council and come up with a list of questions to at at interviews to "lead" SCO's mindset where WE want it to go. For instance, one thing that comes to mind as a showstopper would be talking SCO into filing a DMCA violation against someone hosting the linux kernel. While a fautisian bargian, using the DMCA would force SCO to show it's hand before it's legally ready to do so.
It's like brer rabbit beggin' not to be thrown in the briar patch. They have the mindset of brer fox and are blinded by glory of their own boastings. If such lots of people at interviews repeated the same questions over and over they'd either shut up from fustration, or stop giving interviews!
In a down economy, the next cool thing better be cheap! and online! and be really useful! ...did I mention cheap...
Remember Bill made his money selling STOCK in something cool and using legal contracts to keep the ball rolling. MS as just a software company with profit is a dime-a-dozen [look at what wall street did to IBM with profits!] They have to be cool to justify their stock price or the whole thing collapses.
Linux doesn't have to do anything but be itself. What it's always been...get the picture.
My experience is that company-wide emails are ignored by most, and often cause witchhunts from the deskbound execs...this causes sys admin to loose respect.
You also gain knowladge about who really needs particular access and why. That way you can know when you have a real security threat and someone just data mining.
I think the issue is that in java you can use OOP to overload all the classes in a LGPL lib to do your own bidding. Then you can wrap up that LGPL .jar in another .jar for your project. At that point you've effectively rewritten the lib but are trying to bury the evidence in your .jar bytecode file. All the FSF is saying is that you can't bury stuff like that...you have to use proper calls--or make darn sure your overloading is version independant! You have to keep the LGPL .jar seperate from the rest of the program. The only issue with java is that it allows you many more ways to cheat...they're just clarifying their position on "cheating"
Note: this was also an issue in the design of the 2.5 kernel with driver developers "overwriting" large portions of the kernel in their closed drivers by calling a lib properly but then "redirecting" all the stuff internally to their own stuff. [a certian GPU developer may get bit by this]
Before you write this off as sarcastic, realize that every major IP corporation at some point or another has knowingly and willfully infringed on other individuals' IP rights. Many of those same CEOs are now trying to restrict legal practices that pale in comparison to the IP "theft" they themselves committed. Several companies "borrowed" IP and resources from the Universities they attended/professored. Microsoft admits to "dumpster diving". Most of the hobby "garage" inventors aquired their materials/computing resource from behind their employers' backs. Will you be actively and agressively presuing those crimes, the details of which are public knowladge?
Also, will you be willing to investigate Open Source license violations, covert or overt. Will we, the small people at Slashdot be able to count on you to investigate the violations we dig up?
Well, will you?