What about BSD? BSD is legally a separate Unix from AT&T (Bell, Sys V, etc.) Unix, isn't it? Weren't there legal agreements? The AT&T Unix rights have gone through a few owners since then, but just b/c SCO owns them now doesn't mean the agreements of the past are gone.
Most cable modems remember MAC addresses, so you have to unplug the cable modem, wait a few minutes for it to reset, and then you can plug it back in to your computer.
Now, I'm using a Linux router, so the secret is just not telling them it's a router, it's just my Linux machine that's connected to the cable modem.
My guess is Outlook Express really isn't "going away," just like IE isn't really going away. They'll probably integrate it, or something similar, into the next Windows release and stop distributing the standalone.
Lots of people use Hotmail, and lots use MSN, but even more use neither. They're using their school or ISP accounts... is MS really going to just give up this market and send those users off to Eudora or Mozilla Mail? I doubt it.
Apparently it is DoS'ing the Windows Update site, in an attempt to prevent people from getting the patch. So it could affect general Internet performance but probably not to the extend of Code Red and Nimda (both of which are still quite active out there).
Ok, since we supposedly have to pay licensing fees for embedded Linux as well, and we can only distribute the "SCO Product" in binary form... if I own an embedded Linux device using some obscure processor, and no one provides a binary kernel, how do I legally get my binary kernel? Is SCO going to compile my kernel with whatever options I need and give it to me? If not, how can this work?
I don't think the GPL can be "all or nothing" because no one individual owns all the code. If I write function foo() for the kernel, and place it under the GPL, and give it to the kernel, it's still my code, it's still GPLed, and it can still be distributed freely per the terms of the GPL. The kernel developers own the code they personally wrote and no one but them can change the licensing attached to it.
It seems to me that only the GPL licensing of SCO's code in the kernel would be invalid. If I wrote a kernel function, licensed it under the GPL, and gave it to the kernel, the code is still mine and the GPL still applies. Just b/c it might be in the same project as code that wasn't legally GPLed doesn't mean other code in the project isn't GPLed.
Sounds to me like every kernel developer needs to call a lawyer and file a lawsuit right now. SCO is basically saying you have no rights to distribute the Linux kernel in source form.
From the SCOSource page:
"The license does not grant any rights to use SCO IP in source format, nor does it grant any distribution rights. It is therefore inadequate to cure infringements for distributors, or any entity that uses, modifies or distributes Linux source code."
So, kernel developers, according to SCO anyone who uses, modifies, or distributes Linux source code (code YOU wrote) is infringing, according to them. How can they do that? The most they should be able to get away with is saying that distributing the source code for "SCO IP" is infringing, yet they are including the entire kernel. In the entire kernel is an awful lot of code written from scratch and released under the GPL, which we cannot distribute according to SCO.
Exactly. There is a _ton_ of stuff on vinyl that people would buy if the labels would just release it on CD. The "CD replacement cycle" has only drawn to a close because the industry stopped producing CD replacements.
When SCO starts offering their "license", they're going to have to clearly define what code is covered.
If they don't, every kernel developer should sue them for applying a license to their code without their approval (after all, isn't that the same argument SCO says they have against Linux?).
And if SCO does reveal it... I say it'll be about a week, maybe two, before the code is replaced and this all goes away.
One very good band here in our area, the Jeff Greer Band, already sells their CD via CD Baby (as well as at shows). I hope they take advantage of this and get some more exposure.
When the makers of the Nomad were sued, I thought the courts ruled that while fair-use allows you to make MP3s of CDs you own, you are not required to make the MP3s yourself.
There is _nothing_ illegal about making MP3s available on a P2P network. It is _downloading_ an MP3 you do not have fair-use rights to (by owning the CD) that is a copyright violation.
Of course, nobody has the money to fight the RIAA on this and that's what they're relying on. Unfortunately, our legal system has reached the point where fear, intimidation, and money are more important than right and wrong.
Travel is the main reason I'd like to have dialup. Earthlink DSL may be a good answer for a lot of this; if you have their DSL service you get 20 hours of dialup per month.
I agree. I sure wouldn't want to have to try and decipher this kind of thing when ssh'ed into a box that isn't working right. With GUI tools it wouldn't really matter how the data was stored, but one of the best things about Unix is that while you can use a GUI tool for administration, the command line is always there as a fallback and it's usually not too hard to find what you need that way.
Violent games, stories, movies, music, whatever... it's nothing new. Our parents had it, their parents had it, all the way back to the beginning of time.
The problem with out society is everyone wants to blame someone else. Parents need to take responsibility for the way they raise their kids. You don't want your kids seeing violence, keep them away from it.
Parents have the option to decide what their kids do and do not see. The government needs to stay out of it and leave the option in the hands of the people, where it belongs.
At this point, I have to think this is a bad idea. Macs just aren't common enough for albums to be exclusive to iTunes. Once the Windows version is out, it is feasible.
The worry I have is that since there aren't very many Macs, it's going to sell relatively few copies (compared to your average new movie soundtrack CD), and the labels are going to turn around and say "hey, we tried it, and it didn't sell!" as an argument against the iTunes model.
Defragging makes the resizing of the Windows partition easier. If the drive is fragmented enough, it would even make the resizing impossible.
InstallFests routinely ask installees to do this in advance, since it can take quite a bit of the installer's time sitting there waiting for a defrag to finish.
Of course there is one other thing that does lead to the idea the SCO will never see any money from Linux licenses. If SCO is correct that their IP is in Linux, as soon as the evidence comes out in the IBM trial, kernel developers are going to get to work reimplementing those parts of the kernel. Posibly by the time the case is over (but almost certainly before SCO could even begin going after users) there will be kernel releases without SCO code.
Slashdot Mirror
As someone said above, the pressure at that water depth probably contributes to it's survival.
What about BSD? BSD is legally a separate Unix from AT&T (Bell, Sys V, etc.) Unix, isn't it? Weren't there legal agreements? The AT&T Unix rights have gone through a few owners since then, but just b/c SCO owns them now doesn't mean the agreements of the past are gone.
Now, I'm using a Linux router, so the secret is just not telling them it's a router, it's just my Linux machine that's connected to the cable modem.
Lots of people use Hotmail, and lots use MSN, but even more use neither. They're using their school or ISP accounts... is MS really going to just give up this market and send those users off to Eudora or Mozilla Mail? I doubt it.
Apparently it is DoS'ing the Windows Update site, in an attempt to prevent people from getting the patch. So it could affect general Internet performance but probably not to the extend of Code Red and Nimda (both of which are still quite active out there).
Refusing to honor a warranty is not the same as declaring it illegal to sell your old Nikon camera.
Ok, since we supposedly have to pay licensing fees for embedded Linux as well, and we can only distribute the "SCO Product" in binary form... if I own an embedded Linux device using some obscure processor, and no one provides a binary kernel, how do I legally get my binary kernel? Is SCO going to compile my kernel with whatever options I need and give it to me? If not, how can this work?
I don't think the GPL can be "all or nothing" because no one individual owns all the code. If I write function foo() for the kernel, and place it under the GPL, and give it to the kernel, it's still my code, it's still GPLed, and it can still be distributed freely per the terms of the GPL. The kernel developers own the code they personally wrote and no one but them can change the licensing attached to it.
It seems to me that only the GPL licensing of SCO's code in the kernel would be invalid. If I wrote a kernel function, licensed it under the GPL, and gave it to the kernel, the code is still mine and the GPL still applies. Just b/c it might be in the same project as code that wasn't legally GPLed doesn't mean other code in the project isn't GPLed.
From the SCOSource page: "The license does not grant any rights to use SCO IP in source format, nor does it grant any distribution rights. It is therefore inadequate to cure infringements for distributors, or any entity that uses, modifies or distributes Linux source code."
So, kernel developers, according to SCO anyone who uses, modifies, or distributes Linux source code (code YOU wrote) is infringing, according to them. How can they do that? The most they should be able to get away with is saying that distributing the source code for "SCO IP" is infringing, yet they are including the entire kernel. In the entire kernel is an awful lot of code written from scratch and released under the GPL, which we cannot distribute according to SCO.
Exactly. There is a _ton_ of stuff on vinyl that people would buy if the labels would just release it on CD. The "CD replacement cycle" has only drawn to a close because the industry stopped producing CD replacements.
Not sure why this was modded funny or troll. Maybe a little far-fetched, but still a good idea for the future.
If they don't, every kernel developer should sue them for applying a license to their code without their approval (after all, isn't that the same argument SCO says they have against Linux?).
And if SCO does reveal it... I say it'll be about a week, maybe two, before the code is replaced and this all goes away.
One very good band here in our area, the Jeff Greer Band, already sells their CD via CD Baby (as well as at shows). I hope they take advantage of this and get some more exposure.
It worked fine under Linux with Phoenix 0.5, but Firebird 0.6 broke it.
That has nothing to do with the costs of their normal dialup.
There is _nothing_ illegal about making MP3s available on a P2P network. It is _downloading_ an MP3 you do not have fair-use rights to (by owning the CD) that is a copyright violation.
Of course, nobody has the money to fight the RIAA on this and that's what they're relying on. Unfortunately, our legal system has reached the point where fear, intimidation, and money are more important than right and wrong.
Travel is the main reason I'd like to have dialup. Earthlink DSL may be a good answer for a lot of this; if you have their DSL service you get 20 hours of dialup per month.
In the days of vinyl, a record came with all sorts of stuff-- large, often beautiful cover art; liner notes; lyrics; etc.
Nowadays you get a few pictures in a booklet that are barely large enough to see, and only occasionally do you even get lyrics.
The value-added content helped sell LPs; there is no question the lack of it is at least partially responsible for poor CD sales.
You're right, XML isn't the most efficient way for gconf to store data. But is rewriting the filesystem really the answer?
I agree. I sure wouldn't want to have to try and decipher this kind of thing when ssh'ed into a box that isn't working right. With GUI tools it wouldn't really matter how the data was stored, but one of the best things about Unix is that while you can use a GUI tool for administration, the command line is always there as a fallback and it's usually not too hard to find what you need that way.
The problem with out society is everyone wants to blame someone else. Parents need to take responsibility for the way they raise their kids. You don't want your kids seeing violence, keep them away from it.
Parents have the option to decide what their kids do and do not see. The government needs to stay out of it and leave the option in the hands of the people, where it belongs.
The worry I have is that since there aren't very many Macs, it's going to sell relatively few copies (compared to your average new movie soundtrack CD), and the labels are going to turn around and say "hey, we tried it, and it didn't sell!" as an argument against the iTunes model.
Defragging makes the resizing of the Windows partition easier. If the drive is fragmented enough, it would even make the resizing impossible. InstallFests routinely ask installees to do this in advance, since it can take quite a bit of the installer's time sitting there waiting for a defrag to finish.
Of course there is one other thing that does lead to the idea the SCO will never see any money from Linux licenses. If SCO is correct that their IP is in Linux, as soon as the evidence comes out in the IBM trial, kernel developers are going to get to work reimplementing those parts of the kernel. Posibly by the time the case is over (but almost certainly before SCO could even begin going after users) there will be kernel releases without SCO code.