Whoever released the code first is the winner; for instance, if it was in SCO's code v.1.4 (Release April 1, 1998), and in Linux Kernel v.1.8 (Release April 5, 1998), then SCO wins. And vice versa.
Yes, but you see, the court doesn't appoint expert witnesses; expert witnesses are hired (as in payed) by the party involved.
While many experts are perfectly truthful, the money can sway opinions, or make certain proof up and disappear. This is why courts require *all* evidence to be discolsed: so the other side can have their own expert(s) go over the evidence as well.
Well, it's official Netscape is dead, I guess.
And its sad, with so many other great alternatives out there based on their original source, Mozilla, Safari, etc.
Actually, Safari isn't based on Netscape's source; it's based upon KHTML, which is, IMHO, much better then Gecko.
One of the reasons Netscape most likely wil die quickly is due to the fact Gecko is bloated, and too slow. In fact, if I had to guess KHTML (thanks to Apple's support) will most likely pick up where Netscape left off, especially if Apple were to release Safari for Windows (Or if KHTML were to port to Windows in a Safari-like fashion).
Ahh, the beauties of Open Source Software. Who needs Netscape?
Just because one has "controlling intrest" doesn't mean you get to "GPL their IP".
In fact, you would need to call for a board members vote to do so. In which case you'd probably first want to get in with some of those board members with lots of shares, buy said shares, and get them to then call for a new board member. Then you'd need to appoint enough people to gain control of the board, and then and only then could you "GPL their IP".
Just because you have controlling intrest doesn't mean you have control over the company. It means you can force votes on things, and most likely get your way, but it's no garuntee.l
If this is a civil suit, during the discovery stage one may send back and forth interrogetories in order to discover any evidence which either side may have. All IBM has to send is an interrogitory asking "Disclose all Linux source code containing SCO code" and SCO is, under law, required to respond with the truth (As it's considered to be "under oath").
Well, basically due to mainframes being phased out by beowulf-clusters, servers, etc, the clones couldn't make a ton of money. IBM was the only one who could continue with it.
Mainframes still have their place, midn you. Need tons of data to be moved or processed? Screw servers or PCs, get a mainframe.
There's still a place for mainframes, just a smaller one (Hence the clones couldn't survive). There will always be a place for them as well.
Since this article contains an Apple refrence (Which, btw, I've had good luck with Apple's repair services, even though my iBook had to go out of the country), inevitably we'll have to see the Father O'day troll. So, in order to route this, and give the mods the power to mod down based upon "redundant" (Muhahaha), here we go:
I'm gay. Blah blah blah.
--Some Priest
Good for you!
--Mister Apple-Impersonator.
And there ya have it! Go back under the bridge trolls.
1) "Illegal" and "violation of contract" are two different things.
Actually, a violation of contract is illegal under US and (I believe) international law.
2) Shrink-wrap licenses have NEVER been held to be valid in court.
Actually, I remember reading about a case involving stock-broking software (Sorry, I forget the name; it was ~1 year ago) where their EULA said "They cannot be held liable for any damages incured as a result of the use of said software". And, due to a bug, someone lost upwards of $50,000.
The lawsuit against the software was thrown out because in order to use the software you had to agree to the EULA's terms, including that clause. The same goes for the use of Mac OS X.
Thanks for saying this; I was thinking of mentioning this fact, and the fact that MS loses more money for every Xbox manufactured and not sold; they recoup much of that if you buy one.
" These stories should be posted on a Mac advocacy website. This is the home of the folks whose crowning achievement remains cloning [gnome.org] whatever [kde.org] Microsoft [microsoft.com] does [lindows.com].
Oh, and BTW, Apple has a definite point here. The difference is that Apple took an unfriendly OS and turned it into a consumer product.
"
Nowhere does he mac a refrence to any non-MS OSes. In fact, he merely points out multiple Linux GUIs, which, you guessed it, have ripped off MS bigtime.
Sorry, but you're wrong; you've obviously read his comment and taken it far out of context. In fact, the only Mac-related comment was about the fact that these stories shouldn't be on/. b/c they'll get pounded by Linux-zealots.
There was no sweeping refrence. There was no refrence to GUI creation. Instead he merely commented on the fact that many of the "features" in Windows have been torn right off and plastered onto Linux.
He was stating that "[Insert Linux GUI here] stole their look and feel from MS". Which they did; we all know GNOME is strying to look like Windows; KDE has a frigging start menu for god's sake (while it's not called a "start menu").
Seriously, you made a dense statement. A very dense statement. A stupid, retarded fact-unsupported statement worthy of any zealot with their heads far enough..well, you get the point. Now you need to accept responsibility and not try to pass it off as sarcasm.
Well...as amusing as this is, there is no Kazaa for macs. The iTunes store is a bit like Kazaa for macs; it has all of the songs you want, but in this case it's legal, and easier, more intuitive, etc.
Now, 275,000 AAC encoded songs appearing on Gnutella...
Slashdot Mirror
Say both codes include "int a;". Well, to a non-programmer, they stole the code. To a programmer, nope, it's what a lot of people use.
Same if the comments are "//Opens file". Now, basically everyone uses that, but to a non programmer, it's stolen. The list goes on and on...
Whoever released the code first is the winner; for instance, if it was in SCO's code v.1.4 (Release April 1, 1998), and in Linux Kernel v.1.8 (Release April 5, 1998), then SCO wins. And vice versa.
Seriously though, this is the WORST NDA I've ever seen.
While many experts are perfectly truthful, the money can sway opinions, or make certain proof up and disappear. This is why courts require *all* evidence to be discolsed: so the other side can have their own expert(s) go over the evidence as well.
Actually, Safari isn't based on Netscape's source; it's based upon KHTML, which is, IMHO, much better then Gecko.
One of the reasons Netscape most likely wil die quickly is due to the fact Gecko is bloated, and too slow. In fact, if I had to guess KHTML (thanks to Apple's support) will most likely pick up where Netscape left off, especially if Apple were to release Safari for Windows (Or if KHTML were to port to Windows in a Safari-like fashion).
Ahh, the beauties of Open Source Software. Who needs Netscape?
Just because one has "controlling intrest" doesn't mean you get to "GPL their IP".
In fact, you would need to call for a board members vote to do so. In which case you'd probably first want to get in with some of those board members with lots of shares, buy said shares, and get them to then call for a new board member. Then you'd need to appoint enough people to gain control of the board, and then and only then could you "GPL their IP".
Just because you have controlling intrest doesn't mean you have control over the company. It means you can force votes on things, and most likely get your way, but it's no garuntee.l
They do have to disclose their proof, and unless they do so this is (most likely) libel.
See this thread.
If this is a civil suit, during the discovery stage one may send back and forth interrogetories in order to discover any evidence which either side may have. All IBM has to send is an interrogitory asking "Disclose all Linux source code containing SCO code" and SCO is, under law, required to respond with the truth (As it's considered to be "under oath").
Not stupid; smart.
Mainframes still have their place, midn you. Need tons of data to be moved or processed? Screw servers or PCs, get a mainframe.
There's still a place for mainframes, just a smaller one (Hence the clones couldn't survive). There will always be a place for them as well.
That'd be an interesting thesis if...I was a troll.
But I'm not; sorry to disappoint. (Don't believe me? Check my user info)
I'm gay. Blah blah blah.
--Some Priest
Good for you!
--Mister Apple-Impersonator.
And there ya have it! Go back under the bridge trolls.
Actually, a violation of contract is illegal under US and (I believe) international law.
2) Shrink-wrap licenses have NEVER been held to be valid in court.
Actually, I remember reading about a case involving stock-broking software (Sorry, I forget the name; it was ~1 year ago) where their EULA said "They cannot be held liable for any damages incured as a result of the use of said software". And, due to a bug, someone lost upwards of $50,000.
The lawsuit against the software was thrown out because in order to use the software you had to agree to the EULA's terms, including that clause. The same goes for the use of Mac OS X.
Thanks for saying this; I was thinking of mentioning this fact, and the fact that MS loses more money for every Xbox manufactured and not sold; they recoup much of that if you buy one.
And if we have both and still analyze?
Since when are KDE and Gnome affiliated with Macs?
I thought so.
" These stories should be posted on a Mac advocacy website. This is the home of the folks whose crowning achievement remains cloning [gnome.org] whatever [kde.org] Microsoft [microsoft.com] does [lindows.com].
Oh, and BTW, Apple has a definite point here. The difference is that Apple took an unfriendly OS and turned it into a consumer product. "
Nowhere does he mac a refrence to any non-MS OSes. In fact, he merely points out multiple Linux GUIs, which, you guessed it, have ripped off MS bigtime.
Sorry, but you're wrong; you've obviously read his comment and taken it far out of context. In fact, the only Mac-related comment was about the fact that these stories shouldn't be on /. b/c they'll get pounded by Linux-zealots.
There was no sweeping refrence. There was no refrence to GUI creation. Instead he merely commented on the fact that many of the "features" in Windows have been torn right off and plastered onto Linux.
And, no, I don't use Windows. I use Mac OS X.
May I ask, what the hell yer talking about? (I..don't get the joke; sorry. =/)
He was stating that "[Insert Linux GUI here] stole their look and feel from MS". Which they did; we all know GNOME is strying to look like Windows; KDE has a frigging start menu for god's sake (while it's not called a "start menu").
"Lindows". Need I say more?
Seriously, you made a dense statement. A very dense statement. A stupid, retarded fact-unsupported statement worthy of any zealot with their heads far enough..well, you get the point. Now you need to accept responsibility and not try to pass it off as sarcasm.
"Huh uh huh, he said long..."
I doubt it even works on OS X to be honest; because if it DID work on OS X, they'd prolly just do a recompile for Linux (No GUI needed...).
Eh, doesn't work for me on OS X either; looks like (For once) the OS X IE is better than Windows' IE!
Now, 275,000 AAC encoded songs appearing on Gnutella...
They're running Win2k3. They need the pity. =p