Uh, oKAY . . . WHAT IP!? I'm sorry, I don't know where you are coming from or who is paying for you to post this tripe, but SCO has not even made it clear what IP they are talking about (and when they did, they later admitted that it wasn't theirs).
And how was SCO's IP "stolen." They were releasing it THEMSELVES as GPL code. And folks, the GPL does NOT address the "contribution of code" but the "distribution of code." If it addressed the former it would be called "contributetype" not "copyright."
Looks like SCO has been passing around whatever it is they have been smoking. . .
"SCO will no doubt argue that, at the time, they didn't realise the source contained their copyrighted material. This raises the question of whether you can be legally bound by the GPL if you don't realise what you were licensing."
IANAL, but I have studied enough law to know that laws are much more strict when a Merchant (someone who is distributing a good as a business) gets involved. There are specific warranties a Merchant grants which CANNOT be waved. If Walmart sells you a microwave, do you think they have a right to send you a letter later saying you need to send them $1,000 for IP fees they failed to include in the price? No dice, Walmart implied a warranty that what you were getting was legit and SCO implied what they were distributing was legit.
Let me put it this was, if merchants were not forced to assume the risk of distributing the wrong thing, for the wrong pice, the entire U.S. economy would collapse. No one would buy ANYTHING because such transactions would represent an infinite legal liability to the purchaser.
Obviously MS will not be getting a cut, and if they do, it is inefficient for the retailer and the market will eventually correct the inefficiency.
2. Sue for a refund on Windows pre-installed hardware:
MS gets their cut, however, the retailer is seriously damaged for not giving an option of an OS FREE or Linux pre-installed system (retail price of Windows AND legal costs). If enough people sue (if I could file in the same small claims court as this individual, I would definitely buy a windows pre-installed box just so that I could sue, because boring legal procedings fascinate me;), the retailer will be forced to provide Windowless boxes or the market will remedy the situation by squashing the retailer.
Either method seems to be effective and have its own unique benefits to the cause. One costs the retailer, while the other costs MS. I say pick either one, depending on your available time and interests.
"People don't create things to make a profit. People create things to solve problems."
This is brilliant and pokes at an issue that a lot of people forget.
When profit can be made and assigned to an individual separate from their everyday activities, is this the optimal way to ensure the most inventions get made? For instance, an artist makes a song, a receives copyright and a recording contract, and then spends the rest of their life doing drugs and receiving royalty checks. Has the Copyright system created more ideas or less in this situation?
What if, instead, an artist made a song and was only able to register with an international global database that they were the author of the song. As the orginal author, people would be willing to pay more to see this individual perform the song, however, everyone would be free to have a copy and/or perform. Would this system not force the artist to devote more time and energy to new and better ideas and result, overall, in more invention? The artist should get credit for their idea, but is it really beneficial or even plausible to give out an infinite monopoly over the REPLICATION of the idea?
When profit is created as the result of some artificial barrier to market, the result is sub-optimal for society as a whole. Furthermore, enforcement of these barriers will prove to be too costly for both technical and idealistic reasons. In short, information wants to be free.
I could have sworn I saw something at Fry's the other day for under $15. However, the closest thing I could find on the web was $18.
Anyway, that is well within the buying power range of the average kid.
USB Pen Drives (again . . .)
on
Lindows Webstation
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I tried the LindowsCD 0S with a USB pen drive, and it finds it automatically and mounts it in/disks/dos. It doesn't make an icon on the Desktop like Knoppix, but that is still very straight forward.
You can get 64mb USB Flash drive for about $10. That is good enough to save a moderate amount of personal files. Don't think "only web" here, though. It comes with Open Office (or just use a knoppix flavor for whatever software you are into), which will, say, let kids write a word document, save it on the USB drive, and print at school. Definitely has potential as an "offline" tool(think "lower income").
I usually don't respond to AC posts, but this is just so wrong . . . If Open Source code contains copyrighted code, the only things KEEPING it in there is the fact that it is NOT PUBLISHED. Did you just come to slashdot or what. How could you be reading the same articles and comments as me and most something as incompetent as that . . . no wonder you are posting as AC.
"Wouldn't it be even more effective to dismiss a conception of intellectual property that leads to such claims?"
That would require changing the laws, which would require changing the politicians, which would require, us, the masses to buy our own politicians. In which case, if you live in the US, I will refer you to Dean Howard.
I made straight A's when I was taking a full load. Don't "overload" yourself, but "underloading" can be just as bad. Yes, it sucks and all you do is study, eat, and sleep, but it does get rid of a lot of procrastination problems (if you procastinate, you get immediate feedback) and a lot of personal problems (those get suppressed deep, deep inside, where noone has to even know they exist).
Also, get a study partner. Don't "study" together by talking. In fact, it is better if you have a "competitive" edge on your relationship. You know, "I can study longer than you and make better grades than you" kind of disfunctional relationship. Sit next to that guy all semester long in the library and I assure you, you will do well.
Also, work on that ego. Think you are the smartest guy EVER and that you are going to get a GREAT job after you graduate. Life will be GREAT if you just devote ALL your time to school. No other issues are important or relevant to you. The world will be better because of you.
I don't know, it seems the human brain doesn't do well with moderation. It has a stable point somewhere at "doing nothing" or "doing everything", but never anyplace inbetween. Also, you have to believe that you are not going to live your live being "average." In short, you need to LIE to yourself and stop coming to slashdot. Slashdot lets a lot of truth get out, like the only "non-average" person is Bill Gates and, the reason he is "non-average" is because he is lucky, a sound businessman (ruthless liar), and dropped out of college.
That the rest of us are destined to devote our lives to phb's greedy dreams of self-gratification through exploitation of others and our only escape from this hell, Open Source, will forever be attacked by "The Man," trying to prevent the slaves from revolting.
Yeah, just forget that last part I wrote and stop coming to/. and you should be fine through college. Then you can come back to/. and realize how naive you were for studying so hard.
1. Company makes product 2. Open Source version appears 3. Company tries to lock in customers 4. Open Source version prevails 5. Company spread FUD and makes unsubstantiated accussations 6. Open Source wins?
I doubt most businesses would care if fvwm95 got banned. Does that give MS the right to make general accussations against Linux or all Open Source software?
Politics is about MONEY. Big corps buy our politicians who get elected and vote in oppressive laws. We can scream at these bought "employees" of corps all we want, but if we really want to change anything, we need to buy our OWN politicians.
That is where Howard Dean comes in. He is being bought by the "little people." I say, don't waste your time with the current representatives, unless it is very clear they are not getting paid by some special interest. Right now, the only politician I know that gets most his funding from the masses is Howard Dean, so he is getting my support.
"MS could cause a LOT of problems without even having a valid legal leg to stand on."
I think the more GENERAL the accusations that are made, the problems they cause. MS knows this and that is why they are not being specific. Specific claims require specific proof which can be addressed. General claims are FUD, and would be considered racism if applied to a race and sexism if applied to a sex. How does Gates' claim apply more to Open Source than proprietary software, besides not being able to CHECK the proprietary software!? I think the inability to check proprietary code makes it much MORE suspicious of IP infringement.
I believe I recall this being an old reason not to use Linux: "you don't know what is getting put there . . . there could be IP issues." Of course, this was a stupid argument because that goes for ALL software and Open Source is the easiest way to ensure compliance, but since SCO started spouting out total lies (if they make an unsubstantiated claim and then later deny that same claim, that is clearly a LIE), the sheep are getting nervous and are considering the above FUD true.
What I don't understand is why ALL copyrighted code is not required to be published? I mean, before code, ALL copyrighted material were published. That was the REASON behind copyright, so material could be published without having it copied by anyone who wanted to.
If copyright only applies to the binary that comes out, then a copyright shouldn't apply if even one 0 or 1 are out of place, right? Why do we even look at the source code to see if infringement of copyright occurred?
Can they now close down the MS German office just like they did the SCO German office for making unsubstantiated claims?
I am not sure how smart this is for MS. I would think they would want to be distancing themselves from SCO at this point. SCO has obviously been manipulating the financial system by their outrageous and contradictory claims. If SCO is found guilty for pumping up its stock price by making claims about Linux IP, wouldn't MS then be in a difficult situation? Not even going into anti-trust issues . . .
They've changed most the names, I thought, for newbies, just like you.
developers don't need to market . . .
on
Kroupware Komplete
·
· Score: 1
and a lot of developers write Open Source code because it allows them to do what they want WITHOUT having to deal with the "marketing types."
We all should learn to respect and appreciate these individuals as they are, because they have earned it.
Now, you seem more "marketing concious." Good news! There is nothing stopping you from completely changing the name when you sell, say, kroupware. You might need to pay someone a couple of bucks to change all references to the orginal name, but that really isn't a big deal (or, perhaps you could do it yourself). And . . . wallah, you have a product you can sell to incompetent PHB's.
Just remember to: 1. Release the source 2. Let people know what it is "based" on 3. Pass down some of those big bucks from good marketing to the orginal project (that is the best way to let them know they should change their name)
And before people scream at this method, remember that Mandrake use to be a COMPLETE knockoff of RedHat (not sure if it was motivated by an unmarketable name . ..). However, over time, they have made very tangible contributions to the Open Source community and earned a lot of people's respect (the most valuable thing in the community), all of which would not have been possible if they had not originally be complete "copycats".
Try to remember how large Open Source projects are (every single one should be considered "global") and how many cultures are involved. Kroupware may suck for marketing in the U.S., but it may also be great in Germany. If the name bothers you then DO something about it, yourself. Follow the rules, and you should be okay.
"The 5% number is just skewed heavily by the fact that any poorly written app that crashes is counted. "
That is all good and all, but my experience has been that when an app crashes in windows, the entire system usually becomes unstable in some way (might not crash then, but something is almost always messed up as a result and the only way to fix it is with a 3 finger salute).
Or maybe I am just hyper-sensitive to this issue since I usually use Unix which I have NEVER had this happen to me . ..
"I'm glad I haven't written any big GPL apps or contributed as much as some to the open source world, as I would be seriously pissed off (and a little upset maybe) that my goodwill and hours spent contributing were being eroded by money grabbing, whiny corporations."
is that people do not internalize an injustice unless it is personally directed towards them.
"At that point, the distribution of every piece of linux that they don't explicitly own becomes prohibited, completely, because Linux falls back to copyright law which indicates that the contributors of the other pieces still own them and have not licensed them to any distribution but GPL."
Okay, we know who the contributors are, isn't it time someone like the FSF (who I am a member of) sues SCO for copyright infringement?
is how much SCO upper management has made off selling an artificially inflated stock (see for yourself). That is assuming that major insider trading activities are not being concealed some how, which, considering the ethical principles of the people involved, is a dubious assumption. Most of this stock selling is in lots under 6k of shares, which shows a concious effort to avoid scrutiny from the SEC.
Enron might have lied about large numbers, however, I am convinced that SCO represents the most a company has ever multiplied the perception of its own worth through blatant lies. This has either exposed something horrible about our financial system or the complete incompetence in this area on the part of investors (probably both . ..).
You know how it works . . . "Shutting Down" becomes "Shutt'n DO'n", "ssh" becomes "pipe-DO'n Bo'", and when KDE (err, bluecurve) starts, you hear a fiddle a play'n in the background.
Slashdot Mirror
"you have to pay for the IP you stole"
Uh, oKAY . . . WHAT IP!? I'm sorry, I don't know where you are coming from or who is paying for you to post this tripe, but SCO has not even made it clear what IP they are talking about (and when they did, they later admitted that it wasn't theirs).
And how was SCO's IP "stolen." They were releasing it THEMSELVES as GPL code. And folks, the GPL does NOT address the "contribution of code" but the "distribution of code." If it addressed the former it would be called "contributetype" not "copyright."
Looks like SCO has been passing around whatever it is they have been smoking. . .
I downloaded those bitorrent iso's last week, way before they could get slash . . . wait . . . bitorrent . . .
I CAN'T WIN!
"SCO will no doubt argue that, at the time, they didn't realise the source contained their copyrighted material. This raises the question of whether you can be legally bound by the GPL if you don't realise what you were licensing."
IANAL, but I have studied enough law to know that laws are much more strict when a Merchant (someone who is distributing a good as a business) gets involved. There are specific warranties a Merchant grants which CANNOT be waved. If Walmart sells you a microwave, do you think they have a right to send you a letter later saying you need to send them $1,000 for IP fees they failed to include in the price? No dice, Walmart implied a warranty that what you were getting was legit and SCO implied what they were distributing was legit.
Let me put it this was, if merchants were not forced to assume the risk of distributing the wrong thing, for the wrong pice, the entire U.S. economy would collapse. No one would buy ANYTHING because such transactions would represent an infinite legal liability to the purchaser.
1. OS FREE or Linux pre-installed hardware:
;), the retailer will be forced to provide Windowless boxes or the market will remedy the situation by squashing the retailer.
Obviously MS will not be getting a cut, and if they do, it is inefficient for the retailer and the market will eventually correct the inefficiency.
2. Sue for a refund on Windows pre-installed hardware:
MS gets their cut, however, the retailer is seriously damaged for not giving an option of an OS FREE or Linux pre-installed system (retail price of Windows AND legal costs). If enough people sue (if I could file in the same small claims court as this individual, I would definitely buy a windows pre-installed box just so that I could sue, because boring legal procedings fascinate me
Either method seems to be effective and have its own unique benefits to the cause. One costs the retailer, while the other costs MS. I say pick either one, depending on your available time and interests.
"People don't create things to make a profit. People create things to solve problems."
This is brilliant and pokes at an issue that a lot of people forget.
When profit can be made and assigned to an individual separate from their everyday activities, is this the optimal way to ensure the most inventions get made? For instance, an artist makes a song, a receives copyright and a recording contract, and then spends the rest of their life doing drugs and receiving royalty checks. Has the Copyright system created more ideas or less in this situation?
What if, instead, an artist made a song and was only able to register with an international global database that they were the author of the song. As the orginal author, people would be willing to pay more to see this individual perform the song, however, everyone would be free to have a copy and/or perform. Would this system not force the artist to devote more time and energy to new and better ideas and result, overall, in more invention? The artist should get credit for their idea, but is it really beneficial or even plausible to give out an infinite monopoly over the REPLICATION of the idea?
When profit is created as the result of some artificial barrier to market, the result is sub-optimal for society as a whole. Furthermore, enforcement of these barriers will prove to be too costly for both technical and idealistic reasons. In short, information wants to be free.
I could have sworn I saw something at Fry's the other day for under $15. However, the closest thing I could find on the web was $18.
Anyway, that is well within the buying power range of the average kid.
I tried the LindowsCD 0S with a USB pen drive, and it finds it automatically and mounts it in /disks/dos. It doesn't make an icon on the Desktop like Knoppix, but that is still very straight forward.
You can get 64mb USB Flash drive for about $10. That is good enough to save a moderate amount of personal files. Don't think "only web" here, though. It comes with Open Office (or just use a knoppix flavor for whatever software you are into), which will, say, let kids write a word document, save it on the USB drive, and print at school. Definitely has potential as an "offline" tool(think "lower income").
Just pop a knoppix cd in and boot with the option to let it know to look for the USB Pen Drive for the user configuration files.
/drive/dos
Though, the lindows live cd also automatically finds the USB pen drives and mounts under
I usually don't respond to AC posts, but this is just so wrong . . . If Open Source code contains copyrighted code, the only things KEEPING it in there is the fact that it is NOT PUBLISHED. Did you just come to slashdot or what. How could you be reading the same articles and comments as me and most something as incompetent as that . . . no wonder you are posting as AC.
"Wouldn't it be even more effective to dismiss a conception of intellectual property that leads to such claims?"
That would require changing the laws, which would require changing the politicians, which would require, us, the masses to buy our own politicians. In which case, if you live in the US, I will refer you to Dean Howard.
Cheers.
I made straight A's when I was taking a full load. Don't "overload" yourself, but "underloading" can be just as bad. Yes, it sucks and all you do is study, eat, and sleep, but it does get rid of a lot of procrastination problems (if you procastinate, you get immediate feedback) and a lot of personal problems (those get suppressed deep, deep inside, where noone has to even know they exist).
/. and you should be fine through college. Then you can come back to /. and realize how naive you were for studying so hard.
Also, get a study partner. Don't "study" together by talking. In fact, it is better if you have a "competitive" edge on your relationship. You know, "I can study longer than you and make better grades than you" kind of disfunctional relationship. Sit next to that guy all semester long in the library and I assure you, you will do well.
Also, work on that ego. Think you are the smartest guy EVER and that you are going to get a GREAT job after you graduate. Life will be GREAT if you just devote ALL your time to school. No other issues are important or relevant to you. The world will be better because of you.
I don't know, it seems the human brain doesn't do well with moderation. It has a stable point somewhere at "doing nothing" or "doing everything", but never anyplace inbetween. Also, you have to believe that you are not going to live your live being "average." In short, you need to LIE to yourself and stop coming to slashdot. Slashdot lets a lot of truth get out, like the only "non-average" person is Bill Gates and, the reason he is "non-average" is because he is lucky, a sound businessman (ruthless liar), and dropped out of college.
That the rest of us are destined to devote our lives to phb's greedy dreams of self-gratification through exploitation of others and our only escape from this hell, Open Source, will forever be attacked by "The Man," trying to prevent the slaves from revolting.
Yeah, just forget that last part I wrote and stop coming to
Sorry, it just seems there is a pattern:
1. Company makes product
2. Open Source version appears
3. Company tries to lock in customers
4. Open Source version prevails
5. Company spread FUD and makes unsubstantiated accussations
6. Open Source wins?
. . . give them hell.
I doubt most businesses would care if fvwm95 got banned. Does that give MS the right to make general accussations against Linux or all Open Source software?
Politics is about MONEY. Big corps buy our politicians who get elected and vote in oppressive laws. We can scream at these bought "employees" of corps all we want, but if we really want to change anything, we need to buy our OWN politicians.
That is where Howard Dean comes in. He is being bought by the "little people." I say, don't waste your time with the current representatives, unless it is very clear they are not getting paid by some special interest. Right now, the only politician I know that gets most his funding from the masses is Howard Dean, so he is getting my support.
"MS could cause a LOT of problems without even having a valid legal leg to stand on."
I think the more GENERAL the accusations that are made, the problems they cause. MS knows this and that is why they are not being specific. Specific claims require specific proof which can be addressed. General claims are FUD, and would be considered racism if applied to a race and sexism if applied to a sex. How does Gates' claim apply more to Open Source than proprietary software, besides not being able to CHECK the proprietary software!? I think the inability to check proprietary code makes it much MORE suspicious of IP infringement.
I believe I recall this being an old reason not to use Linux: "you don't know what is getting put there . . . there could be IP issues." Of course, this was a stupid argument because that goes for ALL software and Open Source is the easiest way to ensure compliance, but since SCO started spouting out total lies (if they make an unsubstantiated claim and then later deny that same claim, that is clearly a LIE), the sheep are getting nervous and are considering the above FUD true.
What I don't understand is why ALL copyrighted code is not required to be published? I mean, before code, ALL copyrighted material were published. That was the REASON behind copyright, so material could be published without having it copied by anyone who wanted to.
If copyright only applies to the binary that comes out, then a copyright shouldn't apply if even one 0 or 1 are out of place, right? Why do we even look at the source code to see if infringement of copyright occurred?
Can they now close down the MS German office just like they did the SCO German office for making unsubstantiated claims?
I am not sure how smart this is for MS. I would think they would want to be distancing themselves from SCO at this point. SCO has obviously been manipulating the financial system by their outrageous and contradictory claims. If SCO is found guilty for pumping up its stock price by making claims about Linux IP, wouldn't MS then be in a difficult situation? Not even going into anti-trust issues . . .
They've changed most the names, I thought, for newbies, just like you.
and a lot of developers write Open Source code because it allows them to do what they want WITHOUT having to deal with the "marketing types."
.). However, over time, they have made very tangible contributions to the Open Source community and earned a lot of people's respect (the most valuable thing in the community), all of which would not have been possible if they had not originally be complete "copycats".
We all should learn to respect and appreciate these individuals as they are, because they have earned it.
Now, you seem more "marketing concious." Good news! There is nothing stopping you from completely changing the name when you sell, say, kroupware. You might need to pay someone a couple of bucks to change all references to the orginal name, but that really isn't a big deal (or, perhaps you could do it yourself). And . . . wallah, you have a product you can sell to incompetent PHB's.
Just remember to:
1. Release the source
2. Let people know what it is "based" on
3. Pass down some of those big bucks from good marketing to the orginal project (that is the best way to let them know they should change their name)
And before people scream at this method, remember that Mandrake use to be a COMPLETE knockoff of RedHat (not sure if it was motivated by an unmarketable name . .
Try to remember how large Open Source projects are (every single one should be considered "global") and how many cultures are involved. Kroupware may suck for marketing in the U.S., but it may also be great in Germany. If the name bothers you then DO something about it, yourself. Follow the rules, and you should be okay.
"The 5% number is just skewed heavily by the fact that any poorly written app that crashes is counted. "
.
That is all good and all, but my experience has been that when an app crashes in windows, the entire system usually becomes unstable in some way (might not crash then, but something is almost always messed up as a result and the only way to fix it is with a 3 finger salute).
Or maybe I am just hyper-sensitive to this issue since I usually use Unix which I have NEVER had this happen to me . .
it was gravity's fault I fell.
.
Hmm, sounds a bit different when put into perspective . .
"I'm glad I haven't written any big GPL apps or contributed as much as some to the open source world, as I would be seriously pissed off (and a little upset maybe) that my goodwill and hours spent contributing were being eroded by money grabbing, whiny corporations."
is that people do not internalize an injustice unless it is personally directed towards them.
"If you cave in to these terms, expect to hear from other rights owners, each and every one of whom has as much claim as SCO."
of very idiot who caves in and will start sending them complete bogus invoices. Hey, if it works for SCO . . .
"At that point, the distribution of every piece of linux that they don't explicitly own becomes prohibited, completely, because Linux falls back to copyright law which indicates that the contributors of the other pieces still own them and have not licensed them to any distribution but GPL."
Okay, we know who the contributors are, isn't it time someone like the FSF (who I am a member of) sues SCO for copyright infringement?
is how much SCO upper management has made off selling an artificially inflated stock (see for yourself). That is assuming that major insider trading activities are not being concealed some how, which, considering the ethical principles of the people involved, is a dubious assumption. Most of this stock selling is in lots under 6k of shares, which shows a concious effort to avoid scrutiny from the SEC.
Enron might have lied about large numbers, however, I am convinced that SCO represents the most a company has ever multiplied the perception of its own worth through blatant lies. This has either exposed something horrible about our financial system or the complete incompetence in this area on the part of investors (probably both . . .).
You know how it works . . . "Shutting Down" becomes "Shutt'n DO'n", "ssh" becomes "pipe-DO'n Bo'", and when KDE (err, bluecurve) starts, you hear a fiddle a play'n in the background.