Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came not to destroy but to fulfill.
Mathew 5:17, New King James version
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.
All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments.
Mathew 22:37-40, New International Version
That's what he came to fulfill. A big part of the new testament is taken up with explaining this point, usually in the context that gentiles don't have to become Jews to become Christians.
Ah, but here's an interesting experiment that comes to mind.
First, take note of the size of the "doc" file you made in emacs. Then open said file in any version of Word, and immediately resave the file (while making no changes). What happens to the size of the file?
Oddly enough, I tried that. I posted that from work, and I work on a NT5 machine, so I did exactly that before I posted the hint. A file whose contents were ``This is a test.'' ballooned from 1K to... 1K, as reported by the exploder.
Mock not edlin, for it is an extremely accurate DOS port of the Almighty Ed, the One True Text Editor!
Ed's sole purpose was to make vi look attractive. It over-achieved: it also made pounding nails into one's own head look attractive.
That simply proves that Gates and his scurvy crew (Talk Like a Pirate Day is coming up!) copyied only the BAD parts of unix, just like they copied the worst parts of CP/M.
That's the old testament. The law was laid down in the old testament, to convict the world of sin. No man is guiltless under God's law.
Jesus came to set us free from the law. By His death and resurection, He succeded in that. Christians are not under old testament law, though the Jews have chosen to remain under it. Our only obligation is to:
Jesus said:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the prophets hang on thses two commandments.
Mathew 22:37-40, New International Version
So, I don't have to worry about Leviticus. I just have to love God, and my neighbor, and that's more than I can manage on my own, most days.
Not only that, but when submitting a complaint they suggest that:
If you are able to provide documentation to support your complaint, please attach the file in either Word (.doc) or WordPerfect (.wpd) format below.
That just seems sad.
That's not terribly hard to do. I can make a Word (.doc) format file from emacs, or even from edlin (remember that miserable monster from mickey-soft?).
In emacs, do C-x C-f. Name the new file something like mycomplaint.doc. Type out your complaint, then hit C-X C-S. Done! You've just created a.doc file which Word will open.
Still, it does seem sad that they have such idiots working there.
You can do anything to God that he'll let you do. God let them kill His physical body so that He could come back to life three days later, and show the world that the eternal life He's offering is real. And to fulfill the prophecies in the Old Testament. And to provide a sacrifice for all of us, and show that His sacrifice was sufficient propitiation for our sins. And so on.
Don't people ever think?
Not much. Fortunately, God doesn't require thought for salvation, just faith.
Saying a business can't censor because it isn't a government is akin to a black man saying he can't be racist because he is black.
Can't argue with that!
There is a reason for the confusion about censorship, though. Private censorship is a private choice, with (generally) no public impact. Generally, your decisions to censor materials for your family/clients/churchmembers doesn't impact me at all, unless I choose to be your client/churchmember (dependents have to take what they get...). As an example, private censorship is a responsibility for every parent, and every parent handles it differently, and that's all as it should be. Really objectionable examples of censorship requires either a government, or the powers of a government, to force others to accept that censorship.
Even though none of the definitions you give presuppose governmental authority, governmental authority is necessary to make bad censorship widely harmful. Absent that power to force others to acquiesce, censorship becomes groups of consenting adults, doing to themselves what feels good. A lot of folks today think that defines ``harmless''.
Great evil requires great power. Whether any particular act of censorship is good or bad depends on the details, but whether it can hurt people who haven't consented to it depends on the power of the censor. Only governments can censor materials for billions, or kill millions. Without the power of a government, Stalin would have been just another Charles Manson.
So, if censorship is ``bad'' (that seems to be the common belief), but restricting your children's access to snuff flicks and kiddie-porn is ``good'' (I hope that's a common belief), then obviously protecting your kids isn't censorship. Thus, the confusion. It isn't because of ``Libertarian Newspeak'', it's because of this assumption that censorship MUST be bad.
>>install the Mozilla evangelism sidebar. Set your user agent string to something IE5ish. I'll bet that a recent Mozilla will work just fine. After all, the sign says ``IE5 or better''!
>Please don't do that, it hurts everyone. Sure Mozilla is better than IE, what isn't? The people who made that silly IE only site argued that "everyone uses IE anyway". By changing your user agent, you help convince them that it's true.
Doing this lets you tell the company: ``Your site works fine on other browsers. The only change you need to make is to stop locking them out.''. When they try to tell you that their site is special, and the other browsers can't display it properly, it's good to be able to say: ``WRONG!''.
When they say "the GPL is pre-empted by copyright law", they don't mean that the GPL is invalid.
Funny; that's not how I read it. Oh, well. Everything they say is crap til they're under oath. And probably then too.
What they mean is this: You can't GPL something you don't own.
That's true. If that were really what they meant, that's probably what they would have said. But, they DO claim to own some of the code which is in the kernel that they are currently distributing, right? I believe that what I downloaded last week was version 2.4.13.
So, either they know that none of their code is in 2.4.13, or they know that they are violating the copyrights of Linus, Alan and many others, or they have chosen to place their code which is in that kernel under the GPL. More likely, they are cynically engaging in barratry.
... they think it's a good idea to make the main navigation menu require IE 5.x or better.
Go to this site and install the Mozilla evangelism sidebar. Set your user agent string to something IE5ish. I'll bet that a recent Mozilla will work just fine. After all, the sign says ``IE5 or better''!
I've done this on several IE-only sites, and had great results.
I know what you're saying, but the GPL also imposes a burden of support on them: _having_ innocently distributed their own proprietary code (after someone else allegedly put it in), they are required to continue making the source available. This is precisely what they are doing.
I don't think so. By innocently distributing their non-GPLd code along with GPLd code (if such a thing were possible), they would have violated the GPL. If they did so innocently, they should have STOPPED when they realized their mistake. By continuing to distribute their code along with the kernel, they either:
1)GPL their code, or
2)violate various persons' copyrights.
If that particular kernel has SCO ``property'' in it, there are no third choices here.
There is no burden of support in this case. If you distribute GPLd binaries commercially, you must offer source for three years (it needn't be via internet, either!). In this case, however, if SCO's allegations were true, what they distributed COULD NOT be distributed under the GPL. Their distribution wasn't legal then (in the sense that it violated others' copyrights), and is still not legal.
I understand that you're trying to show that SCO has acted reasonably, as they will try to do in court, if this gets there. All you're accomplishing is to show that the arguments necessarily get stretched way beyond their elastic limits.
Their precise actions on this FTP site would be highly commendable if they were prosecuting only the company responsible for the violation, and promising to license under the GPL as soon as reasonably possible (and not doing so many OTHER things...)...
If they weren't skunks, they wouldn't stink. But they are, and do. As I have shown, they can neither offer a licence to use the kernel with, nor distribute the kernel with non-GPLd code.
-- after all, nobody could reasonably demand that they GPL their software in the middle of a legal battle (thereby automatically losing the battle).
Well, if they simply GPLd their software, it would be hard to claim damages for plagerism, I suppose. Given that something they have copyrighted really is in there (their claims in the press, though not in court), and given that they value it and would lose by GPLing it, they can ONLY cease distribution.
Since the IBM case alleges trade secret violations, the fact that the code has been published eliminates any ongoing harm by further redistribution. Once the secret's out, all they can do is try to extract damages from the one who let it out. Continuing distribution (and GPLing the code) would make perfect sense in this case, and need not have any effect on the case against IBM. After all, in a trade secret case, it is the secrecy which gives the secret its value.
As for the patents, they're a side issue. If IBM hasn't dragged out any OS patents yet, it's only because they figure these four will hurt worse.
OR, SCO wishes to legally punish someone who (unbeknownst to them) inserted their copyrighted code into the kernel, but SCO also wishes to honor their obligations to customers as documented in the GPL.
The judiciary generally frowns on self-help. SCO seems to be acting to maximize the damage done, and the judiciary also generally frowns on dealing in bad faith. Finally, if SCO's allegations were true, they would have NO obligations to their customers under the GPL. Copyright law obliges them to cease distributing. They may have to refund purchases.
Which one of the four do you think SCO will present to the judge? Do you have any reason for him to disbelieve the one they'll obviously choose?
At this stage, NONE of the claims we've been discussing are mentioned in any of SCO's filings. To the best of my knowlege, the only court case they have initiated is the trade secret case against IBM, which has little relevance to any hobby or commercial Linux user or distributor. In the unlikely event that SCO takes a
Actually, they're attempting to meet their contractual obligations to their customers, which involves (according to their claims, for the sake of argument):
1. Distributing Linux's legally GPLed code.
2. Distributing their code which someone illegally copied into the GPLed code, but which isn't covered by ANY valid licence.
3. Conveying a licence to their customers to make getting, installing, and using that illegally copied code legal.
What I was saying is that they can't DO that! Point (1) is ok, IF they're following the GPL. Since the ``their code'' part of point (2) is claimed to be in the kernel, points (2) and (3) are simply impossible for them. They are forbidden to distribute the code which really HAS been GPL'd along with intermingled code which has not. There's just no way around this. Any license which purports to ``legalise'' using non-GPLd code in the kernel infringes upon the copyrights of Linus, et al.
First, you can't claim that they have no right to distribute "stuff that they [...] own".
Rather, it's ``... they have no right to distribute "stuff that they [...] own" along with GPLd stuff they don't own. They can do whatever they like with their own stuff, but they can't distribute it comingled with GPLd code unless they license it under the GPL. Guess I didn't make myself clear on that originally.
Another issue with SCO's efforts to license ``their'' code is IBM's patents. It's quite probable that the code in question (whatever it may turn out to be) infringes upon one or more of IBM's patents. SCO has no right to issue anyone licenses to use someone else's patents, so the whole issue becomes moot. You'll have to get a license from IBM for use. Unless you're distributing code, you still need nothing from SCO. Copyright doesn't preclude use, but patents do.
Second, much of the "stuff that they claim to own" was added to a later version of the kernel.
That would be the only way that they could get away with distributing the kernel: if it's all GPLd. So, SCO believes that no-one needs an SCO license for the 2.4.13 (I think it was) kernel, or SCO believes that it is violating various copyrights, or SCO is cynically engaging in barratry.
Keep in mind that I'm not saying they're right; I'm only saying that THIS defence against them is useless.
If the kernel which they are distributing is really free of SCO's ``property'', then this defence is useless. We can't be sure of that, of course, since we can't be sure what tehy're claiming. It doesn't matter, though, since there are plenty of other defences. Then there are those patents...
It looks to me like they're not claiming the GPL itself is invalid; rather, they're claiming that the GPL doesn't apply to that code _because_ they own the copyright and they didn't apply it.
This is a highly rational defence.
Yes, but. Just a couple days ago I went to their ftp site and downloaded a 2.4 kernel. I am not, and never have been, a SCO customer.
They are deliberately distributing the kernel, knowing that stuff they claim to own is in there. Unless they are distributing it under the GPL, they have no right to distribute it at all. Thus, they are either:
a) knowingly, deliberately infringing upon the copyright of Linus, et al, or
b) knowingly, deliberately releasing their stuff under the GPL.
SCO is a) in big trouble, or b) has no case. Or c), both!
The main thrust is that he's betting on the fact that Copyright law trumps whatever provisions are in the
GPL, so IBM's GPL defense doesn't hold water; and also that just because Caldera released kernel source under that license does
not mean that the whole codebase (not just what was republished) should also be GPL'd.
Sorry, I couldn't get any of that from the interview. I suppose that you read the German original... maybe the babelfish obfuscated the good parts.
Think about what you said: HOW can ``copyright law trump the GPL''? If you read the GPL, you'll find that it is based strictly on copyright law. In a nutshell, it says: ``ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. BUT, I'm going to let you make and distribute copies and derivative works, IF you extend the same rights I'm giving you to all to whom you distribute. Don't like the terms of this offer? then ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.''
This isn't taking anything from you, it's offering you something that you wouldn't otherwise have! If I can't make that offer, then people who get the program have no rights to distribute it, period. So, if SCO's goofy theory is right, they're violating the law by distributing Linux.
Actually, I've read nothing but the magazine articles and interviews about this half-baked ``theory''. I'm inclined to believe that what SCO's shysters are proposing is radically different than what is being reported. I suspect that any lawyer who tried that sort of crap in court would face serious professional problems. That's what Moglen was saying, also: that this is frivolous. Whatever SCO's shysters are saying to the press, be prepared NOT to see this argument made in court as it has been presented here.
Yes, it is. Funny you should say that and then follow it with:
... and if you're stealing a piece of software...
Stealing is stealing. Infringing upon someone's copyright is NOT stealing, it's infringing upon their copyright. Stealing is stealing, and using cracked software is something else entirely. That's why each is prohibited by a different law. You can't ``steal'' software unless you grab a boxed set and run out of the store.
That may sound like a trivial distinction, but it's not: it is the heart of the matter. It's this sort of sloppy thinking that makes it so easy for Disney to get copyrights extended another 40 years every time Mickey has a birthday.
It's important to remember that property rights are natural rights, which pre-exist our constitution (that's what our constitution says). Copyrights, patents, and the like are privileges which the constitution allows but does not require Congress to grant. When we equate copyright violation to theft, we blur that distinction, and
play into the hands of those who would like to enclose the commons of our cultural heritage.
I think that for many years to come robots are going to be more like those in Ron Goulart's distopias: they'll be fully automated burger grills and fry-fryers and cash registers for McDonalds, and they won't work very well. And the ones which interact with humans will have cheesy Granny disguises.
Seriously, what you're describing sounds like an end to scarcity, for the basics at least, and that doesn't sound too bad.
I think that children who are obviously passionate about something, such as mathematics (to the point where they don't need to be told to study), then college is a no-brainer.
Mine are still young enough that I won't know for some years if they have that degree of interest. Of course, for those rare few who have the passion for a single subject to motivate themselves, how much good will college do? Especially in math, where there is no expensive equipment required, and no job prospects from the degree, even if you get a Ph.D.?
Other kids who simply want a broader education can go, also, but they have to have full knowledge ahead of time that magic high-paying jobs just won't materialize before them. They will have to fully accept the fact that society doesn't necessarily reward education over skills, and, if they are okay with that, then they can be happy regardless of the outcome.
That broader education is a very expensive luxury indeed, in opportunity cost, and cash outlay. I'm not sure it makes sense to go into debt to get a degree just for the ``lifestyle''. The fact that the degree probably won't pay for itself just makes it harder to justify.
I think that as my kids get into their late teens, I'll just buy each a pile of steel, help build a boat, and tell them to sail West until they get home. That'll probably do as much for their emotional development and future job prospects as a similar period at college, and cost a damn sight less money.
I've gotten most of the way to a Ph.D., I'm deeply in debt because of it, and I really can't find nything to argue with in your thesis. Going to college isn't right for everyone, and it's probably wrong for a lot of fresh-out-of-high-school-kids. I certainly saw a lot of them come into my classroom, and get really depressed as they floundered.
I've been thinking about what I'm going to tell my kids when they're ready for work or college in about 10 years. I'm not sure that I'll tell them to start out by going to college.
Really, the paper credentials are only important to impress others. If you have your own business, you may not need them at all.
I have several friends who write math textbooks. They use equation editor and have to use Word.
You're joking, right?
No one uses Word for typesetting math. It simply isn't up to it, even with the third-party add-ons. If you get a moderately complex document (say 10+ pages densely packed with equations), Word will crash when you try to save, or before. The pointy-clicky method of entering equations is so painfully slow that those 10 pages represent many hours' work, too!
All respectable journals (in math, statistics, economics, probably linguistics...) require LaTeX submissions, and provide a stylefile to make it easy. I've never heard of a math book less than 20 years old which wasn't typeset using either LaTeX or plainTeX (LaTeX didn't become available until the late '70s, as I recall).
1. Get a Chinese bible, stand on a street corner, and start reading from it out loud.
Probably nothing will happen. The Chinese gov't doen't do anything unless it perceives you as a significant threat.
How true. If they think that people are listening to you, they will kill you. The communist government has thousands of Christians in jail right now, for the crime of going to church. Some of them survive being jailed. The Falun Gong are getting the same treatment, so we can say that the communists are equal opportunity murders.
Now, I haven't been in China for two long weeks, so I can't claim to be an old China hand like the grandparent poster. But I do have friends and classmates who've lived there their entire lives (30+ years each), and I do have some idea about what daily life there is like. You are entirely free there, to do whatever the government has chosen to ignore. If they decide to change their policy, you get shot or sent to jail.
Have you heard about the ``four freedoms'' and ``let a thousand flowers bloom'' campaigns? They encouraged free expression, then rounded up the suckers who'd taken advantage of the temporary slackening of restrictions. That was the same party and the same government (different people, to some extent) that the Chinese are suffering under today.
>>"Maybe we should send the British navy back in to convince them to start buying our goods again."
A>Ah yes, the "free market" by military cooercion. Works every time. You do understand that this behaviour played a significant role in the success of the rise of communism in China in the first place?
There's not much truth in that. Chinese nationalism is a modern development, which is largely a result of that military coercion. Sun Yat Sen made it into a large, popular political movement, which was co-opted by the brigands in the KMT. The KMT was made up of gangsters and warlords, in the traditional Chinese pattern. They were so bad that even Mao's communists looked good by comparison. The old question (in the '50s) was: ``Who lost China?''. The answer (which no-one in the U.S. dared speak out loud) was: ``The KMT.''
>You do understand that this behavior played a significant role in the success of the rise of communism in China in the first place?
You do understand that Commodore Dewey's forcible opening of Japanese society and markets played a significant role in the success of the rise of modern Japanese society?
There's a lot more to this than the fact of intervention. For forcible intervention to have a good effect, the culture in which we intervene has to be prepared to adapt and learn, as the Japanese clearly were.
One of my grandfathers-in-law was the first in his family to get a Western education... in Japan, between the two world wars. The Japanese did just fine after a bit of military coercion.
And now, changing the subject completely....
But Intellectual "Property" isn't natural law. It's a purely human construct of extremely recent vintage...
If you work on the wiring, and there is EVER an electrical fire, it's my understanding that you are criminally liable. If someone dies, that's manslaughter. Hire an electrician.
The coke-bottle junctions on the power supply wires are probably aluminum-->copper connectors, to put a copper pigtail on the end of the aluminum. Not a problem. Ignore them.
The cloth insulation worries me. Is it ``everywhere'' because it's cracking and falling off? How old is that building? You need to have an electrician evaluate the wiring in the building. It may be that the box is the least of your problems. If the building (and thus the wiring) belongs to a landlord, things aren't so bad for you. If the building belongs to your employer, he's not going to want to hear this. Remember, better to quit your job than get blamed for an electrical fire.
Did I mention that you should hire an electrician, AND NOT TOUCH IT YOURSELF?
I'm an electrical engineer (that's what my first diploma says, anyway), I've wired houses, and I used to be familair with the NEC. I would never touch wiring outside of my own home.
Slashdot Mirror
First, take note of the size of the "doc" file you made in emacs. Then open said file in any version of Word, and immediately resave the file (while making no changes). What happens to the size of the file?
Oddly enough, I tried that. I posted that from work, and I work on a NT5 machine, so I did exactly that before I posted the hint. A file whose contents were ``This is a test.'' ballooned from 1K to ... 1K, as reported by the exploder.
Mock not edlin, for it is an extremely accurate DOS port of the Almighty Ed, the One True Text Editor!
Ed's sole purpose was to make vi look attractive. It over-achieved: it also made pounding nails into one's own head look attractive.
That simply proves that Gates and his scurvy crew (Talk Like a Pirate Day is coming up!) copyied only the BAD parts of unix, just like they copied the worst parts of CP/M.
That's the old testament. The law was laid down in the old testament, to convict the world of sin. No man is guiltless under God's law.
Jesus came to set us free from the law. By His death and resurection, He succeded in that. Christians are not under old testament law, though the Jews have chosen to remain under it. Our only obligation is to:
So, I don't have to worry about Leviticus. I just have to love God, and my neighbor, and that's more than I can manage on my own, most days.If you are able to provide documentation to support your complaint, please attach the file in either Word (.doc) or WordPerfect (.wpd) format below.
That just seems sad.
That's not terribly hard to do. I can make a Word (.doc) format file from emacs, or even from edlin (remember that miserable monster from mickey-soft?).
In emacs, do C-x C-f. Name the new file something like mycomplaint.doc. Type out your complaint, then hit C-X C-S. Done! You've just created a .doc file which Word will open.
Still, it does seem sad that they have such idiots working there.
You can do anything to God that he'll let you do. God let them kill His physical body so that He could come back to life three days later, and show the world that the eternal life He's offering is real. And to fulfill the prophecies in the Old Testament. And to provide a sacrifice for all of us, and show that His sacrifice was sufficient propitiation for our sins. And so on.
Don't people ever think?
Not much. Fortunately, God doesn't require thought for salvation, just faith.
Can't argue with that!
There is a reason for the confusion about censorship, though. Private censorship is a private choice, with (generally) no public impact. Generally, your decisions to censor materials for your family/clients/churchmembers doesn't impact me at all, unless I choose to be your client/churchmember (dependents have to take what they get...). As an example, private censorship is a responsibility for every parent, and every parent handles it differently, and that's all as it should be. Really objectionable examples of censorship requires either a government, or the powers of a government, to force others to accept that censorship.
Even though none of the definitions you give presuppose governmental authority, governmental authority is necessary to make bad censorship widely harmful. Absent that power to force others to acquiesce, censorship becomes groups of consenting adults, doing to themselves what feels good. A lot of folks today think that defines ``harmless''.
Great evil requires great power. Whether any particular act of censorship is good or bad depends on the details, but whether it can hurt people who haven't consented to it depends on the power of the censor. Only governments can censor materials for billions, or kill millions. Without the power of a government, Stalin would have been just another Charles Manson.
So, if censorship is ``bad'' (that seems to be the common belief), but restricting your children's access to snuff flicks and kiddie-porn is ``good'' (I hope that's a common belief), then obviously protecting your kids isn't censorship. Thus, the confusion. It isn't because of ``Libertarian Newspeak'', it's because of this assumption that censorship MUST be bad.
>Crucify one of those, and you might make it to world domination.
That only worked once, and then only because the guy who got crucified turned out to be a ringer: he was God.
In USA, when you find an exploit, they shoot you off to jail. In Soviet Union, when you find an exploit, they just shoot you.
>Please don't do that, it hurts everyone. Sure Mozilla is better than IE, what isn't? The people who made that silly IE only site argued that "everyone uses IE anyway". By changing your user agent, you help convince them that it's true.
Doing this lets you tell the company: ``Your site works fine on other browsers. The only change you need to make is to stop locking them out.''. When they try to tell you that their site is special, and the other browsers can't display it properly, it's good to be able to say: ``WRONG!''.
Funny; that's not how I read it. Oh, well. Everything they say is crap til they're under oath. And probably then too.
What they mean is this: You can't GPL something you don't own.
That's true. If that were really what they meant, that's probably what they would have said. But, they DO claim to own some of the code which is in the kernel that they are currently distributing, right? I believe that what I downloaded last week was version 2.4.13.
So, either they know that none of their code is in 2.4.13, or they know that they are violating the copyrights of Linus, Alan and many others, or they have chosen to place their code which is in that kernel under the GPL. More likely, they are cynically engaging in barratry.
Go to this site and install the Mozilla evangelism sidebar. Set your user agent string to something IE5ish. I'll bet that a recent Mozilla will work just fine. After all, the sign says ``IE5 or better''!
I've done this on several IE-only sites, and had great results.
I don't think so. By innocently distributing their non-GPLd code along with GPLd code (if such a thing were possible), they would have violated the GPL. If they did so innocently, they should have STOPPED when they realized their mistake. By continuing to distribute their code along with the kernel, they either:
1)GPL their code, or
2)violate various persons' copyrights.
If that particular kernel has SCO ``property'' in it, there are no third choices here.
There is no burden of support in this case. If you distribute GPLd binaries commercially, you must offer source for three years (it needn't be via internet, either!). In this case, however, if SCO's allegations were true, what they distributed COULD NOT be distributed under the GPL. Their distribution wasn't legal then (in the sense that it violated others' copyrights), and is still not legal.
I understand that you're trying to show that SCO has acted reasonably, as they will try to do in court, if this gets there. All you're accomplishing is to show that the arguments necessarily get stretched way beyond their elastic limits.
Their precise actions on this FTP site would be highly commendable if they were prosecuting only the company responsible for the violation, and promising to license under the GPL as soon as reasonably possible (and not doing so many OTHER things...) ...
If they weren't skunks, they wouldn't stink. But they are, and do. As I have shown, they can neither offer a licence to use the kernel with, nor distribute the kernel with non-GPLd code.
-- after all, nobody could reasonably demand that they GPL their software in the middle of a legal battle (thereby automatically losing the battle).
Well, if they simply GPLd their software, it would be hard to claim damages for plagerism, I suppose. Given that something they have copyrighted really is in there (their claims in the press, though not in court), and given that they value it and would lose by GPLing it, they can ONLY cease distribution.
Since the IBM case alleges trade secret violations, the fact that the code has been published eliminates any ongoing harm by further redistribution. Once the secret's out, all they can do is try to extract damages from the one who let it out. Continuing distribution (and GPLing the code) would make perfect sense in this case, and need not have any effect on the case against IBM. After all, in a trade secret case, it is the secrecy which gives the secret its value.
As for the patents, they're a side issue. If IBM hasn't dragged out any OS patents yet, it's only because they figure these four will hurt worse.
OR, SCO wishes to legally punish someone who (unbeknownst to them) inserted their copyrighted code into the kernel, but SCO also wishes to honor their obligations to customers as documented in the GPL.
The judiciary generally frowns on self-help. SCO seems to be acting to maximize the damage done, and the judiciary also generally frowns on dealing in bad faith. Finally, if SCO's allegations were true, they would have NO obligations to their customers under the GPL. Copyright law obliges them to cease distributing. They may have to refund purchases.
Which one of the four do you think SCO will present to the judge? Do you have any reason for him to disbelieve the one they'll obviously choose?
At this stage, NONE of the claims we've been discussing are mentioned in any of SCO's filings. To the best of my knowlege, the only court case they have initiated is the trade secret case against IBM, which has little relevance to any hobby or commercial Linux user or distributor. In the unlikely event that SCO takes a
1. Distributing Linux's legally GPLed code.
2. Distributing their code which someone illegally copied into the GPLed code, but which isn't covered by ANY valid licence.
3. Conveying a licence to their customers to make getting, installing, and using that illegally copied code legal.
What I was saying is that they can't DO that! Point (1) is ok, IF they're following the GPL. Since the ``their code'' part of point (2) is claimed to be in the kernel, points (2) and (3) are simply impossible for them. They are forbidden to distribute the code which really HAS been GPL'd along with intermingled code which has not. There's just no way around this. Any license which purports to ``legalise'' using non-GPLd code in the kernel infringes upon the copyrights of Linus, et al.
First, you can't claim that they have no right to distribute "stuff that they [...] own".
Rather, it's ``... they have no right to distribute "stuff that they [...] own" along with GPLd stuff they don't own. They can do whatever they like with their own stuff, but they can't distribute it comingled with GPLd code unless they license it under the GPL. Guess I didn't make myself clear on that originally.
Another issue with SCO's efforts to license ``their'' code is IBM's patents. It's quite probable that the code in question (whatever it may turn out to be) infringes upon one or more of IBM's patents. SCO has no right to issue anyone licenses to use someone else's patents, so the whole issue becomes moot. You'll have to get a license from IBM for use. Unless you're distributing code, you still need nothing from SCO. Copyright doesn't preclude use, but patents do.
Second, much of the "stuff that they claim to own" was added to a later version of the kernel.
That would be the only way that they could get away with distributing the kernel: if it's all GPLd. So, SCO believes that no-one needs an SCO license for the 2.4.13 (I think it was) kernel, or SCO believes that it is violating various copyrights, or SCO is cynically engaging in barratry.
Keep in mind that I'm not saying they're right; I'm only saying that THIS defence against them is useless.
If the kernel which they are distributing is really free of SCO's ``property'', then this defence is useless. We can't be sure of that, of course, since we can't be sure what tehy're claiming. It doesn't matter, though, since there are plenty of other defences. Then there are those patents ...
This is a highly rational defence.
Yes, but. Just a couple days ago I went to their ftp site and downloaded a 2.4 kernel. I am not, and never have been, a SCO customer.
They are deliberately distributing the kernel, knowing that stuff they claim to own is in there. Unless they are distributing it under the GPL, they have no right to distribute it at all. Thus, they are either:
a) knowingly, deliberately infringing upon the copyright of Linus, et al, or
b) knowingly, deliberately releasing their stuff under the GPL.
SCO is a) in big trouble, or b) has no case. Or c), both!
Sorry, I couldn't get any of that from the interview. I suppose that you read the German original ... maybe the babelfish obfuscated the good parts.
Think about what you said: HOW can ``copyright law trump the GPL''? If you read the GPL, you'll find that it is based strictly on copyright law. In a nutshell, it says: ``ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. BUT, I'm going to let you make and distribute copies and derivative works, IF you extend the same rights I'm giving you to all to whom you distribute. Don't like the terms of this offer? then ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.''
This isn't taking anything from you, it's offering you something that you wouldn't otherwise have! If I can't make that offer, then people who get the program have no rights to distribute it, period. So, if SCO's goofy theory is right, they're violating the law by distributing Linux.
Actually, I've read nothing but the magazine articles and interviews about this half-baked ``theory''. I'm inclined to believe that what SCO's shysters are proposing is radically different than what is being reported. I suspect that any lawyer who tried that sort of crap in court would face serious professional problems. That's what Moglen was saying, also: that this is frivolous. Whatever SCO's shysters are saying to the press, be prepared NOT to see this argument made in court as it has been presented here.
Yes, it is. Funny you should say that and then follow it with:
Stealing is stealing. Infringing upon someone's copyright is NOT stealing, it's infringing upon their copyright. Stealing is stealing, and using cracked software is something else entirely. That's why each is prohibited by a different law. You can't ``steal'' software unless you grab a boxed set and run out of the store.
That may sound like a trivial distinction, but it's not: it is the heart of the matter. It's this sort of sloppy thinking that makes it so easy for Disney to get copyrights extended another 40 years every time Mickey has a birthday.
It's important to remember that property rights are natural rights, which pre-exist our constitution (that's what our constitution says). Copyrights, patents, and the like are privileges which the constitution allows but does not require Congress to grant. When we equate copyright violation to theft, we blur that distinction, and play into the hands of those who would like to enclose the commons of our cultural heritage.
To use an example I'm familiar with, S-plus costs US$1200 and up. The libre equivalent costs US$0.00. How much do they pay you per hour?
Or were you talking about searching for cracked copies of Reader Rabbit Kindergarten?
Seriously, what you're describing sounds like an end to scarcity, for the basics at least, and that doesn't sound too bad.
Mine are still young enough that I won't know for some years if they have that degree of interest. Of course, for those rare few who have the passion for a single subject to motivate themselves, how much good will college do? Especially in math, where there is no expensive equipment required, and no job prospects from the degree, even if you get a Ph.D.?
Other kids who simply want a broader education can go, also, but they have to have full knowledge ahead of time that magic high-paying jobs just won't materialize before them. They will have to fully accept the fact that society doesn't necessarily reward education over skills, and, if they are okay with that, then they can be happy regardless of the outcome.
That broader education is a very expensive luxury indeed, in opportunity cost, and cash outlay. I'm not sure it makes sense to go into debt to get a degree just for the ``lifestyle''. The fact that the degree probably won't pay for itself just makes it harder to justify.
I think that as my kids get into their late teens, I'll just buy each a pile of steel, help build a boat, and tell them to sail West until they get home. That'll probably do as much for their emotional development and future job prospects as a similar period at college, and cost a damn sight less money.
Extend my sincere sympathy to your friend. I'd rather get a real job than type math in Turd.
I've been thinking about what I'm going to tell my kids when they're ready for work or college in about 10 years. I'm not sure that I'll tell them to start out by going to college.
Really, the paper credentials are only important to impress others. If you have your own business, you may not need them at all.
You're joking, right?
No one uses Word for typesetting math. It simply isn't up to it, even with the third-party add-ons. If you get a moderately complex document (say 10+ pages densely packed with equations), Word will crash when you try to save, or before. The pointy-clicky method of entering equations is so painfully slow that those 10 pages represent many hours' work, too!
All respectable journals (in math, statistics, economics, probably linguistics...) require LaTeX submissions, and provide a stylefile to make it easy. I've never heard of a math book less than 20 years old which wasn't typeset using either LaTeX or plainTeX (LaTeX didn't become available until the late '70s, as I recall).
Probably nothing will happen. The Chinese gov't doen't do anything unless it perceives you as a significant threat.
How true. If they think that people are listening to you, they will kill you. The communist government has thousands of Christians in jail right now, for the crime of going to church. Some of them survive being jailed. The Falun Gong are getting the same treatment, so we can say that the communists are equal opportunity murders.
Now, I haven't been in China for two long weeks, so I can't claim to be an old China hand like the grandparent poster. But I do have friends and classmates who've lived there their entire lives (30+ years each), and I do have some idea about what daily life there is like. You are entirely free there, to do whatever the government has chosen to ignore. If they decide to change their policy, you get shot or sent to jail.
Have you heard about the ``four freedoms'' and ``let a thousand flowers bloom'' campaigns? They encouraged free expression, then rounded up the suckers who'd taken advantage of the temporary slackening of restrictions. That was the same party and the same government (different people, to some extent) that the Chinese are suffering under today.
A>Ah yes, the "free market" by military cooercion. Works every time. You do understand that this behaviour played a significant role in the success of the rise of communism in China in the first place?
There's not much truth in that. Chinese nationalism is a modern development, which is largely a result of that military coercion. Sun Yat Sen made it into a large, popular political movement, which was co-opted by the brigands in the KMT. The KMT was made up of gangsters and warlords, in the traditional Chinese pattern. They were so bad that even Mao's communists looked good by comparison. The old question (in the '50s) was: ``Who lost China?''. The answer (which no-one in the U.S. dared speak out loud) was: ``The KMT.''
>You do understand that this behavior played a significant role in the success of the rise of communism in China in the first place?
You do understand that Commodore Dewey's forcible opening of Japanese society and markets played a significant role in the success of the rise of modern Japanese society?
There's a lot more to this than the fact of intervention. For forcible intervention to have a good effect, the culture in which we intervene has to be prepared to adapt and learn, as the Japanese clearly were.
One of my grandfathers-in-law was the first in his family to get a Western education ... in Japan, between the two world wars. The Japanese did just fine after a bit of military coercion.
And now, changing the subject completely....
But Intellectual "Property" isn't natural law. It's a purely human construct of extremely recent vintage ...
Absolutely!
The coke-bottle junctions on the power supply wires are probably aluminum-->copper connectors, to put a copper pigtail on the end of the aluminum. Not a problem. Ignore them.
The cloth insulation worries me. Is it ``everywhere'' because it's cracking and falling off? How old is that building? You need to have an electrician evaluate the wiring in the building. It may be that the box is the least of your problems. If the building (and thus the wiring) belongs to a landlord, things aren't so bad for you. If the building belongs to your employer, he's not going to want to hear this. Remember, better to quit your job than get blamed for an electrical fire.
Did I mention that you should hire an electrician, AND NOT TOUCH IT YOURSELF?
I'm an electrical engineer (that's what my first diploma says, anyway), I've wired houses, and I used to be familair with the NEC. I would never touch wiring outside of my own home.