Ok, MS might not make it the default behavior on the first release. But, and there is always a but, there will be at least one paranoid schizophrenic admin who sets the feature and saves it as the default new document template for all the users in his office. Then the ordinary office users will not even know they have it turned on, and have no idea why any docs they send anyone are not readable. Count on it.
Also, when people do use it correctly to allow someone outside the office to view it, when that person is replaced, they successor may not have access to it. This leads to problems down the road. Problems that might not be discovered until it is too late.
Finally, have you or anyone you know(*) ever modified an incomming document and sent it to someone else ? Who has the right to change permissions on the doc now ? Think about it for a minute.
Of course since MS is so Open Source friendly, you know that no back doors will exist. Also, no script kiddies will ever find a way to exploit this with some stupid worm.</sarcasm>
DeBeers is an even bigger fraud than the RIAA. Diamonds (even natural ones) are not really scarce. Also, the new lab methods do not all rely on the mettalic solvents to create diamonds. One is deposited as plasma, with no extra gunk in the process. They are white diamonds, of unusual perfection.
OK, this is just too polarized. No, the genetically inferior cow isn't going to make you sick. If it had a virus, now that would be a reason not to eat a sick cow, but one that has a congenital heart murmur isn't going to give you one, any more than a regular cow is going to give you horns. Deal with it.
On the other hand, YES, small things can be more dangerous than big things. Many things are dangerous when in a powder or string, but not in the bulk form. Anyone heard of asbestos ? The only time it is dangerous is when is it inhaled, I.E., only when it is small.
Finally, of course no comprehensive study has been performed. Has a truely comprehensive study been done on ANYTHING ? Can you perform the study if you forbid the discipline before it starts ? No. The people claiming we can procede without such a study know that the study can't be performed without proceding, (or they are idiots.) Beware anyone claiming to be reasonable when they say more studying needs to be done before you can begin studying something.
Dean G.
Remember : Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (Maybe up, maybe down...)
No. They should say that SCO's interpretation of derivative product makes UnixWare with the LKP a an illegally distributed (GPL related issues here) derivative of Linux. Therefore, according to SCO's own line of reasoning, every Linux contributor has the rights to demand license fees from UnixWare end users.
Also, because this is SCO's interpretation, they clearly knew this is the case and the same Linux contributors can sue SCO for damages as well as a punative award.
Of course there is no need to show any actual infringing code in the LKP, as demonstrated by SCO in their suit.
4) You've signed a contract with SCO, and your competitors did not. SCO loses in court and no one else has to license anything from SCO, but the contract/license you signed with SCO leaves you at a disadvantage because the contract/license is not the same as the court case and you are either a) stuck with paying a useless license fee (it seems they were looking for perpetual terms IIRC) or b) you have to sue SCO to get out of the contract. Of course even if SCO has lost against IBM, you still may lose this case.
Even worse, if the contract is anything like their other contracts, all of your related works may be encumbered by the contract you sign with SCO. Some people give their rights away or waive them. Only the amazingly gullible pay someone to take their rights away.
So a bottle of Lexmark ink would cost USD 2132.00. Unfortunately, it doesn't taste nearly as good, and goes rather poorly with lobster. The initial bouquet is bad, the nose just aweful, and the horrid taste sticks to you tongue like, well, ink.
It seems to me that if the code violations preceede SCOX's aquisition of Unix from Novell, that Novell may have reason to sue SCOX since SCOX bought Unix from them with money gained by selling Linux.
That would amuse me to say the least. SCO fights the case, gets a determination of infringement, and then Novell sues them because the infringement started before SCOX aquired the rights to Unix, and thus Unix was bought by a Linux company using funds gained by violating the rights of the very code they purchased.
How can SCO win this case ?
Is there even a possible outcome that doesn't hurt SCO as much or more than it helps them ?
Hmm... They supplied some of their customers with code under a GPL license. Doesn't this mean,to honor their contractual obligations, they have to allow their customer to redistribute the GPL'ed code ?
#include
The interesting question is:
If SCO's action depends upon the contact signed by IBM, then how do they intend to pursue any action against those who did not sign any contract ? The derivative line of prosecution probably will not hold up without a contract. I can make all kinds of derivative works that do not infringe upon the rights of the original work.
It may even destroy SCO strategy if the action depends upon the contract. If it does, someone who didn't sign a contact could conceivably put functionally similar code into Linux and SCO could do nothing.
I think SCO is barking like a Yorkie. It wants to be loud because it is the little dog, and the bark in this case is far worse than the bite.
Venus has a much thicker atmosphere, and this makes things easier. Many of the Mars craft have used aerobraking, and there just isn't much room for error when the atmosphere can't be measured in whole number milibars. Another failed attempt dealt with landing, which is also more difficult in a thin atmosphere because parachutes are far less effective. This is why some of the probes resorted to airbags. No one would even think about that on venus. An ugly option, but not much uglier than the alternatives.
On the other hand, once the probes get to Mars, they last much longer than the ones sent to Venus. That is where the hostile environment on Venus becomes and issue.
Comments being duplicated may sound damning, but the opinion of the BSD case seemed to indicate that these had no commercial value. Thus SCO would have a very hard time getting anything ($$$)from the comments.
The souce code is what is important. That does have commercial value. No given that there is some duplication, SCO needs to prove they own the code in question, and they have not released it or licensed it to be used in Linux. This means it isn't in BSD, it isn't something they contributed to Linux, and it isn't something from a third source. They have to prove this, or at least present a preponderance of evidence that this is so (this is a civil case, so I believe (IANAL) that the prepoderance of evidence standard is applied here, not the higher requirements in a criminal case.)
So, by showing that there is some duplication doesn't prove anything. Indeed, it may be evidence that SCO took something from Linux without following the license. Until we have that information, the simple fact of duplication is near meaningless.
BTW, many people have commented on the analyst without apparently reading her analysis. Sure, she is not a UNIX specialist, but neither is she a M$ lapdog. She is often highly critical of M$, and in particular there pricing scheme. She also has quite a bit to say about Linux and BSD, and much of it is possitive. She isn't as pro Linux as the average slasher, but so what. Attack the message, not the messanger. Real debate should focus on the facts, not the people involved.
Does SCO believe that their case for damages would be weakened if the alleged code was removed?
Almost certainly. Think about it a moment : The judge is being asked to award them $1,000,000,000.00 US dollars. They have denigrated Linux developers with bicycle jokes. Imagine the judges reaction when those same developers replace all the $1,000,000,000.00 US dollars worth of IP with 5 days notice. Or even two weeks. What will that say about the value of the code ? They have to hide everything as long as possible. Too bad for them the (alleged) offending code will probably be leaked long before the penalty phase.
What is the code in question ? Perhaps we can figure it out, or at least significantly limit the results by defining what it isn't. For example, in the BSD case:
One fact does seem clear: the
header files, filenames, and function names used by Defendants are
not trade secrets. Defendants could have printed these off of any
of the thousands of unrestricted copies of Plaintiff's binary
object code. (Kashtan Aff. at 9-11.) Moreover, the nonfunctional
elements of the code, such as comments, cannot be trade secrets
because these elements are minimal and confer no competitive
advantage on Defendants.
This can be expanded beyond the BSD case as the logic should hold true and be usable as a precedent for newer pieces that fall under the same definition.
Also, the UNIX and POSIX specifications are not SCO's to hold as trade secrets or IP. Someone else mentioned that OpenServer uses Veritas LVM and JFS, so those are out as well. Caldera assisted in the SMPT implementation of Linux, so they would have little to argue there. The original BSD code has of course already been cleared. Web funcions were developed many places, usually with public money (Isn't Mosaic and the first web servers from CERN for example ?) Of course anything IBM developed and used with their own systems would be protected by IBM's patents et al. Another person mentioned that SCO had published the old UNIX source on their web page at one time. This would seem to me to limit their ability to claim trade secret status on the same. Hmm, I'm not a kernel expert by any stretch, but we are picking out most of the significant elements.
Perhaps someone who is a kernel expert can help me here. Or perhaps you can add to my list of exclusions.
Dean G.
Of all my childhood role-models, I learned the most useful lessons from the Cookie Monster.
Then why did they ever stop distributung Linux ? In my view, their actions speak louder than their words. Of course they have the opinion that they did nothing wrong, and were greatly wronged. Tell me about a plaintiff that didn't publicly say this, and then I'll be surprised.
However, they are trying to say that the fact that they knowingly and willingly continued to distribute their proprietary code under a GPL liscence is ok, just because they didn't add the copyright notice. Hmm, then maybe I'll add some code to Linux that I have copyrighted, but not put any copyright notice on in (indeed, I'll leave it blank.) Then after everyone is using it, I'll try to extort, umm, I mean protect my intellectual property rights. Maybe I'll even give the code to someone else, so I can't be shown to have willingly contributed it. Sounds a bit fishy to me, but aside from my hypotetical intention (which is very hard to prove in court), there is little to no difference with SCO's actions. They knew the code was there, and they knowingly and willingly continued to distribute it as part of a package widely known (and possibly advertised by them as, but I'm speculating) to be open source.
Now if it isn't a problem, then why stop now ? If it is a problem, then they should have stopped immediately. Their actions and words do seem to add up. However, maybe their webpage can show some insight:
The sale of this SCO Linux product to new customers is currently suspended due to intellectual property (IP) issues associated with the Linux operating system. Accordingly, SCO has announced the suspension of its own Linux activities until the issues surrounding Linux IP and the attendant risks are better understood and properly resolved.
Perhaps this is the answer, they simply don't understand all the ramifications. In that light, their actions are quite understandable. They are saying one thing, to make their case, and doing other things to cover their backsides, because they know that in cases like these, the result is rarely completely in one side's favor. It is quite possible for them to have a phyric victory. Remember the Scopes-Monkey Trial ? The creationist won the case, but still lost the war.
Of course I'm not a lawyer, so take this with several hundred milligrams of NaCl.
Dean
Of all the childhood role-models, I learned the most important lessons from the Cookie Monster.
The Apple ][+ I had was as completely open as a computer system could be. The system came with a manual that included the 6502 instruction set and a complete listing of the rom. Many of the components were socketed. There were several general purpose slots. The system came with built in BASIC and an assembler. The docs included a complete schematic of the entire system.
There, the system was completely documented, fairly complete, and seemed designed to be messed with. While the initial configurations were limited to 48k, the slots allowed as much memory to be added as you could power. Granted, it only had a 16 bit address bus to the memory, but bank switching wasn't nearly the huge overhead it is on a XEON PAE setup since the whole system ran on one clock. The slots, the video, the processor, the memory all ran at the same speed, no "wait states" or other bull crap.
Because both the software and hardware were completely open, many peripherals quickly became available. No one seemed to have exactly the same setup, yet rarely were there any hardware conflicts and the such that are so common today.
The software, in addition to being open, was very high quality. Though limited, the DOS worked great. Very fast compared to many other computers of similar vintage. The built in assembler may not have been that great, but it was ALWAYS there. If you did hit an error, the most important tools were built into the ROM. The assembler, the dissasembler, and BASIC were always there when you needed them. Tape access was always there as well. I used a giant reel-to-reel until I could afford a floppy drive (US $600 *cough*).
The system always seemed to attract high quality weirdos. The Beagle Brothers had some great software (with the best ascii animations I can recall), many languages were available for it including PASCAL, FORTRAN, FORTH, C, and god only knows what else. If you wanted to do something different with a computer, this was the plaform for you.
Despite being only an 8 bit machine, it ran almost as fast as the early 16 bit machines. Some things it even did faster. When you needed to do 16 bit math, optomized routines were built into the ROM. Also, many of the early 16 bit machines lacked the open architecture and expandability the Apple had.
I'm sure I'm forgetting things, but the point is it was completely open and very well documented. Sure they enforced their patents against the cloners (Franklin Computers anyone ?), but they didn't prevent the computer's owner (that's you !) from using it how they wanted. It has been down hill from there folks. Now we're happy if just the software is open.
The first I would have to say is "Suspended". If you thought Zork was interesting... Certainly one of the most underated games of all time.
Next I would put Wizardry - Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord. By today's standard it isn't much, but very good playability, and revolutionary for the time and platform (Apple ][). This game caused a lot of people to miss a lot of work for a reason. Fortunately I was just a kid, and only missed school.
Third I would put X-Com. The variety of missions and a research tree in a non-empire game was interesting. Many tactical and strategic elements affected the overall game. The first time through was great because of all the unknowns. Too bad the sequels were boring.
And don't forget the sun ! A free source of non-poluting renewable engergy. We must put the sun out to stop the terrorists from harnessing this massive source of free energy. Oh, wait...
Why do all these novices who probably have never installed a standard version of Windows on a non (Dell, Gateway, et al.) standard PC insist on installing several different versions of Linux on a PC that probably has a ton of hadrware that makes little if any effort to be Linux compatible (compared to XP logo certified for example) ?
Let's make a fair comparision. Install Several versions of Windows and several versions of Linux on the same hardware, with no XP logo certs or Linux certs and see how frustrated the same user gets with both Windows and Linux. Until comparision writers are willing to put Windows through the same test, I have little faith in their objectivity. There are a few places you can buy PC's with Linux pre-installed. If you want to make that comparision to your Dell or Gateway box, then go right ahead. Otherwise you're comparing apples to orange marmalade.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, when people do use it correctly to allow someone outside the office to view it, when that person is replaced, they successor may not have access to it. This leads to problems down the road. Problems that might not be discovered until it is too late.
Finally, have you or anyone you know(*) ever modified an incomming document and sent it to someone else ? Who has the right to change permissions on the doc now ? Think about it for a minute.
Of course since MS is so Open Source friendly, you know that no back doors will exist. Also, no script kiddies will ever find a way to exploit this with some stupid worm.</sarcasm>
Dean G.
Yes, I lied about the Finally part...
That solves it ! Never read a EULA sober.
Dean G.
Three, sire.
Dean
And five is right out.
DeBeers is an even bigger fraud than the RIAA. Diamonds (even natural ones) are not really scarce. Also, the new lab methods do not all rely on the mettalic solvents to create diamonds. One is deposited as plasma, with no extra gunk in the process. They are white diamonds, of unusual perfection.
BTW, Plastic had this a few weeks ago.
Dean G.
On the other hand, YES, small things can be more dangerous than big things. Many things are dangerous when in a powder or string, but not in the bulk form. Anyone heard of asbestos ? The only time it is dangerous is when is it inhaled, I.E., only when it is small.
Finally, of course no comprehensive study has been performed. Has a truely comprehensive study been done on ANYTHING ? Can you perform the study if you forbid the discipline before it starts ? No. The people claiming we can procede without such a study know that the study can't be performed without proceding, (or they are idiots.) Beware anyone claiming to be reasonable when they say more studying needs to be done before you can begin studying something.
Dean G.
Remember : Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (Maybe up, maybe down...)
Boggles the mind.
Dean
No. They should say that SCO's interpretation of derivative product makes UnixWare with the LKP a an illegally distributed (GPL related issues here) derivative of Linux. Therefore, according to SCO's own line of reasoning, every Linux contributor has the rights to demand license fees from UnixWare end users.
Also, because this is SCO's interpretation, they clearly knew this is the case and the same Linux contributors can sue SCO for damages as well as a punative award.
Of course there is no need to show any actual infringing code in the LKP, as demonstrated by SCO in their suit.
Dean G.
Linux users say delay in implementing Gartner Group recommendations due to idiocy.
Dean G.
http://www.hamvention.org
This is a geek event if ever there was one.
Dean G.
You don't mention the worst case scenario :
4) You've signed a contract with SCO, and your competitors did not. SCO loses in court and no one else has to license anything from SCO, but the contract/license you signed with SCO leaves you at a disadvantage because the contract/license is not the same as the court case and you are either
a) stuck with paying a useless license fee (it seems they were looking for perpetual terms IIRC)
or
b) you have to sue SCO to get out of the contract. Of course even if SCO has lost against IBM, you still may lose this case.
Even worse, if the contract is anything like their other contracts, all of your related works may be encumbered by the contract you sign with SCO. Some people give their rights away or waive them. Only the amazingly gullible pay someone to take their rights away.
Sucker !
Dean G.
Dean G.
Thanks to : http://www.xe.com/ucc/
So a bottle of Lexmark ink would cost USD 2132.00. Unfortunately, it doesn't taste nearly as good, and goes rather poorly with lobster. The initial bouquet is bad, the nose just aweful, and the horrid taste sticks to you tongue like, well, ink.
Dean G.
That would amuse me to say the least. SCO fights the case, gets a determination of infringement, and then Novell sues them because the infringement started before SCOX aquired the rights to Unix, and thus Unix was bought by a Linux company using funds gained by violating the rights of the very code they purchased.
How can SCO win this case ?
Is there even a possible outcome that doesn't hurt SCO as much or more than it helps them ?
Dean G.
Dean G.
The interesting question is
If SCO's action depends upon the contact signed by IBM, then how do they intend to pursue any action against those who did not sign any contract ? The derivative line of prosecution probably will not hold up without a contract. I can make all kinds of derivative works that do not infringe upon the rights of the original work.
It may even destroy SCO strategy if the action depends upon the contract. If it does, someone who didn't sign a contact could conceivably put functionally similar code into Linux and SCO could do nothing.
I think SCO is barking like a Yorkie. It wants to be loud because it is the little dog, and the bark in this case is far worse than the bite.
Dean G.
Dean G.
On the other hand, once the probes get to Mars, they last much longer than the ones sent to Venus. That is where the hostile environment on Venus becomes and issue.
Dean G.
The souce code is what is important. That does have commercial value. No given that there is some duplication, SCO needs to prove they own the code in question, and they have not released it or licensed it to be used in Linux. This means it isn't in BSD, it isn't something they contributed to Linux, and it isn't something from a third source. They have to prove this, or at least present a preponderance of evidence that this is so (this is a civil case, so I believe (IANAL) that the prepoderance of evidence standard is applied here, not the higher requirements in a criminal case.)
So, by showing that there is some duplication doesn't prove anything. Indeed, it may be evidence that SCO took something from Linux without following the license. Until we have that information, the simple fact of duplication is near meaningless.
BTW, many people have commented on the analyst without apparently reading her analysis. Sure, she is not a UNIX specialist, but neither is she a M$ lapdog. She is often highly critical of M$, and in particular there pricing scheme. She also has quite a bit to say about Linux and BSD, and much of it is possitive. She isn't as pro Linux as the average slasher, but so what. Attack the message, not the messanger. Real debate should focus on the facts, not the people involved.
Dean G.
Almost certainly. Think about it a moment : The judge is being asked to award them $1,000,000,000.00 US dollars. They have denigrated Linux developers with bicycle jokes. Imagine the judges reaction when those same developers replace all the $1,000,000,000.00 US dollars worth of IP with 5 days notice. Or even two weeks. What will that say about the value of the code ? They have to hide everything as long as possible. Too bad for them the (alleged) offending code will probably be leaked long before the penalty phase.
Dean G.
This can be expanded beyond the BSD case as the logic should hold true and be usable as a precedent for newer pieces that fall under the same definition.
Also, the UNIX and POSIX specifications are not SCO's to hold as trade secrets or IP. Someone else mentioned that OpenServer uses Veritas LVM and JFS, so those are out as well. Caldera assisted in the SMPT implementation of Linux, so they would have little to argue there. The original BSD code has of course already been cleared. Web funcions were developed many places, usually with public money (Isn't Mosaic and the first web servers from CERN for example ?) Of course anything IBM developed and used with their own systems would be protected by IBM's patents et al. Another person mentioned that SCO had published the old UNIX source on their web page at one time. This would seem to me to limit their ability to claim trade secret status on the same. Hmm, I'm not a kernel expert by any stretch, but we are picking out most of the significant elements.
Perhaps someone who is a kernel expert can help me here. Or perhaps you can add to my list of exclusions.
Dean G.
Of all my childhood role-models, I learned the most useful lessons from the Cookie Monster.
However, they are trying to say that the fact that they knowingly and willingly continued to distribute their proprietary code under a GPL liscence is ok, just because they didn't add the copyright notice. Hmm, then maybe I'll add some code to Linux that I have copyrighted, but not put any copyright notice on in (indeed, I'll leave it blank.) Then after everyone is using it, I'll try to extort, umm, I mean protect my intellectual property rights. Maybe I'll even give the code to someone else, so I can't be shown to have willingly contributed it. Sounds a bit fishy to me, but aside from my hypotetical intention (which is very hard to prove in court), there is little to no difference with SCO's actions. They knew the code was there, and they knowingly and willingly continued to distribute it as part of a package widely known (and possibly advertised by them as, but I'm speculating) to be open source.
Now if it isn't a problem, then why stop now ? If it is a problem, then they should have stopped immediately. Their actions and words do seem to add up. However, maybe their webpage can show some insight :
Perhaps this is the answer, they simply don't understand all the ramifications. In that light, their actions are quite understandable. They are saying one thing, to make their case, and doing other things to cover their backsides, because they know that in cases like these, the result is rarely completely in one side's favor. It is quite possible for them to have a phyric victory. Remember the Scopes-Monkey Trial ? The creationist won the case, but still lost the war.
Of course I'm not a lawyer, so take this with several hundred milligrams of NaCl.
Dean
Of all the childhood role-models, I learned the most important lessons from the Cookie Monster.
There, the system was completely documented, fairly complete, and seemed designed to be messed with. While the initial configurations were limited to 48k, the slots allowed as much memory to be added as you could power. Granted, it only had a 16 bit address bus to the memory, but bank switching wasn't nearly the huge overhead it is on a XEON PAE setup since the whole system ran on one clock. The slots, the video, the processor, the memory all ran at the same speed, no "wait states" or other bull crap.
Because both the software and hardware were completely open, many peripherals quickly became available. No one seemed to have exactly the same setup, yet rarely were there any hardware conflicts and the such that are so common today.
The software, in addition to being open, was very high quality. Though limited, the DOS worked great. Very fast compared to many other computers of similar vintage. The built in assembler may not have been that great, but it was ALWAYS there. If you did hit an error, the most important tools were built into the ROM. The assembler, the dissasembler, and BASIC were always there when you needed them. Tape access was always there as well. I used a giant reel-to-reel until I could afford a floppy drive (US $600 *cough*).
The system always seemed to attract high quality weirdos. The Beagle Brothers had some great software (with the best ascii animations I can recall), many languages were available for it including PASCAL, FORTRAN, FORTH, C, and god only knows what else. If you wanted to do something different with a computer, this was the plaform for you.
Despite being only an 8 bit machine, it ran almost as fast as the early 16 bit machines. Some things it even did faster. When you needed to do 16 bit math, optomized routines were built into the ROM. Also, many of the early 16 bit machines lacked the open architecture and expandability the Apple had.
I'm sure I'm forgetting things, but the point is it was completely open and very well documented. Sure they enforced their patents against the cloners (Franklin Computers anyone ?), but they didn't prevent the computer's owner (that's you !) from using it how they wanted. It has been down hill from there folks. Now we're happy if just the software is open.
Dean G.
Send my regards to Trebor and Werdna !
Next I would put Wizardry - Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord. By today's standard it isn't much, but very good playability, and revolutionary for the time and platform (Apple ][). This game caused a lot of people to miss a lot of work for a reason. Fortunately I was just a kid, and only missed school.
Third I would put X-Com. The variety of missions and a research tree in a non-empire game was interesting. Many tactical and strategic elements affected the overall game. The first time through was great because of all the unknowns. Too bad the sequels were boring.
Dean G.
Dean G.
Let's make a fair comparision. Install Several versions of Windows and several versions of Linux on the same hardware, with no XP logo certs or Linux certs and see how frustrated the same user gets with both Windows and Linux. Until comparision writers are willing to put Windows through the same test, I have little faith in their objectivity. There are a few places you can buy PC's with Linux pre-installed. If you want to make that comparision to your Dell or Gateway box, then go right ahead. Otherwise you're comparing apples to orange marmalade.
Dean G.