1. The USL settlement, to which Novell was a party, as they had bought the rights to UNIX from USL just before the settlement. This settlement was caused by a prior finding by the judge in that case that USL owned few protectable copyrights to UNIX, as they and AT&T (the original owner of UNIX) had done too little to protect that material. Much of what they claimed was also not theirs to begin with, as it was contributed by Berkely and others over the years. These are the same UNIX copyrights that tSCOg has claimed that IBM violated. Claims that tSCOg, by the way, is no longer making under Copyright Law in the IBM case (see #2).
2. The tSCOg vs. IBM lawsuit has now come down to contract violations only -- no patents, trademarks, or copyright claims by tSCOg have survived discovery -- let alone IBM's upcoming PSJs (see #1). This is the contract that tSCOg claims to be a party since they claim to be a successor in interest from AT&T through USL, Novell, and oldSCO. The same contract that Novel is claiming that they are violating (see #3).
3. Novell's counterclaims, including Lanham Act violations and the fact that *they*, and not tSCOg, by all evidence given so far, own the what few copyrights in UNIX that tSCOg claims IBM violated. Recall that Novell, under the original oldSCO contracts, also has the ability, which they used, to tell tSCOg to cease their claims against IBM -- which tSCOg ignored.
Recall that under the original Novell-oldSCO contract (with the original Santa Cruz Organization, not the current tSCOg knock-off), tSCOg collects royalties for Novell for all UNIX sales, for which tSCOg receives 5% as a collector's fee. Novell's counterclaims include the fact that tSCOg have not forwarded any monies they received from their SCOSource, or from the "UNIX license fees" they accepted from Microsoft and Sun. Nor did tSCOg allow Novell to review those new licenses so that they could accept or deny the terms, which was also their right under the original contract. Nor has tSCOg allowed Novell to audit the collection of fees for those licenses and tSCOg's other licensing collections to ascertain whether they fell under the terms of the original Novell-oldSCO contract.
Thus Novell is also asking the court to freeze $30 million in tSCOg's assets until the court can either determine whether tSCOg owes Novell for those licenses or forces tSCOg to allow Novell their audit rights enumerated in the original Novell-oldSCO contract.
Novell has also started an arbitration against tSCOg to counter tSCOg's claims that SUSE Linux, which Novell now owns, is violating tSCOg's UNIX copyrights by distributing Linux. This arbitration is based upon contracts made between tSCOg, SUSE, and may other members, including Red Hat, of the United Linux consortium whereby no member could sue any others over copyrights, patents, or trademarks contributed or used by any of the members. The same code base that Caldera and then tSCOg, as they renamed themselves, distributed under the GPL well after they began their litigations (see #5).
4. Among the defenses that IBM will use themselves, beyond proving that IBM made no copyright or contract violations with their contributions of their own code to Linux, are the same claims made by Novell (i.e. Novell and not tSCOg own the copyrights that tSCOg claims IBM violated, Novell told tSCOg to cease their claims against IBM, etc.).
5. Among the counterclaims IBM has made are Lanham Act violations by tSCOg and the claim that tSCOg has violated the GPL in how they themselves distributed Linux (this is also the basis for many of IBM's defenses, as well).
6. Red Hat has a lawsuit, currently stayed, whereby they claim Lanham Act violations by tSCOg.
I hope you can now see how intricately bound tSCOg has become in their own misdeeds and deceits.
Based upon the above, and much more, it is my opinion, for what it's worth (as IANAL), but which coincides with many others' opinions (including several ex-lawyers) on GrokLaw, tha
Download it once -- for free -- and check for updates regularly.
Besides the fact that it's free (as in beer), it's also free (as in speech), and also free (as in format -- ODF anyone?).
Why use a web-based applet to create documents that aren't yours (stored on a server you may or may not control), that requires an internet connection to use (and forget dial-up!), or that stores the resulting document in a hack of a closed format that is troublesome to maintain and constantly changing and will be obsolete in a year?
Just give me OOo.org 2.x and its derivatives and I'll be fine.
The best proof of this is the fact that the USA hasn't gone back to the moon in almost 40 years.
In fact, in was recently stated that we don't currently have the technology to do it again and would have to reinvent a lot of it. It'd be better because of advances in space technology, etc., but it would still need to be redone.
All this can be easily explained -- the USSR didn't compete with the USA in placing bases on the moon, so the USA turned back inwards and ignored one its greatest triumphs.
Just as legalizing alcohol after the repeal of Prohibition didn't turn America into a country of drunks, so shall legalizing drugs not turn America into a country of potheads. And with drugs legal, their cost would drop, the incentives for "pushing" would disappear (you don't see people "pushing" cigarettes or alcohol, do you?), as would the whole villainous drug cartel, people would be more willing to seek treatment... all sorts of wonderful things would happen, honest. I for one think the Drug War is simply an untenable position; sooner or later the government will abandon it, and then you'll see how much better off we are without it.
That's right - turn a growing government expenditure into a money maker. The Federal and State governments make a lot of money from Cigarettes and Alcohol.
And that is used to fund the only restrictions required -- bootlegging
I wonder if they'll include a "home grown" allotment for pot, etc. like they've done for beer and wine?
You REALLY need to go to GROKLAW and do some research. You'll quickly find that SCO lawyers appear to be brain dead from some of the arguments they're making.
If he were, in fact, a Liberal, as you maintain, then his arguments would have been reversed. Liberals are the ones who seem to fear anything that can be construed as a weapon, fear anybody having a mind of his own, and marginalize anybody who dares to speak up and point out that their arguments are illogical.
Liberals want Big Daddy to do everything for us; to watch over us, to guard us, to tell us what to think and do -- all for our own protection, of course (especially the children). There is no room in their world for people who can think for themselves, defend themselves and their families, or speak for themselves.
The last I looked, politicians like Diane Feinstein, Charles Schumer, and Ted Kennedy were all considered Liberal members of a political party that is labeled such. It is politicians like these that are some of the most outspoken proponents for gun control and "zero tolerance" laws.
My experience is of the opposite. Most programmers I know write horrible documentation - they're more fixated on process than description.
Coding can be the easiest part of software development - especially if you've done your "homework" and created a design from which to work. The design can be as simple as complicated as you want or need. When I design for myself, I usually write it in pseudocode or simple rules that I can easily convert to code as I go. When I write a design or specification that others will need to follow, it must be much more complicated and complete.
Some programmers can write well-formed and well-running code just as fast they can think about the process -- just as some writers can churn almost perfect prose out with little effort just as fast as they think of the "scenes" or arguments they're making.
Other programmers must endlessly work on their code. Some because they have no idea where they're going, others because they start with a rough outline that they have to build upon and evolve to its final state. Just as some writers must spend an inordinate amount of time "polishing" their work before submitting it.
I believe it has as much to do with experience as it does with talent and skill.
It also depends greatly upon "subject matter". Pure calculative and processing programs are much easler to write than highly interactive GUIs. Just as technical help documentation or simple descriptive catalogs are much easier to write than screenplays or novels.
Make a misspelling, or grammatical error in a novel? Oops, guess it'll be corrected for the next printing.
Depending upon what language you're using, most mispellings will be caught by the compiler. Unless the misspelling happens to coincide with a simliar keyword, variable name, model/function/subroutine name, etc., you'll easily catch the former on a compile. The latter may require more work. The compiler, in this case, acts similar to spelling and grammar checkers.
A similar procedure works for syntactical errors, if you'd like to compare them to grammatical errors. Logical errors (and similar word misspellings) require a little more time, if that's what you would compare them to grammatical errors. This is where a good test suite is like a good proof reader.
Good software engineers, like good authors, use tools and processes to reduce the time spent finding and fixing problems before they are submitted to the tester (or editor). Good testers, like good editors or proof readers, use tools and processes to reduce the time spent finding and reporting problems to be fixed before distributing (or publishing) the final product.
The point is that, since Congress hasn't declared war, the President may halt military action and recall the troops without the requirement to involve Congress in ratifying any peace agreement, etc.
OTOH, if Congress had made a declaration of war, the President would be constrained to end the war based upon their constraints and ratification.
Also, as I stated, Congress can force the President to end military activities and recall the troops at any time they can agree on a resolution to do so.
Thus a change in leadership in either Congress or the Presidency in November will allow recall of the troops without long and involved negotiations and consultaions between the Legislative and Executive branches of the government (and the "opposing" parties). This would not be the case if Congress had declared war.
Only Congress may make a declaration of War, which it hasn't. Also, who would you declare war against?
This is no more a war than the War Against Drugs was. Just because the President indicates that he wants to manage a campaign, be it anti-drug, anti-terrorist, anti-poverty, etc. doesn't make it a "war".
The only reason our military is able to engage hostile forces in Afghanistan and Iraq is because Congress LETS the President do so. He would have only been able to conduct military operations for 90 days without Congress' OK, according to the War Powers Act passed during Vietnam. The WPA also allows Congress to pass a resolution at anytime that will force the President to halt those military opertions within 90 days of the resolution.
Congress can end it anytime they can get their collective a-, er opinions, to agree to it by passing a resolution, cutting the revenue, and prohibiting the transfer of forces into the theatres of operation.
"Helium causes death??? Come on; get real. Helium is an inert gas (if you don't know what inert means, look it up). It is not a poison and it cannot hurt you by breathing it. Divers use a mixture of helium and oxygen when they go deep because pressurized nitrogen is poisoness. The only way that helium could hurt you is if you were breathing pure helium (no oxygen). You would pass out and eventually die from a lack of oxygen not from any property of helium. This is true of any gas that you might breath that does not contain oxygen.
If you are sucking on a helium filled balloon and start to get light headed, just pull the balloon out of your mouth and take a breath of normal air. If you don't stop sucking on the balloon when you get light headed, you will probably drop it when you pass out and the problem will fix itself."
Please stop spouting Urban Legends that have no validity.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, we could only afford Sea Bass...
N/T
Brilliant! I love guiness...
1. The USL settlement, to which Novell was a party, as they had bought the rights to UNIX from USL just before the settlement. This settlement was caused by a prior finding by the judge in that case that USL owned few protectable copyrights to UNIX, as they and AT&T (the original owner of UNIX) had done too little to protect that material. Much of what they claimed was also not theirs to begin with, as it was contributed by Berkely and others over the years. These are the same UNIX copyrights that tSCOg has claimed that IBM violated. Claims that tSCOg, by the way, is no longer making under Copyright Law in the IBM case (see #2).
2. The tSCOg vs. IBM lawsuit has now come down to contract violations only -- no patents, trademarks, or copyright claims by tSCOg have survived discovery -- let alone IBM's upcoming PSJs (see #1). This is the contract that tSCOg claims to be a party since they claim to be a successor in interest from AT&T through USL, Novell, and oldSCO. The same contract that Novel is claiming that they are violating (see #3).
3. Novell's counterclaims, including Lanham Act violations and the fact that *they*, and not tSCOg, by all evidence given so far, own the what few copyrights in UNIX that tSCOg claims IBM violated. Recall that Novell, under the original oldSCO contracts, also has the ability, which they used, to tell tSCOg to cease their claims against IBM -- which tSCOg ignored.
Recall that under the original Novell-oldSCO contract (with the original Santa Cruz Organization, not the current tSCOg knock-off), tSCOg collects royalties for Novell for all UNIX sales, for which tSCOg receives 5% as a collector's fee. Novell's counterclaims include the fact that tSCOg have not forwarded any monies they received from their SCOSource, or from the "UNIX license fees" they accepted from Microsoft and Sun. Nor did tSCOg allow Novell to review those new licenses so that they could accept or deny the terms, which was also their right under the original contract. Nor has tSCOg allowed Novell to audit the collection of fees for those licenses and tSCOg's other licensing collections to ascertain whether they fell under the terms of the original Novell-oldSCO contract.
Thus Novell is also asking the court to freeze $30 million in tSCOg's assets until the court can either determine whether tSCOg owes Novell for those licenses or forces tSCOg to allow Novell their audit rights enumerated in the original Novell-oldSCO contract.
Novell has also started an arbitration against tSCOg to counter tSCOg's claims that SUSE Linux, which Novell now owns, is violating tSCOg's UNIX copyrights by distributing Linux. This arbitration is based upon contracts made between tSCOg, SUSE, and may other members, including Red Hat, of the United Linux consortium whereby no member could sue any others over copyrights, patents, or trademarks contributed or used by any of the members. The same code base that Caldera and then tSCOg, as they renamed themselves, distributed under the GPL well after they began their litigations (see #5).
4. Among the defenses that IBM will use themselves, beyond proving that IBM made no copyright or contract violations with their contributions of their own code to Linux, are the same claims made by Novell (i.e. Novell and not tSCOg own the copyrights that tSCOg claims IBM violated, Novell told tSCOg to cease their claims against IBM, etc.).
5. Among the counterclaims IBM has made are Lanham Act violations by tSCOg and the claim that tSCOg has violated the GPL in how they themselves distributed Linux (this is also the basis for many of IBM's defenses, as well).
6. Red Hat has a lawsuit, currently stayed, whereby they claim Lanham Act violations by tSCOg.
I hope you can now see how intricately bound tSCOg has become in their own misdeeds and deceits.
Based upon the above, and much more, it is my opinion, for what it's worth (as IANAL), but which coincides with many others' opinions (including several ex-lawyers) on GrokLaw, tha
Try GURPS Old West, by Steve Jackson Games.
Download it once -- for free -- and check for updates regularly.
Besides the fact that it's free (as in beer), it's also free (as in speech), and also free (as in format -- ODF anyone?).
Why use a web-based applet to create documents that aren't yours (stored on a server you may or may not control), that requires an internet connection to use (and forget dial-up!), or that stores the resulting document in a hack of a closed format that is troublesome to maintain and constantly changing and will be obsolete in a year?
Just give me OOo.org 2.x and its derivatives and I'll be fine.
Don't fix it if it ain't broken.
The best proof of this is the fact that the USA hasn't gone back to the moon in almost 40 years.
In fact, in was recently stated that we don't currently have the technology to do it again and would have to reinvent a lot of it. It'd be better because of advances in space technology, etc., but it would still need to be redone.
All this can be easily explained -- the USSR didn't compete with the USA in placing bases on the moon, so the USA turned back inwards and ignored one its greatest triumphs.
"In peace for all mankind".
I'll swat it, too, even though I am in the US.
Hmmm..... on second thought, I won't swat it.
I'll just shoot the ^%$#@!! -- it's big enough.
S C O
That's right - turn a growing government expenditure into a money maker. The Federal and State governments make a lot of money from Cigarettes and Alcohol.
And that is used to fund the only restrictions required -- bootlegging
I wonder if they'll include a "home grown" allotment for pot, etc. like they've done for beer and wine?
Yes.
You REALLY need to go to GROKLAW and do some research. You'll quickly find that SCO lawyers appear to be brain dead from some of the arguments they're making.
Look at the first graph -- that gives you your first big hint.
I admit the parody is pretty subtle, but most people should "get it" by the end of the article.
Then play against the bots until you're good enough to take on the big boys...
Get a motorcycle.
Give them the S L O W computer, reduce their bandwidth so their timing is off, run sub-processes in the background to slow response, etc.
Remember, old age and treachery will get them every time!
On the plus side (or just a very good excuse to the spousal unit) is that they're learning to spot somebody doing that to them in real life...
HIS hypocrisy?
If he were, in fact, a Liberal, as you maintain, then his arguments would have been reversed. Liberals are the ones who seem to fear anything that can be construed as a weapon, fear anybody having a mind of his own, and marginalize anybody who dares to speak up and point out that their arguments are illogical.
Liberals want Big Daddy to do everything for us; to watch over us, to guard us, to tell us what to think and do -- all for our own protection, of course (especially the children). There is no room in their world for people who can think for themselves, defend themselves and their families, or speak for themselves.
The last I looked, politicians like Diane Feinstein, Charles Schumer, and Ted Kennedy were all considered Liberal members of a political party that is labeled such. It is politicians like these that are some of the most outspoken proponents for gun control and "zero tolerance" laws.
...and learn to type!
My experience is of the opposite. Most programmers I know write horrible documentation - they're more fixated on process than description.
Coding can be the easiest part of software development - especially if you've done your "homework" and created a design from which to work. The design can be as simple as complicated as you want or need. When I design for myself, I usually write it in pseudocode or simple rules that I can easily convert to code as I go. When I write a design or specification that others will need to follow, it must be much more complicated and complete.
Some programmers can write well-formed and well-running code just as fast they can think about the process -- just as some writers can churn almost perfect prose out with little effort just as fast as they think of the "scenes" or arguments they're making.
Other programmers must endlessly work on their code. Some because they have no idea where they're going, others because they start with a rough outline that they have to build upon and evolve to its final state. Just as some writers must spend an inordinate amount of time "polishing" their work before submitting it.
I believe it has as much to do with experience as it does with talent and skill.
It also depends greatly upon "subject matter". Pure calculative and processing programs are much easler to write than highly interactive GUIs. Just as technical help documentation or simple descriptive catalogs are much easier to write than screenplays or novels.
Depending upon what language you're using, most mispellings will be caught by the compiler. Unless the misspelling happens to coincide with a simliar keyword, variable name, model/function/subroutine name, etc., you'll easily catch the former on a compile. The latter may require more work. The compiler, in this case, acts similar to spelling and grammar checkers.
A similar procedure works for syntactical errors, if you'd like to compare them to grammatical errors. Logical errors (and similar word misspellings) require a little more time, if that's what you would compare them to grammatical errors. This is where a good test suite is like a good proof reader.
Good software engineers, like good authors, use tools and processes to reduce the time spent finding and fixing problems before they are submitted to the tester (or editor). Good testers, like good editors or proof readers, use tools and processes to reduce the time spent finding and reporting problems to be fixed before distributing (or publishing) the final product.
The point is that, since Congress hasn't declared war, the President may halt military action and recall the troops without the requirement to involve Congress in ratifying any peace agreement, etc.
OTOH, if Congress had made a declaration of war, the President would be constrained to end the war based upon their constraints and ratification.
Also, as I stated, Congress can force the President to end military activities and recall the troops at any time they can agree on a resolution to do so.
Thus a change in leadership in either Congress or the Presidency in November will allow recall of the troops without long and involved negotiations and consultaions between the Legislative and Executive branches of the government (and the "opposing" parties). This would not be the case if Congress had declared war.
Only Congress may make a declaration of War, which it hasn't. Also, who would you declare war against?
This is no more a war than the War Against Drugs was. Just because the President indicates that he wants to manage a campaign, be it anti-drug, anti-terrorist, anti-poverty, etc. doesn't make it a "war".
The only reason our military is able to engage hostile forces in Afghanistan and Iraq is because Congress LETS the President do so. He would have only been able to conduct military operations for 90 days without Congress' OK, according to the War Powers Act passed during Vietnam. The WPA also allows Congress to pass a resolution at anytime that will force the President to halt those military opertions within 90 days of the resolution.
Congress can end it anytime they can get their collective a-, er opinions, to agree to it by passing a resolution, cutting the revenue, and prohibiting the transfer of forces into the theatres of operation.
"Helium causes death??? Come on; get real. Helium is an inert gas (if you don't know what inert means, look it up). It is not a poison and it cannot hurt you by breathing it. Divers use a mixture of helium and oxygen when they go deep because pressurized nitrogen is poisoness. The only way that helium could hurt you is if you were breathing pure helium (no oxygen). You would pass out and eventually die from a lack of oxygen not from any property of helium. This is true of any gas that you might breath that does not contain oxygen.
If you are sucking on a helium filled balloon and start to get light headed, just pull the balloon out of your mouth and take a breath of normal air. If you don't stop sucking on the balloon when you get light headed, you will probably drop it when you pass out and the problem will fix itself."
Please stop spouting Urban Legends that have no validity.
Um, because "local" time IS GMT ?
And that right should NOT extend to their heirs!
Er, "Frogs" is a derogatory term for the French -- not the English.
For that you want "Limeys", amongst others.