Quit dodging the issue with nitpicking. The point is, a lot of people contribute code to GNU/linux, and no one verifies where it came from, how much time the programmer spent working on it, etc. Given that you aren't paid by the hour to write the code, there is a greater incentive to steal the code to achieve the end result.
Aren't you making a case for less freedom and more govt. intrusion with this point? You're basically saying the govt. should spend less time worrying about foreign terrorists, and more time enacting laws to restrict guns, provide more surveilance, etc. to reduce murder in the US.
How many aristocrats were slaughtered during the French Revolution? And then there was Napoleon. The French were as uncivilized as any other country during that period.
Your sense of perspective is completely out of whack. Trying moving to Cuba, N. Korea, Iran, Nigeria, Syria, etc. and live there for awhile. Maybe you'll then you'll get a clue.
You mean their going to make you set the amount of memory an app can use now, so that it takes all that memory whether it needs it or not, and then crashes if it needs more memory.
Since Caldera was around before they bought SCO, they were in violation to begin with, so the GPL license is invalid. Therefore, your arguement that SCO inadvertently gave away their Unix code through their Linux distribution probably won't hold up in court.
Yeah, but when the variable names are identical, and the comments are identical, then you start to assume one piece of code is a copy of the other. I think you're being naive if you don't think SCO understands the difference between similar code and identical code.
What's your time frame? This could take years if the copied code is significant. In the meantime, the courts may force the linux distributors to stop shipping code, and pay SCO damages for the code theft. Many Linux companies will probably go bankrupt under this scenario.
That's all done through the court system. They have evidence that they will present in court. The same thing happened when Cadence sued Avant for stealing their source code. Cadence got a lot of money out of that lawsuit, BTW.
You need a court to tell the Linux community to cease and desist. You don't just call someone on the phone. Also, you don't give the defense advanced notice to shred the evidence. That's only common sense. Instead, you get search warrants and collect evidence 1st.
No. They sue for damages and get the courts to do that. The courts could, in fact, stop all distribution of linux. Serving linux would then be as illegal as serving copyrighted songs. The damages could be pretty high too, since IBM is using linux on their high-end machines. After IBM, they'll sue RedHat, Suse, etc. for some of the money they've made distributing Linux.
That's complete FUD. Why would SCO cause themselves more difficulty by using a legal strategy that ultimately would cause them more harm then good? Most likely they have proof, or they wouldn't have said anything. Given the loose nature of linux coding, I'm not surprised at all that someone with access to SCO code would contribute it to Linux. Hell, Stallman believes all code should be free. Why wouldn't one of his followers steal code given that philosophy?
Without the RIAA's consent Apple couldn't legally do what they're doing, so the 2nd part of your comment makes no sense. The RIAA wants to sell music online. They don't want free trading of music online. As for buying vs. trading freely online, it isn't black and white. Prove to me that Apple's sales wouldn't be double their current rate if p2p didn't exist and maybe I'll buy your 1st point.
"Apple has taken a sensible approach to DRM. They allow you to burn the AAC files to CDs as data files and as audio CDs. The latter will play in ALL players."
I thought Apple was never going to use DRM. How long before Apple has their own version of Palladium?
By contributing to Linux IBM is trying to increase their hardware sales by essentially selling software at a loss (they pay programmers to develop code that they give away). Microsoft will lose business as a result and should be able to sue IBM for antitrust violations since this is illegal.
The artists sign over the copyright to the record labels in their contracts. The RIAA members own the copyrights to most songs, just like publishers, not authors own the copyrights to most books.
Why is this scary. If you're not distributing copytighted material on p2p networks, or not facilitating the copying, you have nothing to worry about. Although some of the students in question did nothing wrong, IMO, if you are allowing people to download copyrighted music from your computer, you are breaking the law, and deserve to be prosecuted.
I believe this is perfectly legal, as long as no more than one person is listening to the same cd at once (or no more than n people for n cds is more than 1 copy is purchased). A library works this way. You don't even need the 10 dollar token. Copyright law involves copying media, not sharing it.
Without lossy compression, the song will take about 10 times the bandwidth and disk space. The powers that be at Apple have decided that lossy compression is the best way to sell reasonable quality audio without using too much resources. As far as ripping a burned cd, that wasn't intended, undoubtably, but if you do rip the burned track, you only have the lossy compression error due to ACC until you then decide to re-encode in another lossy format.
No. The analogy is fine. Without someone watching you at Best Buy, you could not only take stuff for yourself, but for your friends and neighbors as well. Hell, why not give out stuff to random people on the street too, if it isn't too much of an effort to carry.
I didn't see anything in the article actually calling for mandatory open source, only laws allowing the consideration of using open source. The headline was misleading.
Slashdot Mirror
Quit dodging the issue with nitpicking. The point is, a lot of people contribute code to GNU/linux, and no one verifies where it came from, how much time the programmer spent working on it, etc. Given that you aren't paid by the hour to write the code, there is a greater incentive to steal the code to achieve the end result.
Aren't you making a case for less freedom and more govt. intrusion with this point? You're basically saying the govt. should spend less time worrying about foreign terrorists, and more time enacting laws to restrict guns, provide more surveilance, etc. to reduce murder in the US.
public != free.
How many aristocrats were slaughtered during the French Revolution? And then there was Napoleon. The French were as uncivilized as any other country during that period.
Your sense of perspective is completely out of whack. Trying moving to Cuba, N. Korea, Iran, Nigeria, Syria, etc. and live there for awhile. Maybe you'll then you'll get a clue.
You mean their going to make you set the amount of memory an app can use now, so that it takes all that memory whether it needs it or not, and then crashes if it needs more memory.
Since Caldera was around before they bought SCO, they were in violation to begin with, so the GPL license is invalid. Therefore, your arguement that SCO inadvertently gave away their Unix code through their Linux distribution probably won't hold up in court.
What's your point? That SCO should sue themselves as well? If IBM is making money using stolen code, they're liable.
Yeah, but when the variable names are identical, and the comments are identical, then you start to assume one piece of code is a copy of the other. I think you're being naive if you don't think SCO understands the difference between similar code and identical code.
What's your time frame? This could take years if the copied code is significant. In the meantime, the courts may force the linux distributors to stop shipping code, and pay SCO damages for the code theft. Many Linux companies will probably go bankrupt under this scenario.
That's all done through the court system. They have evidence that they will present in court. The same thing happened when Cadence sued Avant for stealing their source code. Cadence got a lot of money out of that lawsuit, BTW.
You need a court to tell the Linux community to cease and desist. You don't just call someone on the phone. Also, you don't give the defense advanced notice to shred the evidence. That's only common sense. Instead, you get search warrants and collect evidence 1st.
No. They sue for damages and get the courts to do that. The courts could, in fact, stop all distribution of linux. Serving linux would then be as illegal as serving copyrighted songs. The damages could be pretty high too, since IBM is using linux on their high-end machines. After IBM, they'll sue RedHat, Suse, etc. for some of the money they've made distributing Linux.
That's complete FUD. Why would SCO cause themselves more difficulty by using a legal strategy that ultimately would cause them more harm then good? Most likely they have proof, or they wouldn't have said anything. Given the loose nature of linux coding, I'm not surprised at all that someone with access to SCO code would contribute it to Linux. Hell, Stallman believes all code should be free. Why wouldn't one of his followers steal code given that philosophy?
Actually SCO claims their code has been copied verbatim and used in Linux. See here.
Without the RIAA's consent Apple couldn't legally do what they're doing, so the 2nd part of your comment makes no sense. The RIAA wants to sell music online. They don't want free trading of music online. As for buying vs. trading freely online, it isn't black and white. Prove to me that Apple's sales wouldn't be double their current rate if p2p didn't exist and maybe I'll buy your 1st point.
"Apple has taken a sensible approach to DRM. They allow you to burn the AAC files to CDs as data files and as audio CDs. The latter will play in ALL players."
I thought Apple was never going to use DRM. How long before Apple has their own version of Palladium?
By contributing to Linux IBM is trying to increase their hardware sales by essentially selling software at a loss (they pay programmers to develop code that they give away). Microsoft will lose business as a result and should be able to sue IBM for antitrust violations since this is illegal.
The artists sign over the copyright to the record labels in their contracts. The RIAA members own the copyrights to most songs, just like publishers, not authors own the copyrights to most books.
I wouldn't destroy my credit rating over a $17K dispute
Why is this scary. If you're not distributing copytighted material on p2p networks, or not facilitating the copying, you have nothing to worry about. Although some of the students in question did nothing wrong, IMO, if you are allowing people to download copyrighted music from your computer, you are breaking the law, and deserve to be prosecuted.
I believe this is perfectly legal, as long as no more than one person is listening to the same cd at once (or no more than n people for n cds is more than 1 copy is purchased). A library works this way. You don't even need the 10 dollar token. Copyright law involves copying media, not sharing it.
Without lossy compression, the song will take about 10 times the bandwidth and disk space. The powers that be at Apple have decided that lossy compression is the best way to sell reasonable quality audio without using too much resources. As far as ripping a burned cd, that wasn't intended, undoubtably, but if you do rip the burned track, you only have the lossy compression error due to ACC until you then decide to re-encode in another lossy format.
No. The analogy is fine. Without someone watching you at Best Buy, you could not only take stuff for yourself, but for your friends and neighbors as well. Hell, why not give out stuff to random people on the street too, if it isn't too much of an effort to carry.
I didn't see anything in the article actually calling for mandatory open source, only laws allowing the consideration of using open source. The headline was misleading.