History, pal. They said that about the entire microcomputer market at one time, and that market includes 99% of the people on this site. If there's no profit in the low end, that's because they don't know how to tap it.
The reasons to have your next PC upgrade be a Mac keep increasing, and the only thing that might make the PC platform attractive are the rumors that HP will be releasing an Opteron soon. Personally I can't wait till I can have a 64-bit desktop machine with built in Gigabit.
The main reason that I'll be waiting for is the ability to be able to put together a pretty good system for $600. I love MacOS, but until they go after the low end, there are a lot of us who will keep dual-booting linux (or BSD) and windows. No troll or flame here, but isn't it about time that Apple offered a Mac for less than $1000 that isn't completely ancient (ie, no 600 MHz iMac please). Why do they still completely forsake the low end?
Catchers are required to stay inside the Catcher's Box (that area behind the plate in between the 2 batter's boxes) until the pitch is released. Nowadays, it's commonplace to find catchers lining up on the outside batter's box line, one whole half of their body outside the box. Umpire's just ignore it.
Don't get me started on that. That's a good point - the way that the catcher's box and the batter's boxes aren't regulated creates serious problems for the game. You address the catcher's box - you have catchers setting up outside, then they have the audacity to get pissed if the batter sees this out of his peripheral vision.
And how about the batter's box - you have guys standing behind it and inside of it, meaning they're practically sitting on the catcher. I've seen the catcher get called for interference when the bat hit his glove - because the batter was like a foot behind the box. And they lean over the plate, then charge the mound if the pitcher throws an inch inside off the plate. All these situations could be fixed by having umps apply the damned rules.
This should be protected by the first sale principle of the copyright law. I buy a video, I hire clean flicks to remove the stuff I don't want my kids to see. I keep the edited copy they make. The MPAA hates the first sale principle, but there would be no such things as public libraries, used book stores, or used CDs without it.
Last I checked, the **AA and the book publishers' organizations hated public libraries, used book stores, and used CDs. They've argued that libraries should pay royalties, that selling used books and CDs should be illegal, etc. So don't be surprised at this stance.
What any ballplayer will tell you is that the plate ump's most important job is to call a consistent strike zone over the course of the game--pitchers and hitters can adjust quickly if the ump has been giving the pitcher the benefit of the doubt on the outside corner or the pitch at the knees all day. Normally, I think that rules are there for a reason and should be followed precisely--if you don't like the rule, change it, don't violate it.
Damn straight. If they can't even do that they don't deserve a job. So any further discussion takes that as an assumption. However, I don't believe in that "benefit of the doubt" crap. If it's a strike, call it a strike. I've never agreed with giving the rookie a strikezone the size of a thimble, but giving Maddux a zone the size of a truck. I don't like that for the same reason I don't watch professional wrestling or the NBA: it's fake.
However, ball/strike calls are always quite a bit subjective
I would contend that is the entire problem. Clean that "each ump has his own zone" thing and it's no longer subjective. I consider that a Good Thing.
The major league strike zone has long tended to be a bit shorter (knees to a bit above the belt rather than knees to halfway between the belt and the shoulders) and a bit wider (a ball width or two wider than the plate itself) than the rulebook strike zone, which makes the game better by allowing finesse pitchers to make good pitches, without calling any locations that hitters simply can't reach a strike.
That's been mainly recently since baseball hasn't had a commissioner to ensure that the umps do their jobs. I'm fairly sure that this was not the case in the 70's, and even in the early 90's it wasn't a problem like it is now. And if the strikezone would be better if changed, change it. But allowing an ump to have "his own" zone is retarded. We don't let NFL officials decide to widen the field, do we? It would be pretty stupid, huh? Well, the plate is as well-defined a boundary as the NFL field.
Also, human umpires are much more likely to call a strike if the catcher makes the pitch good: if the catcher sets up on the outside corner, and the pitcher puts it right in the middle of the glove, a good ump will call it a strike, where as if the catcher sets up on the inside corner, and the pitch goes to the outside corner, making the catcher lunge across the plate to catch the pitch, the pitcher is not getting the call if it's close.
Quite frankly, I would say it's the umps we need to get RID of that are fooled by this junk. Yes, a good catcher can frame pitches. Why is this a good thing? There is NOTHING in the rule book to suggest the legitimacy of this sort of nonsense. So if a pitcher sets his catcher up a foot outside the strike zone and hits his spot, it's a strike? I don't think so. If an NFL receiver runs his route out of bounds and the QB launches a perfect throw to him, is it a catch? No! Baseball seems to be a little overboard with this junk.
Part of the reason for this is that the catcher is making the ump look like a fool by calling the pitch a strike if the catcher has to lunge for it. All the umpires in the stands have no idea if a pitch is inside or outside--you simply can't tell unless you're right behind the plate.
Well, now that we have the Questec system, he can set aside his fear of actually doing his job since the system will back him up. Additionally, the angle on freaking TV is good enough to call balls and strikes pretty accurately if you know how to account for the distortion, which is easy for lifelong baseball fans. And any umpire that would intentionally blow a call to avoid getting the fans on his back doesn't deserve a job.
The catcher's movement is all that most fans and players on the bench have to go by, so the catcher is expected to help the ump to make the call on a close pitch.
I wasn't aware the catcher was a neutral observer in this situation. The catcher's job is t
Proprietary software wouldn't make them much more money.
And if it's not their proprietary software, perhaps less unless they spin the sale well. If you're mainly a "solutions" comany, every dime your customer spends on non-free(beer) software is money you don't get.
Google is a brand at this point. It's a verb. It's as ingrained at this point as "Band Aid" for adhesive strip.
Certainly helps, but there have been other "ubiquitous" brands that have significantly lost marketshare if not gone under. Frisbee doesn't make all the world's flying disks. People use Curad, too, instead of Band-Aid. People use Puffs probably more than Kleenex. Pepsi has marketshare, despite Coke being generic for "soft-drink" in some areas. I don't know what Xerox's marketshare is, but they have a great deal of competition.
The question becomes whether the verb google becomes detached from the site google.com. Hell, it's pretty much happened now with the noun Unix - people no longer (thank God!) associate it with a single product, despite the fact it once was (I know I'm glossing over some licensing issues here, but bear with me).
The point is, if the thing ends up getting "generic-ed," in the eyes of consumers if not lawyers, then being ubiquitous may not help their marketshare.
I find that unlikely since the QuesTec system seems to show that umpires call slightly fewer strikes than they should (32.1% to 31.4%). To clarify, I believe this actually occurred, but I doubt that this umpire was forced to call a ball when the pitch was actually a strike. Most likely, he was forced to correctly call a ball instead of incorrectly calling a strike.
That's what I meant. Ball was off the plate, to him it was a "strike," but according to the rulebook it was a ball, and the machine made him call it a ball. Sounds good to me.
...is that it's not uniform, being installed in 13 (as opposed to the 10 that Taco quotes) of the 31 MLB stadiums (counting Hiram Bithorn in Puerto Rico). Umpires have admitted calling games different (ie, correctly) when they're in a stadium that has Questec.
I recall that one catcher was supposedly told by an umpire that he wanted to call a lot of those pitches strikes, but he couldn't. Catcher seemed to think this was a bad thing. So, in other words, the umpire admits that he doesn't typically enforce the rules as written unless outright forced to? Sounds like he's completely justifying the existence of the machines to me. Maybe now Atlanta pitchers won't get their customary strike zone that stretches between the home and visiting dugouts?
Why does "free" software need a different set of UI guidelines from "open-source" software? Technically, the two are exactly the same. It is only philisophically (and sometimes legally) that they differ.
And in the fact that getting the "free" software people to spend their time writing code instead of talking about what to call the project is impossible. You want to actually get something done, leave the ideologues out of it.
I can imagine that IBM might care about the GPL. After all, it gives them....
OK, but if the GPL got weakened, how much of that would change? BSD does pretty well without it. And I imagine if some judge struck some aspect of the GPL as illegal, IBM's business plan would be scarcely altered.
So, don't be naive enough to think that IBM's going to be the guy on the white horse coming to defend the GPL in whatever hour of need it might experience. Not goint ot happen.
All of which negates the fact that we don't WANT the GPL to BE their defense because of the mindless spin, even if incorrect, that it affords SCO. If they lay a GPL-trap here it's basically to SCREW IBM by scaring off dipshit CEO's who hear of this "viral" GPL thing. I know it's not, don't bother telling me again, but everybody doesn't and it takes a lot of education to counter a little bit of FUD. Please, let's not go down that road, it isn't worth it.
Let's not, eh? A weak test isn't a test. And I don't really think IBM gives that much of a shit about the GPL compared to beating the shit out of SCO. Also, as mentioned ad nauseam on here, allowing SCO to even make the braindead contention that the GPL screwed their IP could be nothing but bad for Linux in general. Look, if SCO's CEO says the GPL screwed them, other companies' CEO's might listen and prevent their CIO's from implementing linux. We'd just as soon avoid that, I expect.
If you are a big corporation with lots of resources then you should at least spend a nickel to learn about the milestone patents that exist as related to your core business.
You're certainly right - your lack of knowledge has to at least be plausible. Like if I was Barnes and Noble.com and I had the audacity to allow consumers to check out in less than the two mandatory clicks, I would be screwed. What, I'm going to tell a judge I hadn't heard about Amazon's world-famous one-click patent? Right.
But let's say I do a search, and I trip over an inactive patent owned by some jackass in Arkansas that is kind of hazy - it *might* have claim over what our comany has been doing for the last year, or it might not - I'm probably going to ignore it.
So your point is well taken - I'd say ignore what you can plausibly ignore.;)
BSD and GPL are not identical in this area and whilst the BSD license does implicitly lack any kind of restriction on use it most certainly does not explicity disallow such restrictions. This is not a criticism of either license.
Nope, you're still missing it, as his quote is completely correct. The bit you're missing is that any BSD software re-released with use restrictions is no longer BSD-licensed! He's not contending that BSD stuff can be re-released under OTHER licenses with restrictions. However, they can't be re-released under the BSD license with these restrictions. Any perceived lack of proctection with BSD stuff is development-related, NOT use-related, and it isn't a BSD issue because by the time those changes are made, it's no longer BSD.
Look at it this way - I'm not a programmer, I'm just a user. You hand me a piece of BSD-licensed software. There is NOTHING I can't do with it. Replace BSD in that statement with GPL, and the statement is completely and equally (but no more) true. To the user of a specific piece of software, NOT IT'S POTENTIAL DESCENDENTS, the use rights of GPL and BSD software are equal and completely unfettered. No one is arguing that BSD doesn't protect generationally, this is well-accepted. But the original point was "Can I make a baby-mulching machine with BSD and/or GPL software?" The answer is yes, as use is unrestricted on either. The question isn't "Can I use this code and any other program this code might ever be used in to mulch babies?" That would be a generational question, and a development issue, not a use issue. It's not like re-releasing the code under a restrictive license makes my program disappear. I still have it. So, if I want to mulch some babies, I know I can use either BSD or GPL-licensed code, and that's the end of the story.
No, that's not so. You could still license the rights to use your patents to companies who can afford to do something about it. If the patent works out to be highly successful (i.e. it is a good patent)
Lots of companies don't like to share. What will end up happening is that people will give an exclusive, 17-year license. Just like selling them. Don't get me wrong, there are things very WRONG with the patent system, but not allowing transfer isn't the answer. In fact, the system as it is on paper is pretty good. Before we go adding restrictions, let's actually enforce what's on the books. And change the ridiculous perception in the USPTO that somehow lots o' patents == productive economy, because that's getting annoying.
Actually, I've been told exactly the same thing by a number of US patent lawyers. In the US you're liable for greater damages if you violate someone else's patent if you know about it than if you don't. So the last thing any engineer should ever do is admit publicly that they know anything about any patent, because they open their employer up to (IIRC) treble damages. Given how well known this is, I am surprised that it's "news".
Right, so when some developer who is ignorant of US IP law asks Linus for his advice on a patent problem, Linus basically told him to STFU. And it was a good thing he did too - look at the riffraff who ends up pointing at things like that. What if the company owning the patent in question found that email? They wouldn't have to work at all to build a case - you've already proven that Linus and the other developers were aware of your IP at time they were developing a competing product. How smart would it be to document this freaking publicly?
Now, I expect Linus was expecting his flock to read bteween the lines there - it's not good necessarily to be ignorant of other patents - but it's a bad idea to let anyone, inside the company or out, to know about the knowledge. You can't exactly make this official corporate policy, but unofficial policy should be "do your own patent searches. Talk about them with no one."
Of course, if US patents are to do what the founding fathers originally intended -- make it easier for the *inventors* to invent -- the patents should be non-transferable and with a relatively short patent period.
That worked when the difference between proof-of-concept and production capacity was an extra mule. This doesn't work anymore. I know a bit about a lot of technical equipment from graduate school, equipment that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Let's say I invented something completely new and cool that was meant to work with complicated lasers. Under your idea, the best I can do is draw it and patent it. I can't test it, let alone produce it, because I can't afford lasers.
There's just no reason anymore to tie inventing to production. There's no reason, necessarily, why the two activities should be tied. And under your approach, you have made it impossible for anyone who's not already a millionaire to invent ANYTHING.
I think they are approaching this from a better angle. I still disagree with the general notion of patenting algorithms as such. I don't think algorithms are invented any more than mathematical truths are invented, rather they are discovered.
I'm no fan of the lovely US patent system, but I don't know about algorightms being a "mathematical truth" any more than a functioning machine is a "physical truth." One is an implementation of logic, one of physics. Yet no one would fight a patent on a new machine that does something cool. Similarly, I would argue for algorithms, assuming they meet all the other patent standards.
Note that doesn't mean I'm going to grant a patent on something like the for-loop, but I think any specific, novel, nonobvious means of solving any problem should be patentable. So if you invent a new way of approaching an encryption problem, cool, patent. But saying one-click is a patent, that's an end, not a means. No patent.
I know this is done to death, but you're actually further convoluting developers' rights with users' rights. By definition, a piece of BSD-licensed software is free for any sort of use. Now, another developer could pick it up, use it for something else, and RERELEASE it with restrictions, but if they do it will be released under ANOTHER license - NOT the BSD license. So, by definition, a piece of BSD-licensed software has no restrictions on it's use, including the rights of developers to restrict the use rights of daughter products that employ that software.
I think you're giving this character Darl too much credit. After reading his utterances I cannot figure him as an evil mastermind, but rather as the fall guy for somebody.
Well, I definitely agree with you, he's a frigging idiot.;) That said, he can still be fairly evil, and I think his stupid brand of evil has us where we are - IBM and Linux are killing Unix, so he goes after them despite the fact that there is no legal basis and their claims are laughable. I think that's in line with what he's shown so far.
If SCO has no evidence worth a damn, then I'll assume there simply is NO mastermind of any kind. If they have falsified evidence then I'll assume he has an underling who enables Darl's fraudulent nature.
I don't think there's anyone calling the shots - but there's probably a bunch of people under him with stock options who are goading him on. Could be Sontag?
Is it just me, or does this sound like a clear cut case of extortion to you too? If I were IBM, I'd think real hard about getting the DOJ to launch a criminal investigation first. Then sue ol' Darl and SCO into oblivion.
Ain't just you, pretty much anyone with a funcitioning brain.;) I would say that it will be easier to get evidence after they file their motions and such - let them shoot themselves. And with as stupid as Darl is, there is conveivably enough material from what he's said in the media to hang him with. He's said outright that he'd like a settlement and that he's suing IBM because they have more money than Linus. He's hinted that he's doing it as revenge because linux and IBM "killed Unix." Given all that, the only piece of the puzzle left is a little fraud. That's going to be tough to find, but those comment lines can cut both ways if linux can predate SCO's stuff. Next, you need to show that SCO modified their existing code comments to match linux after they started blustering about lawsuits.
The problem is that getting all that, which you'll need to prove fraud, will be hard. Additionally, SCO will be worth nothing if IBM wins the suit, but they won't have sufficient evidence to get subpoenas on SCO's code unless SCO file it in their own suit, effectively making it public record. A bit of a catch-22.
Best bet might be to file for exploratory after SCO files suit but before a ruling. Basically tell SCO they're playing double-or-nothing - if you guys file a suit and lose, we will more than crush you, we will put you out of existence.
If you work for SCO you better cut your ties with Sontag/McBride or lie on your resume for your next position. Pretending to be unemployed since Caldera brought on McBride will get you further than admitting you sat idly by while your company pulled the crap that it is pulling.
I personally think that this is SCO trying to get IBM to buy them out. Trying Violently.
Damn straight it is - Darl accidentally played his hand (or on purpose, who can tell with him) in an interview where he admitted that a buyout from IBM is "an option." That means he asks Jesus for a buyout every night. This guy's just a corporate raider - he has stock options, which are worth a lot more after this lawsuit talk, and he just wants to negotiate a sweet per-share buyout to make them worth even more. Of course, IBM would shitcan all the SCO employees if they did buy them out, including Darl, but he doesn't care. Nice.
Problem is, IBM won't settle, as they're pissed. Also, if they were to settle, that would only encourage every other dipshit company with some marginal IP and no business plan to pull an SCO. IBM seems to be playing the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" bit, and I don't blame them.
Also, as SCO has virtually no chance of winning, settling doesn't make financial sense. Naturally, THAT'S why SCO increased the suit to $3B - it lets IBM think that settling makes sense now at a lower SCO success rate. If the break-even point for a settlement was a 50% chance of SCO victory, now it makes sense at a 17% chance. For example, obviously, as both numbers are too high.;)
Bottom line, though, is that SCO picked on the wrong dog. This one's gonna eat 'em.
Slashdot Mirror
History, pal. They said that about the entire microcomputer market at one time, and that market includes 99% of the people on this site. If there's no profit in the low end, that's because they don't know how to tap it.
The main reason that I'll be waiting for is the ability to be able to put together a pretty good system for $600. I love MacOS, but until they go after the low end, there are a lot of us who will keep dual-booting linux (or BSD) and windows. No troll or flame here, but isn't it about time that Apple offered a Mac for less than $1000 that isn't completely ancient (ie, no 600 MHz iMac please). Why do they still completely forsake the low end?
Don't get me started on that. That's a good point - the way that the catcher's box and the batter's boxes aren't regulated creates serious problems for the game. You address the catcher's box - you have catchers setting up outside, then they have the audacity to get pissed if the batter sees this out of his peripheral vision.
And how about the batter's box - you have guys standing behind it and inside of it, meaning they're practically sitting on the catcher. I've seen the catcher get called for interference when the bat hit his glove - because the batter was like a foot behind the box. And they lean over the plate, then charge the mound if the pitcher throws an inch inside off the plate. All these situations could be fixed by having umps apply the damned rules.
Last I checked, the **AA and the book publishers' organizations hated public libraries, used book stores, and used CDs. They've argued that libraries should pay royalties, that selling used books and CDs should be illegal, etc. So don't be surprised at this stance.
Damn straight. If they can't even do that they don't deserve a job. So any further discussion takes that as an assumption. However, I don't believe in that "benefit of the doubt" crap. If it's a strike, call it a strike. I've never agreed with giving the rookie a strikezone the size of a thimble, but giving Maddux a zone the size of a truck. I don't like that for the same reason I don't watch professional wrestling or the NBA: it's fake.
However, ball/strike calls are always quite a bit subjective
I would contend that is the entire problem. Clean that "each ump has his own zone" thing and it's no longer subjective. I consider that a Good Thing.
The major league strike zone has long tended to be a bit shorter (knees to a bit above the belt rather than knees to halfway between the belt and the shoulders) and a bit wider (a ball width or two wider than the plate itself) than the rulebook strike zone, which makes the game better by allowing finesse pitchers to make good pitches, without calling any locations that hitters simply can't reach a strike.
That's been mainly recently since baseball hasn't had a commissioner to ensure that the umps do their jobs. I'm fairly sure that this was not the case in the 70's, and even in the early 90's it wasn't a problem like it is now. And if the strikezone would be better if changed, change it. But allowing an ump to have "his own" zone is retarded. We don't let NFL officials decide to widen the field, do we? It would be pretty stupid, huh? Well, the plate is as well-defined a boundary as the NFL field.
Also, human umpires are much more likely to call a strike if the catcher makes the pitch good: if the catcher sets up on the outside corner, and the pitcher puts it right in the middle of the glove, a good ump will call it a strike, where as if the catcher sets up on the inside corner, and the pitch goes to the outside corner, making the catcher lunge across the plate to catch the pitch, the pitcher is not getting the call if it's close.
Quite frankly, I would say it's the umps we need to get RID of that are fooled by this junk. Yes, a good catcher can frame pitches. Why is this a good thing? There is NOTHING in the rule book to suggest the legitimacy of this sort of nonsense. So if a pitcher sets his catcher up a foot outside the strike zone and hits his spot, it's a strike? I don't think so. If an NFL receiver runs his route out of bounds and the QB launches a perfect throw to him, is it a catch? No! Baseball seems to be a little overboard with this junk.
Part of the reason for this is that the catcher is making the ump look like a fool by calling the pitch a strike if the catcher has to lunge for it. All the umpires in the stands have no idea if a pitch is inside or outside--you simply can't tell unless you're right behind the plate.
Well, now that we have the Questec system, he can set aside his fear of actually doing his job since the system will back him up. Additionally, the angle on freaking TV is good enough to call balls and strikes pretty accurately if you know how to account for the distortion, which is easy for lifelong baseball fans. And any umpire that would intentionally blow a call to avoid getting the fans on his back doesn't deserve a job.
The catcher's movement is all that most fans and players on the bench have to go by, so the catcher is expected to help the ump to make the call on a close pitch.
I wasn't aware the catcher was a neutral observer in this situation. The catcher's job is t
And if it's not their proprietary software, perhaps less unless they spin the sale well. If you're mainly a "solutions" comany, every dime your customer spends on non-free(beer) software is money you don't get.
Certainly helps, but there have been other "ubiquitous" brands that have significantly lost marketshare if not gone under. Frisbee doesn't make all the world's flying disks. People use Curad, too, instead of Band-Aid. People use Puffs probably more than Kleenex. Pepsi has marketshare, despite Coke being generic for "soft-drink" in some areas. I don't know what Xerox's marketshare is, but they have a great deal of competition.
The question becomes whether the verb google becomes detached from the site google.com. Hell, it's pretty much happened now with the noun Unix - people no longer (thank God!) associate it with a single product, despite the fact it once was (I know I'm glossing over some licensing issues here, but bear with me).
The point is, if the thing ends up getting "generic-ed," in the eyes of consumers if not lawyers, then being ubiquitous may not help their marketshare.
That's what I meant. Ball was off the plate, to him it was a "strike," but according to the rulebook it was a ball, and the machine made him call it a ball. Sounds good to me.
I recall that one catcher was supposedly told by an umpire that he wanted to call a lot of those pitches strikes, but he couldn't. Catcher seemed to think this was a bad thing. So, in other words, the umpire admits that he doesn't typically enforce the rules as written unless outright forced to? Sounds like he's completely justifying the existence of the machines to me. Maybe now Atlanta pitchers won't get their customary strike zone that stretches between the home and visiting dugouts?
Who? ;)
And in the fact that getting the "free" software people to spend their time writing code instead of talking about what to call the project is impossible. You want to actually get something done, leave the ideologues out of it.
OK, but if the GPL got weakened, how much of that would change? BSD does pretty well without it. And I imagine if some judge struck some aspect of the GPL as illegal, IBM's business plan would be scarcely altered.
So, don't be naive enough to think that IBM's going to be the guy on the white horse coming to defend the GPL in whatever hour of need it might experience. Not goint ot happen.
All of which negates the fact that we don't WANT the GPL to BE their defense because of the mindless spin, even if incorrect, that it affords SCO. If they lay a GPL-trap here it's basically to SCREW IBM by scaring off dipshit CEO's who hear of this "viral" GPL thing. I know it's not, don't bother telling me again, but everybody doesn't and it takes a lot of education to counter a little bit of FUD. Please, let's not go down that road, it isn't worth it.
Let's not, eh? A weak test isn't a test. And I don't really think IBM gives that much of a shit about the GPL compared to beating the shit out of SCO. Also, as mentioned ad nauseam on here, allowing SCO to even make the braindead contention that the GPL screwed their IP could be nothing but bad for Linux in general. Look, if SCO's CEO says the GPL screwed them, other companies' CEO's might listen and prevent their CIO's from implementing linux. We'd just as soon avoid that, I expect.
...it died. Netcraft told me so.
You're certainly right - your lack of knowledge has to at least be plausible. Like if I was Barnes and Noble.com and I had the audacity to allow consumers to check out in less than the two mandatory clicks, I would be screwed. What, I'm going to tell a judge I hadn't heard about Amazon's world-famous one-click patent? Right.
But let's say I do a search, and I trip over an inactive patent owned by some jackass in Arkansas that is kind of hazy - it *might* have claim over what our comany has been doing for the last year, or it might not - I'm probably going to ignore it.
So your point is well taken - I'd say ignore what you can plausibly ignore. ;)
Nope, you're still missing it, as his quote is completely correct. The bit you're missing is that any BSD software re-released with use restrictions is no longer BSD-licensed! He's not contending that BSD stuff can be re-released under OTHER licenses with restrictions. However, they can't be re-released under the BSD license with these restrictions. Any perceived lack of proctection with BSD stuff is development-related, NOT use-related, and it isn't a BSD issue because by the time those changes are made, it's no longer BSD.
Look at it this way - I'm not a programmer, I'm just a user. You hand me a piece of BSD-licensed software. There is NOTHING I can't do with it. Replace BSD in that statement with GPL, and the statement is completely and equally (but no more) true. To the user of a specific piece of software, NOT IT'S POTENTIAL DESCENDENTS, the use rights of GPL and BSD software are equal and completely unfettered. No one is arguing that BSD doesn't protect generationally, this is well-accepted. But the original point was "Can I make a baby-mulching machine with BSD and/or GPL software?" The answer is yes, as use is unrestricted on either. The question isn't "Can I use this code and any other program this code might ever be used in to mulch babies?" That would be a generational question, and a development issue, not a use issue. It's not like re-releasing the code under a restrictive license makes my program disappear. I still have it. So, if I want to mulch some babies, I know I can use either BSD or GPL-licensed code, and that's the end of the story.
Lots of companies don't like to share. What will end up happening is that people will give an exclusive, 17-year license. Just like selling them. Don't get me wrong, there are things very WRONG with the patent system, but not allowing transfer isn't the answer. In fact, the system as it is on paper is pretty good. Before we go adding restrictions, let's actually enforce what's on the books. And change the ridiculous perception in the USPTO that somehow lots o' patents == productive economy, because that's getting annoying.
Right, so when some developer who is ignorant of US IP law asks Linus for his advice on a patent problem, Linus basically told him to STFU. And it was a good thing he did too - look at the riffraff who ends up pointing at things like that. What if the company owning the patent in question found that email? They wouldn't have to work at all to build a case - you've already proven that Linus and the other developers were aware of your IP at time they were developing a competing product. How smart would it be to document this freaking publicly?
Now, I expect Linus was expecting his flock to read bteween the lines there - it's not good necessarily to be ignorant of other patents - but it's a bad idea to let anyone, inside the company or out, to know about the knowledge. You can't exactly make this official corporate policy, but unofficial policy should be "do your own patent searches. Talk about them with no one."
That worked when the difference between proof-of-concept and production capacity was an extra mule. This doesn't work anymore. I know a bit about a lot of technical equipment from graduate school, equipment that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Let's say I invented something completely new and cool that was meant to work with complicated lasers. Under your idea, the best I can do is draw it and patent it. I can't test it, let alone produce it, because I can't afford lasers.
There's just no reason anymore to tie inventing to production. There's no reason, necessarily, why the two activities should be tied. And under your approach, you have made it impossible for anyone who's not already a millionaire to invent ANYTHING.
I'm no fan of the lovely US patent system, but I don't know about algorightms being a "mathematical truth" any more than a functioning machine is a "physical truth." One is an implementation of logic, one of physics. Yet no one would fight a patent on a new machine that does something cool. Similarly, I would argue for algorithms, assuming they meet all the other patent standards.
Note that doesn't mean I'm going to grant a patent on something like the for-loop, but I think any specific, novel, nonobvious means of solving any problem should be patentable. So if you invent a new way of approaching an encryption problem, cool, patent. But saying one-click is a patent, that's an end, not a means. No patent.
I know this is done to death, but you're actually further convoluting developers' rights with users' rights. By definition, a piece of BSD-licensed software is free for any sort of use. Now, another developer could pick it up, use it for something else, and RERELEASE it with restrictions, but if they do it will be released under ANOTHER license - NOT the BSD license. So, by definition, a piece of BSD-licensed software has no restrictions on it's use, including the rights of developers to restrict the use rights of daughter products that employ that software.
Well, I definitely agree with you, he's a frigging idiot. ;) That said, he can still be fairly evil, and I think his stupid brand of evil has us where we are - IBM and Linux are killing Unix, so he goes after them despite the fact that there is no legal basis and their claims are laughable. I think that's in line with what he's shown so far.
If SCO has no evidence worth a damn, then I'll assume there simply is NO mastermind of any kind. If they have falsified evidence then I'll assume he has an underling who enables Darl's fraudulent nature.
I don't think there's anyone calling the shots - but there's probably a bunch of people under him with stock options who are goading him on. Could be Sontag?
Ain't just you, pretty much anyone with a funcitioning brain. ;) I would say that it will be easier to get evidence after they file their motions and such - let them shoot themselves. And with as stupid as Darl is, there is conveivably enough material from what he's said in the media to hang him with. He's said outright that he'd like a settlement and that he's suing IBM because they have more money than Linus. He's hinted that he's doing it as revenge because linux and IBM "killed Unix." Given all that, the only piece of the puzzle left is a little fraud. That's going to be tough to find, but those comment lines can cut both ways if linux can predate SCO's stuff. Next, you need to show that SCO modified their existing code comments to match linux after they started blustering about lawsuits.
The problem is that getting all that, which you'll need to prove fraud, will be hard. Additionally, SCO will be worth nothing if IBM wins the suit, but they won't have sufficient evidence to get subpoenas on SCO's code unless SCO file it in their own suit, effectively making it public record. A bit of a catch-22.
Best bet might be to file for exploratory after SCO files suit but before a ruling. Basically tell SCO they're playing double-or-nothing - if you guys file a suit and lose, we will more than crush you, we will put you out of existence.
Kind of like this...
Resume for Albrecht Speer
Previous experience:
1923-1925: Architekt, Reichstag
1925-1927: Head designer, Deutsches Bundeswerk
1927-1931: Factory Designer, Porsche
1931-1945: Unemployed.
(Yes, I made up the history so don't bother...)
Damn straight it is - Darl accidentally played his hand (or on purpose, who can tell with him) in an interview where he admitted that a buyout from IBM is "an option." That means he asks Jesus for a buyout every night. This guy's just a corporate raider - he has stock options, which are worth a lot more after this lawsuit talk, and he just wants to negotiate a sweet per-share buyout to make them worth even more. Of course, IBM would shitcan all the SCO employees if they did buy them out, including Darl, but he doesn't care. Nice.
Problem is, IBM won't settle, as they're pissed. Also, if they were to settle, that would only encourage every other dipshit company with some marginal IP and no business plan to pull an SCO. IBM seems to be playing the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" bit, and I don't blame them.
Also, as SCO has virtually no chance of winning, settling doesn't make financial sense. Naturally, THAT'S why SCO increased the suit to $3B - it lets IBM think that settling makes sense now at a lower SCO success rate. If the break-even point for a settlement was a 50% chance of SCO victory, now it makes sense at a 17% chance. For example, obviously, as both numbers are too high. ;)
Bottom line, though, is that SCO picked on the wrong dog. This one's gonna eat 'em.