Scientists are dogmatic as fuck. Forget this openminded investigation of nature shit. They all have an agenda they're pushing.
I don't. But in general, yeah, it is pretty damned annoying. Look at global warming research for a good example.
Of course, if you think it's bad in the "hard" sciences, don't even think about examining social sciences. There, "We can't evaluate that theory because it has to be wrong. It's not politically correct" is a perfectly valid reasoning.
If the code comes from BSD, then we're in the clear.
That's what I was thinking too, but SCO sure is acting like 1994 never occurred. Of course, if they were, it certainly would beg the question of why they aren't going after BSD. So as far as anyone here seems to know, any violations have to be post-1994. I do look forward to the prospect of seeing SCO in court fighting pre-1994 "violations" though. Would make my week seeing them get laughed out of court.
If the code comes to Linux via BSD, as I postulated, we and IBM should be in the clear: we couldn't be expected to know that BSD had somehow stolen it from SCO
I'm not so sure about that - they're going after the linux community on precisely those bases (ie, linux users unwittingly using tainted code), and I don't know that ignorance in this instance is enough to get off the hook. Doesn't mean they're right about anything else, but if BSD kept "borrowing" after 1994, it could be problematic. Again, I would ask Darl why they aren't hitting BSD?
This seems to be the most likely scenario. In fact, it seems very probable that they realized, some time back, that they could....copy some good parts from Linux into SCO server/Xenix/whatever...claim that Linux copied it from them....etc
Yeah, I'm wondering, assuming this gets to court, where the burden of proof will lie. Presumably, it would be up to SCO to prove absolutely that they put it in their codebase before it got in the kernel. Now, interestingly, this is damned easy for Linux to prove - kernel source is open - but could be hard for SCO since it could be tough for them to prove they're not fudging commit dates - them being closed source and all (HA!). I would loooove to see how THAT plays out - open source nukes the SCO suit.;)
So, there are also some big blocks. What do you want to bet that those big blocks are the things which have been copied from BSD? What do you want to bet that they match up to SCO's stuff because the unix code that SCO bought the rights to sublicense has in it the BSD code which AT&T illegally copied?
I've been trying like crazy to figure out if this is the case, and if so, if SCO is shit out of luck. I remember a long time ago they said it wasn't the case, but their story might be changing.
What I want to know is whether:
1. The code was pre-1994 from BSD, but they somehow don't think the 1994 agreement is transferrable or even valid, or
2. The code in question was written by Novell or (God forbid) SCO after 1994. If written by Novell, did they explicitly give it to the OSS community or was it just that they didn't enforce the violation? If the latter, this could pose problems...or,
3. Did SCO illegally copy code from BSD (or elsewhere) post-1994? I will say, it will be very important to see source tree commit dates even if they do have some interesting code similarities
I wonder who the "independent experts" they show the source code will be? Probably not anyone with Novell, huh?
SCO is refusing to answer some elementary questions that are essential to put their claims into context. Of course, it suits their purpose to cast FUD on the OSS competitor that is destroying the value of their IP, but there's no reason why reporters should let them do it.
To that I would add this: Given the USL/Novell settlement in 1994, BSD was given the right to distribute and license their unix product, which, at the time, was pretty much Sys V if I recall correctly. Given that, can you prove that any of the offending code was written by owners of the historical Sys V code after the settlement?
I remember someone saying in an interview a long time ago that the offending code wasn't BSD code, but I'm having a hard time believing it, and I haven't heard anything of the sort for some time.
Anyone know details on the settlement, as to specifically what rights were granted BSD, and when Sys V developed the symmetric multiprocessor capabilities in question? Or has SCO really broadened its scope beyone SMP to general Sys V operation?
10 to 15 lines of code? That's such a small amount that similar code could be entirely coincidental.
He didn't word it really well, but that was his "minimum." He said it ranged from "10-15" lines of code to "Huge blocks of code." I'm imagining that it's these theoretical "huge blocks" that has his panties in a bunch.
If SCO decides to actually sue Linus, I hope all the server companies (or atleast the big ones like IBM, Red Hat, Penguin Computing, etc.) will help with his legal costs. After all, he did give them a great product without them do all the R&D themselves.
Smart companies like SBC with questionable IP go after Mom&Pop shops to establish precedent before going after the big boys. Naturally, that assumes you have things, like say a patent, that enables you to win the case, unlike SCO.
The last thing IBM wants, being a major linux player, is SCO spending Linus into a settlement, because settlements look bad (and IBM already had a chance at that one that they passed up). So if Linus is sued, expect IBM's hired muscle to crack some SCO kneecaps for him.
BTW: From when does this imaginary patent protection for the Unix kernel and I/O mechanism date? 1970? 1972? I smell expiration.
Well, see, like you say, they don't even own it, so it doesn't matter if the patent was granted yesterday - Novell isn't enforcing it.;)
What they're doing here is cute though - they are so willful at mixing concepts that it's disgusting. They blatantly mix arguments that are only germane to patents with a trade-secret situation. They always refer to SCO OpenUnix as Unix (circleR), a trademark they don't own and isn't unique to them. They claim that Linux is in violation of trade secrets they couldn't have been a party to. Every other day they claim they have patents and copyrights - then they kind of admit they don't - but not really.
I can't imagine their lawyers are that retarded that they can't make the distinction (in fact I know they're not). And they can't hope that IBM's are. Additionally, they can't be hoping still that IBM will settle, because IBM's foaming at the mouth now.
The only possible conclusion is they're using their spotlight to spread as much FUD as they can before this thing goes to court and they get reamed. Of course, they will lose any credibility they might have had in the process, and will certainly lose a great deal of business.
Something's making this "Suicide-by-IBM" gambit worth it - gee, I wonder what?
Similarly, if Linus introduced into the kernel either his own code or code donated by someone else (IBM) that implements any algorithms for which SCO holds patents, even if the code in question comprises completely original implementations of those algorithms, then by redistributing the kernel without a license from SCO, Linus is infringing on SCO's patents.
I got burned on this one before - the company CURRENTLY known as SCO seems to own shit as far as patents go...although your analysis is correct if they did. That kind of makes it all the funnier, doesn't it? They have NO patents...Novell claims they have NO copyright over the historical codebase...yet here they have the gall to say this garbage about. Appalling.
SCO® owns the contract rights to the UNIX® operating system. SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux® by any UNIX vendor.
I take offense with the above statement as issued by SCO. It is blatantly untrue, because there is NO "the" Unix operating system. They are talking about a concept that does not exist any longer, specifically a single unix operating system in which all IP was owned under the same roof. They are blurring the lines between a ubiquitous trademark that they do not even own with a specific operating system that they do.
Had they replaced UNIX® with OpenUnix® then that would be a perfectly acceptable statement, however that would not have accomplished their goal.
SCO® owns the contract rights to the UNIX® operating system, at least not for a looooong time now. SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux® by any UNIX vendor.
I take offense with the above statement as issued by SCO. It is blatantly untrue, because there is NO "the" Unix operating system. They are talking about a concept that does not exist, and are blurring the lines between a ubiquitous trademark that they do not even own with a specific operating system that they do.
Had they replaced UNIX® with OpenUnix® then that would be a perfectly acceptable statement, however that would not have accomplished their goal.
I still don't think that excuses the nature of their "rebuttal," though, as if you don't see that *tiny* disclaimer you'll come away with a very different perspective.
Well, in fairness, the circle-R is for registered trademark and needs to be included regardless of who owns that trademark.
Yeah, I meant trademark. I blame my secretary. I suppose that's me.;)
SCO has been better lately of attributing the UNIX trademark to The Open Group
They may be better about using the circle-R, but to me it seems like it benefits them because now they're confusing the issue - nowhere in their rebuttal did they make any effort to imply that that circle-R *wasn't theirs,* or mention the Open Group at all. In fact, it seems to me that they were being deliberately deceptive, attempting to blur the line between a licensed Unix (generic) and SCO OpenLinux (specific). With the former, obviously, they have no claim, but it seemed to me they did everything they could to imply that they did.
SCO's lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights. SCO's complaint specifically alleges breach of contract, and SCO intends to protect and enforce all of the contracts that the company has with more than 6,000 licensees.
Really? 'Cause that's not what you said before, you bunch of assholes. Last month, it was patents, copyrights, AND trade secrets. Then they got outted about the patents, and the fact they don't own any (Novell and Tarantella do I believe). Then it was copyrights and trade secrets, according to Darl. Now, they drop the copyright argument, after Novell decides to shame them, and evidently are down to trade secret.
Of course, if he's punting the copyright argument, that puts linux out of damage, or should.
Naturally, they're still lying, since they don't know how to do anything else. My favorite line from their press release today:
"SCO owns the contract rights to the UNIX® operating system. SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux by any UNIX vendor."
Really? They do? That little bitty circle-R there seems to imply a copyright. I wonder if the Open Group will bitchslap them the way Novell just did, since they own that trademark. Anyone can call any product Unix if Open Group says so, and SCO ain't got a thing to do with it. The only way to make the above sentence true is to substitute UNIX with OpenUnix. Now, the only thing they can hang on to is if IBM put some project Monterrey into linux. That's it, and good luck SCO.
I mean, I understand lying and all to get some cash through FUD, but they're losing their skill at it, because their latest is just bunk through and through.
I still don't understand why Microsoft calls their scheme "Software Assurance". This implies that by being forced into expensive licensing schemes you are entitled to an extra degree of software security and performance.
It's frighteningly Orwrllian, like from 1984. Remember how the Ministry of War was Called the Ministry of Peace, disinformation was called Ministry of Truth (I think). So software "screwing you royally" is called Software Assurance. Not much different, eh?
Since large amounts of traffic on the Internet are porn, unit-of-computing metric should be base on amount of porn clips encoded and decoded for given time.
Well, that's all well and good, but what does it accomplish? How do we decide who is allowed to work on the standard, because virtually everyone with sufficient skills and clout will have an angle. Do we let hardware developers do it? No, that's like having the fox guard the proverbial henhouse. Game developers? Maybe, although they're tainted too - for one, because they partner with hardware makers, and second, there are instances where they might want to hide a rendering weakness in the game, same as a hardware maker would. Gamers? Generally don't have the expertise or exposure.
So you can see the problem. Futuremark isn't going to opensource their code, and it would be about impossible to build an organization that would be capable of fairly creating a new opensource alternative to 3dmark.
As frightening as it is, the most unbiased player (or at least appropriately biased) in the game would be MS, since they release DirectX. You could argue that they take graft in terms of what features they release in DX, but since that's what we're playing on (don't bring up gaming on linux please), at least it's realistic. And I KNOW they aren't about to opensource anything.
As far as I know, Microsoft uses large chunks of Unix-originated source in various areas within Windows applications - specifically networking. I don't know much beyond that. Or it could be in relation to development of the Unix Services stuff they write, in which case they may be dealing with Unix source from an interoperability PoV.
Yeah, but I don't think they'd have to pay SCO a dime for the privelege - Sun doesn't, and they have a fully-functional unix distro, as do a number of other companies. So I think MS could have gotten what they wanted for free. I don't see any reason to pay.
Either way, whatever their intentions, they get a certain amount of FUD generated. You have to admit, it was a good business decision to license when they did.
Oh, damn straight! The only problem is that it seems VERY ham-fisted. I mean, are they going to be the patent/copyright/trademark defense legal fund for anyone who goes against Open Source? They certainly don't possess a great deal of subtlety as a corporation - not that it's surprising at this point, merely amusing.
I would say this looks like a great move on their part now, but I think it has a great potential to blow up in their face as they further their image as a bully who can't compete on a level playing field. And if I were an IT guy with purchasing powers, and I were considering open source, I'm not sure which way this would sway me. Yeah, there's the FUD angle, but it sure smacks of desperation, doesn't it? And that might make me think that Emperor Gates has no clothes.
Microsoft would need to buy a Unix license from SCO. The IBM lawsuit isn't about who owns the Unix code, as far as I can tell this is beyond doubt, SCO owns the rights to it.
Not....really. SCO owns the OLD codebase, as in so old as to be obsolete. They also own their changes. But the history of Unix is really incested, as there are massive cominglings of open-source and closed (supposedly) dating back 15 years ago and prior. Bottom line is that ATT already tried that suit and lost, and it is now perfectly fine to make your own Unix clone and pay no one. See Sun, SGI, etc for proof of this - none of them pay SCO a dime, and they release products they call unix.
The only people you would ever need to pay is if you wanted to call it unix. Then you would need to license it ($$$) from the Open Group. But that's the name, not the code. MS really had no reason to license anything from SCO unless they really liked SCO's implementation. And trust me, no one likes SCO's unix except fast-food restaurants, for some strange reason, as SCO's unix (like all their products - Calderalinuxyuck!) suck.
The lawsuit is about the Unix code being improperly used within Linux. snip...
So, MS isn't 'legitimising' SCO's claims. Each case goes on it's own merit and from what I can gather, there's no way IBM can use the MS issue as leverage, the two aren't connected in any way, apart from being deals with the same company, one licensing one product, the other saying code from said product was used elsewhere.
Well, assuming I'm correct about above (always a reach, but give me some leeway;> ), then there are two questions: 1. Why did MS actually need to license unix? and 2. Why did MS license SCO's unix?
Dealing with these in order, I can't see any reason why MS needed to license anything, for reasons above. The only thing I can think of is that MS doesn't understand the concept of actually getting something for free. But they seem to like stealing, so I don't think that's it. And they ahve BSD licensed things in the past.
Second, why SCO? From the linked article, if it's legit, they do talk themselves back in a circle when they talk about SCO as one of the few companies other than them who "value IP." This is not a stretch to interpret as "fight open source." I think they've unapologetically made that translation in the past, actually. And the article claims they say that this was a factor in them going ahead with the SCO deal. They say they wouldn't have licensed it for nothing, but they'd have to say that, wouldn't they? And since when do they have a history of EVER licensing something voluntarily before they've exhausted their...ah...other methods?
This tells me that a big reason MS licensed unix from SCO, and probably why they licensed unix at all, is to have somebody else fighting open source, and by extension, IBM.
I'm not ready to claim that MS put SCO up to suing IBM and threatening the linux community, but I think they definitely saw the SCO legal fund as an investment. And I wouldn't be surprised if we found that MS was behind the shift in SCO's language away from its IBM focus to more of a linux focus. It just makes sense for them, as there's no other reason to license SCO.
Having a little problem rationalizing your behavior, are you? First you go out of your way to crudely insult me, then you whine that I've insulted your intelligence, and finally you proclaim your foul-mouthed ravings were proper anyway. Maybe in your world, but I don't know any educated people who automatically resort to foul language when arguing a point. Mindless profanity is a tool? Sure, the same way a broken wrench is a tool. I've noticed your most recent replies haven't needed that "tool" at all.
I don't have to rationalize anything, as I've got no issues with my conscience. And actually you were the first to start insults - I only started the vulgarity. So your only problem is you have issues with vulgarity. Was someone potty trained too harshly? Oh, and as for not knowing any educated people who result to vulgarity - you do now. Try to raltionalize that with your schemas of intelligent people behaving "properly" as defined by others, going through life with a permanantly placed pole up their ass. And yes, that was just for you.
I never brought up my intelligence as a subject, just yours.
Well, it has to be relative or you have no point. And you really know nothing of my intelligence. I'll assure you, the conclusions you tend to draw are dead wrong. I am crass (or can be when it's fun to pull strings on people like you), but correlating crudeness with stupidity will be a rather large mistake.
And I never applied for membership in Mensa. Organizations like that are for insecure people who need crutches, like you.
Well, we have something in common, at least. I can't stand the MENSA people, and I'm surprised you aren't among them. You'd fit in so well, with the self-superior attitude and comparing your intelligence to anyone who upsets you. You really should apply, assuming you meet their standards.
So why do you use intelligence as a weapon, bringing that up as the only comeback you have at your disposal? Quite frankly, you're no different than someone who whips out his member to prove he's more of a man when threatened, lacking the cleverness to do anything else. Your hangups with "vulgarity" and belittling others for their "garbage spewing" is a crutch of your own - does it make you feel better? I need no crutch - I'm rather happy with myself and my intelligence, but I don't need to go around throwing it on people. I didn't go through correcting posts that were clearly JOKES - you did. Does that get you off, correcting errors like that? Do you correct grammar on slashdot too? I'd suggest you grow a sense of humor, but I know there's no chance of success there.
BTW, welcome to my freaks list. You're in good company -- smut peddlers and such. Enjoy.:)
God, I'm crushed. When you see my suicide on the 6 o'clock news, you'll know you're responsible. It must amaze you that your opinion of me means absolutely nothing - is that new for you, people not listening to your authority? Does it bother you? Hell, I'm just having fun - I'm amazed you've continued to respond this long.
No, I always know I've won a battle of wits when someone responds with a slobbering rant full of four-letter words like yours. Considering your language, I think "ignorant" was an apt description, and it was not intended to be a joke.
How pathetic. See, your problem is you're too uptight to see that vulgarity is a verbal tool, just like any other. Considering how stilted you are, and your reaction to my littany, I was fully correct and justified. I must say, it has been fun seeing your little brain spin so slowly to come up with dignified, yet, ironically, completely trite responses. Thank you for yet another entertaining insight into the mind of the self-righteous, believing your intellect to be above that of the commoner because you use more appropriate words. Despite that, your verbiage is even more dull and predictable than mine. Isn't that sad?
I bet you're also one of those people who wear your perceived intellect, meager though it is, as some sort of sick badge of honor. I only mention that because as soon as someone confuses you with insults and you find yourself devoid of any creative return, you bring up your intelligence. I bet you've even applied to Mensa - though I suspect you didn't get in the first time at least, did you?
Also, considering your predictability, I very much doubt you've ever won a battle of wits, let alone enough of them to derive a statistical distribution as to the causes of said victory. Perhaps you should try a preschool?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't. But in general, yeah, it is pretty damned annoying. Look at global warming research for a good example.
Of course, if you think it's bad in the "hard" sciences, don't even think about examining social sciences. There, "We can't evaluate that theory because it has to be wrong. It's not politically correct" is a perfectly valid reasoning.
No, but to become that highly educated in such fields of study, intelligence is required, so the point is still valid.
That's what I was thinking too, but SCO sure is acting like 1994 never occurred. Of course, if they were, it certainly would beg the question of why they aren't going after BSD. So as far as anyone here seems to know, any violations have to be post-1994. I do look forward to the prospect of seeing SCO in court fighting pre-1994 "violations" though. Would make my week seeing them get laughed out of court.
If the code comes to Linux via BSD, as I postulated, we and IBM should be in the clear: we couldn't be expected to know that BSD had somehow stolen it from SCO
I'm not so sure about that - they're going after the linux community on precisely those bases (ie, linux users unwittingly using tainted code), and I don't know that ignorance in this instance is enough to get off the hook. Doesn't mean they're right about anything else, but if BSD kept "borrowing" after 1994, it could be problematic. Again, I would ask Darl why they aren't hitting BSD?
This seems to be the most likely scenario. In fact, it seems very probable that they realized, some time back, that they could....copy some good parts from Linux into SCO server/Xenix/whatever...claim that Linux copied it from them....etc
Yeah, I'm wondering, assuming this gets to court, where the burden of proof will lie. Presumably, it would be up to SCO to prove absolutely that they put it in their codebase before it got in the kernel. Now, interestingly, this is damned easy for Linux to prove - kernel source is open - but could be hard for SCO since it could be tough for them to prove they're not fudging commit dates - them being closed source and all (HA!). I would loooove to see how THAT plays out - open source nukes the SCO suit. ;)
1. Make a lot of noise around something famous.
2. Gain fame.
3. Sell products, make claims.
4. PROFIT
I hope you're not suggesting that Darl McBride is destined for porno, are you? Because I'm trying to eat here, OK?
I've been trying like crazy to figure out if this is the case, and if so, if SCO is shit out of luck. I remember a long time ago they said it wasn't the case, but their story might be changing.
What I want to know is whether:
1. The code was pre-1994 from BSD, but they somehow don't think the 1994 agreement is transferrable or even valid, or
2. The code in question was written by Novell or (God forbid) SCO after 1994. If written by Novell, did they explicitly give it to the OSS community or was it just that they didn't enforce the violation? If the latter, this could pose problems...or,
3. Did SCO illegally copy code from BSD (or elsewhere) post-1994? I will say, it will be very important to see source tree commit dates even if they do have some interesting code similarities
I wonder who the "independent experts" they show the source code will be? Probably not anyone with Novell, huh?
To that I would add this: Given the USL/Novell settlement in 1994, BSD was given the right to distribute and license their unix product, which, at the time, was pretty much Sys V if I recall correctly. Given that, can you prove that any of the offending code was written by owners of the historical Sys V code after the settlement?
I remember someone saying in an interview a long time ago that the offending code wasn't BSD code, but I'm having a hard time believing it, and I haven't heard anything of the sort for some time.
Anyone know details on the settlement, as to specifically what rights were granted BSD, and when Sys V developed the symmetric multiprocessor capabilities in question? Or has SCO really broadened its scope beyone SMP to general Sys V operation?
He didn't word it really well, but that was his "minimum." He said it ranged from "10-15" lines of code to "Huge blocks of code." I'm imagining that it's these theoretical "huge blocks" that has his panties in a bunch.
Wait till Taco posts it again in 10 minutes. Then it'll be GREAT!
Smart companies like SBC with questionable IP go after Mom&Pop shops to establish precedent before going after the big boys. Naturally, that assumes you have things, like say a patent, that enables you to win the case, unlike SCO.
The last thing IBM wants, being a major linux player, is SCO spending Linus into a settlement, because settlements look bad (and IBM already had a chance at that one that they passed up). So if Linus is sued, expect IBM's hired muscle to crack some SCO kneecaps for him.
Well, see, like you say, they don't even own it, so it doesn't matter if the patent was granted yesterday - Novell isn't enforcing it. ;)
What they're doing here is cute though - they are so willful at mixing concepts that it's disgusting. They blatantly mix arguments that are only germane to patents with a trade-secret situation. They always refer to SCO OpenUnix as Unix (circleR), a trademark they don't own and isn't unique to them. They claim that Linux is in violation of trade secrets they couldn't have been a party to. Every other day they claim they have patents and copyrights - then they kind of admit they don't - but not really.
I can't imagine their lawyers are that retarded that they can't make the distinction (in fact I know they're not). And they can't hope that IBM's are. Additionally, they can't be hoping still that IBM will settle, because IBM's foaming at the mouth now.
The only possible conclusion is they're using their spotlight to spread as much FUD as they can before this thing goes to court and they get reamed. Of course, they will lose any credibility they might have had in the process, and will certainly lose a great deal of business.
Something's making this "Suicide-by-IBM" gambit worth it - gee, I wonder what?
I got burned on this one before - the company CURRENTLY known as SCO seems to own shit as far as patents go...although your analysis is correct if they did. That kind of makes it all the funnier, doesn't it? They have NO patents...Novell claims they have NO copyright over the historical codebase...yet here they have the gall to say this garbage about. Appalling.
I take offense with the above statement as issued by SCO. It is blatantly untrue, because there is NO "the" Unix operating system. They are talking about a concept that does not exist any longer, specifically a single unix operating system in which all IP was owned under the same roof. They are blurring the lines between a ubiquitous trademark that they do not even own with a specific operating system that they do.
Had they replaced UNIX® with OpenUnix® then that would be a perfectly acceptable statement, however that would not have accomplished their goal.
I take offense with the above statement as issued by SCO. It is blatantly untrue, because there is NO "the" Unix operating system. They are talking about a concept that does not exist, and are blurring the lines between a ubiquitous trademark that they do not even own with a specific operating system that they do.
Had they replaced UNIX® with OpenUnix® then that would be a perfectly acceptable statement, however that would not have accomplished their goal.
I still don't think that excuses the nature of their "rebuttal," though, as if you don't see that *tiny* disclaimer you'll come away with a very different perspective.
Hey, I'm just glad that, for the first time in like years, my computer is actually optimized for the internet.
Yeah, I meant trademark. I blame my secretary. I suppose that's me. ;)
SCO has been better lately of attributing the UNIX trademark to The Open Group
They may be better about using the circle-R, but to me it seems like it benefits them because now they're confusing the issue - nowhere in their rebuttal did they make any effort to imply that that circle-R *wasn't theirs,* or mention the Open Group at all. In fact, it seems to me that they were being deliberately deceptive, attempting to blur the line between a licensed Unix (generic) and SCO OpenLinux (specific). With the former, obviously, they have no claim, but it seemed to me they did everything they could to imply that they did.
Duh, typo. ;) Yeah, guess that made my post pretty incomprehensible. Thanks. But was the link really necessary? ;)
Really? 'Cause that's not what you said before, you bunch of assholes. Last month, it was patents, copyrights, AND trade secrets. Then they got outted about the patents, and the fact they don't own any (Novell and Tarantella do I believe). Then it was copyrights and trade secrets, according to Darl. Now, they drop the copyright argument, after Novell decides to shame them, and evidently are down to trade secret.
Of course, if he's punting the copyright argument, that puts linux out of damage, or should.
Naturally, they're still lying, since they don't know how to do anything else. My favorite line from their press release today:
"SCO owns the contract rights to the UNIX® operating system. SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux by any UNIX vendor."
Really? They do? That little bitty circle-R there seems to imply a copyright. I wonder if the Open Group will bitchslap them the way Novell just did, since they own that trademark. Anyone can call any product Unix if Open Group says so, and SCO ain't got a thing to do with it. The only way to make the above sentence true is to substitute UNIX with OpenUnix. Now, the only thing they can hang on to is if IBM put some project Monterrey into linux. That's it, and good luck SCO.
I mean, I understand lying and all to get some cash through FUD, but they're losing their skill at it, because their latest is just bunk through and through.
It's frighteningly Orwrllian, like from 1984. Remember how the Ministry of War was Called the Ministry of Peace, disinformation was called Ministry of Truth (I think). So software "screwing you royally" is called Software Assurance. Not much different, eh?
How about a poon-tron?
Well, that's all well and good, but what does it accomplish? How do we decide who is allowed to work on the standard, because virtually everyone with sufficient skills and clout will have an angle. Do we let hardware developers do it? No, that's like having the fox guard the proverbial henhouse. Game developers? Maybe, although they're tainted too - for one, because they partner with hardware makers, and second, there are instances where they might want to hide a rendering weakness in the game, same as a hardware maker would. Gamers? Generally don't have the expertise or exposure.
So you can see the problem. Futuremark isn't going to opensource their code, and it would be about impossible to build an organization that would be capable of fairly creating a new opensource alternative to 3dmark.
As frightening as it is, the most unbiased player (or at least appropriately biased) in the game would be MS, since they release DirectX. You could argue that they take graft in terms of what features they release in DX, but since that's what we're playing on (don't bring up gaming on linux please), at least it's realistic. And I KNOW they aren't about to opensource anything.
Yeah, but I don't think they'd have to pay SCO a dime for the privelege - Sun doesn't, and they have a fully-functional unix distro, as do a number of other companies. So I think MS could have gotten what they wanted for free. I don't see any reason to pay.
Either way, whatever their intentions, they get a certain amount of FUD generated. You have to admit, it was a good business decision to license when they did.
Oh, damn straight! The only problem is that it seems VERY ham-fisted. I mean, are they going to be the patent/copyright/trademark defense legal fund for anyone who goes against Open Source? They certainly don't possess a great deal of subtlety as a corporation - not that it's surprising at this point, merely amusing.
I would say this looks like a great move on their part now, but I think it has a great potential to blow up in their face as they further their image as a bully who can't compete on a level playing field. And if I were an IT guy with purchasing powers, and I were considering open source, I'm not sure which way this would sway me. Yeah, there's the FUD angle, but it sure smacks of desperation, doesn't it? And that might make me think that Emperor Gates has no clothes.
Not....really. SCO owns the OLD codebase, as in so old as to be obsolete. They also own their changes. But the history of Unix is really incested, as there are massive cominglings of open-source and closed (supposedly) dating back 15 years ago and prior. Bottom line is that ATT already tried that suit and lost, and it is now perfectly fine to make your own Unix clone and pay no one. See Sun, SGI, etc for proof of this - none of them pay SCO a dime, and they release products they call unix.
The only people you would ever need to pay is if you wanted to call it unix. Then you would need to license it ($$$) from the Open Group. But that's the name, not the code. MS really had no reason to license anything from SCO unless they really liked SCO's implementation. And trust me, no one likes SCO's unix except fast-food restaurants, for some strange reason, as SCO's unix (like all their products - Calderalinuxyuck!) suck.
The lawsuit is about the Unix code being improperly used within Linux.
snip...
So, MS isn't 'legitimising' SCO's claims. Each case goes on it's own merit and from what I can gather, there's no way IBM can use the MS issue as leverage, the two aren't connected in any way, apart from being deals with the same company, one licensing one product, the other saying code from said product was used elsewhere.
Well, assuming I'm correct about above (always a reach, but give me some leeway;> ), then there are two questions: 1. Why did MS actually need to license unix? and 2. Why did MS license SCO's unix?
Dealing with these in order, I can't see any reason why MS needed to license anything, for reasons above. The only thing I can think of is that MS doesn't understand the concept of actually getting something for free. But they seem to like stealing, so I don't think that's it. And they ahve BSD licensed things in the past.
Second, why SCO? From the linked article, if it's legit, they do talk themselves back in a circle when they talk about SCO as one of the few companies other than them who "value IP." This is not a stretch to interpret as "fight open source." I think they've unapologetically made that translation in the past, actually. And the article claims they say that this was a factor in them going ahead with the SCO deal. They say they wouldn't have licensed it for nothing, but they'd have to say that, wouldn't they? And since when do they have a history of EVER licensing something voluntarily before they've exhausted their...ah...other methods?
This tells me that a big reason MS licensed unix from SCO, and probably why they licensed unix at all, is to have somebody else fighting open source, and by extension, IBM.
I'm not ready to claim that MS put SCO up to suing IBM and threatening the linux community, but I think they definitely saw the SCO legal fund as an investment. And I wouldn't be surprised if we found that MS was behind the shift in SCO's language away from its IBM focus to more of a linux focus. It just makes sense for them, as there's no other reason to license SCO.
I don't have to rationalize anything, as I've got no issues with my conscience. And actually you were the first to start insults - I only started the vulgarity. So your only problem is you have issues with vulgarity. Was someone potty trained too harshly? Oh, and as for not knowing any educated people who result to vulgarity - you do now. Try to raltionalize that with your schemas of intelligent people behaving "properly" as defined by others, going through life with a permanantly placed pole up their ass. And yes, that was just for you.
I never brought up my intelligence as a subject, just yours.
Well, it has to be relative or you have no point. And you really know nothing of my intelligence. I'll assure you, the conclusions you tend to draw are dead wrong. I am crass (or can be when it's fun to pull strings on people like you), but correlating crudeness with stupidity will be a rather large mistake.
And I never applied for membership in Mensa. Organizations like that are for insecure people who need crutches, like you.
Well, we have something in common, at least. I can't stand the MENSA people, and I'm surprised you aren't among them. You'd fit in so well, with the self-superior attitude and comparing your intelligence to anyone who upsets you. You really should apply, assuming you meet their standards.
So why do you use intelligence as a weapon, bringing that up as the only comeback you have at your disposal? Quite frankly, you're no different than someone who whips out his member to prove he's more of a man when threatened, lacking the cleverness to do anything else. Your hangups with "vulgarity" and belittling others for their "garbage spewing" is a crutch of your own - does it make you feel better? I need no crutch - I'm rather happy with myself and my intelligence, but I don't need to go around throwing it on people. I didn't go through correcting posts that were clearly JOKES - you did. Does that get you off, correcting errors like that? Do you correct grammar on slashdot too? I'd suggest you grow a sense of humor, but I know there's no chance of success there.
BTW, welcome to my freaks list. You're in good company -- smut peddlers and such. Enjoy. :)
God, I'm crushed. When you see my suicide on the 6 o'clock news, you'll know you're responsible. It must amaze you that your opinion of me means absolutely nothing - is that new for you, people not listening to your authority? Does it bother you? Hell, I'm just having fun - I'm amazed you've continued to respond this long.
How pathetic. See, your problem is you're too uptight to see that vulgarity is a verbal tool, just like any other. Considering how stilted you are, and your reaction to my littany, I was fully correct and justified. I must say, it has been fun seeing your little brain spin so slowly to come up with dignified, yet, ironically, completely trite responses. Thank you for yet another entertaining insight into the mind of the self-righteous, believing your intellect to be above that of the commoner because you use more appropriate words. Despite that, your verbiage is even more dull and predictable than mine. Isn't that sad?
I bet you're also one of those people who wear your perceived intellect, meager though it is, as some sort of sick badge of honor. I only mention that because as soon as someone confuses you with insults and you find yourself devoid of any creative return, you bring up your intelligence. I bet you've even applied to Mensa - though I suspect you didn't get in the first time at least, did you?
Also, considering your predictability, I very much doubt you've ever won a battle of wits, let alone enough of them to derive a statistical distribution as to the causes of said victory. Perhaps you should try a preschool?