To the Anonymous Coward, its ironic that you suggest modding me down. I give ACs a bonus score of -1, so I had to drop my threshold to even see your comment! If you really AAL, stand up, be proud, and duck the rotten tomatoes as best you can...
To the moderator who followed his advice, I hope your meta-mod gets modded unfair. I'm not on SCO's side any more than you are, but your job as a moderator is to moderate based on the comment's value, not on how a comment matches your opinions. Reread those moderator guidelines.
For the answer, take your blinders off, place my quote in context, and look at the preceding sentence.
I tried the link, and was quite surprised. I can still download the 2.4.13-21S kernel binary. There's a welcome message in the pub directory that says:
Welcome to SCO's FTP site!
This site hosts UNIX software patches, device drivers and supplements
from SCO.
The only reasonable explanation I could come up with is that its not for a new installation, only for updates and support of existing customer installations. I'm sure they are bound by support contracts to their customers (if there are any), and simply curtailing all support would make them liable for breach of contract. That gets pretty sticky, and IANAL. Who knows how they think. Or how the courts will rule...
Good point. Perhaps the analogy should include a peephole on the top of the box that the person running the garage sale forgot to look in.
Regarding the lawnmower, until they expose what portions of the "enterprise scalability" code they're refering to, we won't know whether its a lawnmower or not. According to them, its valuable IP that people can't get anywhere else.. *roll of the eyes*
I'm not arguing the point that they should have immediately stopped distribution once the alleged violation was discovered. That delay could be a case of the left foot not knowing what the right foot is doing. Or the order to bring a lawsuit being handled before the order to stop their own distribution. You'll find that the courts tend to give a bit of leeway when it comes to timing issues like that. Hence my statement:
Whether they stopped their distribution soon enough after discovery of the violation is a matter for the courts to rule on.
You'll notice that I didn't mention the timing of the withdrawal of their distro in my recap of the fallacy. I think we both agree that,
IF their IP claim is valid, and
IF someone leaked that IP into the kernel source tree, and
IF they were unaware of it,
THEN the source tree contributer was not authorized to license the code, and
THEREFORE the GPL is not valid for that portion.
Elsewhere there are indications that they should have known of the alleged violations for some time. They themselves were contributors..
The fallacy of this point has been stressed repeatedly. Please stop saying that SCO gave their IP away simply by releasing a Linux distro.
If they distributed their IP in GPL'd code without their knowledge, the GPL does not apply to that code, as it was licensed by someone who did not have the authority to license it. They accepted the kernal as a package, under good faith that all contributions to it were legitimately licensed by the contributing parties.
Whether they stopped their distribution soon enough after discovery of the violation is a matter for the courts to rule on.
An analogy is sometimes helpful. I'll try to think of one that won't get nitpicked to oblivion.
Lets say you have a priceless family heirloom. Someone steals it, locks it in a box, and gives it to you to sell at a garage sale. Then he goes to your garage sale, pays the $5 that you asked for, and then, in your presence, unlocks the box to show you your family heirloom, stating that he legitimately owns it now. Is the sale legitimate? I'd certainly sue someone who tried that on me..
Then again, all this doesn't matter if their core claim of IP ownership is invalid. However, the "Its ours now because they released it under the GPL" warcry is very unlikely to hold up in court.
It looks like FUD works both ways now, doesn't it.
And as far as the EULA goes, can you install either of those SPs without accepting the EULA even if you agree not to use AutoUpdate? I think not. And there are security fixes in those SPs that are not available separately. You want the fixes, you accept the new EULA. Regardless of the contents, its wrong to make a product's security dependent on a change in the licensing. If anything, they should have put the AutoUpdate in a separate optional package instead of rolling it into a service pack.
Mod parent down for being pro-Microsoft. This is an anti-Microsoft site. If you don't like it, post elsewhere!
I think the reason most people here are bitter is the way MS is micro-controlling their patch distribution.
If (insert your favorite distro here) releases a bug fix, its generally well documented, you get the source if you really care, and you can know exactly whats going into your system.
If MS releases a bug fix, the only way to retrieve it is through Windows Update, you don't know what else they slipped in, you often must have all the other service packs/hotfixes installed first, and (this is the really irritating part) it may change your EULA if you choose to install it. If you don't accept the new EULA, you don't get the exploit-fixing critical update you must have to keep your server clean.
I like and use both MS products and Linux, but severly dislike MS's tendency to grab as much control as they can get away with. They grab until there's a user backlash and either ignore it or back off just enough so it looks to the press like they're the good guys for making a concession.
I may be taking this a bit OT, but...
How do you know there have been murders since the beginning of human existance? And don't just quote me a line in a book that's a few thousand years old; that's not proof. I want the proverbial smoking gun. Show me the corpses!
Bad analogy, good sentiment.
What the PDF documents is a smoking gun. The only way to get the displayed results would be to hard-code the clipping plane. While doing so does improve the raw fps while the camera's on the rails, it goes against the very nature of comparitive testing. Its not something you can do in a real environment when the camera isn't on rails.
... or do I not understand WAP protocols? I'm thinking that each AP has its own IP address in order to act as a router. That means each AP would decrement the hop counter, and the ping would be returned after the first 30 hops. That would barely make it across the first state...
One could have the APs ignore hop counts or periodically reset them to 0, violating one the basic tenets of the IP protocol, I suppose. That adds to the arguement that this should not be connected to the "real" internet.
And how's that any diferent (sic) in GPL'd code? You can also "pull your source code off the net to start selling commercial versions" with it.
I disagree. You can't legally pull my GPL'd code off the net and start selling commercial versions. So, if you started a GPL project, and I pushed updates into your project's CVS repository, you are absolutely NOT allowed to sell my changes. Get it?
As I said towards the end, though, if you haven't accepted any GPL'd changes, then you have your original, non-released, non-GPL'd version that you retained sole copyright to. That's the version you can sell. Technically, you shouldn't even pull your GPL'd version off, rip out the GPL notice and sell that, even if you are the only one that submitted changes to it after it was GPL'd. You should go back to the latest version you had before you put it under the GPL and patch that up with non-GPL patches.
MS views this as viral. Its a sticky clause that's good for the community, not viral corporations that like to embrace and extend. I view it in the same light as beneficial bacteria...
When I write OS software, I retain the copyright. The community didn't write the software, I did. I freely allow the community to make use of it in practically any manner that they see fit, but that still doesn't mean that I have lost the ownership of my work.
When you write software, you retain the copyright. When you release it as OS under a BSD-style license, I would agree that you retain the copyright. You can exercise your copy rights and pull the source code off the net to start selling commercial versions for example.
However, when you release it under the GPL, you essentially branch a version of your copyrighted code and release it to the community. You retain the copyright to your original work, but if I submit a change to your GPL version, my change is also GPL'd. No way do you now own my change! If you want to fold that change into your copyrighted work and sell it, you cannot do that. The GPL explicitly addresses this. (That must be why they call it the copyleft, huh?) I would need to release to you a patch based on the non-GPL'd code, or you would have to implement my patch's functionality without using my code.
The confusion is between OS in general and GPL'd OS, which most people (especially the/. crowd) generally equate with OS in general. If you release BSD, your copyright is still enforcable. If you release GPL, I agree with vosbert in saying it's now the community's code. You can't exercise any of the normal copy rights on GPL'd code; you gave them up when you released it and accepted GPL'd updates. Of course, if you haven't accepted any GPL'd updates, then you still have an original, non-OS version in your back pocket that you are the sole author of, right? That one you still have exercisable copyrights to.
Yes, it cuts through everything, including most plastics.
And Toons.. Don't forget about the Toons!!!
Anyone else have visions of Judge Doom holding Roger Rabbit over a vat of acetone?
Agreed. That's a flaw with people and reporters though, not the judicial system. And its only remedy is truthful, complete reporting of the facts, and an educated population.
I know; That will happen about the same time as world peace... *sigh*
As he found out from the vigilante attacks before his trial, the maxim "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't seem to apply for some people any more
That maxim has never applied to me, as I have never been in a jury. As an individual, I have every right to make a judgement of guilt on my own. Of course, its probably not that wise of me to make such a judgement without all the pertinent facts (its called prejudism), but we're all free to make that judgement.
Case in point: If someone walks up to me and slaps me, I have all the facts on hand to make a summary judgement of his guilt. Don't try to tell me I should respond with, "I think you slapped me. As soon as I get a judges opinion, I'm going to slap you back!"
Now, that said, everything changes when I become a juror. Then, I need to abide by the maxim you present. After all, I would want jurymembers to abide by it if I were the defendant. The ability to put aside prejudice is a requirement for jurors, and the jury selection process is intended to weed out those peers that are unable to do so.
A similar creed should exist within the press. They should not be making judgements of guilt in their news, unless, of course, it is clearly labeled as opinion. News is, by definition, factual. They can report the facts of the case as they know them, but should leave the judgement up to the aptly named (but unfortunately sometimes incompetent) judicial system.
Haven't we been encouraging companies to release source code their obsolete and failed software products instead of taking them to the grave with them? Why should we complain when M$ follows our advice?
That's fine for applications. However, the trick will lie with porting the O/S itself. You know, the stuff that the CLR depends on!
MS will NOT be distributing a version of the CLR for *BSD or Linux.. I guaran-damn-tee it! Excepting other non-MS.NET implementations such as Mono, in order to put a CLR on the Opteron, MS will need an operating system to support it. I'm using "operating system" in the pure sense, as in the stuff that provides hardware access (kernel and drivers), not the GUI with a web-browser definition they used with the DoJ.
The nice thing is, just as Windows 3.1 on the i386 had all the 16-bit thunks for calling 32-bit DLLs in "enhanced mode," MS can take their time transitioning from 32 to 64-bit mode. Once the main kernel and the libraries it depends on are 64-bits, then the apps that NEED 64 bits will work. They can take their time porting the MMC, Notepad, and all the remaining utilities to the CLR. After all, why should notepad.exe be 64-bits?!
THAT is why the Opteron will be a smashing success. Backwards compatibility; just like the i386..
"Um.. He's sick."
(long pause)
"My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw Scott pass-out at CeBIT last night. I guess it's pretty serious."
Sun, wake up and smell the coffee! If you try to maintain absolute control of the Java language, you're going to find a serious user backlash.. The time to act is now!
I can see firing the photographer if he was trying to make something appear to have happened that didn't. That's not the case here. The original and re-touched photograph are conveying the same thing. -- ChaoticChaos
Fade into courtroom interior..
"Your honor, prosecution presents exhibit A. We took the liberty of touching up this photo. While it still represents the events that took place the day Mr. Chaos murdered his girlfriend, it doesn't make anything appear to have happened that didn't. It conveys the same thing."
But it does not surprise me in the least that a congressman is pushing for that.
It doesn't surprise me either. Unfortunately, that's only because people have been buying congresscritters for a long time. Its a shame that our standards for ethical behaviour are so tainted that actions like Issa's don't surprise us any more.
Yes, a senator's job is to represent his constituents. However, I believe (and I think many would agree) that they should stay out of business! Their job is government, not business growth.
I object vigorously to someone trying to shoehorn an inappropriate product into a place where it doesn't fit. Not that Qualcomm's products are not appropriate, but if they aren't then they should have no problem competing on merit. Legislation removes the competition by creating a false monopoly. That's bad! It also means that Qualcomm is free to overcharge for their goods and services.. Do we want to continue punishing the Iraqi citizens once their dictator is removed?
Qualcomm's employees should have no problem selling their products to the new Iraqi government, so long as their products are good, affordable, and fit with the neighbors' infrastructure. Merit, cost and feasibility. If Qualcomm and their employees "prefer to see their products used in more areas of the world," they should make good products that can compete. Now, if Issa gets his way, they're free to make shoddy, expensive, incompatible products and life is good.
Qualcomm's new business model:
1. Design a product (cost/workmanship/merit doesn't matter).
2. Pay a senator to make buying your competitors' products illegal.
3....
4. Profit!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, so am I. [insert indignant prose]
See? Now that's funny!
To the Anonymous Coward, its ironic that you suggest modding me down. I give ACs a bonus score of -1, so I had to drop my threshold to even see your comment! If you really AAL, stand up, be proud, and duck the rotten tomatoes as best you can...
To the moderator who followed his advice, I hope your meta-mod gets modded unfair. I'm not on SCO's side any more than you are, but your job as a moderator is to moderate based on the comment's value, not on how a comment matches your opinions. Reread those moderator guidelines.
Why? Does the truth hurt?
For the answer, take your blinders off, place my quote in context, and look at the preceding sentence.
I tried the link, and was quite surprised. I can still download the 2.4.13-21S kernel binary. There's a welcome message in the pub directory that says:
Welcome to SCO's FTP site!
This site hosts UNIX software patches, device drivers and supplements from SCO.
The only reasonable explanation I could come up with is that its not for a new installation, only for updates and support of existing customer installations. I'm sure they are bound by support contracts to their customers (if there are any), and simply curtailing all support would make them liable for breach of contract. That gets pretty sticky, and IANAL. Who knows how they think. Or how the courts will rule...
Good point. Perhaps the analogy should include a peephole on the top of the box that the person running the garage sale forgot to look in.
Regarding the lawnmower, until they expose what portions of the "enterprise scalability" code they're refering to, we won't know whether its a lawnmower or not. According to them, its valuable IP that people can't get anywhere else.. *roll of the eyes*
I'm not arguing the point that they should have immediately stopped distribution once the alleged violation was discovered. That delay could be a case of the left foot not knowing what the right foot is doing. Or the order to bring a lawsuit being handled before the order to stop their own distribution. You'll find that the courts tend to give a bit of leeway when it comes to timing issues like that. Hence my statement:
Whether they stopped their distribution soon enough after discovery of the violation is a matter for the courts to rule on.
You'll notice that I didn't mention the timing of the withdrawal of their distro in my recap of the fallacy. I think we both agree that,
IF their IP claim is valid, and
IF someone leaked that IP into the kernel source tree, and
IF they were unaware of it,
THEN the source tree contributer was not authorized to license the code, and
THEREFORE the GPL is not valid for that portion.
Elsewhere there are indications that they should have known of the alleged violations for some time. They themselves were contributors..
The fallacy of this point has been stressed repeatedly. Please stop saying that SCO gave their IP away simply by releasing a Linux distro.
If they distributed their IP in GPL'd code without their knowledge, the GPL does not apply to that code, as it was licensed by someone who did not have the authority to license it. They accepted the kernal as a package, under good faith that all contributions to it were legitimately licensed by the contributing parties.
Whether they stopped their distribution soon enough after discovery of the violation is a matter for the courts to rule on.
An analogy is sometimes helpful. I'll try to think of one that won't get nitpicked to oblivion.
Lets say you have a priceless family heirloom. Someone steals it, locks it in a box, and gives it to you to sell at a garage sale. Then he goes to your garage sale, pays the $5 that you asked for, and then, in your presence, unlocks the box to show you your family heirloom, stating that he legitimately owns it now. Is the sale legitimate? I'd certainly sue someone who tried that on me..
Then again, all this doesn't matter if their core claim of IP ownership is invalid. However, the "Its ours now because they released it under the GPL" warcry is very unlikely to hold up in court.
BTW, IANAL...
It looks like FUD works both ways now, doesn't it.
And as far as the EULA goes, can you install either of those SPs without accepting the EULA even if you agree not to use AutoUpdate? I think not. And there are security fixes in those SPs that are not available separately. You want the fixes, you accept the new EULA. Regardless of the contents, its wrong to make a product's security dependent on a change in the licensing. If anything, they should have put the AutoUpdate in a separate optional package instead of rolling it into a service pack.
Mod parent down for being pro-Microsoft. This is an anti-Microsoft site. If you don't like it, post elsewhere!
Ok, let me rephrase that.
I think the reason for the bitterness in this thread is the way MS is micro-controlling their patch distribution.
I think the reason most people here are bitter is the way MS is micro-controlling their patch distribution.
If (insert your favorite distro here) releases a bug fix, its generally well documented, you get the source if you really care, and you can know exactly whats going into your system.
If MS releases a bug fix, the only way to retrieve it is through Windows Update, you don't know what else they slipped in, you often must have all the other service packs/hotfixes installed first, and (this is the really irritating part) it may change your EULA if you choose to install it. If you don't accept the new EULA, you don't get the exploit-fixing critical update you must have to keep your server clean.
I like and use both MS products and Linux, but severly dislike MS's tendency to grab as much control as they can get away with. They grab until there's a user backlash and either ignore it or back off just enough so it looks to the press like they're the good guys for making a concession.
I may be taking this a bit OT, but...
How do you know there have been murders since the beginning of human existance? And don't just quote me a line in a book that's a few thousand years old; that's not proof. I want the proverbial smoking gun. Show me the corpses!
Bad analogy, good sentiment.
What the PDF documents is a smoking gun. The only way to get the displayed results would be to hard-code the clipping plane. While doing so does improve the raw fps while the camera's on the rails, it goes against the very nature of comparitive testing. Its not something you can do in a real environment when the camera isn't on rails.
What about hop counts?
... or do I not understand WAP protocols? I'm thinking that each AP has its own IP address in order to act as a router. That means each AP would decrement the hop counter, and the ping would be returned after the first 30 hops. That would barely make it across the first state...
One could have the APs ignore hop counts or periodically reset them to 0, violating one the basic tenets of the IP protocol, I suppose. That adds to the arguement that this should not be connected to the "real" internet.
And how's that any diferent (sic) in GPL'd code? You can also "pull your source code off the net to start selling commercial versions" with it.
I disagree. You can't legally pull my GPL'd code off the net and start selling commercial versions. So, if you started a GPL project, and I pushed updates into your project's CVS repository, you are absolutely NOT allowed to sell my changes. Get it?
As I said towards the end, though, if you haven't accepted any GPL'd changes, then you have your original, non-released, non-GPL'd version that you retained sole copyright to. That's the version you can sell. Technically, you shouldn't even pull your GPL'd version off, rip out the GPL notice and sell that, even if you are the only one that submitted changes to it after it was GPL'd. You should go back to the latest version you had before you put it under the GPL and patch that up with non-GPL patches.
MS views this as viral. Its a sticky clause that's good for the community, not viral corporations that like to embrace and extend. I view it in the same light as beneficial bacteria...
When I write OS software, I retain the copyright. The community didn't write the software, I did. I freely allow the community to make use of it in practically any manner that they see fit, but that still doesn't mean that I have lost the ownership of my work.
/. crowd) generally equate with OS in general. If you release BSD, your copyright is still enforcable. If you release GPL, I agree with vosbert in saying it's now the community's code. You can't exercise any of the normal copy rights on GPL'd code; you gave them up when you released it and accepted GPL'd updates. Of course, if you haven't accepted any GPL'd updates, then you still have an original, non-OS version in your back pocket that you are the sole author of, right? That one you still have exercisable copyrights to.
When you write software, you retain the copyright. When you release it as OS under a BSD-style license, I would agree that you retain the copyright. You can exercise your copy rights and pull the source code off the net to start selling commercial versions for example.
However, when you release it under the GPL, you essentially branch a version of your copyrighted code and release it to the community. You retain the copyright to your original work, but if I submit a change to your GPL version, my change is also GPL'd. No way do you now own my change! If you want to fold that change into your copyrighted work and sell it, you cannot do that. The GPL explicitly addresses this. (That must be why they call it the copyleft, huh?) I would need to release to you a patch based on the non-GPL'd code, or you would have to implement my patch's functionality without using my code.
The confusion is between OS in general and GPL'd OS, which most people (especially the
Yes, it cuts through everything, including most plastics.
And Toons.. Don't forget about the Toons!!!
Anyone else have visions of Judge Doom holding Roger Rabbit over a vat of acetone?
Agreed. That's a flaw with people and reporters though, not the judicial system. And its only remedy is truthful, complete reporting of the facts, and an educated population.
I know; That will happen about the same time as world peace... *sigh*
As he found out from the vigilante attacks before his trial, the maxim "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't seem to apply for some people any more
That maxim has never applied to me, as I have never been in a jury. As an individual, I have every right to make a judgement of guilt on my own. Of course, its probably not that wise of me to make such a judgement without all the pertinent facts (its called prejudism), but we're all free to make that judgement.
Case in point: If someone walks up to me and slaps me, I have all the facts on hand to make a summary judgement of his guilt. Don't try to tell me I should respond with, "I think you slapped me. As soon as I get a judges opinion, I'm going to slap you back!"
Now, that said, everything changes when I become a juror. Then, I need to abide by the maxim you present. After all, I would want jurymembers to abide by it if I were the defendant. The ability to put aside prejudice is a requirement for jurors, and the jury selection process is intended to weed out those peers that are unable to do so.
A similar creed should exist within the press. They should not be making judgements of guilt in their news, unless, of course, it is clearly labeled as opinion. News is, by definition, factual. They can report the facts of the case as they know them, but should leave the judgement up to the aptly named (but unfortunately sometimes incompetent) judicial system.
ROFL! Mod parent up!!
Or if you're just avoiding the NYTimes, a quick Google News search of nanoscale +toxic turned up The Mercury News's run of it.
(No Karma Bonus checked to avoid Karma-whoring)
Haven't we been encouraging companies to release source code their obsolete and failed software products instead of taking them to the grave with them? Why should we complain when M$ follows our advice?
(Yes, this is humor...)
The key to this whole issue is .Net, and the CLR.
.NET implementations such as Mono, in order to put a CLR on the Opteron, MS will need an operating system to support it. I'm using "operating system" in the pure sense, as in the stuff that provides hardware access (kernel and drivers), not the GUI with a web-browser definition they used with the DoJ.
That's fine for applications. However, the trick will lie with porting the O/S itself. You know, the stuff that the CLR depends on!
MS will NOT be distributing a version of the CLR for *BSD or Linux.. I guaran-damn-tee it! Excepting other non-MS
The nice thing is, just as Windows 3.1 on the i386 had all the 16-bit thunks for calling 32-bit DLLs in "enhanced mode," MS can take their time transitioning from 32 to 64-bit mode. Once the main kernel and the libraries it depends on are 64-bits, then the apps that NEED 64 bits will work. They can take their time porting the MMC, Notepad, and all the remaining utilities to the CLR. After all, why should notepad.exe be 64-bits?!
THAT is why the Opteron will be a smashing success. Backwards compatibility; just like the i386..
- "McNealy?"
(pause)
"McNealy?"
(pause)
"McNealy?"
Sun, wake up and smell the coffee! If you try to maintain absolute control of the Java language, you're going to find a serious user backlash.. The time to act is now!"Um.. He's sick." (long pause) "My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw Scott pass-out at CeBIT last night. I guess it's pretty serious."
I can see firing the photographer if he was trying to make something appear to have happened that didn't. That's not the case here. The original and re-touched photograph are conveying the same thing. -- ChaoticChaos
Fade into courtroom interior..
"Your honor, prosecution presents exhibit A. We took the liberty of touching up this photo. While it still represents the events that took place the day Mr. Chaos murdered his girlfriend, it doesn't make anything appear to have happened that didn't. It conveys the same thing."
"OBJECTION!!! Conjecture!"
"Sustained! Counsel, please approach the bench."
But it does not surprise me in the least that a congressman is pushing for that.
It doesn't surprise me either. Unfortunately, that's only because people have been buying congresscritters for a long time. Its a shame that our standards for ethical behaviour are so tainted that actions like Issa's don't surprise us any more.
*sigh*
Yes, a senator's job is to represent his constituents. However, I believe (and I think many would agree) that they should stay out of business! Their job is government, not business growth.
...
I object vigorously to someone trying to shoehorn an inappropriate product into a place where it doesn't fit. Not that Qualcomm's products are not appropriate, but if they aren't then they should have no problem competing on merit. Legislation removes the competition by creating a false monopoly. That's bad! It also means that Qualcomm is free to overcharge for their goods and services.. Do we want to continue punishing the Iraqi citizens once their dictator is removed?
Qualcomm's employees should have no problem selling their products to the new Iraqi government, so long as their products are good, affordable, and fit with the neighbors' infrastructure. Merit, cost and feasibility. If Qualcomm and their employees "prefer to see their products used in more areas of the world," they should make good products that can compete. Now, if Issa gets his way, they're free to make shoddy, expensive, incompatible products and life is good.
Qualcomm's new business model:
1. Design a product (cost/workmanship/merit doesn't matter).
2. Pay a senator to make buying your competitors' products illegal.
3.
4. Profit!!!