They emailed and asked for source. Doesn't count. They need to legally contact the offending company (get in touch with their legal department or lawyer) and state, via certified mail, what the problem is. Otherwise, they have, in the eyes of the law, done nothing. "But, we emailed and asked for the source" will get laughed out of court.
If you don't protect your property, people will trample on you.
Guess what. Putting some proof and such on your web site doesn't mean anything. If they're violating your copyrights, you need to send a certified letter outlining your proof and telling them to stop. Note: emailing them and asking for source doesn't matter. If they ignore it or refuse, then you have to sue them. It's a copyright violation (there are no "GPL violations", it's simply a copyright violation) and the statutory damages top out at $150K per incident. The damages may be enough to put them out of business.
On the other hand, if you're going to bitch and moan about it on your web site and do nothing else, then I don't see why they'd change their course of action. Obviously, they're not struck by moral or ethical arguments or they wouldn't have gone this far. That leaves legal arguments as the only possibility, but I'm not sure if they need to worry...
I've been using Free software for about 14 years now. Guess what? The rest of the world hasn't.
Danny boy's target audience, Forbes magazine readers i.e. the business world, are just now learning about FOSS, they're implementing Linux, it's all new to them. For the business world, this is the beginning of Free.
Note that my post was an open letter to Danny boy...
I can only assume that idiots like Lyons never had an Econ 101 class. I learned this in high school, then again in college. It's this simple: over the long term, the cost of an item will be pushed down to the marginal cost to produce exactly one of those items. In other words, if I spend $5M to produce a factory to make chocolate bars, but my actual cost to produce just one bar is 10 cents, then 10 cents is where the price will end up, hopefully after I've paid for the $5M.
Now, there are ways to "cheat", like establishing a strong brand that people will pay a little extra for. However, in the software world (where the marginal cost is between $0 and $.01 for any given piece of software distributed over the internet), we don't have that problem. Some of the companies trying to sell "premium" software are like Microsoft, where it's generally inferior in some important ways, i.e. security and stability. Others, like Oracle, are offering a better product for those needing the high-end rdbms. Given the number of people who make it on MySQL, which makes FoxPro 2.5 for DOS look full-featured, it's obviously a shrinking market. And PostgreSQL is pick customers off the bottom end of Oracle as it gains features and power.
There's no "end of free", Danny boy. Sorry to burst your trolling bubble and rain on your parade of idiocy, but this is just the beginning of free. I'm not sure what your hang up is, but if you're going to be a tech writer, you'd best get over it now.
By the way, Danny, even if IBM were to settle with SCO (SCO will likely drop the suit, but the countersuit won't go away, sorry), it has no effect on me. I'm not a party to IBM's contracts with AT&T. My Linux, Debian, is and will be free. Again, get over it.
You can't really cause physical defects to a car via the computer.
Maybe not the ones you mentioned, but you can definitely ruin a car by screwing with the computer. "mod chips" have been available for years for many cars which boost performance, often at the expense of longevity.
When I first read that, I was thinking someone wanted to help me keep my vinyl safe. I have a 45 of Chicago's Questions 67 & 68 in mint condition that I would gladly store there...
I'm sorry, if they can make Martha Stewart's life hell for a couple thousand shares of stock (let's talk about insignificant) then they can go after McBride & company, damn it.
Yes, SCO are pretty low on the karma totem, however the 'experts' quoted on groklaw, as well as the far more numerous 'experts' who replied that yes they must be faking it.... were drawing their speculations on very little data.
Actually, it was based mainly on SCO's three press releases. Even if they were attacked, they should have been able to head off a syn flood attack. Second, it doesn't make sense that their intranet went down, too.
See, even if they were telling the truth about the attack, it's odd how they had three press releases ready, they already know it was those nasty open source people, and there are false statements that were made by them surrounding the issue.
It's only natural that people thought the whole thing was made up.
Hopefully no one in the open source community is involved in the most recent DOS attack against SCO or any other attacks against SCO's network infrastructure.
A significant number of us didn't believe it back in August, either. I don't think Raymond was lying, just gullible enough that when someone presented him with the opportunity to get a little attention, he couldn't resist.
He'd have been better off to have said nothing, since SCO keeps bringing that issue up.
I have to ask: why bother? Linus et al have never, to my knowledge, sued any of the numerous violators, or even threatened them. Why would any of these companies give a damn if they were violating Linus' copyrights if he's never going to enforce them? I hate to keep taking this position, but as long as Linus keeps his head in the sand, this is only going to get worse.
This is stupid. If no motherboards adopted trusting computing, it'd be fucking hard to sell Windows.
That's exactly right. So, the first motherboard manufacturer to adopt trusted computing would instantly own the entire market. How you got modded up past -1 is a wonder...
So if their survey script also returns invalid data for Apache sites, then the IIS numbers would be much higher than they actually are.
See my previous post. It has nothing to do with Apache or IIS, it has everything to do with the fact that the Apache site that crashes it issues a 269 character server string, which is too large to be inserted into their db table.
Now, type in my web server - http://www.isthatdamngood.com - its a nice Linux/Apache server. My server will CRASH thier app! Actually, a lot of linux servers will crash it...
Not to stand up for these morons and their pathetic marketing scheme (if IIS is so fucking good, why do you have to "mask" that you're using it?), but the reason that your web server crashes their app is because your ident string is huge:
It's an ODBC error, so apparently they're trying to put that into an SQL table, but it's too big for the field that they're trying to put it in. You have 269 characters there. Most server strings that I've seen are under 80 characters.
Regardless, it's a sloppy error, and certainly doesn't give me any faith in their abilities to do anything more useful. Of course, I'm not part of their mouth-breathing target audience, so impressing me shouldn't be their goal.
The worst part is that unlike IBM, Google may not have the vast army of lawyers to devote to their defense. Now they're not poor
They probably have as much or more cash on hand than SCO that they could throw to a lawyer, but more importantly, they also have a viable business model that is bringing in more and more cash. SCO cannot afford to deal with another lawsuit right now, which is why I suppose they're leaking this instead of Darl saying it.
So Google might be worth $7M to them in licensing fees if they paid. It would take far less than that to pay a lawyer to make SCO go away (unless you're going for the IBM-style nuclear ass-whoopin'). Reminds me of the old proverb: don't try to blackmail someone for more money than it would take to have you killed.
Why do I not have moderator points today? Anyway...
Americans who shop at Wal-Mart are shopping themselves out of a job.
Bullshit. Wal-Mart is, at this point, turning $250B/year. Their profits have been steadily rising, yet we still have a low unemployment rate (even with 10M Mexicans in the country illegally). If they were causing jobs to be lost, we'd see it.
Wal-Mart forces their suppliers to be as efficient as possible to keep prices as low as possible. So what if Vlasic can't overcharge for a jar of pickles now. Welcome to Econ 101, class. Boo-hoo. This is a free market, this is how free markets operate.
You people who bitch about Wal-Mart would have a legitimate complaint if they were driving prices down for their suppliers while keeping them inflated for the consumer. But they don't. They pass the savings on.
Normally, I'd agree with the parent. But I remember when Mary Kate & Ashley decided to go with Wal-Mart and were roundly pooh-pooh'd in the business world as having made a dumb decision. After all, teenage girls think Wal-Mart is dumb, that's their core demographic, therefore never the twain shall meet.
Yet, the Olsen twins fortunes have been rising steadily since the deal.
Wal-Mart isn't as dorky as it used to be. Let's face it, you don't sell $250B of stuff every year if nobody likes you.
The factual error is the implied "I know more than Bill Gates", or "Bill Gates is making such a freshman mistake, but I caught it."
I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt, but the bottom line is that he's a brilliant businessman, and he wouldn't have achieved his current wealth were it not for the ability to market a product effectively.
Either that, or you may argue that Windows is just better than anything else out there. I'm going to stick with "better marketer".
IBM/SGI/SUN/etc. already have the rights to the stuff that matters and any new owners of SCO would not be able to withdraw those rights on a whim.
You must have missed Darl's rantings about this, but IBM's license to use Unix has been Terminated by SCO. Microsoft would probably terminate it again if they had the chance.
Slashdot Mirror
Very cool, the major ad on the page is an IBM Linux ad featuring the Linux kid from their commercial.
They emailed and asked for source. Doesn't count. They need to legally contact the offending company (get in touch with their legal department or lawyer) and state, via certified mail, what the problem is. Otherwise, they have, in the eyes of the law, done nothing. "But, we emailed and asked for the source" will get laughed out of court.
If you don't protect your property, people will trample on you.
Guess what. Putting some proof and such on your web site doesn't mean anything. If they're violating your copyrights, you need to send a certified letter outlining your proof and telling them to stop. Note: emailing them and asking for source doesn't matter. If they ignore it or refuse, then you have to sue them. It's a copyright violation (there are no "GPL violations", it's simply a copyright violation) and the statutory damages top out at $150K per incident. The damages may be enough to put them out of business.
On the other hand, if you're going to bitch and moan about it on your web site and do nothing else, then I don't see why they'd change their course of action. Obviously, they're not struck by moral or ethical arguments or they wouldn't have gone this far. That leaves legal arguments as the only possibility, but I'm not sure if they need to worry...
I've been using Free software for about 14 years now. Guess what? The rest of the world hasn't.
Danny boy's target audience, Forbes magazine readers i.e. the business world, are just now learning about FOSS, they're implementing Linux, it's all new to them. For the business world, this is the beginning of Free.
Note that my post was an open letter to Danny boy...
that the BSA isn't going to give up.
I can only assume that idiots like Lyons never had an Econ 101 class. I learned this in high school, then again in college. It's this simple: over the long term, the cost of an item will be pushed down to the marginal cost to produce exactly one of those items. In other words, if I spend $5M to produce a factory to make chocolate bars, but my actual cost to produce just one bar is 10 cents, then 10 cents is where the price will end up, hopefully after I've paid for the $5M.
Now, there are ways to "cheat", like establishing a strong brand that people will pay a little extra for. However, in the software world (where the marginal cost is between $0 and $.01 for any given piece of software distributed over the internet), we don't have that problem. Some of the companies trying to sell "premium" software are like Microsoft, where it's generally inferior in some important ways, i.e. security and stability. Others, like Oracle, are offering a better product for those needing the high-end rdbms. Given the number of people who make it on MySQL, which makes FoxPro 2.5 for DOS look full-featured, it's obviously a shrinking market. And PostgreSQL is pick customers off the bottom end of Oracle as it gains features and power.
There's no "end of free", Danny boy. Sorry to burst your trolling bubble and rain on your parade of idiocy, but this is just the beginning of free. I'm not sure what your hang up is, but if you're going to be a tech writer, you'd best get over it now.
By the way, Danny, even if IBM were to settle with SCO (SCO will likely drop the suit, but the countersuit won't go away, sorry), it has no effect on me. I'm not a party to IBM's contracts with AT&T. My Linux, Debian, is and will be free. Again, get over it.
You can't really cause physical defects to a car via the computer.
Maybe not the ones you mentioned, but you can definitely ruin a car by screwing with the computer. "mod chips" have been available for years for many cars which boost performance, often at the expense of longevity.
When I first read that, I was thinking someone wanted to help me keep my vinyl safe. I have a 45 of Chicago's Questions 67 & 68 in mint condition that I would gladly store there...
I'm sorry, if they can make Martha Stewart's life hell for a couple thousand shares of stock (let's talk about insignificant) then they can go after McBride & company, damn it.
Just to help bring this slightly on topic, it's reported that Saddam used Windows. Figures...
Yes, SCO are pretty low on the karma totem, however the 'experts' quoted on groklaw, as well as the far more numerous 'experts' who replied that yes they must be faking it .... were drawing their speculations on very little data.
Actually, it was based mainly on SCO's three press releases. Even if they were attacked, they should have been able to head off a syn flood attack. Second, it doesn't make sense that their intranet went down, too.
See, even if they were telling the truth about the attack, it's odd how they had three press releases ready, they already know it was those nasty open source people, and there are false statements that were made by them surrounding the issue.
It's only natural that people thought the whole thing was made up.
Hopefully no one in the open source community is involved in the most recent DOS attack against SCO or any other attacks against SCO's network infrastructure.
A significant number of us didn't believe it back in August, either. I don't think Raymond was lying, just gullible enough that when someone presented him with the opportunity to get a little attention, he couldn't resist.
He'd have been better off to have said nothing, since SCO keeps bringing that issue up.
I have to ask: why bother? Linus et al have never, to my knowledge, sued any of the numerous violators, or even threatened them. Why would any of these companies give a damn if they were violating Linus' copyrights if he's never going to enforce them? I hate to keep taking this position, but as long as Linus keeps his head in the sand, this is only going to get worse.
This is stupid. If no motherboards adopted trusting computing, it'd be fucking hard to sell Windows.
That's exactly right. So, the first motherboard manufacturer to adopt trusted computing would instantly own the entire market. How you got modded up past -1 is a wonder...
So if their survey script also returns invalid data for Apache sites, then the IIS numbers would be much higher than they actually are.
See my previous post. It has nothing to do with Apache or IIS, it has everything to do with the fact that the Apache site that crashes it issues a 269 character server string, which is too large to be inserted into their db table.
Now, type in my web server - http://www.isthatdamngood.com - its a nice Linux/Apache server. My server will CRASH thier app! Actually, a lot of linux servers will crash it...
Not to stand up for these morons and their pathetic marketing scheme (if IIS is so fucking good, why do you have to "mask" that you're using it?), but the reason that your web server crashes their app is because your ident string is huge:
It's an ODBC error, so apparently they're trying to put that into an SQL table, but it's too big for the field that they're trying to put it in. You have 269 characters there. Most server strings that I've seen are under 80 characters.
Regardless, it's a sloppy error, and certainly doesn't give me any faith in their abilities to do anything more useful. Of course, I'm not part of their mouth-breathing target audience, so impressing me shouldn't be their goal.
The worst part is that unlike IBM, Google may not have the vast army of lawyers to devote to their defense. Now they're not poor
They probably have as much or more cash on hand than SCO that they could throw to a lawyer, but more importantly, they also have a viable business model that is bringing in more and more cash. SCO cannot afford to deal with another lawsuit right now, which is why I suppose they're leaking this instead of Darl saying it.
So Google might be worth $7M to them in licensing fees if they paid. It would take far less than that to pay a lawyer to make SCO go away (unless you're going for the IBM-style nuclear ass-whoopin'). Reminds me of the old proverb: don't try to blackmail someone for more money than it would take to have you killed.
Why do I not have moderator points today? Anyway...
Americans who shop at Wal-Mart are shopping themselves out of a job.
Bullshit. Wal-Mart is, at this point, turning $250B/year. Their profits have been steadily rising, yet we still have a low unemployment rate (even with 10M Mexicans in the country illegally). If they were causing jobs to be lost, we'd see it.
Wal-Mart forces their suppliers to be as efficient as possible to keep prices as low as possible. So what if Vlasic can't overcharge for a jar of pickles now. Welcome to Econ 101, class. Boo-hoo. This is a free market, this is how free markets operate.
You people who bitch about Wal-Mart would have a legitimate complaint if they were driving prices down for their suppliers while keeping them inflated for the consumer. But they don't. They pass the savings on.
Get over it.
Normally, I'd agree with the parent. But I remember when Mary Kate & Ashley decided to go with Wal-Mart and were roundly pooh-pooh'd in the business world as having made a dumb decision. After all, teenage girls think Wal-Mart is dumb, that's their core demographic, therefore never the twain shall meet.
Yet, the Olsen twins fortunes have been rising steadily since the deal.
Wal-Mart isn't as dorky as it used to be. Let's face it, you don't sell $250B of stuff every year if nobody likes you.
The "War Driver" was caught naked from the waist down driving the wrong way down a one-way street, with a laptop in hand.
I bet I know what was in his other hand...
Now that these stupid fucks have exposed who they are, is the RCMP going to arrest them and shut down their scam company?
The factual error is the implied "I know more than Bill Gates", or "Bill Gates is making such a freshman mistake, but I caught it."
I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt, but the bottom line is that he's a brilliant businessman, and he wouldn't have achieved his current wealth were it not for the ability to market a product effectively.
Either that, or you may argue that Windows is just better than anything else out there. I'm going to stick with "better marketer".
As someone who has been in marketing for 20 years now
Over the last 20 years, Bill Gates has amassed a fortune of around $50B by building a company that has about $50B in cash.
But I'm sure you know way more than him about marketing and such.....
Holy crap, buddy, it's a JOKE.
IBM/SGI/SUN/etc. already have the rights to the stuff that matters and any new owners of SCO would not be able to withdraw those rights on a whim.
You must have missed Darl's rantings about this, but IBM's license to use Unix has been Terminated by SCO. Microsoft would probably terminate it again if they had the chance.