In fact, among most critics of any major art form (literature, music, painting, etc.) the current consensus seems to be that in order to make truly innovative art you have to deliberately inherit and alter what your artistic forefathers have done. Harold Bloom'sThe Anxiety of Influence is the standard text on the subject.
I broke one of the hinges on my laptop, just one. The Dell people I talked to new exactly what I was talking about and got me "refurbished" parts for like $20, which I then installed myself. I ended up having to replace the screen holder itself, which is why the price was so high, but the coolest thing was they just did some kind of simple text search and said, "Yep, we have it. I can have it to you in two days..." And that was that. Their online service manual led me through the process of replacing the part, and that was that.
Go dell.
Coroporations have sway over public schools in another way as well: Every year there were at least one or two "gift" companies that would come and use the students to sell their products. We were supposed to go door to door in our neighborhoods, and use the sales tactics the "guest teachers" taught us when he gave us our sales kits. Then, the school was supposedly supposed to get money for however much we sold. How much the school got, I don't know. There were prizes for whoever sold the most, and kids did do their best to win them, and this was in grades 6-12, so whoever said that kids didn't care about prizes might want to rethink their reasoning... Kids do care about prizes. A little too much, probably.
There's some weird language in the DMCA that enables the RIAA to directly subpoena suspected infringers' information from their ISP. Supposedly, it only takes a court clerk signature... Not even a judge has to review the subpoena...
That SCO's tune has changed about the AIX license: It says at the bottom of the press release that no one can acquire NEW AIX licenses. IIRC, at the time of the last BSA (Big SCO Announcment) the claim was that all AIX licneses were null and void and nobody had a right to be running SCO... Isn't that odd? I wonder if IBM's lawyers will brow-beat SCO's lawyers with that piece of McBridian Megalomania...
I made this comment a while back, but nobody really saw it. It seems to me that you should just be able to not compile in the SMP/JFS/NUMA stuff and run along your merry way, until SCO makes another claim about what the "real" infringing code is...
when you compile your kernel? Seriously, SCO claims that they have specific IP ownership of limited portions of the Kernel. They've admitted recently, in public forums such as C-NET etc. that they're mostly talking about "High End Features" that weren't present in 2.2... Why not just leave out the SMP features in Linux and recompile? What's SCO going to sue you for then? Knowing that code that they "own" exists? Seriously, I wonder how many of the 2.4 million server installations are running on multi-processor machines, specifically the 16-32 processor machines that SCO seems to be all up-tight about...
Actually, SCO is still packaging and distributing the kernel... See the plethora of links to their ftp servers which contain linux sources... The person you're replying to basically just said that since they're (knowingly) distributing code which they claim is infringing, that they're sore out of luck when it comes to IP claims on code that they're distributing for free...
Cool! Thanks for the link!
I think when I said Open Source software has never been through a large scale court case before, I meant the whole concept of Open Source software hasn't been put to trial, like Darl and Co. seem to be trying to do... They seem, by way of press anouncements and such, to be out to get the whole concept of "getting something for nothing..." Of course on further reflection I guess that's kind of AT&T v. BSD was, wasn't it...
Thanks again!
Her other statements must be evaluated on their own merit, just like any random/. post, rather than regarded as informed, expert opinion
I'm sorry... I guess I didn't read this statement from your original post completely literally:
Didio's comment about the GPL is a complete misrepresentation, and she reveals herself here as an SCO pawn. I have no reason to believe anything else she said.
I assumed that when you said "I have no reason to believe..." you were specifically asserting the falsity of the rest of her comments. I still don't know if I agree with you about the fact that her "misrepresentation" (or inexpertness in law) disqualifies her statements about what she saw in the SCO code... (As an aside, I do appreciate the usage of an wtih SCO... I can never tell how people are pronouncing unless they use the proper determiners...:)
I agree that it's somewhat tedious to see the day in and day out play-by-play. But, at least for me, I find it quite educational. I, for example, was not aware of all the minutiae that have to go on in the day to day time-frame before a court case ever goes to trial. I will continue reading the Slashdot postings because this is the first court case I've ever really followed this intensely from start to finish. Also, although many comparisons have been made to Iraq war coverage, OJ Simpson coverage, etc. I find this topic a bit more novel and precedent setting. Open source software has never been through a large scale court case before, and so a lot of new territory is going to have to be covered. Things like the kernel hackers suing back, what happens if a company unwittingly GPLs code and then decides to retract that, etc. are things that have never been explored in a legal setting. I like the fact that IBM is, seemingly, going to push the thing to the courts, because we'll actually see some legal action as opposed to the usual cop-out settlements...
Just my two cents...
On a completely unrelated side note, in the Utah culture a ridiculous amount of hair-gel is often-times seen as being "Quite Cool" (to quote Casanova Frankenstein...):)
Actually, I think if you combine both of your comments together, I think you have the right concept. As later quotes make obvious, Darl doesn't think Linux has any share in anything at all:
"The whole concept of getting something for nothing just doesn't hold up," he says.
In other words, he doesn't think that Linux is trying to have any sort of economical market share.
If I missed the sarcasm in both of your comments, then please mod me down...:) Otherwise, the antecedent its in both cases most likely refers to an unprinted but previously mentioned SCO.
> I have no reason to believe anything else she said.
This seems to me to be a
fallacy of composition... Just because she hasn't fully understood the GPL (she is, after all, just a lady who writes articles for a living -- surprisingly throughout this whole SCO issue she has done very little analytical thinking for being one who calls herself an "analyst") doesn't mean that everything else she said is automatically a misrepresentation, or patently false. Most likely, her thinking is unclear, but that doesn't mean she's in SCO's back pocket or something... Just beacuse you can't see clearly through your rear-view mirror doesn't mean you ignore the big mass hurtling towards you at a 90 miles an hour... (That may be a
false analogy but I think you get my point...:)
> 1) SCO has free and clear ownership of the AT&T
> System V code
> 2) IP rights to the AT&T System V code were not
> dilluted by the BSD settlement
Just as a quick review of some of the more recent episodes of this soap opera:
On the first issue you raise: SCO has been very adamant about its ownership of the System V code. Their entire argument rests upon their "free and clear" ownership as you call it. Novell challenged them on this point, claiming that the contract that was signed when they sold the rights to SCO didn't include all of the associated IP (copyrights, patents, etc.). SCO pulled out an ammendment to the original contract which specifically states that Novell sold SCO the associated IP.
On the second issue SCO has been much more guarded. In fact, IIRC, they've never been questioned point blank about the fact that the code base they own is (allegedly) riddled with IP right infringing material. Obviously, they don't make any mention of this fact on their own because it would seem to put a semi-truck sized hole in their argument. Of course, no one from the Open Source community (BSD folks could possibly back this up...) has ever really specified how much of the System V code is made up of BSD copyrighted material anyway... So, really this whole "System V is filled BSD code" line of argument seems sort of unsubstantiated to me (besides the obvious fact that there was a settlement back in the day...)
So, yeah. The first point seems to be fairly settled in the peanut gallery: SCO does own System V. However, the second point is still way open for discussion from both sides.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you mind clarifying what the "TV license" is for us insensitve clod Americans who are ignorant of the wider world? Sorry that I'm ignorant...
In fact, among most critics of any major art form (literature, music, painting, etc.) the current consensus seems to be that in order to make truly innovative art you have to deliberately inherit and alter what your artistic forefathers have done. Harold Bloom's The Anxiety of Influence is the standard text on the subject.
You probably meant the added copmlexity just outweighs the benefits of using C++ over C, right?
I broke one of the hinges on my laptop, just one. The Dell people I talked to new exactly what I was talking about and got me "refurbished" parts for like $20, which I then installed myself. I ended up having to replace the screen holder itself, which is why the price was so high, but the coolest thing was they just did some kind of simple text search and said, "Yep, we have it. I can have it to you in two days..." And that was that. Their online service manual led me through the process of replacing the part, and that was that. Go dell.
Coroporations have sway over public schools in another way as well: Every year there were at least one or two "gift" companies that would come and use the students to sell their products. We were supposed to go door to door in our neighborhoods, and use the sales tactics the "guest teachers" taught us when he gave us our sales kits. Then, the school was supposedly supposed to get money for however much we sold. How much the school got, I don't know. There were prizes for whoever sold the most, and kids did do their best to win them, and this was in grades 6-12, so whoever said that kids didn't care about prizes might want to rethink their reasoning... Kids do care about prizes. A little too much, probably.
There's some weird language in the DMCA that enables the RIAA to directly subpoena suspected infringers' information from their ISP. Supposedly, it only takes a court clerk signature... Not even a judge has to review the subpoena...
That SCO's tune has changed about the AIX license: It says at the bottom of the press release that no one can acquire NEW AIX licenses. IIRC, at the time of the last BSA (Big SCO Announcment) the claim was that all AIX licneses were null and void and nobody had a right to be running SCO... Isn't that odd? I wonder if IBM's lawyers will brow-beat SCO's lawyers with that piece of McBridian Megalomania...
I made this comment a while back, but nobody really saw it. It seems to me that you should just be able to not compile in the SMP/JFS/NUMA stuff and run along your merry way, until SCO makes another claim about what the "real" infringing code is...
when you compile your kernel? Seriously, SCO claims that they have specific IP ownership of limited portions of the Kernel. They've admitted recently, in public forums such as C-NET etc. that they're mostly talking about "High End Features" that weren't present in 2.2... Why not just leave out the SMP features in Linux and recompile? What's SCO going to sue you for then? Knowing that code that they "own" exists? Seriously, I wonder how many of the 2.4 million server installations are running on multi-processor machines, specifically the 16-32 processor machines that SCO seems to be all up-tight about...
Actually, SCO is still packaging and distributing the kernel... See the plethora of links to their ftp servers which contain linux sources... The person you're replying to basically just said that since they're (knowingly) distributing code which they claim is infringing, that they're sore out of luck when it comes to IP claims on code that they're distributing for free...
These guys are business men. Check out: this article which talks about some of the deals they've done.
Wasn't cold fusion a University of Utah shenanigan?
Cool! Thanks for the link! I think when I said Open Source software has never been through a large scale court case before, I meant the whole concept of Open Source software hasn't been put to trial, like Darl and Co. seem to be trying to do... They seem, by way of press anouncements and such, to be out to get the whole concept of "getting something for nothing..." Of course on further reflection I guess that's kind of AT&T v. BSD was, wasn't it... Thanks again!
Her other statements must be evaluated on their own merit, just like any random /. post, rather than regarded as informed, expert opinion
I'm sorry... I guess I didn't read this statement from your original post completely literally:
Didio's comment about the GPL is a complete misrepresentation, and she reveals herself here as an SCO pawn. I have no reason to believe anything else she said.
I assumed that when you said "I have no reason to believe..." you were specifically asserting the falsity of the rest of her comments. I still don't know if I agree with you about the fact that her "misrepresentation" (or inexpertness in law) disqualifies her statements about what she saw in the SCO code... (As an aside, I do appreciate the usage of an wtih SCO... I can never tell how people are pronouncing unless they use the proper determiners... :)
I agree that it's somewhat tedious to see the day in and day out play-by-play. But, at least for me, I find it quite educational. I, for example, was not aware of all the minutiae that have to go on in the day to day time-frame before a court case ever goes to trial. I will continue reading the Slashdot postings because this is the first court case I've ever really followed this intensely from start to finish. Also, although many comparisons have been made to Iraq war coverage, OJ Simpson coverage, etc. I find this topic a bit more novel and precedent setting. Open source software has never been through a large scale court case before, and so a lot of new territory is going to have to be covered. Things like the kernel hackers suing back, what happens if a company unwittingly GPLs code and then decides to retract that, etc. are things that have never been explored in a legal setting. I like the fact that IBM is, seemingly, going to push the thing to the courts, because we'll actually see some legal action as opposed to the usual cop-out settlements... Just my two cents...
On a completely unrelated side note, in the Utah culture a ridiculous amount of hair-gel is often-times seen as being "Quite Cool" (to quote Casanova Frankenstein...) :)
Actually, I think if you combine both of your comments together, I think you have the right concept. As later quotes make obvious, Darl doesn't think Linux has any share in anything at all: "The whole concept of getting something for nothing just doesn't hold up," he says. In other words, he doesn't think that Linux is trying to have any sort of economical market share. If I missed the sarcasm in both of your comments, then please mod me down... :) Otherwise, the antecedent its in both cases most likely refers to an unprinted but previously mentioned SCO.
This seems to me to be a fallacy of composition... Just because she hasn't fully understood the GPL (she is, after all, just a lady who writes articles for a living -- surprisingly throughout this whole SCO issue she has done very little analytical thinking for being one who calls herself an "analyst") doesn't mean that everything else she said is automatically a misrepresentation, or patently false. Most likely, her thinking is unclear, but that doesn't mean she's in SCO's back pocket or something... Just beacuse you can't see clearly through your rear-view mirror doesn't mean you ignore the big mass hurtling towards you at a 90 miles an hour... (That may be a false analogy but I think you get my point... :)
> 1) SCO has free and clear ownership of the AT&T > System V code > 2) IP rights to the AT&T System V code were not > dilluted by the BSD settlement Just as a quick review of some of the more recent episodes of this soap opera: On the first issue you raise: SCO has been very adamant about its ownership of the System V code. Their entire argument rests upon their "free and clear" ownership as you call it. Novell challenged them on this point, claiming that the contract that was signed when they sold the rights to SCO didn't include all of the associated IP (copyrights, patents, etc.). SCO pulled out an ammendment to the original contract which specifically states that Novell sold SCO the associated IP. On the second issue SCO has been much more guarded. In fact, IIRC, they've never been questioned point blank about the fact that the code base they own is (allegedly) riddled with IP right infringing material. Obviously, they don't make any mention of this fact on their own because it would seem to put a semi-truck sized hole in their argument. Of course, no one from the Open Source community (BSD folks could possibly back this up...) has ever really specified how much of the System V code is made up of BSD copyrighted material anyway... So, really this whole "System V is filled BSD code" line of argument seems sort of unsubstantiated to me (besides the obvious fact that there was a settlement back in the day...) So, yeah. The first point seems to be fairly settled in the peanut gallery: SCO does own System V. However, the second point is still way open for discussion from both sides.
What happened to your kid brother?