I am for open source as much as any enlightened software developer but sometimes we have to accept things we don't like. It is not in the best interests of the/. community to make assumptions that SGI is not legally liable for the introduced code by using the statements in their open letter. SGI's statement that they've removed the offending code and that it is probably public domain is as credible as SCO's statements that users should start paying royalties. Neither has had to prove their statements in the arena of open letters. This works best in court and likely a court case is the only way to solve this disagreement. I've read statements that have said it's only atoi and look it's already in the public domain but that's not the real issue. The fact is, for all developers, the law should protect every line of copywritten code. The reason is simple, if the law can't protect someone as large as SCO, what chance does the little one man programming show have? This is not to say that I agree with the tactics of SCO, they are completely unacceptable and outside of the boundries of good taste and good faith. But not all people feel bound to the unwritten rules of being a good person. It is the perogative of SCO to act this way and for what positive reason, I cannot find. Let's hope that even if SGI does get into trouble for this alleged breach of copyright, this entire fiasco turns into good press for SGI and causes all sorts of trouble for SCO in the future.
To say a log file can't be protected from the sysadm is either dishonest or incompetent.
I agree, in fact good old syslog is capable of using a remote repository for log files for this very reason.
The process of remote storage protects a compromised system from having the logs tampered with. Wouldn't this be useful in some form in the voting system? If the local and remote copies don't match up then we know it's been altered.
Make it use multiple remotes and you would protect the system from all but the most elaborate conspiracies.
Add access checks and multi-partisan verification and you would have a system that even the most paranoid could trust.
The company I started filed a temporary patent which costed < $100.00 US. I have a friend who is a patent lawyer so this may have helped reduce the cost so you will have to invetigate this further. The temporary patent only lasts 8-10 months ( I think ) but in that time I was able to get two government agencies to agree to giving assistance in the way of grants and 0 interest loans, forgivable if the company tanks.
So my advice is to start a company so that any risk economicly or otherwise is attached to the company and not you. Get a temporary patent (not sure if that is the official terminology). Then try to get a loan/grant and incorporate the costs of the patent in the business plan required to get the loan/grant. Now you've got the money to do it right and do not have to worry about future litigation with your patent on a personal level.
Good luck with your idea!
Slashdot Mirror
I am for open source as much as any enlightened software developer but sometimes we have to accept things we don't like. It is not in the best interests of the /. community to make assumptions that SGI is not legally liable for the introduced code by using the statements in their open letter. SGI's statement that they've removed the offending code and that it is probably public domain is as credible as SCO's statements that users should start paying royalties. Neither has had to prove their statements in the arena of open letters. This works best in court and likely a court case is the only way to solve this disagreement. I've read statements that have said it's only atoi and look it's already in the public domain but that's not the real issue. The fact is, for all developers, the law should protect every line of copywritten code. The reason is simple, if the law can't protect someone as large as SCO, what chance does the little one man programming show have? This is not to say that I agree with the tactics of SCO, they are completely unacceptable and outside of the boundries of good taste and good faith. But not all people feel bound to the unwritten rules of being a good person. It is the perogative of SCO to act this way and for what positive reason, I cannot find. Let's hope that even if SGI does get into trouble for this alleged breach of copyright, this entire fiasco turns into good press for SGI and causes all sorts of trouble for SCO in the future.
To say a log file can't be protected from the sysadm is either dishonest or incompetent.
I agree, in fact good old syslog is capable of using a remote repository for log files for this very reason.
The process of remote storage protects a compromised system from having the logs tampered with. Wouldn't this be useful in some form in the voting system? If the local and remote copies don't match up then we know it's been altered.
Make it use multiple remotes and you would protect the system from all but the most elaborate conspiracies.
Add access checks and multi-partisan verification and you would have a system that even the most paranoid could trust.
The company I started filed a temporary patent which costed < $100.00 US. I have a friend who is a patent lawyer so this may have helped reduce the cost so you will have to invetigate this further. The temporary patent only lasts 8-10 months ( I think ) but in that time I was able to get two government agencies to agree to giving assistance in the way of grants and 0 interest loans, forgivable if the company tanks.
So my advice is to start a company so that any risk economicly or otherwise is attached to the company and not you. Get a temporary patent (not sure if that is the official terminology). Then try to get a loan/grant and incorporate the costs of the patent in the business plan required to get the loan/grant. Now you've got the money to do it right and do not have to worry about future litigation with your patent on a personal level.
Good luck with your idea!