> It costs them tens of thousands per year ($35/mo. * 12 * x-hundred houses) to mow grass
Does your HOA rules require them to tender the cost out each year?
If so, 1. get a direct quote from lawn mower company yourself 2. add a margin 3. you'll still undercut the HOA's current cost and 4. profit!
No ??? step necessary.
And if your HOA doesn't have an objective and open method to identify acceptable service providers, don't buy in , and if you have already, sell quickly. Otherwise you'll be rorted forevermore.
The patent may be invalid for prior art. But the onus of proof is on you to prove that.
That is often prohibitively expensive, and even it you can can afford it, a court battle is never a certain outcome and always takes longer than you expect.
The issue is "Can you fork it?".
And the answer is probably not. You are required under the terms of the license to maintain the Trademarks that are present in the user interface.
The best you could do is fork, call your new project a different name, and run a dual branding effort with your project name and the Zimbra name along side each other. i.e. some sort of "Powered by" or "Based on" section. And thats not really a contender...
When SCO made a statement about Linux without concrete proof, the overriding opinion was "Prove it."
SCO had the source code for both Unix and Linux, worked with both and knew the full details of both for years prior to SCO's suit. They knew they had no case. It was always a shakedown. "Prove it!" was in a sense rhetorical. If SCO did have a case it would have been very easy for them to prove on day one.
Why wouldn't the same standard be applied to someone making a statement about VMware?
It will, in due course. Meanwhile the Copyright holders in Linux don't have the VMWare source code to be able to do a comparison.
Shouldn't VMware be given the assumption of innocence until proven guilty? Shouldn't the impetus on the accuser to prove their case?
Yes to both questions. And the way the system works is for a suit to be filed and discovery undertaken which provides the VMWare code to prove or disprove the claims of the suit.
The observed silence from VMware in the face of Hellwig's public comments is indeed cause for suspicion.
I'll attempt to answer, arguing from a Christian Liberterian viewpoint...
If I want to buy alcohol on Sunday, how does that affect you?
It doesn't, so shopping hours & alcohol should be unregulated.
If I want to marry a person of the same sex, how does that affect you?
If affects me because marraige is a social institution, by definition. If you & your partner were isolated on an island, the concept of 'marriage' would be mute. Other people (aka society) interacting with you forms part of the definition of 'marriage'.
So, my answer is, of course you should be able to 'marry' any consenting adult, but you should not be able to force me to recognise your relationship as marriage.
If my girlfriend needs/wants an abortion, how does that affect you?
It affects me in the same way as if your girlfirend wanted to kill her newborn. It would be murder. So this argument reduces to when does human life begin?. When does the protection from murder that accompanies the recognition of human life begin?
Speaking as a father who watched my children being born, I'm confident that my children met any reasonable definition of human life before they were delivered through the birth canal.What about earlier in the pregnancy? I can't prove that life begins at any particular moment - I can argue & suggest various key development thresholds, but this is a matter for society, who validly should want to prevent murder in their midst.
If I want to have sex before marriage, how does that affect you? Provided you're doing it in private, it doesn't affect me at all. Doing it in front of my children is another matter...
Christians are constantly pushing their views onto others and pressuring law makers to criminalize behavior they disagree with, even when it has nothing to do with them.
Agreed, and this should stop. Similarly, all forms of state coercion should stop.
AOL isnt going to fight some browser war. There's no money to be made in it.
That may be true, but presumably there's money to be made in whatever business AOL is engaged in, and AOL need to realise that MS will over time extend their monopoly to take over that business too, unless a greater percentage of the web users can be persuaded to switch to a standards compliant browser.
The parent is correct when he says an investor is neutral between dividends and capital gains, tax effects not withstanding.
This is something else as well though, - the signalling effect. Usually by raising dividends a board of directors is trying to signal that they're confident that profits are rising, and doing so in a sustainable way.
However paying out special one-off dividends and stock repurchases give the opposite signal - they're saying the company has no profitable use for the cash, can't invest it in a profitable way and may as well give it back to the investors so they can get better returns with it elsewhere.
One other thing - MS used to say they needed the cash hoard because they saw multiple imminent threats and needed a defense warchest. This could be an indication that they no longer see such threats as mortal. I still hope they're wrong!
An interesting analysis, but I have one small nitpick.
SCO's IP has been pledged to Canopy Group (SCO's parent) as security for a loan and/or the buiding lease. If SCO defaults on its exposures to Canopy, Canopy gets the IP and can continue to fight IBM, should it want to.
IBM know this, and have been careful to supoena Canopy with a view to making Canopy pay, if possible. Of course IBM are also looking at whether they can get to the true source of the troubles, which as we all know, is MS.
You can be sure that in 10 years it will still be around
... Actually in 10 years you can be sure that woody will still be around and sarge will be released "Real Soon Now" (TM).
This not [just] a troll. Like many others I guess, I seriously wish the debian community would allocate a little more importance to shipping a current set of apps.
I'm about ready to give up on debian. I have already given up on RH/fedora as too commercial and schizo about the desktop. I used Mandrake for a while, but it was too buggy.
p.
Currently I'm helping out with Userlinux (yes I know its debian based!) and I hope this project doesn't let me down.
EXTORTION - The use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of... criminal means to cause harm to person, reputation, or property as a means to obtain property from someone else with his consent.
Barraty is a crime, and therefore SCO is committing extortion as well.
The article described a "a $1,500 box that is supposed to handle all the server needs for a small business (except, for some reason, printing)... if we were paying customers we would have returned it, instead of sweating to make it work, and demanded our money back. Meanwhile, we've found a free software package that is supposed to do the same thing as this unit -- plus act as a print server -- and requires only a minimal computer and a wireless card. We're going to try this method of achieving the same results. It will be scary if free software on a sub-$300 PC is easier to set up than the $1,500 box, won't it?"
Does anyone know what the free software package is?
Are those programmers making a dime off of Google's success?
I know I am. I make a great living out of my clients requiring my support. If they call about something I haven't seen before I say "just a moment while I research that", google it (google groups especially) and solve the customers problem.
Yes, they could do it themselves, but I guess I have the knowledge to read through the greek to the solution.
And I use google to solve my own problems too. Google is so useful to I would easily pay a large monthly fee to use it if it were not free. But its is free, so the free and/or reduced price services I recieve is how I, and all the contributors to f/oss are being paid.
After all, "contracts are what you use against your customers".
As other have pointed out, EV1 can't comply with SCO's linux license and still get Redhat patches, so there is actually a case that SCO can win against them now.
MSIE, a free web browser, vs Netscape/Mozilla, a free web browser.
But MSIE is not free, in either the libre or gratis sense. MS is on record the IE costs them over USD100M per year and the cost of that is built into the cost of the OS. Win XP should be $40 per pc cheaper, and then the user can be be free (libre) to choose whether they want MS media player or not.
Until one or more of the kernal hackers tells a lawyer to sue, nothing will happen.
Both Redhat and IBM are kernel contributors, they are suing, and the US legal system still sees fit to allow SCO shareholders to make huge windfalls while we all suffer. I am getting quite expasperated at the incredible delays available in the US legal system, especially as demonstrated in the Redhat case.
IMO, it appears the Redhat Judge has adopted a "let just wait and see how the IBM case turns out" attitude. If that was her mindset, she should have explicitly stated that the Redhat case should have been sent to Utah and joined to the IBM one. At least then Redhat would have been able to appeal that decision. As it is, Redhat loses all the way.
Their customers are still suffering FUD, the pro-linux guys in the boardrooms are having to waste their time defending the "what if SCO wins its case" & "where there's smoke there's fire" type comments that I'm faced with regularly.
Part of the Redhat petition was for an injunction to prevent SCO from publically stating claims which they weren't able to backup. That seems a fair proposition to me, but SCO has already won on this point - Justice delayed is justice denied!
You cannot buy a license from SCO. People have tried. If you ask for one they will refuse to sell it to you.
Unfortunately that's not true. If you're really keen to give away your life savings and open yourself up to never ending litigation ("contracts are what you use against your customers" - Darl) you can buy one online here:
"The Buy Now" Page: http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/linuxl icense. html
leads to the How to purchase and activate a SCO IP License" page http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/howtobu y.html
Step 1: Review the SCO IP End User Licensing Agreement (EULA) to understand the terms and conditions and rights granted with the SCO IP License. Please click here to review the EULA.
Step 2: Make your selection of the pertinent SCO IP license for your Server or Desktop system, and purchase by credit card through our online store. Your license will be delivered electronically to the e-mail address specified in your order form.
Step 3: Register your SCO IP license to complete the legal activation of your license and to receive an electronic copy of the EULA.
Note: you will be required to provide the name of the Server to which the SCO IP License will be applied. Please have this information available when you register your software.
Which links to the EULA Page http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/eula.ht ml
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSE
(This Agreement is available to all entities using a SCO Operating System distribution)
IMPORTANT, READ CAREFULLY ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT") WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU AND IS INCLUDED WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF LICENSE AUTHENTICITY ("COLA"). BY EXERCISING YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THIS LICENSE, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTAND IT, AND YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, DO NOT USE THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREUNDER IN ANY MANNER.
YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT SCO MAKES NO GRANT OF RIGHTS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WITH RESPECT TO ANY SOFTWARE OTHER THAN THE SCO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEFINED BY THIS AGREEMENT.
This Agreement does not include any rights to access, use, modify or distribute any SCO source code in any form under any licensing arrangement.
DEFINITIONS
"Agreement" is the contract between you ("You") and The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), relating to the rights acquired by You. The Agreement comprises (i) this document, (ii) any amendments agreed by both You and SCO in writing and (iii) any additional terms and conditions included in the COLA. Such additional terms may pertain, without limitation, to the following: term, fees and payment, number of permitted CPUs, registration requirements, restriction on runtime environment and transfer of Your rights.
"Code" shall mean computer programming instructions.
"CPU " shall mean a single physical computer processor.
"Desktop System" means a single user computer workstation controlled by a single instance of the Operating System. It may provide personal productivity applications, web browsers and other client interfaces (e.g., mail, calendering, instant messaging, etc). It may not host services for clients on other systems.
"Method" shall mean the human or machine methodology for, or approach to, design, structure, modification, upgrade, de-bugging, tuning, improvement, or adaptation of Code.
"Operating System" shall mean software operating system Code (or Code that substantially performs the functions of an operating system) that is a distribution, rebranding, modification or derivative work of the UNIX(R) operating system or otherwise incorporates Code covered by SCO IP which is not commercially licensed by SCO or one of SCO's authorized licensees.
"System" shall mean a computer system, containing the licensed CPUs, controlled by a single instance of the Operating System.
"Object Code" shall mean the Code that results when Source Code is processed by a software compiler and is directly executable by a computer.
"UNIX-based Code" shall mean any Code or Method that: (i) in its literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functiona
I don't understand why they'd tackle microsoft. MSFT has the legal guns to back this thing all the way to invalidation of the patent, if they want. I guess they might just figure it's cheaper to fork over a pay-off, but I wouldn't and I doubt Mssr. Gates will, either.
Think like Microsoft for a moment...
Hmmmm, if we pay these guys off, that might validate the patent in everyone's eyes, and then Linux won't be able to have automount...
Hmmmm, how much are they wanting? Cheap at twice the price!
Slashdot Mirror
> It costs them tens of thousands per year ($35/mo. * 12 * x-hundred houses) to mow grass
Does your HOA rules require them to tender the cost out each year?
If so,
1. get a direct quote from lawn mower company yourself
2. add a margin
3. you'll still undercut the HOA's current cost and
4. profit!
No ??? step necessary.
And if your HOA doesn't have an objective and open method to identify acceptable service providers, don't buy in , and if you have already, sell quickly. Otherwise you'll be rorted forevermore.
The patent may be invalid for prior art. But the onus of proof is on you to prove that. That is often prohibitively expensive, and even it you can can afford it, a court battle is never a certain outcome and always takes longer than you expect.
The issue is "Can you fork it?". And the answer is probably not. You are required under the terms of the license to maintain the Trademarks that are present in the user interface. The best you could do is fork, call your new project a different name, and run a dual branding effort with your project name and the Zimbra name along side each other. i.e. some sort of "Powered by" or "Based on" section. And thats not really a contender...
SCO had the source code for both Unix and Linux, worked with both and knew the full details of both for years prior to SCO's suit. They knew they had no case. It was always a shakedown. "Prove it!" was in a sense rhetorical. If SCO did have a case it would have been very easy for them to prove on day one.
Why wouldn't the same standard be applied to someone making a statement about VMware?
It will, in due course. Meanwhile the Copyright holders in Linux don't have the VMWare source code to be able to do a comparison.
Shouldn't VMware be given the assumption of innocence until proven guilty? Shouldn't the impetus on the accuser to prove their case?
Yes to both questions. And the way the system works is for a suit to be filed and discovery undertaken which provides the VMWare code to prove or disprove the claims of the suit.
The observed silence from VMware in the face of Hellwig's public comments is indeed cause for suspicion.
If I want to buy alcohol on Sunday, how does that affect you?
It doesn't, so shopping hours & alcohol should be unregulated.
If I want to marry a person of the same sex, how does that affect you?
If affects me because marraige is a social institution, by definition. If you & your partner were isolated on an island, the concept of 'marriage' would be mute. Other people (aka society) interacting with you forms part of the definition of 'marriage'.
So, my answer is, of course you should be able to 'marry' any consenting adult, but you should not be able to force me to recognise your relationship as marriage.
If my girlfriend needs/wants an abortion, how does that affect you?
It affects me in the same way as if your girlfirend wanted to kill her newborn. It would be murder. So this argument reduces to when does human life begin?. When does the protection from murder that accompanies the recognition of human life begin?
Speaking as a father who watched my children being born, I'm confident that my children met any reasonable definition of human life before they were delivered through the birth canal.What about earlier in the pregnancy? I can't prove that life begins at any particular moment - I can argue & suggest various key development thresholds, but this is a matter for society, who validly should want to prevent murder in their midst.
If I want to have sex before marriage, how does that affect you?
Provided you're doing it in private, it doesn't affect me at all. Doing it in front of my children is another matter...
Christians are constantly pushing their views onto others and pressuring law makers to criminalize behavior they disagree with, even when it has nothing to do with them.
Agreed, and this should stop. Similarly, all forms of state coercion should stop.
That may be true, but presumably there's money to be made in whatever business AOL is engaged in, and AOL need to realise that MS will over time extend their monopoly to take over that business too, unless a greater percentage of the web users can be persuaded to switch to a standards compliant browser.
The link is to:A %2F%2 Fwww.aderkach.org%2F%3F=sch
http://www.google.com/url?surl?sa=D&q=http%3
Which of course resolves to:
www.aderkach.org/?=sch
which along with the usual imagery also causes my Firefox to spaz around the screen effectively requireing a crash out of Firefox to end.
Interesting how its does that.
It's particularly interesting to see the damage that page does to IE, even with Googlebar & Proximitron on full alert...
The parent is correct when he says an investor is neutral between dividends and capital gains, tax effects not withstanding.
This is something else as well though, - the signalling effect. Usually by raising dividends a board of directors is trying to signal that they're confident that profits are rising, and doing so in a sustainable way.
However paying out special one-off dividends and stock repurchases give the opposite signal - they're saying the company has no profitable use for the cash, can't invest it in a profitable way and may as well give it back to the investors so they can get better returns with it elsewhere.
One other thing - MS used to say they needed the cash hoard because they saw multiple imminent threats and needed a defense warchest. This could be an indication that they no longer see such threats as mortal. I still hope they're wrong!
http://linuxshop.ru/linuxbegin/win-lin-soft-en/tab le.shtml
Here's the link to Google's cache of that site, as it appears to be down at the moment:
http://snipurl.com/7lhd
SCO's IP has been pledged to Canopy Group (SCO's parent) as security for a loan and/or the buiding lease. If SCO defaults on its exposures to Canopy, Canopy gets the IP and can continue to fight IBM, should it want to.
IBM know this, and have been careful to supoena Canopy with a view to making Canopy pay, if possible. Of course IBM are also looking at whether they can get to the true source of the troubles, which as we all know, is MS.
This not [just] a troll. Like many others I guess, I seriously wish the debian community would allocate a little more importance to shipping a current set of apps.
I'm about ready to give up on debian. I have already given up on RH/fedora as too commercial and schizo about the desktop. I used Mandrake for a while, but it was too buggy. p. Currently I'm helping out with Userlinux (yes I know its debian based!) and I hope this project doesn't let me down.
Urpmi, Synaptic, APT-GET etc work well so every mention of denpendency hell should at least make mention of its cure.
EXTORTION - The use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of ... criminal means to cause harm to person, reputation, or property as a means to obtain property from someone else with his consent.
Barraty is a crime, and therefore SCO is committing extortion as well.
I've been challenged to get Linux going on a Wyse Winterm thin client. This article says any script kiddie should be able to, but google yields zip.
Can anyone give me a pointer or link to get started?
Thanks in advance.
Now which one[s] do you recommend, and why?
Does anyone know what the free software package is?
Oh yes they do. Companies with an inflated market price can use issue new stock as payment for real assets. Witness AOL buying Time Warner.
SCO can use its new found wealth to buy next-to-worthless Canopy group assets theyreby rewarding Canopy in a method which passes muster at the SEC.
I know I am. I make a great living out of my clients requiring my support. If they call about something I haven't seen before I say "just a moment while I research that", google it (google groups especially) and solve the customers problem.
Yes, they could do it themselves, but I guess I have the knowledge to read through the greek to the solution.
And I use google to solve my own problems too. Google is so useful to I would easily pay a large monthly fee to use it if it were not free. But its is free, so the free and/or reduced price services I recieve is how I, and all the contributors to f/oss are being paid.
As other have pointed out, EV1 can't comply with SCO's linux license and still get Redhat patches, so there is actually a case that SCO can win against them now.
But MSIE is not free, in either the libre or gratis sense. MS is on record the IE costs them over USD100M per year and the cost of that is built into the cost of the OS. Win XP should be $40 per pc cheaper, and then the user can be be free (libre) to choose whether they want MS media player or not.
I mean, we wouldn't want to /. SCO, would we? ;-)
Both Redhat and IBM are kernel contributors, they are suing, and the US legal system still sees fit to allow SCO shareholders to make huge windfalls while we all suffer. I am getting quite expasperated at the incredible delays available in the US legal system, especially as demonstrated in the Redhat case.
IMO, it appears the Redhat Judge has adopted a "let just wait and see how the IBM case turns out" attitude. If that was her mindset, she should have explicitly stated that the Redhat case should have been sent to Utah and joined to the IBM one. At least then Redhat would have been able to appeal that decision. As it is, Redhat loses all the way.
Their customers are still suffering FUD, the pro-linux guys in the boardrooms are having to waste their time defending the "what if SCO wins its case" & "where there's smoke there's fire" type comments that I'm faced with regularly.
Part of the Redhat petition was for an injunction to prevent SCO from publically stating claims which they weren't able to backup. That seems a fair proposition to me, but SCO has already won on this point - Justice delayed is justice denied!
Unfortunately that's not true. If you're really keen to give away your life savings and open yourself up to never ending litigation ("contracts are what you use against your customers" - Darl) you can buy one online here:
http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/linuxlicense. html
"The Buy Now" Page:
http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/linuxl icense. html
leads to the
How to purchase and activate a SCO IP License" page
http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/howtobu y.html
Step 1:
Review the SCO IP End User Licensing Agreement (EULA) to understand the terms and conditions and rights granted with the SCO IP License. Please click here to review the EULA.
Step 2:
Make your selection of the pertinent SCO IP license for your Server or Desktop system, and purchase by credit card through our online store. Your license will be delivered electronically to the e-mail address specified in your order form.
Step 3:
Register your SCO IP license to complete the legal activation of your license and to receive an electronic copy of the EULA.
Note: you will be required to provide the name of the Server to which the SCO IP License will be applied. Please have this information available when you register your software.
Which links to the EULA Page
http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/eula.ht ml
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSE
(This Agreement is available to all entities using a SCO Operating System distribution)
IMPORTANT, READ CAREFULLY ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT") WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU AND IS INCLUDED WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF LICENSE AUTHENTICITY ("COLA"). BY EXERCISING YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THIS LICENSE, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTAND IT, AND YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, DO NOT USE THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREUNDER IN ANY MANNER.
YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT SCO MAKES NO GRANT OF RIGHTS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WITH RESPECT TO ANY SOFTWARE OTHER THAN THE SCO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEFINED BY THIS AGREEMENT.
This Agreement does not include any rights to access, use, modify or distribute any SCO source code in any form under any licensing arrangement.
DEFINITIONS
"Agreement" is the contract between you ("You") and The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), relating to the rights acquired by You. The Agreement comprises (i) this document, (ii) any amendments agreed by both You and SCO in writing and (iii) any additional terms and conditions included in the COLA. Such additional terms may pertain, without limitation, to the following: term, fees and payment, number of permitted CPUs, registration requirements, restriction on runtime environment and transfer of Your rights.
"Code" shall mean computer programming instructions.
"CPU " shall mean a single physical computer processor.
"Desktop System" means a single user computer workstation controlled by a single instance of the Operating System. It may provide personal productivity applications, web browsers and other client interfaces (e.g., mail, calendering, instant messaging, etc). It may not host services for clients on other systems.
"Method" shall mean the human or machine methodology for, or approach to, design, structure, modification, upgrade, de-bugging, tuning, improvement, or adaptation of Code.
"Operating System" shall mean software operating system Code (or Code that substantially performs the functions of an operating system) that is a distribution, rebranding, modification or derivative work of the UNIX(R) operating system or otherwise incorporates Code covered by SCO IP which is not commercially licensed by SCO or one of SCO's authorized licensees.
"System" shall mean a computer system, containing the licensed CPUs, controlled by a single instance of the Operating System.
"Object Code" shall mean the Code that results when Source Code is processed by a software compiler and is directly executable by a computer.
"UNIX-based Code" shall mean any Code or Method that: (i) in its literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functiona
Think like Microsoft for a moment...
Hmmmm, if we pay these guys off, that might validate the patent in everyone's eyes, and then Linux won't be able to have automount...
Hmmmm, how much are they wanting? Cheap at twice the price!