Linux doesn't exist, and were not even sure in 'Finland' is a real place.
Actually this is more SCO fud. Its funny how in thier court documents SCO swears that linux does not infringe SCO copyrights, this is just about IBM and its contracts with SCO. In court SCO sats that they haven't started to compare UNIX and Linux in any real way, and that it would take 25,000 man years to do it anyway.
Java is quickly becoming a de facto standard among management.
Some of the managers are technically savvy enough to realise that there is not much difference in choosing one language implementation over another. They choose Java because there are many programmers being taught Java at school. They are betting that should keep the labor pool large and the labor cost down in the long run.
These tech savvy managers know that python or curl is easier to write and maintain. They also know that other OO languages perform better, but they are adding the cost of staffing and outside support into their equations. They are projecting Java to become the next COBOL or C. None of them were 'perfect' coding languages, but they each dominated all other languages. What is technically 'best' is not always the 'winner' in the marketplace.It only needs to be good enough.
That said, most of the rest of the management (about the other 90%) likes the cool Java swag they got at the last convention. They think it makes them superior to wear it in first class while sipping cocktails and talking loudly on their cell phones about 'their' latest Java project implementation, and its overall downward effect on the cost ratios of delivering customer facing services, thus maximizing the returns for each level without jeopardizing the long term blah blah blah blah blah...
How many other companies with small caps will line up to start suing IBM?
If IBM earns the reputation as a company that will settle for a few million instead of fight, they will find themselves surrounded by mosquitoes!
Look at Microsoft, they get sued all the time. MS is probably spending more on lawsuit settlements each year than they spend on keeping the XBox division or the Great Planes division afloat.
IBM hasn't lasted over 100 years by giving money away to settle frivolous lawsuits. They know the long term consequences.
I always used to love spending time with Charlie at Workman center each year. He was my undergraduate advisor.
Turns out he was pretty good at making UFO's as well. At least there sure are a lot of people who believe the weather balloons he used to make during project mogul were UFO's!
I miss those afternoon summer thunderstorms in Socorro.
Since at least in the 1970's US bills have used magnetic particles suspended in the black ink to help automate the detection of real bills from phony bills.
This helps vending machines detect the bill as well.
Your comment about aluminum foil in the microwave is exactly right.
The magnetic particles in the bills are going to do the same thing. Especially in a stack of bills. The ink in the eye probably lines up in the stack, and is more concentrated than in other parts of the picture.
The electromagnetic field generated by the microwave will induce a current in the magnetic particles suspended in the ink.
Twinkle twinkle little star,
power equals I-squared * R.
The resistance will result in heat, and the bills will burn.
So take off your tin foil hats folks, or at least don't stick your head in the microwave while wearing it!
"If everyone used Linux instead of Windows, then the virus writers would write viruses for linux instead!"
If everyone repeats this refrain enough people may actually start to believe it, and that would be good in counteracting that old 'many eyes make all bugs shallow' phrase we keep hearing about open source.
Taken at face value the statement seems reasonable, but I'm a scientist and I like to hold theories up to the light of reality and see how they do. I know that testing theories annoys people because it makes them question their deepest held beliefs, but hey I'm an annoying guy anyway.
We could test the statement by finding an Open Source project that has much more market share than a closed source project, then compare the rates of exploit. Hmmmm... how about Apache vs. MS IIS?
According to Netcraft Apache has about 67% of the market and Microsoft's IIS has about 21% of the market. The often quoted FUD says that Apache is used by so many more people it must have many more exploits.
We can search the CERT website for the terms 'Apache' and 'Microsoft IIS' clicking on the boxes for :
Advisories
Incident Notes
Security Improvement Modules
Vulnerability Notes
'Apache' gives 180 results.
'Microsoft IIS' gives 830 results.
Wait! That means that just because something is used much more widely than another thing it does not result in more attacks! That proves the statement that if Linux were used more it would have more viruses is a false statement! It could be that open source actually does produce more secure code after all!
If Linux had 60% or 70% market share, there would probably be more viruses written for Linux than there are now. But, as we can see with the real world example of Apache and Microsoft IIS, the open source development model produces more secure software.
Sorry to step on that often quoted line about linux and viruses, but I like reality.
Please read the referenced article. All of the proposed telescopes are ground based. the people who build, maintain, and use these telescopes are also ground based. Their paychecks will be spent down here on Earth
One of the biggest problems on Earth right now is ignorance and stupidity. Spending money on increasing knowledge is a way to combat that problem.
Spending money on increasing the sum knowledge base of the entire human race is a good thing to spend money on.
I think that one quote is particularly interesting:
"They post a message that says they can't print, then they get their answer. What newsgroups are is a form of knowledge management application. What they are about is leveraging the collective knowledge of large numbers of people."
I don't know how hard Microsoft is going
to listen to this sociologist, but he groks what a young Finnish grad student understood twelve years ago...
Subject: Free minix-like kernel sources for 386-AT
Keywords: 386, preliminary version
Message-ID:
1991Oct5.054106.4647@klaava.Helsinki.FI
Date: 5 Oct 91 05:41:06 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 55
Do you pine for the nice days of minix-1.1, when men were men and wrote their own device drivers? Are you without a nice project and just dying to cut your teeth on a OS you can try to modify for your needs? Are you finding it frustrating when everything works on minix? No more all-nighters to get a nifty program working?
Then this post might be justfor you:-)
As I mentioned a month(?) ago, I'm working on a free version of a minix-lookalike for AT-386 computers. It has finally reached the stage
where it's even usable (though may not be depending on what you want), and I am willing to put out the sources for wider distribution. It is
just version 0.02 (+1 (very small) patch already), but I've successfully run bash/gcc/gnu-make/gnu-sed/compress etc under it....
Please read the article for IBM's denial of SCO's claims. Near the top of page three for this link:
Trink Guarino, Director of IBM Media Relations told MozillaQuest Magazine yesterday:
"SCO has not shown us any code contributed to Linux by IBM that violates SCO copyrights. SCO needs to openly show the Linux community any copyrighted Unix Code, which they claim is in Linux. SCO seems to be asking customers to pay for a license based on allegations, not facts."
"IBM owns the copyrights for the work we've done in AIX, JFS, RCU and the code that takes advantage of NUMA hardware. AIX is the fastest growing UNIX operating system in the industry, and we intend to continue and accelerate that growth."
Here in Chicago, we used to be the candy capital of America maybe the world. Wrigley gum, Ferrera Pan, M&M Mars (gone to PA), Cracker Jacks, Brachs, World's Finest, and many more.
The high cost of sugar has driven all but two candy manufacturers out of the country. The subsidies to support low profit margin sugar producers have caused the loss of high profit margin candy producers! More high paying jobs have been lost in the candy manufacturing industry than the low paying jobs saved in the sugar farming industry.
Thats what are elected officials have done to help us!
Your hypothetical would apply if SCO or some other party put the SCO code in Linux on purpose 'as a ploy'. The intent would be there.
The past history of violations like these has already set the precedent into the law books. Linux users, corporate or not for profit, did not intentionaly commit copyright infringement. Even if they profited, SCO would have a hard time overturning decades of precedent.
But if you are right, then BSD would be able to go after corporations and individuals that used Windows with un-attributed BSD code. BSD could then go after the users of sysIV and sysV code that infringed the BSD license.
Oh, that would be all parties that use anything covered by the SCO copyrights!
There is no reason Linux users and developers should worry about having to pay one penny to SCO. Consider that after years of battling Sears in court, the patent holder for the adjustable wrench got a huge settlement from Sears for the theft of his patented invention, but the many owners of Sears Craftsman wrenches never had to pay him royalties. Even though many of the owners of wrenches may have been businesses that used the wrenches to make their own products. Sort of the way you are using Linux to develop a project.
Think about how Paramount had to pay the copyright holder, Art Buchwald, for the copyrighted material they took and put in the Eddy Murphy movie 'Coming to America', but movie goers didn't have to each send Mr. Buchwald a check. None of the theater companies that made money showing the film paid Mr. Buchwald, even though they 'trafficked' in tainted goods!
Now, before they even prove they own it. Before they even show anyone what they own. The SCO group want Linux users to pay up front. This is totally unprecedented.
Overturning years of precedent and setting a new example like SCO wants to do would have a chilling effect on the software industry in America. The software giants in the industry will not let this become standard operating procedure.
IBM is very good at the IP law end of the software business. I am sure they did 'due diligence', and made sure the code they put in Linux was their code and not stolen. I think it is highly unlikely that the SCO group will be able to prove otherwise, especially because SysV UNIX is so tainted with other open source code.
But even if SCO wins a settlement from IBM, just like Sears and Paramount, the users of the 'tainted' product will not have to pay a single penny.
It is easy for us geeks to poke holes in SCO's arguments about code origin. Don't any of these Wall street analysts have enough business sense, and experience in past cases to call SCO's bluff?
I now that all these costs eventually get passed down to the consumer level, so software users will pay for the extra legal work needed in the future to develop software. But this just adds to the cost of developing software within the USA. SCO is bad for the economy. Free market oriented software development like Linux and Apache are much better for helping to create a robust competitive economy.
In any case, this is a big inconvenience for many people using Linux in their companies. I have to stop development on one of my projects because I don't want to pay SCO any money to use Linux.
There is no reason Linux users and developers should worry about having to pay one penny to SCO. Consider that after years of battling Sears in court, the patent holder for the adjustable wrench got a huge settlement from Sears for the theft of his patented invention, but the many owners of Sears Craftsman wrenches never had to pay him royalties. Even though many of the owners of wrenches may have been businesses that used the wrenches to make their own products. Sort of the way you are using Linux to develop a project.
Think about how Paramount had to pay the copyright holder, Art Buchwald, for the copyrighted material they took and put in the Eddy Murphy movie 'Coming to America',
but movie goers didn't have to each send Mr. Buchwald a check. None of the theater companies that made money showing the film paid Mr. Buchwald, even though they 'trafficked' in tainted goods!
Now, before they even prove they own it. Before they even show anyone what they own. The SCO group want Linux users to pay up front. This is totally unprecedented.
Overturning years of precedent and setting a new example like SCO wants to do would have a chilling effect on the software industry in America. The software giants in the industry will not let this become standard operating procedure.
IBM is very good at the IP law end of the software business. I am sure they did 'due diligence', and made sure the code they put in Linux was their code and not stolen. I think it is highly unlikely that the SCO group will be able to prove otherwise, especially because SysV UNIX is so tainted with other open source code.
But even if SCO wins a settlement from IBM, just like Sears and Paramount, the users of the 'tainted' product will not have to pay a single penny.
It is easy for us geeks to poke holes in SCO's
arguments about code origin. Don't any of these Wall street analysts have enough business sense, and experience in past cases to call SCO's bluff?
I now that all these costs eventually get passed down to the consumer level, so software users will pay for the extra legal work needed in the future to develop software. But this just adds to the cost of developing software within the USA. SCO is bad for the economy. Free market oriented software development like Linux and Apache are much better for helping to create a robust competitive economy.
Just because a certain piece code is in SysV UNIX does not mean that SCO owns the copyright to that piece of code. Even if SCO owns the copyright to SysV code! Huh?
SysV Unix is full of code that is copyrighted by Berkely Systems. This code is in Unix it is in Linux, and it is in Windows.
Just because there are lines of code that match in Linux and in SCO unixware does not mean that it is stolen from SCO. SCO will have to show the code, and the entire source history, and prove it is their code.
If they are sucsesfull in all that (unlikely), then they will have to prove IBM committed the theft (highly unlikely). Then the worst case would be that IBM would be liable and Linux would have to replace the code. There was no intentional theft on the part of the Linux community.
This would upset decades of precedent set in IP cases that have come before. Both AT&T and Microsoft have put stolen intelectual property in their operating systems. Microsoft Windows TCP/IP stack contained stolen intelectual property from Berkeley Systems, and AT&T SysIV and SysV unix contained stolen IP from Berekely Systems.
In both these previous cases the theiving companies (At&T and Microsoft) were responsible for the theft, and they indemnified their customers from any financial liability.
BSD never went after the users. SCO wants to change this by trying to charge Linux users a license fee. If they set this new precedent, BSD would then have a case for going after all Windows at SysV users.
SCO's customers will all be liable for using the stolen code AT&T put in Unix before SCO bought UNIX! I hope BSD is willing to charge enough to make it hurt. Then BSD could use the new SCO precedent to go after users of Windows versions that had stolen IP in it, and make much more money. BSD could be huge!
SCO may inherit the copyrights to UNIX, but UNIX is already tainted with too much stolen IP.
Precedent has already been set in software and many other industries. If IBM put stolen intelectual property into Linux (highly unlikely), then IBM would be liable but linux users would not be liable.
Consider a hypothetical situation. If Ford stole some patented idea from Mazda and put it in a european designed Ford Focus*, Ford would be liable but all the Focus drivers would not have to send a check to Mazda too! Ford would take the hit and indemnify its customers. Ford Focus drivers would not be liable to Mazda.
Or consider a real life case. Sears stole the patented idea for the famous Craftsman adjustable wrench. Sears lost in court after years battling the original patent owner, Sears paid up. No owner of a Sears Craftsman adjustable wrench was liable, only Sears.
Or consider the script for the Eddy Murphy movie 'Coming to America' was based on stolen intelectual property. The movie company, Paramount, had to pay Art Buchwald (the original author) but not a single movie goer had to cough up a few extra pennies to pay. None of them were liable for Paramount's infringement of copyright law.
Sure the customers always pay in the long run because all costs get passed along to the consumer level eventually. This is true in the software industry too. SCO's actions add to the total cost of developing and delivering software. Their actions make it more costly for companies to create and sell products in the USA. Greedy short sighted business is bad for our economy.
I hope the Europeans watch these events and implement some less restrictive, more free market oriented intelectual property laws than we have here in the good old US of A!
*(a sub compact car that replaced the Mazda designed Ford Escort in the North American market. The Mazda based Escort replaced an even earlier European based Escort.)
"...a LOT of people could wind up dead or injured.
'a LOT' is kind of ambiguous. Do you mean 'a LOT' like the 150 people that day that die in auto accidents on American roads each day? Or do you mean the 1 or 2 people per day that die in airplane related accident (small and large planes)?
You are much more likely to be killed by an auto than you are to be killed by a commercial sub orbital rocket. So maybe we should regulate those cars more.
Slashdot Mirror
Grave of the fireflies.
That brings back memories.
I'll have to dig up a copy. Thanks for reminding me!
Wait isn't open source supposed to only copy already existing closed source technology?
How dare they be innovative.
Next thing you know linux will have a measurable and growing market share.
Then software like apache, eclipse, and jboss will be used in enterprise applications.
Oh, wait...
Never mind!
Linux doesn't exist, and were not even sure in 'Finland' is a real place.
Actually this is more SCO fud. Its funny how in thier court documents SCO swears that linux does not infringe SCO copyrights, this is just about IBM and its contracts with SCO. In court SCO sats that they haven't started to compare UNIX and Linux in any real way, and that it would take 25,000 man years to do it anyway.
In the press they say the opposite!
Its nice that IBM points this out to the court as well.
Wow, that's really cool!
Java is quickly becoming a de facto standard among management.
Some of the managers are technically savvy enough to realise that there is not much difference in choosing one language implementation over another. They choose Java because there are many programmers being taught Java at school. They are betting that should keep the labor pool large and the labor cost down in the long run.
These tech savvy managers know that python or curl is easier to write and maintain. They also know that other OO languages perform better, but they are adding the cost of staffing and outside support into their equations. They are projecting Java to become the next COBOL or C. None of them were 'perfect' coding languages, but they each dominated all other languages. What is technically 'best' is not always the 'winner' in the marketplace.It only needs to be good enough.
That said, most of the rest of the management (about the other 90%) likes the cool Java swag they got at the last convention. They think it makes them superior to wear it in first class while sipping cocktails and talking loudly on their cell phones about 'their' latest Java project implementation, and its overall downward effect on the cost ratios of delivering customer facing services, thus maximizing the returns for each level without jeopardizing the long term blah blah blah blah blah...
How many other companies with small caps will line up to start suing IBM?
If IBM earns the reputation as a company that will settle for a few million instead of fight, they will find themselves surrounded by mosquitoes!
Look at Microsoft, they get sued all the time. MS is probably spending more on lawsuit settlements each year than they spend on keeping the XBox division or the Great Planes division afloat.
IBM hasn't lasted over 100 years by giving money away to settle frivolous lawsuits. They know the long term consequences.
I always used to love spending time with Charlie at Workman center each year. He was my undergraduate advisor.
Turns out he was pretty good at making UFO's as well. At least there sure are a lot of people who believe the weather balloons he used to make during project mogul were UFO's!
I miss those afternoon summer thunderstorms in Socorro.
This thing has a 6502 processor?
Can it run Apple II software?
I just have to ask.
Since at least in the 1970's US bills have used magnetic particles suspended in the black ink to help automate the detection of real bills from phony bills.
This helps vending machines detect the bill as well.
Your comment about aluminum foil in the microwave is exactly right.
The magnetic particles in the bills are going to do the same thing. Especially in a stack of bills. The ink in the eye probably lines up in the stack, and is more concentrated than in other parts of the picture.
The electromagnetic field generated by the microwave will induce a current in the magnetic particles suspended in the ink.
Twinkle twinkle little star, power equals I-squared * R.
The resistance will result in heat, and the bills will burn.
So take off your tin foil hats folks, or at least don't stick your head in the microwave while wearing it!
I agree that one data point is not enough to prove a thoery, but one counter example is enough to disprove a theory.
Note my line:
I was using a single data point as a counter example to show a theory as false.
I also put forth a theory of my own:
Please feel free to refute that statement. I do enjoy creative criticism.
If everyone repeats this refrain enough people may actually start to believe it, and that would be good in counteracting that old 'many eyes make all bugs shallow' phrase we keep hearing about open source.
Taken at face value the statement seems reasonable, but I'm a scientist and I like to hold theories up to the light of reality and see how they do. I know that testing theories annoys people because it makes them question their deepest held beliefs, but hey I'm an annoying guy anyway.
We could test the statement by finding an Open Source project that has much more market share than a closed source project, then compare the rates of exploit. Hmmmm... how about Apache vs. MS IIS?
According to Netcraft Apache has about 67% of the market and Microsoft's IIS has about 21% of the market. The often quoted FUD says that Apache is used by so many more people it must have many more exploits.
We can search the CERT website for the terms 'Apache' and 'Microsoft IIS' clicking on the boxes for :
Advisories
Incident Notes
Security Improvement Modules
Vulnerability Notes
'Apache' gives 180 results.
'Microsoft IIS' gives 830 results.
Wait! That means that just because something is used much more widely than another thing it does not result in more attacks! That proves the statement that if Linux were used more it would have more viruses is a false statement! It could be that open source actually does produce more secure code after all!
If Linux had 60% or 70% market share, there would probably be more viruses written for Linux than there are now. But, as we can see with the real world example of Apache and Microsoft IIS, the open source development model produces more secure software.
Sorry to step on that often quoted line about linux and viruses, but I like reality.
Maybe He'll open a branch office in Lindon Utah. That would be nice.
Please read the referenced article. All of the proposed telescopes are ground based. the people who build, maintain, and use these telescopes are also ground based. Their paychecks will be spent down here on Earth
One of the biggest problems on Earth right now is ignorance and stupidity. Spending money on increasing knowledge is a way to combat that problem.
Spending money on increasing the sum knowledge base of the entire human race is a good thing to spend money on.
Very good simpsons quote! Bravo
I think that one quote is particularly interesting:
I don't know how hard Microsoft is going to listen to this sociologist, but he groks what a young Finnish grad student understood twelve years ago...
The patch from MS is really a trojan!
Go to this link to learn more!
This is exactly what IBM is saying.
Please read the article for IBM's denial of SCO's claims. Near the top of page three for this link:
Trink Guarino, Director of IBM Media Relations told MozillaQuest Magazine yesterday:
"SCO has not shown us any code contributed to Linux by IBM that violates SCO copyrights. SCO needs to openly show the Linux community any copyrighted Unix Code, which they claim is in Linux. SCO seems to be asking customers to pay for a license based on allegations, not facts."
"IBM owns the copyrights for the work we've done in AIX, JFS, RCU and the code that takes advantage of NUMA hardware. AIX is the fastest growing UNIX operating system in the industry, and we intend to continue and accelerate that growth."
Here in Chicago, we used to be the candy capital of America maybe the world. Wrigley gum, Ferrera Pan, M&M Mars (gone to PA), Cracker Jacks, Brachs, World's Finest, and many more.
The high cost of sugar has driven all but two candy manufacturers out of the country. The subsidies to support low profit margin sugar producers have caused the loss of high profit margin candy producers! More high paying jobs have been lost in the candy manufacturing industry than the low paying jobs saved in the sugar farming industry.
Thats what are elected officials have done to help us!
This was all a ploy to get your code.
Your hypothetical would apply if SCO or some other party put the SCO code in Linux on purpose 'as a ploy'. The intent would be there.
The past history of violations like these has already set the precedent into the law books. Linux users, corporate or not for profit, did not intentionaly commit copyright infringement. Even if they profited, SCO would have a hard time overturning decades of precedent.
But if you are right, then BSD would be able to go after corporations and individuals that used Windows with un-attributed BSD code. BSD could then go after the users of sysIV and sysV code that infringed the BSD license.
Oh, that would be all parties that use anything covered by the SCO copyrights!
There is no reason Linux users and developers should worry about having to pay one penny to SCO. Consider that after years of battling Sears in court, the patent holder for the adjustable wrench got a huge settlement from Sears for the theft of his patented invention, but the many owners of Sears Craftsman wrenches never had to pay him royalties. Even though many of the owners of wrenches may have been businesses that used the wrenches to make their own products. Sort of the way you are using Linux to develop a project.
Think about how Paramount had to pay the copyright holder, Art Buchwald, for the copyrighted material they took and put in the Eddy Murphy movie 'Coming to America', but movie goers didn't have to each send Mr. Buchwald a check. None of the theater companies that made money showing the film paid Mr. Buchwald, even though they 'trafficked' in tainted goods!
Now, before they even prove they own it. Before they even show anyone what they own. The SCO group want Linux users to pay up front. This is totally unprecedented.
Overturning years of precedent and setting a new example like SCO wants to do would have a chilling effect on the software industry in America. The software giants in the industry will not let this become standard operating procedure.
IBM is very good at the IP law end of the software business. I am sure they did 'due diligence', and made sure the code they put in Linux was their code and not stolen. I think it is highly unlikely that the SCO group will be able to prove otherwise, especially because SysV UNIX is so tainted with other open source code.
But even if SCO wins a settlement from IBM, just like Sears and Paramount, the users of the 'tainted' product will not have to pay a single penny.
It is easy for us geeks to poke holes in SCO's arguments about code origin. Don't any of these Wall street analysts have enough business sense, and experience in past cases to call SCO's bluff?
I now that all these costs eventually get passed down to the consumer level, so software users will pay for the extra legal work needed in the future to develop software. But this just adds to the cost of developing software within the USA. SCO is bad for the economy. Free market oriented software development like Linux and Apache are much better for helping to create a robust competitive economy.
Support freedom of choice.
Support free enterprise.
Support free software.
In any case, this is a big inconvenience for many people using Linux in their companies. I have to stop development on one of my projects because I don't want to pay SCO any money to use Linux.
There is no reason Linux users and developers should worry about having to pay one penny to SCO. Consider that after years of battling Sears in court, the patent holder for the adjustable wrench got a huge settlement from Sears for the theft of his patented invention, but the many owners of Sears Craftsman wrenches never had to pay him royalties. Even though many of the owners of wrenches may have been businesses that used the wrenches to make their own products. Sort of the way you are using Linux to develop a project.
Think about how Paramount had to pay the copyright holder, Art Buchwald, for the copyrighted material they took and put in the Eddy Murphy movie 'Coming to America', but movie goers didn't have to each send Mr. Buchwald a check. None of the theater companies that made money showing the film paid Mr. Buchwald, even though they 'trafficked' in tainted goods!
Now, before they even prove they own it. Before they even show anyone what they own. The SCO group want Linux users to pay up front. This is totally unprecedented.
Overturning years of precedent and setting a new example like SCO wants to do would have a chilling effect on the software industry in America. The software giants in the industry will not let this become standard operating procedure.
IBM is very good at the IP law end of the software business. I am sure they did 'due diligence', and made sure the code they put in Linux was their code and not stolen. I think it is highly unlikely that the SCO group will be able to prove otherwise, especially because SysV UNIX is so tainted with other open source code.
But even if SCO wins a settlement from IBM, just like Sears and Paramount, the users of the 'tainted' product will not have to pay a single penny.
It is easy for us geeks to poke holes in SCO's arguments about code origin. Don't any of these Wall street analysts have enough business sense, and experience in past cases to call SCO's bluff?
I now that all these costs eventually get passed down to the consumer level, so software users will pay for the extra legal work needed in the future to develop software. But this just adds to the cost of developing software within the USA. SCO is bad for the economy. Free market oriented software development like Linux and Apache are much better for helping to create a robust competitive economy.
Support freedom of choice.
Support free enterprise.
Support free software.
Just because a certain piece code is in SysV UNIX does not mean that SCO owns the copyright to that piece of code. Even if SCO owns the copyright to SysV code! Huh?
SysV Unix is full of code that is copyrighted by Berkely Systems. This code is in Unix it is in Linux, and it is in Windows.
Just because there are lines of code that match in Linux and in SCO unixware does not mean that it is stolen from SCO. SCO will have to show the code, and the entire source history, and prove it is their code.
If they are sucsesfull in all that (unlikely), then they will have to prove IBM committed the theft (highly unlikely). Then the worst case would be that IBM would be liable and Linux would have to replace the code. There was no intentional theft on the part of the Linux community.
This would upset decades of precedent set in IP cases that have come before. Both AT&T and Microsoft have put stolen intelectual property in their operating systems. Microsoft Windows TCP/IP stack contained stolen intelectual property from Berkeley Systems, and AT&T SysIV and SysV unix contained stolen IP from Berekely Systems.
In both these previous cases the theiving companies (At&T and Microsoft) were responsible for the theft, and they indemnified their customers from any financial liability.
BSD never went after the users. SCO wants to change this by trying to charge Linux users a license fee. If they set this new precedent, BSD would then have a case for going after all Windows at SysV users.
SCO's customers will all be liable for using the stolen code AT&T put in Unix before SCO bought UNIX! I hope BSD is willing to charge enough to make it hurt. Then BSD could use the new SCO precedent to go after users of Windows versions that had stolen IP in it, and make much more money. BSD could be huge!
SCO may inherit the copyrights to UNIX, but UNIX is already tainted with too much stolen IP.
Precedent has already been set in software and many other industries. If IBM put stolen intelectual property into Linux (highly unlikely), then IBM would be liable but linux users would not be liable.
Consider a hypothetical situation. If Ford stole some patented idea from Mazda and put it in a european designed Ford Focus*, Ford would be liable but all the Focus drivers would not have to send a check to Mazda too! Ford would take the hit and indemnify its customers. Ford Focus drivers would not be liable to Mazda.
Or consider a real life case. Sears stole the patented idea for the famous Craftsman adjustable wrench. Sears lost in court after years battling the original patent owner, Sears paid up. No owner of a Sears Craftsman adjustable wrench was liable, only Sears.
Or consider the script for the Eddy Murphy movie 'Coming to America' was based on stolen intelectual property. The movie company, Paramount, had to pay Art Buchwald (the original author) but not a single movie goer had to cough up a few extra pennies to pay. None of them were liable for Paramount's infringement of copyright law.
Sure the customers always pay in the long run because all costs get passed along to the consumer level eventually. This is true in the software industry too. SCO's actions add to the total cost of developing and delivering software. Their actions make it more costly for companies to create and sell products in the USA. Greedy short sighted business is bad for our economy.
I hope the Europeans watch these events and implement some less restrictive, more free market oriented intelectual property laws than we have here in the good old US of A!
*(a sub compact car that replaced the Mazda designed Ford Escort in the North American market. The Mazda based Escort replaced an even earlier European based Escort.)
He was Herman, he hung with the hermits.
Peter Tork was a monkey.
Oh Fud! Now I've got that 'Mrs. Brown, You've got a lovely daughter' tune in my head =)
'a LOT' is kind of ambiguous. Do you mean 'a LOT' like the 150 people that day that die in auto accidents on American roads each day? Or do you mean the 1 or 2 people per day that die in airplane related accident (small and large planes)?
You are much more likely to be killed by an auto than you are to be killed by a commercial sub orbital rocket. So maybe we should regulate those cars more.
Perspective is everything.