If you can use a 2.2 kernel, you can go on with out much chance of trouble.
Don't mix up press release and actual claims. SCO continues to distribute 2.2.x kernels, which means that the agree to the GPL as it applies to that code revision.
SCO's accussations are realy that code was contributed to the 2.4.x kernel which is infringing. That is why the UnixWare license that they are selling specifically applies to Linux 2.4 and later.
For the sake of argument, let us assume that there is code in Linux to which SCO has a proprietary right, and that it was improperly contributed.
SCO can very well enforce their copyright by granting a license. They cannot distribute a linux version that had their proprietary code since they do not have any license to the remainder of linux.
On the other hand, since the GPL was violated by mixing open and proprietary code, no-one else has the right to distribute it either. The other contributors could file a lawsuit against RedHat, for instance, if they so desired.
It is not SCO's responsibility to insure that non-SCO code is properly licensed.
Therefore, if you need to buy a license from SCO you also need to contact every other constributor and buy a license from them in order to have a fully legal version of linux.Realisticly, however, it is unlikely that Linus et al are going to sue for code that they intended to share. So the SCO license is probably enough to cover you.
One thing is becoming more and more clear. The code that is potentially infringing is isolated to post 2.2.x kernels. Since SCO continues to distirbute 2.2.x kernels they are, in fact, agreeing that that kernel is covered under GPL. Linux users can avaoid the whole issue by running 2.2.x, which should not be hardship for most.
You are wrong on so many counts one is forced to wonder if you aren't an astroturfer for SCO, or one of their underwriters such as Sun Microsystems or Microsoft, or just woefully uninformed.
I assure you I am none of the above.
[The fact that SCO still has a linux dist. available for download] is evidence of the 'smoking gun' variety that they are doing one of the following
1) Legally distributing GPLed code
a) any Caldera contributed code is likewise GPLed and legal
b) Either there is no misappropriated code present or they have implicitly chosen to GPL it.
2) SCO is willfully and knowingly violating copyright, as violating the GPL (or disregarding it) means that regular copyright law applies, and they have no right to distribute any code but that which they wrote (which excludes virtually everything except that contributed by Caldera, if anything).
Either way, it is certainly evidence of 'something.'
It is only evidence that SCO judges that the particular version available for download is free from infringement. You don't actually believe that distributing 2.2 version of something under GPL automatically waves your proprietary rights to anything that appears in future versions? SCO argues that their IP began to show up in 2.4 kernels. That is why today's announced licensing plan applied to kernels 2.4 and up. Go back and read the articles.
The end users most certainly are bound by copyright law, and are thus not permitted by default to download (ie. 'copy'), much less use the software in question unless they adhere to the GPL. Therefor, end users are REQUIRED by law to adhere to the GPL if they make any use of the software (including the Linux kernel itself). This includes SCO and anyone else.
Read the GPL closely. Especially paragraph 2-b. You can do basicly anything you want with GPL software as long as you don't distribute and publish it. You can link it with proprietary code. You cannot publish or distribute GPL code linked with proprietery code.
[I]n the extraordinarilly unlikely event that there is SCO code in Linux, users are NOT permitted to violate the GPL OR SCO's license. The two are incompatible, so the user in question must chose to adhere to one or the other (guess which one wins? Yup, the GPL, as SCO's contribution, if any, won't a working kernel make).
Again, read the GPL. Users can mix and match all they want. RedHat and Debian can't publish it. That is a violation of the GPL, and - interestingly enough - the kernel developers would have rights to sue RedHat, Debian, et al. Also interesting, if the kernel does contain SCO code, the GPL is invalidated and the users could not legally use linux.
The fact of the matter is that SCO consistently provides absolutely no evidence of any of their claims, and has continued to do so for months, while the Linux development process has been in contrast very transparent and well documented. You have more chance of being right by joining the local suicide cult than you do by suggesting these fraudulant attorneys have any shred of legitimacy in their arguments. Indeed, the court filing papers underscore just how lacking their case really is, and how empty their bellecose assertions vis-a-vis Linux copyright really are.
Wanting it to be so won't make it so. Do you really know the inner workings of IBM enough to guarantee that they didn't do anything unscrupulous. Do you trust that the judge is going to have enough expertise to properly assess the isues? I don't. SCO is playing a bellicose PR game, but their legal game is much more measured.
That really isn't important. Even if SCO were 100% correct, they themselves would be willfully guilty of copyright violation, and while everyone might have to switch to FreeBSD from Linux (unlikely in the extreme), SCO would be buried under copyright suits of their own, and will not stay in business regardless.
First, the fact that SCO still has a Linux dist. on their FTP server is not evidence of anything. IIRC SCO is claiming that IBM contributed SCO owned code recently (yes, I know that SCO is making noise about owning everything ever written, but that is PR not legal filings). As long as the versions of Linux on SCO's FTP server pre-date the potentually offending contributions, SCO has not ceded their proprietary rights to the GPL.
For instance, if SCO is still distributing 2.2.17 on their FTP server, we can assume that the infringing code came later. The fact that later versions may have at one time been available from SCO is not neccessarily an indication that those versions are clean, since the licenser can't accidentally license something, particularly if the licenser makes moves to rectiufy the situation afterwards.
Second, the GPL specifies that proprietary and GPL code cannot be mixed in a distribution. It does not prevent mixing by the end user. This is how some video card manufacturers publish binary only drivers for linking by the end user.
Understanding that point, SCO is free to license their SysV code to linux users. Linux users are free to use it. Linux Distribution Puiblishers, both for profit and non-profit, are the parties in violation of the GPL. The end users are in no way bound by the GPL, they are just in violation of SCO's copyright.
If IBM really did contribute SCO code, SCO does have legitimate remedies against IBM, distributors, and users. Users can mitigate their risk by rewinding their systems back to the latest kernel version still available from SCO. That version is free from SCO IP issues because, since SCO themselves distributed it, it is covered by the GPL.
It is unlikely that the distributors are in too much trouble, since SCO has not revealed the offending code, they have not been in a position to make a good faith effort to rectify the infringement. This would likely be taken into account in a "damages" phase of a future SCO v. linux distributors lawsuit (which would follow a SCO win over IBM). It is likely that, upon being sued, the attornies for the linux distributors would immediately stipulate that they did indeed distribute SCO code, but that they relied on the code contributor that they had license to do so. Then they would implead IBM, who at this point already was found guilty of violating SCO's copyrights.
IBM is potentially in bad shape, legally and in damages. Of course, this is all assuming that their is merit to SCO's claim that their code was placed in Linux.
... say something nice about him... and then offer some "supportive criticism."
Politicians are, like virtually anyone else, interested in advancing their own agendas and the agendas of their allies. They see their constituents in three groups...
People who will support them no matter what.
People who will oppose them no matter what.
People who can be persuaded one way or the other.
Politicians will play enough to the first group to keep their "base" support strong. They'll completely ignore the second group, if they are not outright working against them.
The key to effectively communicating with a politician is to appear to be in that third "swing" group.
Think about it. If you were the president and received two letters criticizing policies on "domestic spying" - the first called you a "fascist pig" - and the second acknowledged "you efforts to provide safety and security to the American people", then asked you to "reevaluate the balance between security and the civil liberty that we all cherish" - which would be more likely to make an impact?
And just another comment... Many of the "/." community talk about terrorism in their posts as if the threat is made up hysteria. I live in the NYC area. My wife watched the second plane impact and the collapse of the towers from her car on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. Later that morning at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge she picked up refugees fleeing from lower Manhattan and ferried them out of the area. We know 4 fire fighters who gave their lives in the rescue effort.
All registered mail proves is that [someone claiming to be] you got AN ENVELOPE. What was in that envelope is up for debate.
After a lawyer sends the letter, he also makes a document called an "Affirmation of Service". If a non-lawyer, such as a paralegal, legal secretary, etc. sends the letter, they fill out an "Affadavit of Service". These are sworn documents.
If a judge or other member of the legal profession has the slightest inkling that the affirmation or affidavit was falsified, the responsible attorney is brought up on disciplinary charges (with the real potential for disbarment) so quickly your head would spin.
Even if the attorney was not disbarred, he would face a damaging cloud of suspicion for the rest of his career. No intelligent attorney would risk his livelihood for such a simple thing.
While many people criticize lawyers for many things, the profession tends to be squeaky clean when it comes to these types of issues. The accusation of dishonesty is taken incredibly seriously.
For better or for worse, the legal system in the US of A is an adversarial system. There is nothing that stops anyone from sending out letters threatening a civil lawsuit. And once a suit is filed, it is likely that the fact that the defendant purchased the device from someone marketing it as a tool to steal service would be enough to deny a counter claim of baratry or request for other sanction on the plaintiff.
OptimumOnline from Cablevision has been excellent, but it runs $40-$50 a month, a little less if you also get a cable tv package. It is far and away the dominant broadband provider in the area.
There are a number of ADSL services, which all eventually go through Verizon. They are a little cheaper, but OptimumOnline has had much better reliability. Many people, including myself, have had enough problems with Verizon to never go there again.
There are a few WISPs, but they mostly provide business level service, and are too pricey compared with cablemodem.
If you have the logs, they are business records and can be subject to subpeona. The key is to set up a business policy which purges the logs entirely on a rapid basis, and actually follow it.
If an RIAA lawyer asks you for information about who had what IP address at a particular time last month, and you then delete the logs, you are in a whole lot of trouble.
But, if you only store a week's worth of logs, and regularly delete the logs after they are a week old, you can honestly say "Sorry, that information has been purged in accordance with our document retention policy." There is nothing the RIAA can do about it.
This was what happened at Enron/Arthur Anderson. They had a document retention policy that would have saved their asses, but no one followed it. Only when they realized that they were about to be sued did they shred everything. If they were shredding all along as standard procedure, they would have been fine.
Where did the government get their money? Did they work hard and earn it? Hell, no! They took it by force. If the government wants more money, do they have to work harder for it or cut expenses (like the rest of us do)? Of course not! They just haul out the guns and take it! So, no, they didn't do anything illegal.
I'd like to paraphrase political humorist P.J. O'Rourke...
There are four kinds of spending:
Spending your own money on yourself: you are concerned with getting the most value for your dollar.
Spending someone else's money on yourself: You don't care about price, but you want the best quality. This is the kind of spending second wives do a Neiman Marcus.
Spending your money on someone else: You care about price, and are willing to sacrifice quality. This is why kids get underwear for Christmas.
Spending someone else's money on someone else: You don't care about price or quality. Most government spending happens in this mode.
While I wish the government would concern itself with value, at least if they chose option 2 (like the military often does), we'd at least be more secure.
For your next book...
on
Head First Java
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I highly recommend Design Patterns Java Workbook by John Metsker as your second Java/OO book. It also takes an "interactive" approach to learning, developing a number of key GoF patterns in Java.This book is a practical way to learn not just Java syntax, but real design skills in Java.
After that read Java Development With Ant by Hatcher and Loughran for good info about how to set up real java development environments. Ant is a tool that fits a similar ecological niche as make, but has tons of extra features particularly useful to Java developers.
Oh, and don't bother with an ide. Real men use vim.
Mozilla is an Open Source product, Opera is a commercial product. Some people have an ideological reason for running only open source. I don't.
I've been using Opera as the primary browser on my WinME machine for a few months now. I had been using Netscape, but it would crash on a frequent enough basis that I found it annoying.
I use the ad-based free Opera. I have not found the ads to be intrusive. The UI is clean. The tabs are nice. Combatibility is good. Overall, I've been very happy.
I've not used Mozilla, since I assumed that it would suffer from the same instability as Netscape. I may be wrong on that, however. I tried Opera first and have been happy enough to not look any further.
Microsoft doesn't need to provide you with competing browsers. They should not prohibit system builders like Dell or Gateway from doing so, however.
Imagine that many drug companies manufactured a similar allergy medicine. One of them also makes a heart medicine that dominates it's market. Then that drug maker goes to all the pharmacies and says "You can't sell my heart medicine unless you only sell my allergy medicine." The pharmacies know that the heart medicine is vital to many of their clients and that if they don't have that heart medicine, the clients will go elsewhere. They cave. The other drug companies lose access to the market for their allergy medications, and the consumers lose choice.
Microsoft doesn't need to provide support for competing products, but they shouldn't user their position as the dominant desktop OS provider (heart medicine manufacturer) to prevent system builders (pharmacies) from also providing browsers (allergy medicines) from other firms.
But how do you download it if you don't have a browser?
Easy - you load up the AOL CD that appears in your mailbox once or twice a week!
Seriously, though... Some of the issues of the anti-trust lawsuit were that MS prohibited Dell or Gateway from pre-loading non-MS alternatives on the PCs they sell.
Average Joe computer user may always use the browser that came with his computer. But the major system builders did not have the option to supply Netscape or Opera or anything else. This practice is an example of using an existing monopoly in one market to build a monopoly in another market - which is illegal in the USA.
MS knows that most users are likely to continue to use the software supplied with their PC, so MS's plan was to require the system builders exclude browsers other than IE, media players other than Windows Media Player, office apps other than MS Office or MS Works (depending on customer), etc.
In a more perfect world, Dell should have the freedom to load a bundle on their PCs that would include the suite of apps that they think would best serve their cutomers - perhaps MS Windows, Opera, RealPlayer, WordPerfect, Quicken, etc.
The protocol supports moving files between hosts A and B using a third machine C as the controller. You can use your Win9x machine to order your WinXP and Mac OS X machines to exchange files. That is a good trick to earn some geek points.
I don't know of a utility that provides this ability, but I've coded it myself. It isn't too difficult to do.
But if we wanted to travel to Mars in order to start the reactor, wouldn't we need to stick a really nasty tool in our noses in order to remove the tag?
I was thinking the same thing, but with a public twist...
It is my opinion, which I know many share, that public hotspots are cheap enough that many businesses will soon provide free access as a loss leader. A potential problem is, however, that without a fee based subscription, there is substantial risk that free-loaders will use the internet access without using the services of the business.
As an example, I live withing 500 feet of a Starbucks. I have clear line-of-sight from my roof. With an appropriate antenna I can use the hotspot to tie my home network to the internet. The only thing stopping me now is that Starbucks charges $30 a month - and my cable modem is $50 a month - not enough savings for the trouble. But if Starbucks started offering it for free...
A system like this, implemented inexpensively, would allow the hotspot provider to insure that only people in their establishment could use the service.
Did anyone else read the subject and interpret ":=" as the PL/SQL assignment operator?
The other side of the issue, of course, is the effect overseas. What has happened in China over the last 20 years, for example, is astounding in terms of the numbers of people lifted out of abject poverty. They are entering the global marketplace and building themselves into an economic powerhouse.
What we're seeing is change, which one can either fear or take advantage of. It's your choice.
Well put!
It seems strange that a communty like/., who almost to a man supports concept of the freedom of information (as expressed by OSS, FSF, etc.) can be so reactionary when it comes to dark skinned people from places other than US, Canada, and Europe getting jobs using the skills related to that information.
In the long run, globalization leads to open interdependant economies. Those economies lead to more wealth for all, as well as a more stable peace.
I offer as evidence the most recent rounds of serious saber rattling between India and Pakistan. It has been widely reported that it was the leaders of India's growing high tech sector that pressured the Indian government to step back from the brink of war. That pressure came because they felt that war would damage their ability to get new contracts with western businesses.
As another example, China's growing economic contacts with the US, Japan, etc. have a stabilizing effect on the Taiwan situation. China's entrepreneurs would find the disruption of trade too great a blow to stomach a forced re-unification.
It is also instructive to observe the actual progression of globalization. First, unskilled jobs like simple textile work move overseas. After a while, the standard of living in that place improves and so those un-skilled jobs move to somewhere else and semi-skilled jobs like auto assembly take their place. Then those jobs move on and highly skilled jobs - chip fabrication for one - move in. At the same time the standards of living keep improving. In 30 or 40 years people in a once third world country are living comparably to those in the first world. Many of the factories along the Mexico/Texas border provide their workers with a middle class lifestyle. Those Mexicans, in turn, have the wealth to purchase goods and services from the US, re-employing the people whose jobs were lost when the factory moved to Mexico.
While there will be many bumps in the road, globalization will be a long term net positive for every nation. Nations go to war when their leaders have less to lose by war than by peace. Globalized economies have a great deal to lose, while isolated economies have little at stake. World peace will come when men of every nation have the opportunity to better themselves through commerce, rather than violence.
Don't forget that the $2 billion price tag for the B-2 bomber includes parts and maintenance for a specified time span. The cost comparison to the carrier is apples-to-oranges.
Also, the $2 billion price tag included huge amounts of R&D. The Nimitz class is quite old, relatively speaking, and so only the R&D for the latest revisions are in that price.
If we bought 12 wings of B2 bombers, the price of the last few bombers off the line would be the figure we need to compare to the $5 billion price of a Nimitz carrier.
...individually [France and Germany] don't need big offensive militaries, because if they ever really needed help, half the word would come to their aid.
The "half the world" you are refering to is, presumably the USA. No other country has near the ability to project power any place on the globe.
How many air craft carriers does it take to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan? None of the terrorist have large conventional military that would take more than 1 or 2 carriers to get rid of...
It takes quite a few carriers to meet all the US security commitments. The USA was able to deploy 5 fleet carriers to support Central Command while still doing the following...
Keep a carrier or two nearby in case N.Korea decided to get frisky.
Keep a close eye on China to make sure they don't decide the time is right to invade Taiwan.
Keep a close eye on India/Pakistan.
Sail around near Africa in case needed, as they now may be in Liberia.
I has long been the policy of the United States to keep a carrier active in each N. Atlantic, S. Atlantic, N. Pacific, S. Pacific, Indian Ocean, and the Mediterranean. That is six areas that need to be covered, which requires 12 carriers so that they can sail for 6 months, then refit and train for six months.
For 60 years now, US ability to project power has been what separates the freedom and prosperity of Europe, Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, and Australia from the tyrranny and poverty of the rest of the world. (I am not a fool, and I acknowledge that US power has been used imperfectly, and that it has been used to prop up tyrants who were enemies of our enemies, with dire long term consequences.)
Would the 11 Million people (Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Homosexual, etc.) who died at the hands of the Germans and their French collaborators have prefered that we do nothing? Would the people of S. Korea prefer to starve in the workers' paradise to their North had we done nothing. Would the people of Taiwan have prefered that we do nothing, so that they could have experienced the cultural revolution as well? How about the people of the Philipines - would they have prefered to remain under the foot of imperial Japan? And the Kurds and Shiites in Iraq, or the earless - were they better off if America chose to stay at home?
Yes, America is imperfect. (For instance we supported the Shah in Iran and Osama to counter Soviet moves in the region, with horrible humanitarian results and dire consequences for ourselves.) But no nation in history has done more to promote the freedom and human dignity.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
1) Twisted Pair style ethernet (10Base-T and up, not thin or thick) uses a differential reciever to cancel noise. As long as the same noise is present on both conductors of the pair, everything is, as EEs say, "Hunky Dory".
2) POTS lines run 48V - 96V on ring - without electrocuiting people.
First Adam Rightmann trolled with this comment: In that it can "weed" out the Joe Sixpacks out there who really have no business at all installing software, or hardware.
Then mofochickamo skillfully deflected the troll, adding his own touch: You're right. Anyone with any muscles belongs anywhere near a computer. Muscles and computer skills are mutually exclusive.
Finnally haystor took the bait: I always thought Sixpack when used in that phrase referred to beer since its generally talking about a common man with a common man's taste.
I am glad there are so many young children around to read this. This is a truly a grand example of the troll as high art. As a card carrying Kibologist, I salute you.
It does seem contradictory, but it has to do with intent. The courts would resolve the contradiction by looking at the legislative record and determining the purpose of the legislation. They would clearly determine that the statute was meant to apply to desecration, and would not apply it against someone attempting to dispose of a worn flag.
I don't see any difference between
creating a new app or integrating many parts
together into an application (or for that matter
into a "system", for me they mean the same thing.)
The difference isn't always clear. I use these factors...
Integrations are much lighter weight than applications.
Integrations are very specific to a particular environment, whereas an application is more generally useful.
Integrations tend to use higher level languages, frequently interpretted. They rarely use C.
Code that triggers an application to generate a TPS report, then opens the TPS coversheet template in a wordprocessor, then bundles the whole thing and uses the email app to ship it off is an integration.
There are plenty of the places where the line is very ambiguous. The most important fact is that the center of gravity in the programming world is moving away from commercial software producers and writing big generally useful apps to customizers working directly for the users building small narrowly focused solutions.
That is a profound change. Imagine, if you would, that groups of volunteers around the world collaborated to design and build a car - then gave the cars away free. Instead of going to your local car dealership, you instead visit your local OpenCar.org Users Group, where they hand you the keys no questions asked. The auto manufacturing business would be in big trouble, but some of the assembly line workers might find new work doing custom configurations - new paint jobs, engine enhancement, installing moon roofs, etc.
That is what is going on now. For a long time, OSs and applications were written by larger and larger organizations. Like physical commodities, mass production was used to spread the capital and R&D cost over a larger and larger market. OSS changed that, however, because it effectively made the those costs zero. The industrial production model is no longer valid. IT is changing back to a craft production model with local producers and local consumers meeting face-to-face. The economics of that model work again because the producers aren't being asked to write new applications requiring tens of thousands of hours, but to customize an existing application, at a cost of tens of hours.
I have a cousin working for a company that sells, among other things, a mainframe based spreadsheet app. He claims that the market for applications is drying up, and I have to agree.
The fact of the matter is that the various open source or free products are good enough. As the software consumers become better educated, the market for traditional applications shrinks. OpenOffice.org is good enough that anyone who knows better won't buy MS Office. Opera is as good as any browser out there and can be run free of charge - with only a minor banner ad. One by one any major "shrink wrap" product will feel the pinch.
The future is in two places - integration and data critical mass.
Integration is really going to be two businesses - creating then supporting custom collections of free software and writing code to integrate free applications into custom solutions. The first business is already developing - with companies such as RedHat leading the way. The second business is in its infancy - but much of our future lay with workflow scripting.
Data Critical Mass is the business of becoming the big boy in a market with no natural barriers and doing it well enough that there is no reason for customers to look elsewhere. Very honestly, how long would it take a small group of decent programers to replicate "eBay"? I think about a week. But at the end of the week could we provide better value? Hell, no! Why would anyone list with us, and our "dozens of potential buyers" on day one when they can list with eBay and be seen by "millions"?
In the future, all general purpose applications will be written by bearded socialist hippies while smoking pot in their basements as the professional (in the sense of getting paid - not work quality) programmers write workflow scripts in the office. Meanwhile the eBays and Amazons are smart enough to keep the "goose laying the golden eggs" alive, content to dominate their marketplace and earn a decent margin rather than try to get a fat margin and instead create an opeing for a competitor.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't mix up press release and actual claims. SCO continues to distribute 2.2.x kernels, which means that the agree to the GPL as it applies to that code revision.
SCO's accussations are realy that code was contributed to the 2.4.x kernel which is infringing. That is why the UnixWare license that they are selling specifically applies to Linux 2.4 and later.
If you can stay at 2.2.x, you are home free.
SCO can very well enforce their copyright by granting a license. They cannot distribute a linux version that had their proprietary code since they do not have any license to the remainder of linux.
On the other hand, since the GPL was violated by mixing open and proprietary code, no-one else has the right to distribute it either. The other contributors could file a lawsuit against RedHat, for instance, if they so desired.
It is not SCO's responsibility to insure that non-SCO code is properly licensed.
Therefore, if you need to buy a license from SCO you also need to contact every other constributor and buy a license from them in order to have a fully legal version of linux.Realisticly, however, it is unlikely that Linus et al are going to sue for code that they intended to share. So the SCO license is probably enough to cover you.
One thing is becoming more and more clear. The code that is potentially infringing is isolated to post 2.2.x kernels. Since SCO continues to distirbute 2.2.x kernels they are, in fact, agreeing that that kernel is covered under GPL. Linux users can avaoid the whole issue by running 2.2.x, which should not be hardship for most.
I assure you I am none of the above.
[The fact that SCO still has a linux dist. available for download] is evidence of the 'smoking gun' variety that they are doing one of the following
1) Legally distributing GPLed code
a) any Caldera contributed code is likewise GPLed and legal
b) Either there is no misappropriated code present or they have implicitly chosen to GPL it.
2) SCO is willfully and knowingly violating copyright, as violating the GPL (or disregarding it) means that regular copyright law applies, and they have no right to distribute any code but that which they wrote (which excludes virtually everything except that contributed by Caldera, if anything).
Either way, it is certainly evidence of 'something.'
It is only evidence that SCO judges that the particular version available for download is free from infringement. You don't actually believe that distributing 2.2 version of something under GPL automatically waves your proprietary rights to anything that appears in future versions? SCO argues that their IP began to show up in 2.4 kernels. That is why today's announced licensing plan applied to kernels 2.4 and up. Go back and read the articles.
The end users most certainly are bound by copyright law, and are thus not permitted by default to download (ie. 'copy'), much less use the software in question unless they adhere to the GPL. Therefor, end users are REQUIRED by law to adhere to the GPL if they make any use of the software (including the Linux kernel itself). This includes SCO and anyone else.
Read the GPL closely. Especially paragraph 2-b. You can do basicly anything you want with GPL software as long as you don't distribute and publish it. You can link it with proprietary code. You cannot publish or distribute GPL code linked with proprietery code.
[I]n the extraordinarilly unlikely event that there is SCO code in Linux, users are NOT permitted to violate the GPL OR SCO's license. The two are incompatible, so the user in question must chose to adhere to one or the other (guess which one wins? Yup, the GPL, as SCO's contribution, if any, won't a working kernel make).
Again, read the GPL. Users can mix and match all they want. RedHat and Debian can't publish it. That is a violation of the GPL, and - interestingly enough - the kernel developers would have rights to sue RedHat, Debian, et al. Also interesting, if the kernel does contain SCO code, the GPL is invalidated and the users could not legally use linux.
The fact of the matter is that SCO consistently provides absolutely no evidence of any of their claims, and has continued to do so for months, while the Linux development process has been in contrast very transparent and well documented. You have more chance of being right by joining the local suicide cult than you do by suggesting these fraudulant attorneys have any shred of legitimacy in their arguments. Indeed, the court filing papers underscore just how lacking their case really is, and how empty their bellecose assertions vis-a-vis Linux copyright really are.
Wanting it to be so won't make it so. Do you really know the inner workings of IBM enough to guarantee that they didn't do anything unscrupulous. Do you trust that the judge is going to have enough expertise to properly assess the isues? I don't. SCO is playing a bellicose PR game, but their legal game is much more measured.
That really isn't important. Even if SCO were 100% correct, they themselves would be willfully guilty of copyright violation, and while everyone might have to switch to FreeBSD from Linux (unlikely in the extreme), SCO would be buried under copyright suits of their own, and will not stay in business regardless.
First, the fact that SCO still has a Linux dist. on their FTP server is not evidence of anything. IIRC SCO is claiming that IBM contributed SCO owned code recently (yes, I know that SCO is making noise about owning everything ever written, but that is PR not legal filings). As long as the versions of Linux on SCO's FTP server pre-date the potentually offending contributions, SCO has not ceded their proprietary rights to the GPL.
For instance, if SCO is still distributing 2.2.17 on their FTP server, we can assume that the infringing code came later. The fact that later versions may have at one time been available from SCO is not neccessarily an indication that those versions are clean, since the licenser can't accidentally license something, particularly if the licenser makes moves to rectiufy the situation afterwards.
Second, the GPL specifies that proprietary and GPL code cannot be mixed in a distribution. It does not prevent mixing by the end user. This is how some video card manufacturers publish binary only drivers for linking by the end user.
Understanding that point, SCO is free to license their SysV code to linux users. Linux users are free to use it. Linux Distribution Puiblishers, both for profit and non-profit, are the parties in violation of the GPL. The end users are in no way bound by the GPL, they are just in violation of SCO's copyright.
If IBM really did contribute SCO code, SCO does have legitimate remedies against IBM, distributors, and users. Users can mitigate their risk by rewinding their systems back to the latest kernel version still available from SCO. That version is free from SCO IP issues because, since SCO themselves distributed it, it is covered by the GPL.
It is unlikely that the distributors are in too much trouble, since SCO has not revealed the offending code, they have not been in a position to make a good faith effort to rectify the infringement. This would likely be taken into account in a "damages" phase of a future SCO v. linux distributors lawsuit (which would follow a SCO win over IBM). It is likely that, upon being sued, the attornies for the linux distributors would immediately stipulate that they did indeed distribute SCO code, but that they relied on the code contributor that they had license to do so. Then they would implead IBM, who at this point already was found guilty of violating SCO's copyrights.
IBM is potentially in bad shape, legally and in damages. Of course, this is all assuming that their is merit to SCO's claim that their code was placed in Linux.
Politicians are, like virtually anyone else, interested in advancing their own agendas and the agendas of their allies. They see their constituents in three groups...
- People who will support them no matter what.
- People who will oppose them no matter what.
- People who can be persuaded one way or the other.
Politicians will play enough to the first group to keep their "base" support strong. They'll completely ignore the second group, if they are not outright working against them.The key to effectively communicating with a politician is to appear to be in that third "swing" group.
Think about it. If you were the president and received two letters criticizing policies on "domestic spying" - the first called you a "fascist pig" - and the second acknowledged "you efforts to provide safety and security to the American people", then asked you to "reevaluate the balance between security and the civil liberty that we all cherish" - which would be more likely to make an impact?
And just another comment... Many of the "/." community talk about terrorism in their posts as if the threat is made up hysteria. I live in the NYC area. My wife watched the second plane impact and the collapse of the towers from her car on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. Later that morning at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge she picked up refugees fleeing from lower Manhattan and ferried them out of the area. We know 4 fire fighters who gave their lives in the rescue effort.
It is not a hysterical witch hunt.
After a lawyer sends the letter, he also makes a document called an "Affirmation of Service". If a non-lawyer, such as a paralegal, legal secretary, etc. sends the letter, they fill out an "Affadavit of Service". These are sworn documents.
If a judge or other member of the legal profession has the slightest inkling that the affirmation or affidavit was falsified, the responsible attorney is brought up on disciplinary charges (with the real potential for disbarment) so quickly your head would spin.
Even if the attorney was not disbarred, he would face a damaging cloud of suspicion for the rest of his career. No intelligent attorney would risk his livelihood for such a simple thing.
While many people criticize lawyers for many things, the profession tends to be squeaky clean when it comes to these types of issues. The accusation of dishonesty is taken incredibly seriously.
For better or for worse, the legal system in the US of A is an adversarial system. There is nothing that stops anyone from sending out letters threatening a civil lawsuit. And once a suit is filed, it is likely that the fact that the defendant purchased the device from someone marketing it as a tool to steal service would be enough to deny a counter claim of baratry or request for other sanction on the plaintiff.
Don't forget your towel.
There are a number of ADSL services, which all eventually go through Verizon. They are a little cheaper, but OptimumOnline has had much better reliability. Many people, including myself, have had enough problems with Verizon to never go there again.
There are a few WISPs, but they mostly provide business level service, and are too pricey compared with cablemodem.
Check out this site for more info.
If you have the logs, they are business records and can be subject to subpeona. The key is to set up a business policy which purges the logs entirely on a rapid basis, and actually follow it.
If an RIAA lawyer asks you for information about who had what IP address at a particular time last month, and you then delete the logs, you are in a whole lot of trouble.
But, if you only store a week's worth of logs, and regularly delete the logs after they are a week old, you can honestly say "Sorry, that information has been purged in accordance with our document retention policy." There is nothing the RIAA can do about it.
This was what happened at Enron/Arthur Anderson. They had a document retention policy that would have saved their asses, but no one followed it. Only when they realized that they were about to be sued did they shred everything. If they were shredding all along as standard procedure, they would have been fine.
I'd like to paraphrase political humorist P.J. O'Rourke...
There are four kinds of spending:
- Spending your own money on yourself: you are concerned with getting the most value for your dollar.
- Spending someone else's money on yourself: You don't care about price, but you want the best quality. This is the kind of spending second wives do a Neiman Marcus.
- Spending your money on someone else: You care about price, and are willing to sacrifice quality. This is why kids get underwear for Christmas.
- Spending someone else's money on someone else: You don't care about price or quality. Most government spending happens in this mode.
While I wish the government would concern itself with value, at least if they chose option 2 (like the military often does), we'd at least be more secure.After that read Java Development With Ant by Hatcher and Loughran for good info about how to set up real java development environments. Ant is a tool that fits a similar ecological niche as make, but has tons of extra features particularly useful to Java developers.
Oh, and don't bother with an ide. Real men use vim.
I've been using Opera as the primary browser on my WinME machine for a few months now. I had been using Netscape, but it would crash on a frequent enough basis that I found it annoying.
I use the ad-based free Opera. I have not found the ads to be intrusive. The UI is clean. The tabs are nice. Combatibility is good. Overall, I've been very happy.
I've not used Mozilla, since I assumed that it would suffer from the same instability as Netscape. I may be wrong on that, however. I tried Opera first and have been happy enough to not look any further.
Microsoft doesn't need to provide you with competing browsers. They should not prohibit system builders like Dell or Gateway from doing so, however.
Imagine that many drug companies manufactured a similar allergy medicine. One of them also makes a heart medicine that dominates it's market. Then that drug maker goes to all the pharmacies and says "You can't sell my heart medicine unless you only sell my allergy medicine." The pharmacies know that the heart medicine is vital to many of their clients and that if they don't have that heart medicine, the clients will go elsewhere. They cave. The other drug companies lose access to the market for their allergy medications, and the consumers lose choice.
Microsoft doesn't need to provide support for competing products, but they shouldn't user their position as the dominant desktop OS provider (heart medicine manufacturer) to prevent system builders (pharmacies) from also providing browsers (allergy medicines) from other firms.
Easy - you load up the AOL CD that appears in your mailbox once or twice a week!
Seriously, though... Some of the issues of the anti-trust lawsuit were that MS prohibited Dell or Gateway from pre-loading non-MS alternatives on the PCs they sell.
Average Joe computer user may always use the browser that came with his computer. But the major system builders did not have the option to supply Netscape or Opera or anything else. This practice is an example of using an existing monopoly in one market to build a monopoly in another market - which is illegal in the USA.
MS knows that most users are likely to continue to use the software supplied with their PC, so MS's plan was to require the system builders exclude browsers other than IE, media players other than Windows Media Player, office apps other than MS Office or MS Works (depending on customer), etc.
In a more perfect world, Dell should have the freedom to load a bundle on their PCs that would include the suite of apps that they think would best serve their cutomers - perhaps MS Windows, Opera, RealPlayer, WordPerfect, Quicken, etc.
The protocol supports moving files between hosts A and B using a third machine C as the controller. You can use your Win9x machine to order your WinXP and Mac OS X machines to exchange files. That is a good trick to earn some geek points.
I don't know of a utility that provides this ability, but I've coded it myself. It isn't too difficult to do.
But if we wanted to travel to Mars in order to start the reactor, wouldn't we need to stick a really nasty tool in our noses in order to remove the tag?
It is my opinion, which I know many share, that public hotspots are cheap enough that many businesses will soon provide free access as a loss leader. A potential problem is, however, that without a fee based subscription, there is substantial risk that free-loaders will use the internet access without using the services of the business.
As an example, I live withing 500 feet of a Starbucks. I have clear line-of-sight from my roof. With an appropriate antenna I can use the hotspot to tie my home network to the internet. The only thing stopping me now is that Starbucks charges $30 a month - and my cable modem is $50 a month - not enough savings for the trouble. But if Starbucks started offering it for free...
A system like this, implemented inexpensively, would allow the hotspot provider to insure that only people in their establishment could use the service.
Did anyone else read the subject and interpret ":=" as the PL/SQL assignment operator?
What we're seeing is change, which one can either fear or take advantage of. It's your choice.
Well put!
It seems strange that a communty like /., who almost to a man supports concept of the freedom of information (as expressed by OSS, FSF, etc.) can be so reactionary when it comes to dark skinned people from places other than US, Canada, and Europe getting jobs using the skills related to that information.
In the long run, globalization leads to open interdependant economies. Those economies lead to more wealth for all, as well as a more stable peace.
I offer as evidence the most recent rounds of serious saber rattling between India and Pakistan. It has been widely reported that it was the leaders of India's growing high tech sector that pressured the Indian government to step back from the brink of war. That pressure came because they felt that war would damage their ability to get new contracts with western businesses.
As another example, China's growing economic contacts with the US, Japan, etc. have a stabilizing effect on the Taiwan situation. China's entrepreneurs would find the disruption of trade too great a blow to stomach a forced re-unification.
It is also instructive to observe the actual progression of globalization. First, unskilled jobs like simple textile work move overseas. After a while, the standard of living in that place improves and so those un-skilled jobs move to somewhere else and semi-skilled jobs like auto assembly take their place. Then those jobs move on and highly skilled jobs - chip fabrication for one - move in. At the same time the standards of living keep improving. In 30 or 40 years people in a once third world country are living comparably to those in the first world. Many of the factories along the Mexico/Texas border provide their workers with a middle class lifestyle. Those Mexicans, in turn, have the wealth to purchase goods and services from the US, re-employing the people whose jobs were lost when the factory moved to Mexico.
While there will be many bumps in the road, globalization will be a long term net positive for every nation. Nations go to war when their leaders have less to lose by war than by peace. Globalized economies have a great deal to lose, while isolated economies have little at stake. World peace will come when men of every nation have the opportunity to better themselves through commerce, rather than violence.
Also, the $2 billion price tag included huge amounts of R&D. The Nimitz class is quite old, relatively speaking, and so only the R&D for the latest revisions are in that price.
If we bought 12 wings of B2 bombers, the price of the last few bombers off the line would be the figure we need to compare to the $5 billion price of a Nimitz carrier.
The "half the world" you are refering to is, presumably the USA. No other country has near the ability to project power any place on the globe.
How many air craft carriers does it take to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan? None of the terrorist have large conventional military that would take more than 1 or 2 carriers to get rid of...
It takes quite a few carriers to meet all the US security commitments. The USA was able to deploy 5 fleet carriers to support Central Command while still doing the following...
- Keep a carrier or two nearby in case N.Korea decided to get frisky.
- Keep a close eye on China to make sure they don't decide the time is right to invade Taiwan.
- Keep a close eye on India/Pakistan.
- Sail around near Africa in case needed, as they now may be in Liberia.
I has long been the policy of the United States to keep a carrier active in each N. Atlantic, S. Atlantic, N. Pacific, S. Pacific, Indian Ocean, and the Mediterranean. That is six areas that need to be covered, which requires 12 carriers so that they can sail for 6 months, then refit and train for six months.For 60 years now, US ability to project power has been what separates the freedom and prosperity of Europe, Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, and Australia from the tyrranny and poverty of the rest of the world. (I am not a fool, and I acknowledge that US power has been used imperfectly, and that it has been used to prop up tyrants who were enemies of our enemies, with dire long term consequences.)
Would the 11 Million people (Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Homosexual, etc.) who died at the hands of the Germans and their French collaborators have prefered that we do nothing? Would the people of S. Korea prefer to starve in the workers' paradise to their North had we done nothing. Would the people of Taiwan have prefered that we do nothing, so that they could have experienced the cultural revolution as well? How about the people of the Philipines - would they have prefered to remain under the foot of imperial Japan? And the Kurds and Shiites in Iraq, or the earless - were they better off if America chose to stay at home?
Yes, America is imperfect. (For instance we supported the Shah in Iran and Osama to counter Soviet moves in the region, with horrible humanitarian results and dire consequences for ourselves.) But no nation in history has done more to promote the freedom and human dignity.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
1) Twisted Pair style ethernet (10Base-T and up, not thin or thick) uses a differential reciever to cancel noise. As long as the same noise is present on both conductors of the pair, everything is, as EEs say, "Hunky Dory".
2) POTS lines run 48V - 96V on ring - without electrocuiting people.
Then mofochickamo skillfully deflected the troll, adding his own touch: You're right. Anyone with any muscles belongs anywhere near a computer. Muscles and computer skills are mutually exclusive.
Finnally haystor took the bait: I always thought Sixpack when used in that phrase referred to beer since its generally talking about a common man with a common man's taste.
I am glad there are so many young children around to read this. This is a truly a grand example of the troll as high art. As a card carrying Kibologist, I salute you.
Or did haystor just troll me? Bump, Set, Spike!
It does seem contradictory, but it has to do with intent. The courts would resolve the contradiction by looking at the legislative record and determining the purpose of the legislation. They would clearly determine that the statute was meant to apply to desecration, and would not apply it against someone attempting to dispose of a worn flag.
The difference isn't always clear. I use these factors...
Integrations are much lighter weight than applications.
Integrations are very specific to a particular environment, whereas an application is more generally useful.
Integrations tend to use higher level languages, frequently interpretted. They rarely use C.
Code that triggers an application to generate a TPS report, then opens the TPS coversheet template in a wordprocessor, then bundles the whole thing and uses the email app to ship it off is an integration.
There are plenty of the places where the line is very ambiguous. The most important fact is that the center of gravity in the programming world is moving away from commercial software producers and writing big generally useful apps to customizers working directly for the users building small narrowly focused solutions.
That is a profound change. Imagine, if you would, that groups of volunteers around the world collaborated to design and build a car - then gave the cars away free. Instead of going to your local car dealership, you instead visit your local OpenCar.org Users Group, where they hand you the keys no questions asked. The auto manufacturing business would be in big trouble, but some of the assembly line workers might find new work doing custom configurations - new paint jobs, engine enhancement, installing moon roofs, etc.
That is what is going on now. For a long time, OSs and applications were written by larger and larger organizations. Like physical commodities, mass production was used to spread the capital and R&D cost over a larger and larger market. OSS changed that, however, because it effectively made the those costs zero. The industrial production model is no longer valid. IT is changing back to a craft production model with local producers and local consumers meeting face-to-face. The economics of that model work again because the producers aren't being asked to write new applications requiring tens of thousands of hours, but to customize an existing application, at a cost of tens of hours.
The fact of the matter is that the various open source or free products are good enough. As the software consumers become better educated, the market for traditional applications shrinks. OpenOffice.org is good enough that anyone who knows better won't buy MS Office. Opera is as good as any browser out there and can be run free of charge - with only a minor banner ad. One by one any major "shrink wrap" product will feel the pinch.
The future is in two places - integration and data critical mass.
Integration is really going to be two businesses - creating then supporting custom collections of free software and writing code to integrate free applications into custom solutions. The first business is already developing - with companies such as RedHat leading the way. The second business is in its infancy - but much of our future lay with workflow scripting.
Data Critical Mass is the business of becoming the big boy in a market with no natural barriers and doing it well enough that there is no reason for customers to look elsewhere. Very honestly, how long would it take a small group of decent programers to replicate "eBay"? I think about a week. But at the end of the week could we provide better value? Hell, no! Why would anyone list with us, and our "dozens of potential buyers" on day one when they can list with eBay and be seen by "millions"?
In the future, all general purpose applications will be written by bearded socialist hippies while smoking pot in their basements as the professional (in the sense of getting paid - not work quality) programmers write workflow scripts in the office. Meanwhile the eBays and Amazons are smart enough to keep the "goose laying the golden eggs" alive, content to dominate their marketplace and earn a decent margin rather than try to get a fat margin and instead create an opeing for a competitor.