The catch is DRM is coming and will tie up IE, the OS, Office and your ability to view (or not view) documents quite nicely.
To "protect" their data, people (similar to how some make IE-specific web sites) will produce DRM-Protected content. This will require you to use IE 7, which only comes with the OS so you will have to buy a new copy of windows, and office will rely on the same engine to render the documents, which of course will require the latest version of Office, requiring you to upgrade that as well.
funny you should mention that...sco is apparently threatening to expand their case to now include "a major hardware manufacturer". They do not say who, however. (Shocking I know). Here's the C|Net Article. -- Please take the poll: Who Actually Owns UNIX?
As is a bundled set of software + services. It includes both GPL and non GPL products. Hence, you must pay per install as otherwise you are not paying the appropriate licensing fees to the companies that supply the non-GPLed portions.
Error checking hasn't been removed from TCP; we've removed it from Slashdot story summaries instead, speeding up the posting by nearly 6000x. -- Linux-Universe
They should go to IPv6. IPv6 solved many problems for us.
Like that pesky problem about securing our network. Now we don't need to worry about that anymore. Thanks Microsoft! -- Take the SCO Poll Linux-Universe
Using 95% of the bandwidth would be extremely bad. During any period of increased demand (September 11th, 2001, Presedential Election 2000, insert big event here) the network usage would spike and the enttire network would become saturated and collapse upon itself. -- Friendly Linux Help http://linux-universe.com
While it certain is common practice to sell-off or diversify ones assets, it is *not* common for it to be done on such a large scale in such a short period of time.
--
Take the SCO Poll:
http://linux-universe.com
>> Um, actually, no. There is no proprietary code in the Linux kernel or any other GPL'ed software. That's a bogus bullshit claim.
Surely you jest. Nobody, anywhere, at any time, has swiped a single line of code from his employer and placed it in his GPL project? EVER??? That's a pretty broad and indefensible claim to be making.
>>If there was any validity to that claim, SCO would have published the offending lines of code. They haven't, so obviously they are full of shit.
Well yes, if they wanted to quickly get the code removed. However, if in reality they don't give a rat's butt about the code and instead they want to milk the situation for cash, they wouldn't and would take the offender to court. It's a scumbag move but it doesn't invalidate their claim. If their claim is invalid, the court will decide.
>>If a proprietary entity releases some of their software with unique GPL'ed code in it, then they're obligated to either release the entire thing under the GPL, stop offering the package, or remove the GPL'ed code. For lines of code long enough to be clearly copy&pasted or of clearly enough similarity to be directly modified GPL'ed code, they knew damn well what they were doing. The GPL license is not hidden -- it is made very clear on every piece of software that comes with it. There is no such thing as "proprietary developers accidentally using GPL'ed code". That's bullshit.
Once again, this is backwards. Additionally, even given the situation you outlined, there is no way an employer knows that developer John Smith didn't swipe code from a GPL product to meet his deadline and not tell anyone about it. Are they going to cross-check their code against the entire portfolio of open source software?
Now when John Smith works for Microsoft and does that in Windows, do you think a court is going to declare XP is now GPLed? No, MS will simply have to remove the code and maybe pay damages. But this is still backwards. It isn't GPLed code in a proprietary product. It is ALLEGEDLY proprietary code in a GPL product.
>>No auditing is necessary for proprietary entities, if they follow simple procedures. For every piece of code they use that isn't theirs, they need to document where it came from and the license it was covered under. If they don't, that's their own fault, and it's too damn bad for them.
Sigh. You still have it backwards. SCO does it have it documented anyway. It came from (example) Kernel developer X. Now, who is liable? Kernel Developer X is. SCO certainly isn't going to be told by a court "oh, tough shit, now all your intellectual property is GPLed because of the actions of Kernel Developer X without your knowledge".
>> The GPL does not state that corps caught with GPL'ed code in their proprietary software have to GPL their entire program. They have to EITHER GPL their entire program, or REMOVE all of the GPL'ed code from their proprietary program. Their choice.
But that is the reverse of what we have here. It isn't SCO with GPL code in proprietary software. it is GPL code with unauthorized (possibly) propietary software IN IT.
I don't think that you can enforce GPL on the holder of said proprietary code and say "sorry, you have no claims because you didn't catch the fact that somebody was screwing you over during your code review".
If you take out fr1st p0st, In soviet russia and the goatse man, there have only been 12k posts.
If you take out the remaining trolls you realize that Cowboy Neal is responsible for 62.49% of all slashdot traffic.
Seriously though, well done Rob, et. al. 6 million posts is mind boggling.
Re:GPL the best bet
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
3. Already seems to be working. MS and someone else (even if for dubious reasons) are now licensing from SCO.
Also, their stock went up 40% (!) yesterday on the MS news. It also was about double from when the lawsuit silliness started *before* yesterday. So SCO stockholders are making money, that's for sure. At least if they bought at a low. Even if they didn't, they have dramatically reduced their losses. The next best thing to making money is to lose less money.:)
As for the GPL, I really do not think it holds water if somebody misappropriates your code, inserts it somewhere in linux and you unknowingly release it. But, IANAL. If the GPL does stand up and is declared valid in such a case, you can expect large companies to avoid it like the plague. They will not want have to vett every line of code they distribute under the GPL against every line of code in their proprietary portfolio to make sure somebody, somewhere, didn't insert stolen code.
Please note, I am not saying SCO's claim is valid and anybody took/used anything inappropriately. I am just saying that I don't think the "GPL defense" will stand up in court, and *even if it does* that may have worse long-range effects anyway. A lose-lose.:(
Let me guess, this goes along with the rest of computer science.
1024 MB = 1 GB.
RAM= 1MB , 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, wtf?>??? I don't care that it doubles, it's retarded.:-P How about 10, 20, 30, 40, people!!
128bit this, 256 byte that. The whole dang system bytes.:-) 8 bits to a byte....oy, my head!
You computer kids, I tell ya.:-P
I was low on disk space on a box and therefore deleted out the $NtUninstallQxxxxxx$ archives created by WU to save disk space. Bah, that through WU into a tizzy, thinking I hadn't installed some of the patches whose uninstall archives I had deleted.
Um, if they are just uninstall archives, and I have no plans of uninstalling the patch, they should be able to be deleted. Why WU relies on the existence of the Uninstall directories to determine if a patch is installed, I have NI, but it is terrible practice. And of cours, only some* of the patches whose archives I deleted acted this way, in typical MS inconsistency.
Now I have to keep around tons of worthless archive data I don't want or need for no good reason. Thanks MS.
Welcome to Darwin! bash-2.05a$ host 66.35.250.150 150.250.35.66.IN-ADDR.ARPA is a nickname for 150.0/24.250.35.66.IN-ADDR.ARPA 150.0/24.250.35.6 6.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name pointer slashdot.org
Yeesh, give these Mac kids a command line and they start goin nuts!
Slashdot Mirror
The catch is DRM is coming and will tie up IE, the OS, Office and your ability to view (or not view) documents quite nicely.
To "protect" their data, people (similar to how some make IE-specific web sites) will produce DRM-Protected content. This will require you to use IE 7, which only comes with the OS so you will have to buy a new copy of windows, and office will rely on the same engine to render the documents, which of course will require the latest version of Office, requiring you to upgrade that as well.
I have to give MS credit, it's a beautiful, if evil, plan.
--
Who do YOU think owns UNIX?.
funny you should mention that...sco is apparently threatening to expand their case to now include "a major hardware manufacturer". They do not say who, however. (Shocking I know). Here's the C|Net Article.
--
Please take the poll:
Who Actually Owns UNIX?
As is a bundled set of software + services. It includes both GPL and non GPL products. Hence, you must pay per install as otherwise you are not paying the appropriate licensing fees to the companies that supply the non-GPLed portions.
No, the second amendment is set up to guarantee the security and freedom of the state. Period. Full stop.
It makes no distinction between external threats and internal oppression (for a good reason).
We already have the wordperfect source in linux. You can find it within the following: // This section owned by SCO // End Linux Coder mousetrap.
Error checking hasn't been removed from TCP; we've removed it from Slashdot story summaries instead, speeding up the posting by nearly 6000x.
--
Linux-Universe
Slashdot is still valuable as a place to see people rant about Slashdot.
--
Linux Is Dying
They should go to IPv6. IPv6 solved many problems for us.
Like that pesky problem about securing our network. Now we don't need to worry about that anymore. Thanks Microsoft!
--
Take the SCO Poll
Linux-Universe
Using 95% of the bandwidth would be extremely bad. During any period of increased demand (September 11th, 2001, Presedential Election 2000, insert big event here) the network usage would spike and the enttire network would become saturated and collapse upon itself.
--
Friendly Linux Help
http://linux-universe.com
Heck, I just might give this a whirl on one of my testboxes...
:-D
So, the advertising worked, is what you're saying.
--
Have you taken the SCO poll?
Linux-Universe
While it certain is common practice to sell-off or diversify ones assets, it is *not* common for it to be done on such a large scale in such a short period of time. -- Take the SCO Poll: http://linux-universe.com
>> Um, actually, no. There is no proprietary code in the Linux kernel or any other GPL'ed software. That's a bogus bullshit claim.
Surely you jest. Nobody, anywhere, at any time, has swiped a single line of code from his employer and placed it in his GPL project? EVER??? That's a pretty broad and indefensible claim to be making.
>>If there was any validity to that claim, SCO would have published the offending lines of code. They haven't, so obviously they are full of shit.
Well yes, if they wanted to quickly get the code removed. However, if in reality they don't give a rat's butt about the code and instead they want to milk the situation for cash, they wouldn't and would take the offender to court. It's a scumbag move but it doesn't invalidate their claim. If their claim is invalid, the court will decide.
>>If a proprietary entity releases some of their software with unique GPL'ed code in it, then they're obligated to either release the entire thing under the GPL, stop offering the package, or remove the GPL'ed code. For lines of code long enough to be clearly copy&pasted or of clearly enough similarity to be directly modified GPL'ed code, they knew damn well what they were doing. The GPL license is not hidden -- it is made very clear on every piece of software that comes with it. There is no such thing as "proprietary developers accidentally using GPL'ed code". That's bullshit.
Once again, this is backwards. Additionally, even given the situation you outlined, there is no way an employer knows that developer John Smith didn't swipe code from a GPL product to meet his deadline and not tell anyone about it. Are they going to cross-check their code against the entire portfolio of open source software?
Now when John Smith works for Microsoft and does that in Windows, do you think a court is going to declare XP is now GPLed? No, MS will simply have to remove the code and maybe pay damages. But this is still backwards. It isn't GPLed code in a proprietary product. It is ALLEGEDLY proprietary code in a GPL product.
>>No auditing is necessary for proprietary entities, if they follow simple procedures. For every piece of code they use that isn't theirs, they need to document where it came from and the license it was covered under. If they don't, that's their own fault, and it's too damn bad for them.
Sigh. You still have it backwards. SCO does it have it documented anyway. It came from (example) Kernel developer X. Now, who is liable? Kernel Developer X is. SCO certainly isn't going to be told by a court "oh, tough shit, now all your intellectual property is GPLed because of the actions of Kernel Developer X without your knowledge".
>> The GPL does not state that corps caught with GPL'ed code in their proprietary software have to GPL their entire program. They have to EITHER GPL their entire program, or REMOVE all of the GPL'ed code from their proprietary program. Their choice.
But that is the reverse of what we have here. It isn't SCO with GPL code in proprietary software. it is GPL code with unauthorized (possibly) propietary software IN IT.
I don't think that you can enforce GPL on the holder of said proprietary code and say "sorry, you have no claims because you didn't catch the fact that somebody was screwing you over during your code review".
If you take out fr1st p0st, In soviet russia and the goatse man, there have only been 12k posts.
If you take out the remaining trolls you realize that Cowboy Neal is responsible for 62.49% of all slashdot traffic.
Seriously though, well done Rob, et. al. 6 million posts is mind boggling.
3. Already seems to be working. MS and someone else (even if for dubious reasons) are now licensing from SCO.
:)
:(
Also, their stock went up 40% (!) yesterday on the MS news. It also was about double from when the lawsuit silliness started *before* yesterday. So SCO stockholders are making money, that's for sure. At least if they bought at a low. Even if they didn't, they have dramatically reduced their losses. The next best thing to making money is to lose less money.
As for the GPL, I really do not think it holds water if somebody misappropriates your code, inserts it somewhere in linux and you unknowingly release it. But, IANAL. If the GPL does stand up and is declared valid in such a case, you can expect large companies to avoid it like the plague. They will not want have to vett every line of code they distribute under the GPL against every line of code in their proprietary portfolio to make sure somebody, somewhere, didn't insert stolen code.
Please note, I am not saying SCO's claim is valid and anybody took/used anything inappropriately. I am just saying that I don't think the "GPL defense" will stand up in court, and *even if it does* that may have worse long-range effects anyway. A lose-lose.
I just got off the phone with my Microsoft rep. He confirmed this is true.
His last line gave me the chills. He said "Hey Linux guy: 'All your base are belong to us'."
It also gets rid of dissident political speech quite effectively.
:-)
I think that's more important to protect than the benefits of eliminating your Internet Troll.
It is rather amusing that you posted AC.
I know what else just expired: My willingness to plunk down my hard earned money supporting the music and movie industries.
Let me guess, this goes along with the rest of computer science. 1024 MB = 1 GB. RAM= 1MB , 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, wtf?>??? I don't care that it doubles, it's retarded. :-P How about 10, 20, 30, 40, people!!
128bit this, 256 byte that. The whole dang system bytes. :-) 8 bits to a byte....oy, my head!
You computer kids, I tell ya. :-P
Running and copying our two different things. *sigh* It talks about creating a SHORTCUT.
You can not copy any part of windows from one machine to another.
It's illegal under the EULA to do that.
Heh, it was all in good fun. Sorry if you took it different than was intended. Mea culpa.
I was low on disk space on a box and therefore deleted out the $NtUninstallQxxxxxx$ archives created by WU to save disk space. Bah, that through WU into a tizzy, thinking I hadn't installed some of the patches whose uninstall archives I had deleted.
Um, if they are just uninstall archives, and I have no plans of uninstalling the patch, they should be able to be deleted. Why WU relies on the existence of the Uninstall directories to determine if a patch is installed, I have NI, but it is terrible practice. And of cours, only some* of the patches whose archives I deleted acted this way, in typical MS inconsistency.
Now I have to keep around tons of worthless archive data I don't want or need for no good reason. Thanks MS.
Welcome to Darwin!6 6.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name pointer slashdot.org
bash-2.05a$ host 66.35.250.150
150.250.35.66.IN-ADDR.ARPA is a nickname for 150.0/24.250.35.66.IN-ADDR.ARPA
150.0/24.250.35.
Yeesh, give these Mac kids a command line and they start goin nuts!