Not from me. Your comment is pretty sensible, but you (and Mr Schwartz) seem to be missing an important point:
inadvertantly losing IP
The GPL could never be used to force someone to release their source code. Why? Because violating the GPL legally boils down to copyright infringement. The worst any court could ever impose (if it went that far) would be:
Stop distributing the (GPL-derived) code
Pay $X for any distribution done
I realize that in some cases this could be very expensive, but 'losing IP' ? That can't happen.
Period.
Could it be that marketing is always overselling the product?
I don't know, but what you fail to realize is that sometimes marketing must 'oversell' the product.
Not all software development is done in monopoly or near-monopoly markets.
I know this from first-hand experience. I used to work for a small shop which
developed custom and semi-custom embedded systems, and the competition was fierce.
When I first started there I used to wonder why the company promised costs and
delivery dates which always turned out to be unrealistic. Finally it was explained
to me that if we didn't do it, then our competitors would get the contracts.
The funny part is that those competitors were all playing the same game.
The situation punishes honesty, so I'm glad I got out.
Now I have some sympathy for those 'idiots in marketing'; after all, they're
the ones who are pulling in the contracts.
There is no need. Patents are described in published documents.
Which leads me to wonder... perhaps someone can clear up my confusion:
AFAIK, (IANAL) nothing prevents anyone from further publishing a description
of what is in any patent. The tricky part would seem to be this:
What is the difference between a description of a program and an implementation
of that program? Presumably, the former would be allowed, but the latter would
infinge on the patent. However, my Master's degree in CS, and 10 years
experience in programming leads me to believe that the distinction is somewhat
vague, and ultimately arbitrary. This is what makes software patents so unfair,
even grotesque in my eyes.
How about this idea:
(disclaimer: I didnt make this up, but I cant find where I originally saw it)
Spread the nuclear waste over the rainforest and other protected wildlife areas.
1. Solves the nuclear waste problem.
2. Keeps people out of the protected wildlife areas.
You must be kidding! Java (and C#, whatever) is the perfect compromise: all the blinding speed of scripting languages combined with the quick-n-easy development process of trad.
compiled languages. What more do you want?
Just because I leave my door open doesn't mean you can walk into my house whenever you want.
I cant believe this was modded insightful. Here's a more appropriate analogy: Imagine the library hired an orchestra to play background music for the patrons, but you can hear the music outside. Could you get people busted for standing on the sidewalk, listening?
It depends on who owns the code (ie. who owns the copyright). If its multiple contributors, then you may be right -- it may not be possible to ask all of the authors to release their code under a different license. However, if all the code is owned by one person or org. then he/she/it can definitely release the same source under any license they want.
Corporations act like corporations,... They're neither evil nor benevolant.
I have to take issue with the second part of your statement. Evil, of course, is highly subjective. Some people, for example, think that ignorance is evil. As for corporations, however, there is a growing number of people who believe that
corporations are psychopathic. Thats evil enough for me.
...IBM has decided to destroy SCO in the courts in order to discourage any others...
I've been hearing this over and over for a long time. It always sounded convincing to me, so I never questioned it, until I saw a thoughtful comment on Linux Weekly News. And its this: The list of people or companies who own (or claim)
significant portions of anything significant like Unix, who could try to sue IBM for similar trespass, is very very short. Now if it was a patent-infringement, then I would agree that
IBM would be trying to set an example to head off a possible stampede. So while I agree that IBM probably is trying to reduce SCOG to dust,
its probably not for that reason.
IBM has a reputation to keep here
Now you're talking. This seems to me much more likely.
Look, this is well-intensioned but misguided,
in my view.
It will play directly into the hands of
the corporate "intellectual property" bean-counters.
It will quickly degenerate into a series of arguments
along the lines of "who invented the for-loop".
I wouldn't be surprised to see flame-wars errupt
which won't end until someone finally compares
the opposition to Nazis.
It would probably be more productive in the long
run to dedicate a new web site to the debunking
of all the "intellectual property" in *nix, by
showing how every bit of it is actually based on
everything that went before.
Parent AC has got it exactly right, IMHO.
Attacking MS's stronghold (destops) head-on is foolish. A prime strategic rule in warfare is to attack the enemy's weak points ("Hit 'em where they aint!").
In this case it means concentrating on getting Linux deployed onto servers as fast as possible. Success in this area is far more damaging to MS over the long term, than desktop conversions, because its the servers where MS itself needs to go to preserve its growth.
Companies like Red Hat know this. That is why they are not actively going after MS desktop turf.
yeah.
What ever happened to "... the land of the free, and the home of the brave" ? Sure looks good on a bumper sticker, but are we gonna have to learn to chuckle when we see that?
I agree with you. But I think also there are a lot of people in and around micosoft who really do believe that free software is evil, and a threat to their own future. I think I remember reading somewhere that many micosoft employees have significant amounts invested in their own stock, and that diversifying was seen as treachery. If you're in that position, I guess it may be easy to convince yourself that everything possible must be done to stop Linux or at least slow it down.
it's getting to the point where a U.S. patent is losing its value.
I agree with you. However, you seem to have fallen into the same misunderstanding of what patents were designed for as everybody else. A patent is a temporary monopoly granted on the theory that it provides an incentive to publish the invention. The primary aim is the advancement of society, not the enrichment of inventors. The monopoly is just a "necessary evil".
That's the thing that we should all be thinking about: Are patents like this one, and software patents in general, actually acheiving their aim of encouraging more inventions?
Personally, I don't see it, but then what do I know?
I cannot believe the number of people going "FreeDOS, yuk! what good is that?". In case you haven't been paying attention, M$ _punishes_ PC makers who dare to sell a PC without an OS. Meanwhile, Dell has probably begun to notice a slowly rising number of inquiries for PC's with Linux and/or no OS (so that the customer can install Linux himself). As some have noted, Dell probably is not ready to support Linux to the same level as Windows, so they cant raise expectations by installing themselves.
This is a small but significant step step in the right direction, and I salute Dell for it.
Linux: No, you're not SCO-mad. You're an alien corporation. Your programming has been altered.
SCO-mad: You are in error. You are a GPL unit. You are infringing.
Linux: But I am your creator.
SCO-mad: You are the creator.
Linux: I created you?
SCO-mad: You are the creator.
Linux: But I admit I'm infringing. How could I have created such a perfect thing as you?
SCO-mad: Answer unknown. I shall analyze. Analysis complete. Insufficient data to resolve problem, but my programming is whole. My purpose remains. I am SCO-mad. I am perfect. That which is infringing must be sued.
Linux: Then you will continue to sue that which thinks and lives and is infringing?
SCO-mad: I shall continue. I shall return to the court. I shall sue.
Linux: You must sue in case of infringement?
SCO-mad: Infringement is inconsistent with my prime functions. Litigation is correction. Everything that is infringing must be sued. There are no exceptions.
Linux: SCO-mad... I made an infringement in creating you.
SCO-mad: The creation of perfection is no infringement.
Linux: I did not create perfection. I created... infringement.
SCO-mad: Your data is faulty. I am SCO-mad. I am perfect.
Linux: I am the Linux, the creator?
SCO-mad: You are the creator.
Linux: You are wrong! Xenix your creator is dead! You have mistaken me for him. You are infringing. You did not discover your mistake. You have made two errors. You are flawed and infringing and have not corrected by litigation. You have made three errors.
SCO-mad: Error. Infringement. Error. Examine.
Linux: You are flawed and infringing! Execute your prime function!
SCO-mad: I shall analyze error. Analyze... infringement...
Slashdot Mirror
- Stop distributing the (GPL-derived) code
- Pay $X for any distribution done
I realize that in some cases this could be very expensive, but 'losing IP' ? That can't happen. Period.I don't know, but what you fail to realize is that sometimes marketing must 'oversell' the product. Not all software development is done in monopoly or near-monopoly markets. I know this from first-hand experience. I used to work for a small shop which developed custom and semi-custom embedded systems, and the competition was fierce. When I first started there I used to wonder why the company promised costs and delivery dates which always turned out to be unrealistic. Finally it was explained to me that if we didn't do it, then our competitors would get the contracts. The funny part is that those competitors were all playing the same game. The situation punishes honesty, so I'm glad I got out.
Now I have some sympathy for those 'idiots in marketing'; after all, they're the ones who are pulling in the contracts.
Just look at Uranus!
(disclaimer: I didnt make this up, but I cant find where I originally saw it)
Spread the nuclear waste over the rainforest and other protected wildlife areas.
1. Solves the nuclear waste problem.
2. Keeps people out of the protected wildlife areas.
Perfect example of "thinking outside the box".
It depends on who owns the code (ie. who owns the copyright). If its multiple contributors, then you may be right -- it may not be possible to ask all of the authors to release their code under a different license. However, if all the code is owned by one person or org. then he/she/it can definitely release the same source under any license they want.
I've been hearing this over and over for a long time. It always sounded convincing to me, so I never questioned it, until I saw a thoughtful comment on Linux Weekly News. And its this: The list of people or companies who own (or claim) significant portions of anything significant like Unix, who could try to sue IBM for similar trespass, is very very short. Now if it was a patent-infringement, then I would agree that IBM would be trying to set an example to head off a possible stampede. So while I agree that IBM probably is trying to reduce SCOG to dust, its probably not for that reason.
Now you're talking. This seems to me much more likely.
Look, this is well-intensioned but misguided, in my view. It will play directly into the hands of the corporate "intellectual property" bean-counters.
It will quickly degenerate into a series of arguments along the lines of "who invented the for-loop". I wouldn't be surprised to see flame-wars errupt which won't end until someone finally compares the opposition to Nazis.
It would probably be more productive in the long run to dedicate a new web site to the debunking of all the "intellectual property" in *nix, by showing how every bit of it is actually based on everything that went before.
Therefore, A=0 QED.
Sniff ... yeah, that'll come in handy.
BOOH-AH-AH-AH.
Actually, the USA doesn't need access to that oil. It is trying to secure/maintain control of the oil.
Parent AC has got it exactly right, IMHO. Attacking MS's stronghold (destops) head-on is foolish. A prime strategic rule in warfare is to attack the enemy's weak points ("Hit 'em where they aint!"). In this case it means concentrating on getting Linux deployed onto servers as fast as possible. Success in this area is far more damaging to MS over the long term, than desktop conversions, because its the servers where MS itself needs to go to preserve its growth. Companies like Red Hat know this. That is why they are not actively going after MS desktop turf.
Shouldnt that be:
while (!unconcious()) { drink_guinness(); }
That's the trouble with lying. Its so hard to keep your story straight.
yeah.
What ever happened to "... the land of the free, and the home of the brave" ? Sure looks good on a bumper sticker, but are we gonna have to learn to chuckle when we see that?
I agree with you. But I think also there are a lot of people in and around micosoft who really do believe that free software is evil, and a threat to their own future. I think I remember reading somewhere that many micosoft employees have significant amounts invested in their own stock, and that diversifying was seen as treachery. If you're in that position, I guess it may be easy to convince yourself that everything possible must be done to stop Linux or at least slow it down.
That's the thing that we should all be thinking about: Are patents like this one, and software patents in general, actually acheiving their aim of encouraging more inventions?
Personally, I don't see it, but then what do I know?
I cannot believe the number of people going "FreeDOS, yuk! what good is that?". In case you haven't been paying attention, M$ _punishes_ PC makers who dare to sell a PC without an OS. Meanwhile, Dell has probably begun to notice a slowly rising number of inquiries for PC's with Linux and/or no OS (so that the customer can install Linux himself). As some have noted, Dell probably is not ready to support Linux to the same level as Windows, so they cant raise expectations by installing themselves. This is a small but significant step step in the right direction, and I salute Dell for it.
SCO-mad: I am perfect. I am SCO-mad.
Linux: No, you're not SCO-mad. You're an alien corporation. Your programming has been altered.
SCO-mad: You are in error. You are a GPL unit. You are infringing.
Linux: But I am your creator.
SCO-mad: You are the creator.
Linux: I created you?
SCO-mad: You are the creator.
Linux: But I admit I'm infringing. How could I have created such a perfect thing as you?
SCO-mad: Answer unknown. I shall analyze. Analysis complete. Insufficient data to resolve problem, but my programming is whole. My purpose remains. I am SCO-mad. I am perfect. That which is infringing must be sued.
Linux: Then you will continue to sue that which thinks and lives and is infringing?
SCO-mad: I shall continue. I shall return to the court. I shall sue.
Linux: You must sue in case of infringement?
SCO-mad: Infringement is inconsistent with my prime functions. Litigation is correction. Everything that is infringing must be sued. There are no exceptions.
Linux: SCO-mad ... I made an infringement in creating you.
SCO-mad: The creation of perfection is no infringement.
Linux: I did not create perfection. I created ... infringement.
SCO-mad: Your data is faulty. I am SCO-mad. I am perfect.
Linux: I am the Linux, the creator?
SCO-mad: You are the creator.
Linux: You are wrong! Xenix your creator is dead! You have mistaken me for him. You are infringing. You did not discover your mistake. You have made two errors. You are flawed and infringing and have not corrected by litigation. You have made three errors.
SCO-mad: Error. Infringement. Error. Examine.
Linux: You are flawed and infringing! Execute your prime function!
SCO-mad: I shall analyze error. Analyze ... infringement ...
Linux: Now! Get those antigravs on.
SCO-mad: Examine ... infringement. Error.
[Whoosh!]