You need a tuner which is incapable of tuning to BBC channels, a few lawyers, very thick skin, and a lot of patience.
And a willingness to lose. The law merely requires that you have equipment that can receive any television broadcasts -- whether or not it can receive BBC channels is not relevant
In name only. The license fee is effectively a tax on ownership of a television, since every owner of a television must pay it and persistent failure to pay can result in jail time. If it walks like a duck.....
I believe that even if one can only receive satellite broadcasts, one still has to have a license fee.
If one could own a television, and avoid the license fee by not watching BBC channels, then it would not be a tax.
Do you even know what is?
on
Isn't It Ironic?
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Blackadder: "Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?" Baldrick:
"Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron"
What is omitted from this discussion, and what Eben certainly must already know, is that if SCO redistributes in good faith Free products that it receives from the community, then the illegal inclusion by a third party of material copyrighted by SCO does not in any way lessen SCO's claim to that copyright.
Perhaps true for any distributions before they "found" their own code in the kernel, but since they contued distributing after initiating the lawsuit, any claim of good faith evaporates.
The warranty is pretty funny! Effectively it says "even though we are licensing this to you, we don't claim that we own it and if you are sued by a third party, you are on your own -- we are not indemnifying you"
I think that's the top of page 2, Exhibit D (not C), "Agreement No. X".
IANAL either(!) but I read that section to say that Novell / SCO rights to enforce the terms of the Related Agreements (including the original license) are not limited by this amendment
I think the limits of the "irrevokability" are actually much narrower that that. The exception is that it does not limit SCO's "rights to enjoin or otherwise prohibit IBM from violating". Now, by revoking the license, they are not "prohibiting or enjoining" IBM from violating, since the violation is not related to distribution of AIX.
The license is "irrevocable" only to the extent that IBM complies with the terms of the license
I am not a lawyer and the following is not advice!
No, that is not true. If you look at the top of Page 2, exhibit C, the right to revoke is limited only to actions specifically required to prevent IBM from violating the contract.
The point is that unless the act of distribution of AIX is in itself a violation of the contract, they cannot stop IBM from continuing to distribute AIX.
Since SCO has not claimed that distribution of AIX violates their contract, they cannot revoke the license in order to force compliance.
If, for example, AIX included the full source code, then SCO could obtain an injunction against further distribution of AIX. But even that would be limited to the point of requiring that the source code be taken out. After that, IBM could resume distribution.
My personal analysis
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Firstly, I am not a lawyer. Comments below are not advice, merely the ramblings of my mind.
The analysis below assumes that SCO's allegations are limited to code such as JFS, NUMA, RCU
and SMP all of which have clear non-SCO or open-source origins.
SCO is saying: any "modifications" or "derivative works" must be kept as part of the "SOFTWARE
PRODUCT" (the SVR4 source code) in other words, kept confidential
IBM has taken the SVR4 code (the "SOFTWARE PRODUCT"), combined it with new, independently
developed code and created a new work (let's call this "AIX"). That clearly makes "AIX" a
derivative work, but does it also make the added code part of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT? In other
words, if you start with "A" and "B" (which are independently developed items) combine them
together to form "C", this makes "C" a derivative of both "A" and "B", but SCO's argument is
that it also makes "B" a derivative of "A".
On the other hand, the amendment (exhibit C) clearly spells out that IBM owns code that it
develops or is developed for it. The question is, does this cover code developed by Sequent? I think so, but IANAL.
I think SCO's argument is: "you own it, but we control it" In other words, although ownership
is with IBM, the confidentiality requirements still apply.
So SCO has to convince a jury that:
1. Independently developed code is part of the "SOFTWARE PRODUCT".
2. Even though IBM "owns" the code, SCO controls it. Since we are talking about IP and the
only benefit of ownership of IP is control, this is going to be a very difficult argument.
Now, as to the injunction against AIX -- exhibit D clearly states that IBM's license is
irrevokable, but Novell and SCO that does not stop Novell and SCO from enforcing their rights
against IBM. The way I read this is that SCO can now ONLY get an injuction to stop any specific
infringing behaviour. In other words, they cannot get an injuction against AIX, but only a
much narrower injunction. Even if IBM is somehow infringing on SCO's license agreement by
distributing AIX, once IBM fixes the infringement, IBM can resume distributing AIX. If SCO
can prove any infringing behaviour, they may also get damages.
SCO also has some other problems in their case. Notably that enforcement of their contracts has been lax over the years.
What does this mean for Linux? Well, as I see it, it means that, assuming the disputed code is
code that is owned by IBM, there is no way SCO can come after third parties. IBM has copyright
on the code and once released publically, is no longer a trade secret. In other words, even if
SCO might get damages, they cannot exert any further control over the code.
While your discussion of derivative works is interesting, one must not only read the original contract, but also the letter from ATT to IBM (exhibit C). In this, they state:
"2. Regarding Section 2.01, we agree that modifications and derivative works prepared by or for you are owned by you..."
The paragraph goes on to state essentially that the ownership of the code from the original (ie. unmodified lines of code) is still with SCO.
Of course it is rather hard to see how NUMA technology developed for NT (NUMA) or a journaling file system developed for OS/2 (JFS) can possibly be derived works of UNIX. Why don't they just claim System/390?
.... because it includes the control rights on the derivative works that branch off from that trunk
Except that the ATT/IBM contract specifically gave IBM ownership of derivative works!
The contract (I doubt SCO has actually read this) only gives them rights to the lines of code from the original. So any files, blocks of code, etc. that do not contain code from SVR4 are entirely IBM's and SCO can exercise no control over these.
If you look at page 2 of this document from SCO's site -- in a letter TO IBM, it quite clearly states:
"We agree that modifications and derivative works... are owned by you"
The only qualification is that the actual lines of code from ATT's source code in the derivative works still belong to ATT.
Elsewhere, in the documents, I found a paragraph that implies that if IBM has someone look at the original source code, write new code, the new code belongs to IBM. This seems to completely destroy any argument that the "methods, etc" belong to SCO.
Because they did not file for a temporary injunction, the lawsuit will proceed as before. Nothing new. It will be years before anything happens, unless SCO goes BK, or otherwise folds.
What is interesting is that they have NOT filed for a temporary injunction.
In most cases of alleged IP violations, the accuser will file for a temporary injunction, rather than waiting for the end of the trial after which an injunction may be granted.
The real implication is that to get a temporary injunction, SCO would have to convince a judge that they had a likelyhood of prevailing at trial. In order to convince a judge of this, they would have to back up their allegations against IBM with real facts.
Temporary injunctions could cause severe problems, so they are not issued on a whim. There must be real evidence and the defending side has the opportunity to refute that evidence.
So the real impact of SCO's actions is to spread more FUD, and keep the time at which they must present any real evidence far off in the future.
And there are many police officers waiting to write you a ticket for "obscured plates".
Yes, but it is a "stationary violation", so you pay a fine and that's it. No impact on your driving record.
On one of my cars, I have never had a front license plate. The city has traffic light cameras and the local cops have seen my car. I have never got a ticket for lack of license plates!
Re:dang, I need a jumpstart...
on
42-Volt Autos
·
· Score: 1
Well, maybe the US manufacturers were slow.
I have been searching for references, and the MG-TC (built 1945-) was certainly 12V. The article I found imples that the TB (1939-) was also 12V.
Re:dang, I need a jumpstart...
on
42-Volt Autos
·
· Score: 1
I bet people said the exact same thing in the 50's and 60's when they went from 6v to 12v.
Except that those cars had 12v systems. They just used two 6V batteries in series. At least that's how my car was when it was built in 1957 (it now has a single 12V).
Slashdot Mirror
You need a tuner which is incapable of tuning to BBC channels, a few lawyers, very thick skin, and a lot of patience.
And a willingness to lose. The law merely requires that you have equipment that can receive any television broadcasts -- whether or not it can receive BBC channels is not relevant
They're not publicly funded (from tax pounds)
In name only. The license fee is effectively a tax on ownership of a television, since every owner of a television must pay it and persistent failure to pay can result in jail time. If it walks like a duck.....
I believe that even if one can only receive satellite broadcasts, one still has to have a license fee.
If one could own a television, and avoid the license fee by not watching BBC channels, then it would not be a tax.
Blackadder: "Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?" Baldrick: "Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron"
What is omitted from this discussion, and what Eben certainly must already know, is that if SCO redistributes in good faith Free products that it receives from the community, then the illegal inclusion by a third party of material copyrighted by SCO does not in any way lessen SCO's claim to that copyright.
Perhaps true for any distributions before they "found" their own code in the kernel, but since they contued distributing after initiating the lawsuit, any claim of good faith evaporates.
Last I checked there were no insider trades since the lawsuit.
That is, apart from their VP of engineering selling ALL his stock and others
The warranty is pretty funny! Effectively it says "even though we are licensing this to you, we don't claim that we own it and if you are sued by a third party, you are on your own -- we are not indemnifying you"
I think that's the top of page 2, Exhibit D (not C), "Agreement No. X". IANAL either(!) but I read that section to say that Novell / SCO rights to enforce the terms of the Related Agreements (including the original license) are not limited by this amendment
I think the limits of the "irrevokability" are actually much narrower that that. The exception is that it does not limit SCO's "rights to enjoin or otherwise prohibit IBM from violating". Now, by revoking the license, they are not "prohibiting or enjoining" IBM from violating, since the violation is not related to distribution of AIX.
The license is "irrevocable" only to the extent that IBM complies with the terms of the license
I am not a lawyer and the following is not advice!
No, that is not true. If you look at the top of Page 2, exhibit C, the right to revoke is limited only to actions specifically required to prevent IBM from violating the contract.
The point is that unless the act of distribution of AIX is in itself a violation of the contract, they cannot stop IBM from continuing to distribute AIX.
Since SCO has not claimed that distribution of AIX violates their contract, they cannot revoke the license in order to force compliance.
If, for example, AIX included the full source code, then SCO could obtain an injunction against further distribution of AIX. But even that would be limited to the point of requiring that the source code be taken out. After that, IBM could resume distribution.
Firstly, I am not a lawyer. Comments below are not advice, merely the ramblings of my mind. The analysis below assumes that SCO's allegations are limited to code such as JFS, NUMA, RCU and SMP all of which have clear non-SCO or open-source origins.
SCO is saying: any "modifications" or "derivative works" must be kept as part of the "SOFTWARE PRODUCT" (the SVR4 source code) in other words, kept confidential
IBM has taken the SVR4 code (the "SOFTWARE PRODUCT"), combined it with new, independently developed code and created a new work (let's call this "AIX"). That clearly makes "AIX" a derivative work, but does it also make the added code part of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT? In other words, if you start with "A" and "B" (which are independently developed items) combine them together to form "C", this makes "C" a derivative of both "A" and "B", but SCO's argument is that it also makes "B" a derivative of "A".
On the other hand, the amendment (exhibit C) clearly spells out that IBM owns code that it develops or is developed for it. The question is, does this cover code developed by Sequent? I think so, but IANAL.
I think SCO's argument is: "you own it, but we control it" In other words, although ownership is with IBM, the confidentiality requirements still apply.
So SCO has to convince a jury that:
1. Independently developed code is part of the "SOFTWARE PRODUCT".
2. Even though IBM "owns" the code, SCO controls it. Since we are talking about IP and the only benefit of ownership of IP is control, this is going to be a very difficult argument.
Now, as to the injunction against AIX -- exhibit D clearly states that IBM's license is irrevokable, but Novell and SCO that does not stop Novell and SCO from enforcing their rights against IBM. The way I read this is that SCO can now ONLY get an injuction to stop any specific infringing behaviour. In other words, they cannot get an injuction against AIX, but only a much narrower injunction. Even if IBM is somehow infringing on SCO's license agreement by distributing AIX, once IBM fixes the infringement, IBM can resume distributing AIX. If SCO can prove any infringing behaviour, they may also get damages.
SCO also has some other problems in their case. Notably that enforcement of their contracts has been lax over the years.
What does this mean for Linux? Well, as I see it, it means that, assuming the disputed code is code that is owned by IBM, there is no way SCO can come after third parties. IBM has copyright on the code and once released publically, is no longer a trade secret. In other words, even if SCO might get damages, they cannot exert any further control over the code.
They provide no excerpts from the contracts
Actually, they do, on their website. Look at exhibit D, though which clearly gives ownership to IBM of anything developed by or for IBM.
That's going to be a hard one for SCO to argue around.
o any SOHO router you didn't pick out of the trash bin and spent more than $10 on should work.
I assume this also goes for a linux 2.2 box running ipchains as a NAT/MASQ router?
I use Vonage as my non-cell phone. However this is because I do have a Cable modem connection.
I've seen their ads locally. But can you put their VOIP modem behind a NAT router?
Just get a cellular/mobile phone.
Expensive if 99% of your long distance calls are international!
The point is that it should be your choice. Imagine a book where you have to read every page, from the inside front cover to the inside back cover!
More evidence to show the legality of P2P sharing systems!
Given that they did not fire a reporter that they knew was plagarizing/inventing stories for 6 months, what can you expect?
While your discussion of derivative works is interesting, one must not only read the original contract, but also the letter from ATT to IBM (exhibit C). In this, they state:
"2. Regarding Section 2.01, we agree that modifications and derivative works prepared by or for you are owned by you..."
The paragraph goes on to state essentially that the ownership of the code from the original (ie. unmodified lines of code) is still with SCO.
Of course it is rather hard to see how NUMA technology developed for NT (NUMA) or a journaling file system developed for OS/2 (JFS) can possibly be derived works of UNIX. Why don't they just claim System/390?
Except that the ATT/IBM contract specifically gave IBM ownership of derivative works!
The contract (I doubt SCO has actually read this) only gives them rights to the lines of code from the original. So any files, blocks of code, etc. that do not contain code from SVR4 are entirely IBM's and SCO can exercise no control over these.
SCO has stated that Sun's license is irrevokable and that Sun can do pretty much anything with the UNIX source.
So, what if IBM were to buy Sun and then, under Sun's license, open-source the SVR4 code?
If you look at page 2 of this document from SCO's site -- in a letter TO IBM, it quite clearly states: ... are owned by you"
"We agree that modifications and derivative works
The only qualification is that the actual lines of code from ATT's source code in the derivative works still belong to ATT.
Elsewhere, in the documents, I found a paragraph that implies that if IBM has someone look at the original source code, write new code, the new code belongs to IBM. This seems to completely destroy any argument that the "methods, etc" belong to SCO.
No it doesn't.
Because they did not file for a temporary injunction, the lawsuit will proceed as before. Nothing new. It will be years before anything happens, unless SCO goes BK, or otherwise folds.
What is interesting is that they have NOT filed for a temporary injunction.
In most cases of alleged IP violations, the accuser will file for a temporary injunction, rather than waiting for the end of the trial after which an injunction may be granted.
The real implication is that to get a temporary injunction, SCO would have to convince a judge that they had a likelyhood of prevailing at trial. In order to convince a judge of this, they would have to back up their allegations against IBM with real facts.
Temporary injunctions could cause severe problems, so they are not issued on a whim. There must be real evidence and the defending side has the opportunity to refute that evidence.
So the real impact of SCO's actions is to spread more FUD, and keep the time at which they must present any real evidence far off in the future.
And there are many police officers waiting to write you a ticket for "obscured plates".
Yes, but it is a "stationary violation", so you pay a fine and that's it. No impact on your driving record.
On one of my cars, I have never had a front license plate. The city has traffic light cameras and the local cops have seen my car. I have never got a ticket for lack of license plates!
Well, maybe the US manufacturers were slow.
I have been searching for references, and the MG-TC (built 1945-) was certainly 12V. The article I found imples that the TB (1939-) was also 12V.
I bet people said the exact same thing in the 50's and 60's when they went from 6v to 12v.
Except that those cars had 12v systems. They just used two 6V batteries in series. At least that's how my car was when it was built in 1957 (it now has a single 12V).