I think it is safe to say that SCO is well on its way to being the most hated company in the IT sector. Microsoft, step aside, there is a new whipping boy in town.
Another good reason for Microsoft to aid SCO!
My own experience is that Verisign broke their own procedures and re-configured my the primary/secondary nameservers for my company's domain name.
We set up website hosting through a third party. I intended to keep control of the DNS. However, the website hosting firm put in a request to Versign to move the nameservers to the hosting company's servers from my nameservers.
Versign sent an email to the correct address to request approval for the change, stating that if we did nothing, the change would NOT go ahead.
Yet it did. Versign made the change! I spent the rest of the day shouting at them on the phone trying to get them to change it back before the scheduled update. They refused.
I sent an email to their "investigations" department. Strangely, I heard NOTHING back.
I will NEVER register a domain name through them again!
An ISP has a download cap and charges for excess, but they count data delivered to the the client. Now, since many ISPs:
1. Run tranparent web proxies
2. Modify their DNS servers to cache data beyond the times specified in the zone data
Could one argue that the ISP is delivering data that the client did not request, since it is out of date when compared to what is on the web server (effect of web caching) or the ISP got the data from the wrong web server (effect of non-complient DNS caching)? And hence the ISP's accounting of download data is fraudulent?
2) All expenses, including meals, parking, travel, supplies and equipment required will be billed and provided by the vendors of my choosing. I will seek approval for all purchases over $500 and all materials will become the company's property when my consulting term is over.
I would like to see how the company is going to take possesion of those meals after you quit.
If I understand this correctly, there are 2 things going on:
1. Dumpster diving and re-selling of the envelopes AND THEIR CONTENTS. Possibly illegal, possibly not. Depends on your local laws.
2. Copyright violations relating to posting an image of the ENVELOPE on their web site.
It is the second item that allows the DMCA to be invoked, however, it really is incidental to selling the CONTENTS of the envelopes.
Think of it this way: Author sues Amazon.com for showing a picture of the front cover on Amazon's website.
Obviously no author is going to do this since they benefit from any sales that Amazon makes. However, since the publisher of the patterns gets no revenue from Monsterpattern's sales of patterns, they have an incentive to shut them down.
One possible scenario is that SCO has the exclusive rights to sub-license the code, but at the time of writing the contract, no-one considered the possibility of giving away the code -- so Novell may NOT have the right to license the code, but they may have the right to give it away!
All the above is 100% speculation
Re:Mystery of IBM's silence
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Firstly, we don't know that SCO has told IBM what the code in question is yet. My guess is that until they file for an injuction against IBM's continuing distribution of AIX, they won't disclose the "offending code" to anyone, not even IBM. Secondly and more to the point, IBM is defending a lawsuit and not running a FUD campaign. IBM knows that the best way to win a lawsuit is to let the opposition know as little as possible of your plans, stratgeies, etc.
"You're claiming that Linux has been polluted with Unix code that you own, but you have not produced any evidence of that. Will you? We will actually be providing some of the evidence next month to various industry analysts, respected press people and other industry leaders"
In other words, they will show the "evidence" to people who are not qualified to judge its validity!
They bought the rights to SUB-license it. They MAY have bought the rights to be the exclusive licensor of Unix (in other words, no-one else, not even Novell may have the rights to license the code to any new licensees)
Otherwise, when SCO is crushed in the courts by IBM, IBM could go on to sue M$ for supporting SCO -- think this is a wild fantasy? Let me quote 2 examples:
1. Bertlesmann, Napster, etc.
2. There was a libel case in the UK. Some guy was supported by many donors to sue a newspaper for libel. After he lost (and could not pay the judgement against him), the paper went after the major donors and I think actually collected some money from them.
SCO said that the GPL does not apply to their code in the kernel (if it exists). Therefore, when they distributed the kernel after suing IBM, they *knowingly* made a distribution that (according to their own logic and analysis) violated the IP of all the kernel developers.
How about a press release from Linus commenting on the above: ie. If SCO's code is in the kernel and if the GPL is not applicable to it, then SCO was a mass IP violator!
Without reading all of the convention, Article 15 seems to require at least the identification of the author, whether by real name or clearly identifying pseudonym. If true, then if SCO's name is not on it, the convention does not apply.
You will see that SCO are correct. But take the discussion further..
SCO knowingly distributed what they allege is their code without copyright markings. Then can no longer claim trade secret violations against any user who obtained the code after they discovered "their" code in the kernel.
What's more, since it did not have their copyright markings, neither can they assert any copyright rights against users of the disputed code.
They state the GPL does not apply, so if not what does? Answer: NOTHING! They have even *less* control over the code than if the GPL applied!
The important point is that they *knowingly* gave away what they claim as their own code. Free, gratis, no strings attached, not even the GPL!
Article canot distingush Internet from WAN
on
The Internet and The War
·
· Score: 5, Informative
If you actually *read* the article, you will see that the reporter talks about (sigh) a "secret Internet" and a "Tactical Internet". What they really mean is a "WAN" (the reporter refers to it as a "far-flung LAN"). It even says that the WAN is NOT connected to the Internet.
I don't think you fully understood the question: it specifically required the *JCL* to run the program. I don't see that in the links you posted -- only the source code for the programs.
Re:3 days to a week to compile?
on
Gentoo Reviewed
·
· Score: 1
I have an Athlon 1800+ with PC2700 memory. I would guess my total compile time for the system (I started from a stage 1 tarball), X, gnome and OpenOffice was about 2 days.
Yes, but doesn't it only protect "effective access" controls?
Given that CSS can be decrypted real time by a perl script that is so short it can be written on a T-shirt, surely CSS does not qualify as "effective"?
Why didn't they mention this is their press release? Just another screwup by SCO/Caldera I guess. Like the day a week or so back when 2 of their executives were interviewed and in one interview they said they had no issues with the kernel and in the other they clearly identified the kernel as having problem code.
So, if I understand this correctly, they are sending out a letter, to Caldera's customers, telling them that they have are using a product that violates Caldera's intellectual property rights?
Is there a possible suit for fraud there, as they appear to be revoking whatever licenses they gave when they sold Caldera Linux?
Slashdot Mirror
I think it is safe to say that SCO is well on its way to being the most hated company in the IT sector. Microsoft, step aside, there is a new whipping boy in town.
Another good reason for Microsoft to aid SCO!
My own experience is that Verisign broke their own procedures and re-configured my the primary/secondary nameservers for my company's domain name.
We set up website hosting through a third party. I intended to keep control of the DNS. However, the website hosting firm put in a request to Versign to move the nameservers to the hosting company's servers from my nameservers.
Versign sent an email to the correct address to request approval for the change, stating that if we did nothing, the change would NOT go ahead.
Yet it did. Versign made the change! I spent the rest of the day shouting at them on the phone trying to get them to change it back before the scheduled update. They refused.
I sent an email to their "investigations" department. Strangely, I heard NOTHING back.
I will NEVER register a domain name through them again!
I wonder.....
An ISP has a download cap and charges for excess, but they count data delivered to the the client. Now, since many ISPs:
1. Run tranparent web proxies
2. Modify their DNS servers to cache data beyond the times specified in the zone data
Could one argue that the ISP is delivering data that the client did not request, since it is out of date when compared to what is on the web server (effect of web caching) or the ISP got the data from the wrong web server (effect of non-complient DNS caching)? And hence the ISP's accounting of download data is fraudulent?
2) All expenses, including meals, parking, travel, supplies and equipment required will be billed and provided by the vendors of my choosing. I will seek approval for all purchases over $500 and all materials will become the company's property when my consulting term is over.
I would like to see how the company is going to take possesion of those meals after you quit.
If you want a replacement that works very well, needs little maintenance, is free, etc....
If I understand this correctly, there are 2 things going on:
1. Dumpster diving and re-selling of the envelopes AND THEIR CONTENTS. Possibly illegal, possibly not. Depends on your local laws.
2. Copyright violations relating to posting an image of the ENVELOPE on their web site.
It is the second item that allows the DMCA to be invoked, however, it really is incidental to selling the CONTENTS of the envelopes.
Think of it this way: Author sues Amazon.com for showing a picture of the front cover on Amazon's website.
Obviously no author is going to do this since they benefit from any sales that Amazon makes. However, since the publisher of the patterns gets no revenue from Monsterpattern's sales of patterns, they have an incentive to shut them down.
One possible scenario is that SCO has the exclusive rights to sub-license the code, but at the time of writing the contract, no-one considered the possibility of giving away the code -- so Novell may NOT have the right to license the code, but they may have the right to give it away!
All the above is 100% speculation
Firstly, we don't know that SCO has told IBM what the code in question is yet. My guess is that until they file for an injuction against IBM's continuing distribution of AIX, they won't disclose the "offending code" to anyone, not even IBM. Secondly and more to the point, IBM is defending a lawsuit and not running a FUD campaign. IBM knows that the best way to win a lawsuit is to let the opposition know as little as possible of your plans, stratgeies, etc.
Those cretins at SCO didn't think to register the domain name and now look what's there!
In other words, they will show the "evidence" to people who are not qualified to judge its validity!
They bought the rights to SUB-license it. They MAY have bought the rights to be the exclusive licensor of Unix (in other words, no-one else, not even Novell may have the rights to license the code to any new licensees)
You might want to check out www.scosource.com
wget -r --delete-after "ftp://ftp.sco.com"
be more effective? Not that I am advocating this, just discussing a technical point.
It's another bogus claim from SCO.
Depending upon their contract with Novell, they might be able to sue Novell for not enforcing its patents.
Have they not heard of NAT?
1. Bertlesmann, Napster, etc.
2. There was a libel case in the UK. Some guy was supported by many donors to sue a newspaper for libel. After he lost (and could not pay the judgement against him), the paper went after the major donors and I think actually collected some money from them.
SCO said that the GPL does not apply to their code in the kernel (if it exists). Therefore, when they distributed the kernel after suing IBM, they *knowingly* made a distribution that (according to their own logic and analysis) violated the IP of all the kernel developers.
How about a press release from Linus commenting on the above: ie. If SCO's code is in the kernel and if the GPL is not applicable to it, then SCO was a mass IP violator!
Without reading all of the convention, Article 15 seems to require at least the identification of the author, whether by real name or clearly identifying pseudonym. If true, then if SCO's name is not on it, the convention does not apply.
SCO knowingly distributed what they allege is their code without copyright markings. Then can no longer claim trade secret violations against any user who obtained the code after they discovered "their" code in the kernel.
What's more, since it did not have their copyright markings, neither can they assert any copyright rights against users of the disputed code.
They state the GPL does not apply, so if not what does? Answer: NOTHING! They have even *less* control over the code than if the GPL applied!
The important point is that they *knowingly* gave away what they claim as their own code. Free, gratis, no strings attached, not even the GPL!
If you actually *read* the article, you will see that the reporter talks about (sigh) a "secret Internet" and a "Tactical Internet". What they really mean is a "WAN" (the reporter refers to it as a "far-flung LAN"). It even says that the WAN is NOT connected to the Internet.
I don't think you fully understood the question: it specifically required the *JCL* to run the program. I don't see that in the links you posted -- only the source code for the programs.
I have an Athlon 1800+ with PC2700 memory. I would guess my total compile time for the system (I started from a stage 1 tarball), X, gnome and OpenOffice was about 2 days.
Yes, but doesn't it only protect "effective access" controls? Given that CSS can be decrypted real time by a perl script that is so short it can be written on a T-shirt, surely CSS does not qualify as "effective"?
Why didn't they mention this is their press release? Just another screwup by SCO/Caldera I guess. Like the day a week or so back when 2 of their executives were interviewed and in one interview they said they had no issues with the kernel and in the other they clearly identified the kernel as having problem code.
So, if I understand this correctly, they are sending out a letter, to Caldera's customers, telling them that they have are using a product that violates Caldera's intellectual property rights? Is there a possible suit for fraud there, as they appear to be revoking whatever licenses they gave when they sold Caldera Linux?