If the "SCO madness goes inexplicably wrong", all those corporations out there using and depending on Linux (sorry, I mean GNU/Linux) will not be rushing headlong toward freeBSD or another GNU+whatever OS. Especially those that rely on a custom hacked Linux kernel. Rather, the situation would get cleared up by simply replacing any offending IP in the Linux kernel. What RMS is saying with regards to GNU being distinct from the Linux kernel is true, but hardly worth saying for the average man and beast who relies on Linux (er, GNU/Linux) day by day. BSD isn't a drop-in replacement for Linux. Putting "GNU" in front of all the Linux distros won't help. Cleaning up IP out of the kernel will, if it comes to that, GNU or no GNU labeling.
The fact is, "Linux" is the defacto standard way of referring to the LinuxKernel + GNU. (Just like capitalizing "Internet" has become the defacto standard, despite the whines and rants of certain geeks.) For a guy that I have a hard time distinguishing from a communist, RHS sure is hell bent on GNU getting the credit he thinks the GNU name deserves. Why can't he just be happy that GNU has done its part to further the creation of the Software Workers' Paradise he apparently wants, without stewing over who gets the credit? Get over it.
The point is that SCO is giving tacit approval for these users of Linux to use it as it stands. That means that SCO is tacitly agreeing to the GPL. SCO does not have the right to say, "we are going to allow you to use the Linux kernel that we claim has our unauthorized IP in it, but we are not agreeing to the GPL." If they agree to the use of the disto, *any* distro, of Linux with SCO code in it, they agree to the GPL.
I wonder if SCO programmers scour Linux code when they add/edit their Unix modules. Or if SCO managers scour the Patent Office when their programmers check source files in. Yeah, right.
"Is there an official organism in the US where companies can register source code for future legal problems?"
Yes, it's called the U.S. Copyright Office. (http://www.loc.gov/copyright/) Of course, you don't *need* to register your source with the USCO to win a IP case. All you need to be able to do is prove to the judge that the work is yours. Registering a work with the USCO is probably the best way to do this.
That slot percentages are determined, and that the user has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome, is well known in the U.S. In fact, the "arms" on the modern electronic slots are not connected to the wheels. They are merely levers attached an electronic switch acting as a digital input to an embedded computer. Don't they have the Travel Channel in the U.K???
When you realize that humans and field mice share 93%+ of their genes, the percentages don't seem that impressive. Also, while the a large percentage of the genes are held in common, they are not in sequences in the same order. Moreover, these studies don't take into account the new breakthroughs in "junk" DNA studies, which seem to indicate that the "junk" DNA actually serves purposes. See http://www.newswise.com/articles/2003/5/BORIS.UCD. html
Chimps ain't humans by a long shot.
Individual states have the right to regulate such things as the state legislators see fit. Aside from this, whether one is a *really* a software engineer is depends on whether or not one does the *work* of an engineer. Software coders are much like logical bricklayers, whereas software engineers are akin architects.
As any rate, I think the term "engineer" without context is meaningless in any event. There are civil engineers, electrical engineers, chemical engineers, etc. Chemical engineers generally do not know anything about civil engineering. Adding "software engineering" to the list violates no acceptable use of the term, as long as "software" is part of the title. As far as I know, software engineers typically do not try to pass themselves off as chemical engineers or civil engineers. Texas is clearly overstepping reason here.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I hope they don't use any GNU code in it, otherwise Richard Stallman will cause a stink unless they call it GNU/IntyOS.
If the "SCO madness goes inexplicably wrong", all those corporations out there using and depending on Linux (sorry, I mean GNU/Linux) will not be rushing headlong toward freeBSD or another GNU+whatever OS. Especially those that rely on a custom hacked Linux kernel. Rather, the situation would get cleared up by simply replacing any offending IP in the Linux kernel. What RMS is saying with regards to GNU being distinct from the Linux kernel is true, but hardly worth saying for the average man and beast who relies on Linux (er, GNU/Linux) day by day. BSD isn't a drop-in replacement for Linux. Putting "GNU" in front of all the Linux distros won't help. Cleaning up IP out of the kernel will, if it comes to that, GNU or no GNU labeling.
The fact is, "Linux" is the defacto standard way of referring to the LinuxKernel + GNU. (Just like capitalizing "Internet" has become the defacto standard, despite the whines and rants of certain geeks.) For a guy that I have a hard time distinguishing from a communist, RHS sure is hell bent on GNU getting the credit he thinks the GNU name deserves. Why can't he just be happy that GNU has done its part to further the creation of the Software Workers' Paradise he apparently wants, without stewing over who gets the credit? Get over it.
The point is that SCO is giving tacit approval for these users of Linux to use it as it stands. That means that SCO is tacitly agreeing to the GPL. SCO does not have the right to say, "we are going to allow you to use the Linux kernel that we claim has our unauthorized IP in it, but we are not agreeing to the GPL." If they agree to the use of the disto, *any* distro, of Linux with SCO code in it, they agree to the GPL.
According to the USCO web site, you are absolutely right. The copyright exists the moment you create a work. You must register before you can sue.
I wonder if SCO programmers scour Linux code when they add/edit their Unix modules. Or if SCO managers scour the Patent Office when their programmers check source files in. Yeah, right.
"Is there an official organism in the US where companies can register source code for future legal problems?" Yes, it's called the U.S. Copyright Office. (http://www.loc.gov/copyright/) Of course, you don't *need* to register your source with the USCO to win a IP case. All you need to be able to do is prove to the judge that the work is yours. Registering a work with the USCO is probably the best way to do this.
Finally, a slashdot post I can really use! Thanks boys
If everyone would just fork themselves, instead of trying to fork everyone else, everything would be fine.
That slot percentages are determined, and that the user has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome, is well known in the U.S. In fact, the "arms" on the modern electronic slots are not connected to the wheels. They are merely levers attached an electronic switch acting as a digital input to an embedded computer. Don't they have the Travel Channel in the U.K???
Justin Frankel? Who is Justin Frankel? And who cares what he does?
When you realize that humans and field mice share 93%+ of their genes, the percentages don't seem that impressive. Also, while the a large percentage of the genes are held in common, they are not in sequences in the same order. Moreover, these studies don't take into account the new breakthroughs in "junk" DNA studies, which seem to indicate that the "junk" DNA actually serves purposes. See http://www.newswise.com/articles/2003/5/BORIS.UCD. html
Chimps ain't humans by a long shot.
DHCP is fine. If users want multiple devices they can get a SOHO, which they should do anyway for firewall protection.
Individual states have the right to regulate such things as the state legislators see fit. Aside from this, whether one is a *really* a software engineer is depends on whether or not one does the *work* of an engineer. Software coders are much like logical bricklayers, whereas software engineers are akin architects. As any rate, I think the term "engineer" without context is meaningless in any event. There are civil engineers, electrical engineers, chemical engineers, etc. Chemical engineers generally do not know anything about civil engineering. Adding "software engineering" to the list violates no acceptable use of the term, as long as "software" is part of the title. As far as I know, software engineers typically do not try to pass themselves off as chemical engineers or civil engineers. Texas is clearly overstepping reason here.