You can't protect liberty by taking it away. What we're concerned with isn't protecting liberty, it's protecting infrastructure and industry. These are neither synonymous with nor necessary for liberty.
Part of the problem with fascists is that they have a small vocabulary. For instance, don't say, "Spreading freedom" when what you mean is, "Spreading capitalism." Another example, don't say, "Making the world safe for democracy," when what you mean is, "Making the world safe for republics that are friendly to and economically and culturally dependent on the US."
protecting my liberty is exactly the ideal I was thinking of. The odd thing is that you can't protect liberty by making laws that take it away. At the moment I don't need any protection, so you can keep it. And if you want me to pay for protection with my liberties then you'll have to find me first. Last night after this thread I cut up my state ID, and I won't be getting a new one RealID or not.
We elect our politicians, primarily, to protect the nation. Just letting people run across our border is unsafe and irresponsible.
Perhaps you elect your politicians to protect the nation. I elect them to represent my ideals, something they've got a shitty record doing on both sides of the aisle. Secondly, if we could confine the debate to illegal aliens perhaps we'd have an issue worth discussing. The problem is that we have failed to prevent ourselves from classifying every American as a potential terrorist.
This is actually a very good question...
The preamble states, "We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..." And I've always presumed that the rest of the document, including the text you've quoted, referred to each of these elements in roughly the same order as they are presented.
The Federal Government overstepping it's bounds is alot older and more bipartisan than you think
And I'm pretty unhappy with the whole system for it - which should be clear from my comment (Where I attack the Courts and the Congress) and from the context of the headline which says that the vote passed unanimously. In fact the only folks I had anything good to say about were the libertarians who've yet to accomplish anything helpful. Really, the issue is the old federalist/anti-federalist argument that was answered definitively by the Civil War (And I'm not particularly happy with the way that's played out since).
As an aside, what I find ironic is that the Republicans simultaneously declare themselves "The party of Lincoln" and advocates of "State's rights." First, these seem to be a contradiction, and in any case they don't represent either particularly well.
Only if you infer that each and every American citizen and resident, legal or otherwise, is by definition a threat to the "common defense and general welfare" And if that is the case exactly whose welfare are we defending?
Alternatively, the Courts could do their job and enforce the 10th Ammendment, which would call into question almost everything the Congress has done since 9/11.
Of course, nobody seems to care about "preserv[ing], protect[ing], and defend[ing] the Constitution..." anymore - except the libertarians, and they hold how many federal offices?
I don't completely agree with this. Onshore Indian programmers often communicate just as well as American programmers (Which isn't necessarily that well.) You see variations of "I don't understand the business requirement, but I'm not going to admit that and ask for clarification. So, I'll just code what I think is right." or "We need a framework with lots of bells and whistles and neat tech that adds buzzwords to my resume, and screw the fact that we could solve the business problem in half the time with one-tenth the complexity." from either camp. Plus, a lot of times the idea that Indian programmers can't communicate effectively comes from the fact that we can't understand them, not the other way around. Most of these guys learn English in school from a very early age. And, in my experience they are not as bothered by our accent as we are by theirs.
I've worked with enough knuckleheads from both sides of the world to suggest a different source for the problem. What we need is an increase in the average quality of code. If I can pay for an idiot from Bangalore or an idiot from good old USA, and either way there is a 50% chance that the code is going to suck and fail, and a 50% chance that the code will work... barely... but still suck then I'm better of paying for the cheapest idiot. If there were a way that I could guarantee good product then it would be worth almost any price. But a lot of things would have to change for that to happen:
We have to stop treating coders like they are wizards who do magic. The folks doing the hiring need to understand the technology they are hiring for.
You can't identify good coders by the laundry list of frameworks and tools they claim to have used. Stupid coding tests aren't much better. Good coders are problem solvers, so give them a problem and see if they solve it.
Most of the best coders I've known don't have degrees in "CS or related field". Some of them majored in basket weaving and others never got past high school. A lot of the "CS or related" folks are real tools who wouldn't know good code from a digital photo of their own ass.
Businesses need to catch on to agile software development. Make your developers prove to you that they are doing what you asked them to by delivering software frequently, as often as weekly. If they don't deliver then fire them and hire new ones.
Locate your development offices in the suburbs. The space there is cheaper anyway, and frankly some of us are tired of commuting more than an hour each way and then working a 60 hour week. $100K+ is still not enough if I can't have a life too.
BTW, there were plenty of people online. Government, military, college students, faculty, and (IIRC) telecom folks had Internet access. But I guess that doesn't count, since you weren't there to grace us with your 18 wisdom. [/sarcasm]
In 1989 I was thirteen. Therefore, as a human below base age and without magical modifiers my max wisdom would be 18 - 1 == 17.
None of those things had any impact on us. We knew that TSR wasn't calling them "Devils" or "Demons" any more because they were scared of the parents. That didn't change the way we played the game. All of the old monsters were still there, they just had new names that we were free to ignore.
Assassins as a class were always lame. In fact most of the classes beyond the basic Fighter/Cleric/Magic User/Thief were pretty lame, IMO. I thought that kits were a better idea than subclasses, although they did a poorer job of balancing the kits.
The Internet was around back then. I was in college shortly after 2E was released, and was on several mailing lists. Usenet was a good resource back too.
I could have said "world wide web" but I thought it was pretty clear what I meant.
The second edition PHB was published in 1989.
The world wide web came into existence in 1992.
Mosaic for X came out in 1993.
I got a copy of Netscape for my Power Mac in 1995.
I had already been playing 2E for about six years. Admittedly, I wasn't on the cutting edge. Though, I had used Compuserve and several BBS by that point. My point was that if the web as it exists today had been around then, I would have been able to share the rule expansions that my group had developed with millions of people around the world. In fact, there weren't millions of people on the internet back then. Merely thousands mostly at universities.
It seems like a lot of old school D&D players share this sentiment that the AD&D 2E ruined the game with all its extra rules and complexity. While I agree with those who say that it was unfortunate that you had to buy hundreds of dollars worth of books to keep up on all the optional rules, I also think that the optional rules gave a lot of opportunities to expand and enhance the game in your own direction. Sure, one could do that with imagination alone, but at a certain point you need rules to mitigate the conflicts between your imagination and mine.
I learned a lot from the optional rules and rulebooks. I learned how to tell a good optional rule from a bad one, and eventually how to write my own rules so that the game I was playing was unique to my group.
In hindsight it would have been nice to have had a forum like the internet back then so that we could explore and create expansions to the game without spending ALL of our allowances on the latest rulebook, but overall I am glad that I wasted my money on them versus some of the other stuff I probably would have wasted it on.
The difference being that Java is a fully functional development language whereas SQL was never intended to be, but vendors keep adding to it so that naive shops will buy their latest bloatware.
In every SQL dialect I am aware of I can still "SELECT * FROM my_table" and get the results I expect. That is just about all I really need to do since I have a real OO language in which to develop code. However, as long as government and big business keep giving Bloatware Inc. (formerly Oracle Corporation) millions of dollars for the latest crappy version of their monstrosity I will have to deal with business logic implemented in PL/SQL by folks who have no business dressing themselves let alone developing code.
Is there any ambiguity left as to how I feel about that?;-)
Anyway, I don't forsee that happening to Java even if it is open sourced for the same reason it hasn't happened to Perl, Python, or C++. Since you can already do 99% of what any reasonable developer would ever want to do in those languages without the need for any extension.
One more relevant point: The idea of having a test suite for compatibility is to ensure bytecode compatibility between JVM implementations so that portability from one JVM to another is preserved. JVMs are already implemented differently on different platforms, so that wouldn't change. One thing that could change is that you could implement any kind of Javaesque compiler you wanted as long as the bytecode you produced was compatible (Actually, you can already do this.) So, if you really want Java with precompiler directives, or JLisp/JFortran/JAda, or whatever you just have to ensure that you compile to JVM compatible bytecode. The idea of open sourcing Java would be that anyone could make their own JVM but to be covered under the license it would have to pass a test suite verifying that it was bytecode compatible with everyone else's Java and had support for the core java.* libraries that many programs need to run.
Maybe it's just because I've been doing Java development exclusively for the past three years. Or, maybe it's because I've been doing Extreme Programming exclusively for the last two and this gels extremely well with the idea of Customer Tests which are at the core of what I do. But, I think this is absoulutely brilliant.
Essentially, "Do whatever you want, but you can't call it Java unless it passes our compatibilty suite." Thus the core vision of "write once run anywhere" is preserved but the community is given the freedom (And, yes, I do know what that word means) to enhance and bugfix. BTW, it is already pretty easy and wouldn't become any harder to expand beyond core java by adding additional libraries. The difference would be that you could distribute the whole thing under a single open source license.
The one thing you couldn't do would be to change the language itself. But then, maybe I'm missing something, but if you don't care about compatibility why use java in the first place?!? It's not like there aren't good alternatives out there that will let you do whatever you want (Perl, Python, C++, etc.) The whole advantage of Java is that it is so prolific, and it is so because of it's rigorously maintained compatibility/portability (And strong advocacy by Big Blue among others... who like it because of it's portability across the many platforms they offer and support.)
patriotism is a vague term that is largely misused by the right to imply that you should be doing what they say
The term patriotism is too often substituted for the more appropriate term, nationalism. We need to remember that a lot of the folks that we refer to as patriots in America - Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ben Franklin, etc. - were in fact British subjects guilty of treason, insidition, and various other crimes against the state. I'd offer that patriotism has a lot more to do with loyalty to an ideal than loyalty to a government. Nationalism, on the other hand, has everything to do with loyalty to a government, and can be a good thing. It can also be a bad thing, particularly when loyalty to ideals comes in direct conflict with loyalty to the nation. It is at these sad moments when we have to decide which is more dear to us. Our founders chose ideals, and they are remembered for that.
This is the exact same cycle we saw with Japanese cars (which has come full circle with those companies opening up manufacturing plants in the United States).
The problem with that example is that the Japanese originally started building their cars here to get around the unfair regulations about domestic content that were enacted to bail out the big three... who, by the way, build many of their cars in Canada and Mexico.
So... if we impose high tariffs and import quotas on foreign developed software, maybe Asian software firms will start outsourcing jobs back here so that they can compete for US sales. That way we can take advantage of our number one asset - the ability to consume more than everyone else combined.
I'd given up long ago, but perhaps now there really will be a day when we can code to a single open standard.
Also, I wanted to mention the main reason why I started using Firefox: better tools for developers. When you install it you can choose to install developer tools which has a nice simple Javascript console showing all the errors that Javascript produces when you execute a page. The view source function works even when there are errors (Which is arguably when it is needed most... at least for developers,) And browsing arbitrary XML content doesn't force you to use a crappy default stylesheet like MS does. All of these features are better than the analogous ones in Mozilla 1.x and legacy Netscape products, and there are no useful equivalents in IE.
I've been a web developer for several years. So, I am familiar with the problem. I think of myself as an accomplished programmer, fairly good at solving business problems in clear, concise, and effective ways.
I have also done my share of page design, although I don't think I'm very good at it and no one has ever disagreed with me on that point. However, I've been able to have good web designers on my teams who put together the interfaces that will work with the software I write to solve the business problems. This makes sense.
Which brings me to my point. Why is it that no common GUI toolkit that I am familiar with makes it possible for a designer to create the interface without programming knowledge and the programmer to put actions behind it without design knowledge the way that web frameworks do? I'm not even familiar with a non-web UI framework that uses markup of any kind. Most use a fairly complex API that requires someone to have a lot of programming knowledge, some experience with design patterns, and plenty of experience programming GUIs with similar APIs before they get it right. Such a thing is incredibly unfriendly to designers. The only exceptions that I am familiar with are proprietary "visual" toolsets like Visual Studio where the API is no less complex, but the tool allows for WYSIWYG.
What I would like to see is a GUI toolkit for the open source market that allows XML markup to be used to describe the interface just like a web page, and then has hooks for code. This would allow us to convert web designers to GUI designers and get a lot of input and help from the design community.
BTW, a lot of great designers already do contribute to open source... by designing web sites. If there were an opportunity for them to contribute to GUIs I bet they would.
I heard Sun has one? What's it called? "JXTA"? Has anyone worked with that, is it any good? Can it work with nodes that are behind NAT?
I am just starting a project using JXTA. So far I am very impressed with the technology, although it is perhaps a bit bloated (This is my impression of the code and is not based on any comparison with other P2P protocols, since I haven't used any others;-) JXTA does support tunneling over HTTP which gets you around most firewalls and NAT and such. It also has a real interesting architecture where certain nodes can be promoted to act as relays. Among other uses, this could allow a public machine to act as a proxy for messages to peers behind a firewall/NAT.
According to my universal translator: when a teenager says, "We never meant to hurt anybody," it means, "We never meant to get caught as a result of hurting anybody."
The real fault here is with the adults who don't have sufficient judgement to discern entertainment from reality (Thus the lawsuit.) It is likely that their disfunctional sensibilities are the root cause. If they can't tell the difference what hope do their children have?
I agree that SCO has declared war, and concerned companies and individuals should respond accordingly. However, breaking open source licenses is not the best way to respond. How about we start by boycotting SCO and then boycotting any company that gives in to SCOs extortion and pays for licenses. After that, we need to continue to speak out against SCO as loudly as possible. Also, IANAL, but depending on how SCO proceeds with targetting Linux end users there may be a means of countersuit that the entire community can participate in.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't protect liberty by taking it away. What we're concerned with isn't protecting liberty, it's protecting infrastructure and industry. These are neither synonymous with nor necessary for liberty.
Part of the problem with fascists is that they have a small vocabulary. For instance, don't say, "Spreading freedom" when what you mean is, "Spreading capitalism." Another example, don't say, "Making the world safe for democracy," when what you mean is, "Making the world safe for republics that are friendly to and economically and culturally dependent on the US."
protecting my liberty is exactly the ideal I was thinking of. The odd thing is that you can't protect liberty by making laws that take it away. At the moment I don't need any protection, so you can keep it. And if you want me to pay for protection with my liberties then you'll have to find me first. Last night after this thread I cut up my state ID, and I won't be getting a new one RealID or not.
Perhaps you elect your politicians to protect the nation. I elect them to represent my ideals, something they've got a shitty record doing on both sides of the aisle. Secondly, if we could confine the debate to illegal aliens perhaps we'd have an issue worth discussing. The problem is that we have failed to prevent ourselves from classifying every American as a potential terrorist.
The preamble states, "We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..." And I've always presumed that the rest of the document, including the text you've quoted, referred to each of these elements in roughly the same order as they are presented.
And I'm pretty unhappy with the whole system for it - which should be clear from my comment (Where I attack the Courts and the Congress) and from the context of the headline which says that the vote passed unanimously. In fact the only folks I had anything good to say about were the libertarians who've yet to accomplish anything helpful. Really, the issue is the old federalist/anti-federalist argument that was answered definitively by the Civil War (And I'm not particularly happy with the way that's played out since).
As an aside, what I find ironic is that the Republicans simultaneously declare themselves "The party of Lincoln" and advocates of "State's rights." First, these seem to be a contradiction, and in any case they don't represent either particularly well.
Only if you infer that each and every American citizen and resident, legal or otherwise, is by definition a threat to the "common defense and general welfare" And if that is the case exactly whose welfare are we defending?
Alternatively, the Courts could do their job and enforce the 10th Ammendment, which would call into question almost everything the Congress has done since 9/11.
Of course, nobody seems to care about "preserv[ing], protect[ing], and defend[ing] the Constitution..." anymore - except the libertarians, and they hold how many federal offices?
I don't completely agree with this. Onshore Indian programmers often communicate just as well as American programmers (Which isn't necessarily that well.) You see variations of "I don't understand the business requirement, but I'm not going to admit that and ask for clarification. So, I'll just code what I think is right." or "We need a framework with lots of bells and whistles and neat tech that adds buzzwords to my resume, and screw the fact that we could solve the business problem in half the time with one-tenth the complexity." from either camp. Plus, a lot of times the idea that Indian programmers can't communicate effectively comes from the fact that we can't understand them, not the other way around. Most of these guys learn English in school from a very early age. And, in my experience they are not as bothered by our accent as we are by theirs.
I've worked with enough knuckleheads from both sides of the world to suggest a different source for the problem. What we need is an increase in the average quality of code. If I can pay for an idiot from Bangalore or an idiot from good old USA, and either way there is a 50% chance that the code is going to suck and fail, and a 50% chance that the code will work... barely... but still suck then I'm better of paying for the cheapest idiot. If there were a way that I could guarantee good product then it would be worth almost any price. But a lot of things would have to change for that to happen:
My Government is too busy making the world safe for terrorism... wait... from terrorism?... Oh, nevermind!
In 1989 I was thirteen. Therefore, as a human below base age and without magical modifiers my max wisdom would be 18 - 1 == 17.
None of those things had any impact on us. We knew that TSR wasn't calling them "Devils" or "Demons" any more because they were scared of the parents. That didn't change the way we played the game. All of the old monsters were still there, they just had new names that we were free to ignore.
Assassins as a class were always lame. In fact most of the classes beyond the basic Fighter/Cleric/Magic User/Thief were pretty lame, IMO. I thought that kits were a better idea than subclasses, although they did a poorer job of balancing the kits.
I could have said "world wide web" but I thought it was pretty clear what I meant.
I had already been playing 2E for about six years. Admittedly, I wasn't on the cutting edge. Though, I had used Compuserve and several BBS by that point. My point was that if the web as it exists today had been around then, I would have been able to share the rule expansions that my group had developed with millions of people around the world. In fact, there weren't millions of people on the internet back then. Merely thousands mostly at universities.
It seems like a lot of old school D&D players share this sentiment that the AD&D 2E ruined the game with all its extra rules and complexity. While I agree with those who say that it was unfortunate that you had to buy hundreds of dollars worth of books to keep up on all the optional rules, I also think that the optional rules gave a lot of opportunities to expand and enhance the game in your own direction. Sure, one could do that with imagination alone, but at a certain point you need rules to mitigate the conflicts between your imagination and mine.
I learned a lot from the optional rules and rulebooks. I learned how to tell a good optional rule from a bad one, and eventually how to write my own rules so that the game I was playing was unique to my group.
In hindsight it would have been nice to have had a forum like the internet back then so that we could explore and create expansions to the game without spending ALL of our allowances on the latest rulebook, but overall I am glad that I wasted my money on them versus some of the other stuff I probably would have wasted it on.
I suppose that BEING A BUNCH OF ASSHOLES could be construed as a form of human error.
I wear a thong and tassels which is encouraged but not actually required.
I work in a development shop... what are these "girls" you speak of?
The difference being that Java is a fully functional development language whereas SQL was never intended to be, but vendors keep adding to it so that naive shops will buy their latest bloatware.
In every SQL dialect I am aware of I can still "SELECT * FROM my_table" and get the results I expect. That is just about all I really need to do since I have a real OO language in which to develop code. However, as long as government and big business keep giving Bloatware Inc. (formerly Oracle Corporation) millions of dollars for the latest crappy version of their monstrosity I will have to deal with business logic implemented in PL/SQL by folks who have no business dressing themselves let alone developing code.
Is there any ambiguity left as to how I feel about that? ;-)
Anyway, I don't forsee that happening to Java even if it is open sourced for the same reason it hasn't happened to Perl, Python, or C++. Since you can already do 99% of what any reasonable developer would ever want to do in those languages without the need for any extension.
One more relevant point: The idea of having a test suite for compatibility is to ensure bytecode compatibility between JVM implementations so that portability from one JVM to another is preserved. JVMs are already implemented differently on different platforms, so that wouldn't change. One thing that could change is that you could implement any kind of Javaesque compiler you wanted as long as the bytecode you produced was compatible (Actually, you can already do this.) So, if you really want Java with precompiler directives, or JLisp/JFortran/JAda, or whatever you just have to ensure that you compile to JVM compatible bytecode. The idea of open sourcing Java would be that anyone could make their own JVM but to be covered under the license it would have to pass a test suite verifying that it was bytecode compatible with everyone else's Java and had support for the core java.* libraries that many programs need to run.
Maybe it's just because I've been doing Java development exclusively for the past three years. Or, maybe it's because I've been doing Extreme Programming exclusively for the last two and this gels extremely well with the idea of Customer Tests which are at the core of what I do. But, I think this is absoulutely brilliant.
Essentially, "Do whatever you want, but you can't call it Java unless it passes our compatibilty suite." Thus the core vision of "write once run anywhere" is preserved but the community is given the freedom (And, yes, I do know what that word means) to enhance and bugfix. BTW, it is already pretty easy and wouldn't become any harder to expand beyond core java by adding additional libraries. The difference would be that you could distribute the whole thing under a single open source license.
The one thing you couldn't do would be to change the language itself. But then, maybe I'm missing something, but if you don't care about compatibility why use java in the first place?!? It's not like there aren't good alternatives out there that will let you do whatever you want (Perl, Python, C++, etc.) The whole advantage of Java is that it is so prolific, and it is so because of it's rigorously maintained compatibility/portability (And strong advocacy by Big Blue among others... who like it because of it's portability across the many platforms they offer and support.)
The term patriotism is too often substituted for the more appropriate term, nationalism. We need to remember that a lot of the folks that we refer to as patriots in America - Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ben Franklin, etc. - were in fact British subjects guilty of treason, insidition, and various other crimes against the state. I'd offer that patriotism has a lot more to do with loyalty to an ideal than loyalty to a government. Nationalism, on the other hand, has everything to do with loyalty to a government, and can be a good thing. It can also be a bad thing, particularly when loyalty to ideals comes in direct conflict with loyalty to the nation. It is at these sad moments when we have to decide which is more dear to us. Our founders chose ideals, and they are remembered for that.
The problem with that example is that the Japanese originally started building their cars here to get around the unfair regulations about domestic content that were enacted to bail out the big three... who, by the way, build many of their cars in Canada and Mexico.
So... if we impose high tariffs and import quotas on foreign developed software, maybe Asian software firms will start outsourcing jobs back here so that they can compete for US sales. That way we can take advantage of our number one asset - the ability to consume more than everyone else combined.
Also, I wanted to mention the main reason why I started using Firefox: better tools for developers. When you install it you can choose to install developer tools which has a nice simple Javascript console showing all the errors that Javascript produces when you execute a page. The view source function works even when there are errors (Which is arguably when it is needed most... at least for developers,) And browsing arbitrary XML content doesn't force you to use a crappy default stylesheet like MS does. All of these features are better than the analogous ones in Mozilla 1.x and legacy Netscape products, and there are no useful equivalents in IE.
I've been a web developer for several years. So, I am familiar with the problem. I think of myself as an accomplished programmer, fairly good at solving business problems in clear, concise, and effective ways.
I have also done my share of page design, although I don't think I'm very good at it and no one has ever disagreed with me on that point. However, I've been able to have good web designers on my teams who put together the interfaces that will work with the software I write to solve the business problems. This makes sense.
Which brings me to my point. Why is it that no common GUI toolkit that I am familiar with makes it possible for a designer to create the interface without programming knowledge and the programmer to put actions behind it without design knowledge the way that web frameworks do? I'm not even familiar with a non-web UI framework that uses markup of any kind. Most use a fairly complex API that requires someone to have a lot of programming knowledge, some experience with design patterns, and plenty of experience programming GUIs with similar APIs before they get it right. Such a thing is incredibly unfriendly to designers. The only exceptions that I am familiar with are proprietary "visual" toolsets like Visual Studio where the API is no less complex, but the tool allows for WYSIWYG.
What I would like to see is a GUI toolkit for the open source market that allows XML markup to be used to describe the interface just like a web page, and then has hooks for code. This would allow us to convert web designers to GUI designers and get a lot of input and help from the design community.
BTW, a lot of great designers already do contribute to open source... by designing web sites. If there were an opportunity for them to contribute to GUIs I bet they would.
Don't feed the sharks.
I am just starting a project using JXTA. So far I am very impressed with the technology, although it is perhaps a bit bloated (This is my impression of the code and is not based on any comparison with other P2P protocols, since I haven't used any others ;-) JXTA does support tunneling over HTTP which gets you around most firewalls and NAT and such. It also has a real interesting architecture where certain nodes can be promoted to act as relays. Among other uses, this could allow a public machine to act as a proxy for messages to peers behind a firewall/NAT.
They said "We never meant to hurt anybody..."
According to my universal translator: when a teenager says, "We never meant to hurt anybody," it means, "We never meant to get caught as a result of hurting anybody."
The real fault here is with the adults who don't have sufficient judgement to discern entertainment from reality (Thus the lawsuit.) It is likely that their disfunctional sensibilities are the root cause. If they can't tell the difference what hope do their children have?
Am I the only one who wonders what happens to the spray on computers when the heart patient decides to take a shower??
I agree that SCO has declared war, and concerned companies and individuals should respond accordingly. However, breaking open source licenses is not the best way to respond. How about we start by boycotting SCO and then boycotting any company that gives in to SCOs extortion and pays for licenses. After that, we need to continue to speak out against SCO as loudly as possible. Also, IANAL, but depending on how SCO proceeds with targetting Linux end users there may be a means of countersuit that the entire community can participate in.