There seems to be lots of interest for 3rd countries to be present in space. I bet the most important motive is (as usual) for military reasons. I don't just don't believe that they just want to explore the plantes, look at the starts, and benefit humanity in general. It defies simple logic to think that goverments who don't care if their people drink safe water, or if their people breath clean air, or if their people have enough to eat will suddenly be interested in acts of humanity. The only acts of humanity they seems to understand is how to "liberate" one another using weapons of mass destruction based high above.
But there is another issue, the issue of SCO 's real source of revenue. ( For those who don't know, SCO's current source of revenue is Microsoft funding their anti-Linux campaing.)
SCO is glad to keep their source of revenue flowing from their biggest customer, Microsoft. But how can SCO continue their main assignement , their fud campaing, if the media decides not to continue with the soap opera when SCO is incoherent with the press releases and is laughted at in public when they show as "proofs" like those we received this week? SCO managed to look ridiculous even to Microsoft! This does not bode well for them: they lack critical skills.
And besides, maybe SCO even lied to Microsoft and might have problems coming their way.
( You should be in deep sleep if you still think SCO is in the litication business. The are in the fuding business. THe lawsuit is just a prop to keep their fud campain on public view. They are not after 3 Billion dollars with such opium-dreaming claims. And since they spend most of their time funding, they are probably in the fuding business.)
>... but it is entirely possible that IBM is controlling a mainstream
media attack against them.
Were are on the wrong train, again. Last week was the GPL, and now they choose to focus
on IBM control.
Until SCO can show proof on their (wild) claim, they should close their mouth.
On the other hand, SCO's press releases are a dependable source of laughter.
Enough laughter to heal every sorrow. I will miss them after this is over.
Not realy. There is no standard definition of "stealing". In most cases, stealing is the definition that suits you this moment.
As for "natural rights", it is even worse. There is no such thing as natural rights or natural laws. Prove it. Turn them around and look at them from any angle, you will never find it.
The burdern of proof lies with the plaintiff. If SCO claims ownership on the Statue Of Liberty, they are the ones who need to provide proof. I am afraid, the standard of "it is my word against yours", is not an acceptable standard.
I as far as Linux, I am the real owner of all kernel code. Since SCO provides no proof, I am not required to provide proof either.
Clearly, we are at the stage were they claim 1 million lines of code, any yet, they have not provided proof even for one single line. Even of a comment line!
Today SCO wanted to show everyone that IBM turned Linux from a bicycle to an enterprise os . I don't think that the one comment, and the one declaration of an unsigned int is sufficient proof to silence the sceptics, their method of proof is best suited for entertainment.
When I was with Debain several years ago, I remember that the real issue with non-free was about "Free Software" vs. "being popular". Although enough developers were also Free Software activists, I am afraid, the majority was more interested in the "being popular" and "adding functionality" through non-free software.
In the mean time, Slashdot articles would typically portray Debian as a pure Free Software project because, well, because they had GNU on its name, and Bruce (although he was gone by then), would insist on Slashdot that Debian only distriutes fee sofware because the non-free are not part of the distribution, so they don't count. (unbelivable!)
I left Debian, not only because of their weak Free Software stance, but mostly because "popularity" was becoming more important to them and Free Software developers were ridiculed on debian-privite. But publically on Slashdot they were re-inforcing the perception of a strong Free Software project -- got to keep the donations coming.
Also at the time, there was an insergence within the ranks of the anti-Free people into positions of Policy -- the same people who would also lead the anti-Free crusades (people like Manoj, and the author of apt in Canada).
In Free Software projects we vote with our feet, the Debian project was no longer a place for me.
The parent was mainly talking about definitions. There is little need to expand the subject into which team to support and why.
I think the conversation is heading to the wrong direction since such definitions, as commonly used, are too abstract to convey what the talker intented to mean without a great deal of explanation. Let's look, for example, at some less abstract terms: "computer", "Linux", "OO Programming". All these terms can mean different things to computer profeesionals, depending on their skills and knowledge. So, not only these simple terms are not absolute, but they will cause more confusion as they age.
To be sure, we can discuss such terms in the usual fuzzy fashion, but to fight over what the term 'OO Programing' realy means is meaningless. If we start a serious conversation, we will agree on some definition and just work from there.
> Now, if there are bans or restrictions on > UCE/spam, they could be applied to me if someone decided > they didn't like me.
The problem, therefore, is not restrictions through law. The real problem is that someone decided to get you, and they could do it in million different ways. The end result is that you spend a 1-2 days in jail until you talk to the judge, and then hope for the best.
This is the standard procedure of our legal system until a judge decides what to do with you. I don't think the system is great, but neither it is not terrible.
Still don't like it? Like we said, the truly is with our overzealous guardians of God, Country, and Family Values (also know as Fadayeens), combined with that it is troublesome to find justice without inconvenience.
Your problem has little to do with new laws from wise men.
If the goal is to help the lowest part of the economy, that is were spend the money. You do that directly. But if you are crook, or a deceiver, you can come up with as many other economic theories you like.
In other words, if my aim is to send $100 to GNU, I will send them a check. End of story. But if I want to pretend and deceive, but I would rather keep the money for myself. I will appear on slashdot with silly speaches, like yours, explaining why by keeping the money to myself, it will will evenually trickle to GNU in someway or another. Nonsese! And they are too obvious.
What logic is that? If India is not even capable to distribute food efficiently to its people, I bet they are no capable to send man to the moon either. THey is issue is not the cannot feed their people, the issue is that tney don't care, because if they did, that would have been solved way before their inter-planetary rides into outer space.
This implies what? I know, this implies that the homeless Vets begging on the streets in Boston, and the homeless American women in the riches country on Earth should be thankfull because... they at least have safe driking water.
For the riches country on Earth we should not feel proud if our prostitutes can at least drink safe water. (Not should Mr. Gates should be proud if he is able to provide his kids a bowl of cereal in the morning. There is no much pride in it.)
I think they will avoid SEC, almost everyone does. Unless, of course, you are a 14-year old who hypes a stock on the Yahoo board. The real, big-time, criminals don't seem to attract interest from the SEC.
SCO management dumped their stock, and the company has little money. If they already plan to close their business and open a new one, it makes not difference who much money they will have to pay for all the people the screw. If they empty the bank account ahead of time and close shop, nobody will get a dime. Make no practical differense if they are liable or not.
A small note. If SCO was for real, it would seem that not only they will show proof, but they would ENCOURAGE users to continue using GNU/Linux so that they can be awarded as much damages as possible, not as least damages possible.
But of course, if your real goal is to spread fud (as per Microsoft instructions), they they should be in the fud bussinees (while they pretend they are in litigation business).
Simple. They every few days they have to issue a press release to keep the soap opera going. It is quite typical of them to outdo their previous nonsense with even greater nonsense. And if this shift the talk away from the main issue, which is PROOF, then it is a good strategy.
These people have to show us proof before they are allowed to open their mouth again.
I am not even convinced they plan to show in court with such week case. Maybe the objective is not showing in court, so far, their actions indicate that their are more interested to spread FUD (as per Microsoft's intructions).
Read the article, please. The laywer clearly said that even if you use SCO code in violation (assumeing they ever provide proof), you still don't have to pay SCO because it is IBM who will pay for damages, and SCO cannot collect twice. This answers the question of the poster which was about having to pay damages, and was not about whether he will be in violation of SCO's (alleged) violation of trade secrets. Read the article, please. The laywer clearly said that even if you use SCO code in violation (assumeing they ever provide proof), you still don't have to pay SCO because it is IBM who will pay for damages, and SCO cannot collect twice. This answers the question of the poster which was about having to pay damages, and was not about whether he will be in violation of SCO's (alleged) violation of trade secrets.
Nicely said. The GPL is an agreement " I will share, if you share." Corporations looking for handouts should look into non-GPL software.
Of course, in a primitive civilization like ours, were you still have to pay money to eat and care for your health, developoers are not obligated to donate Free Software to anyone. That is why I will never contribute to Perl (which is GPL or Artistic, which makes it just Artistic; in another words, free donations to Microsoft.)
You have no obligation to donate to others, unless others they they are also willing to donate to you. That why I will not donate (or use) freebsd either.
No. SCO executives seem to know well what their are doing. So far, the left hand was dumping stock while everyone was looking at their right hand hold the U.S. Copyright Law. The real question do *we* know what they are doing? Or, are we distracted in the SCO v. IBM show, and in claims of licensing fees, when the real game is somewhere else?
You people are missing the point. It is not so important what the release says, but what it *implies*. SCO lawyers discussed the theory whether the GPL is compatable with copyright laws, and perhaps in a later press release they will informs us whether the GPL violates the constitution.
But before they enlight us their legal theories, they have to do the most basic of all things: which is to provide us proof so we can stop thinking of them as rope-dancers. The aim of the new wave of legal theories fosters the assumption that they already have proof, and that they have been injured. WE ARE STILL WAITING!
I am afraid, no amount of extravagant legal theories can make up for the fact that they must first provide proof before they are allowed to open their mouth.
Such ideologies should be ecouraged. If you cannot find the right friends (or relatives) to live like this, maybe, you should look for new friends and relatives.
I don't want to live in my house suspecting everyone as if they are crooks or thiefs. And you treat your friends like potential thiefs, don't expect much in return.
I read the opposite today, perhaps in ZNET. The reporter said that IBM was allowed to write code based on methods and concepts of system V, and distribute it, as long as IBM wrote it themself and did not copy from other people's copyrighted works.
It seems SCO "discovers" more and more "violations" every day, but have yet to show proof. Maybe it time for me to join a similar racket and start sueing IBM for billions. Why not? I can also announce that thousant of files were stolen from me throught the decades and placed on Linux in open view, and yet I did not know about it until now that I need the money.
Make no mistake, the SCO v.s IBM case is just the podium from where SCO circulates FUD, as instructed by Microsoft. Whover is is concerned by "who will win the lawsuit" is totaly missing the point.
Slashdot Mirror
There seems to be lots of interest for
3rd countries to be present in space. I bet
the most important motive is (as usual) for military
reasons. I don't just don't believe that
they just want to explore the plantes, look
at the starts, and benefit humanity in general.
It defies simple logic to think that
goverments who don't care if
their people drink safe water, or if their people
breath clean air, or if their people have
enough to eat will suddenly be interested
in acts of humanity. The only acts of humanity
they seems to understand is how to "liberate"
one another using weapons of mass destruction
based high above.
But there is another issue, the issue of
SCO 's real source of revenue. ( For those
who don't know, SCO's current source of revenue
is Microsoft funding their anti-Linux campaing.)
SCO is glad to keep their source of revenue
flowing from their biggest customer, Microsoft.
But how can SCO continue their main assignement , their fud campaing,
if the media decides not to continue with the soap opera
when SCO is incoherent with the press releases and
is laughted at in public when they show as "proofs"
like those we received this week? SCO managed to look
ridiculous even to Microsoft! This does not
bode well for them: they lack critical skills.
And besides, maybe SCO even lied to Microsoft
and might have problems coming their way.
( You should be in deep sleep if you still think SCO is in
the litication business. The are in the fuding
business. THe lawsuit is just a prop to keep
their fud campain on public view. They are not
after 3 Billion dollars with such opium-dreaming
claims. And since they spend most of their time funding,
they are probably in the fuding business.)
Were are on the wrong train, again. Last week was the GPL, and now they choose to focus on IBM control. Until SCO can show proof on their (wild) claim, they should close their mouth.
On the other hand, SCO's press releases are a dependable source of laughter. Enough laughter to heal every sorrow. I will miss them after this is over.
of "stealing". In most cases, stealing
is the definition that suits you this moment.
As for "natural rights", it is even worse. There
is no such thing as natural rights or natural
laws. Prove it. Turn them around and look at them
from any angle, you will never find it.
that is not what the are saying today.
Perhaps is you wait a few weeks, they might
switch again to what they claimed earlier.
If SCO claims ownership on the Statue Of Liberty,
they are the ones who need to provide proof.
I am afraid, the standard of "it is my word against yours",
is not an acceptable standard.
I as far as Linux, I am the real owner of
all kernel code. Since SCO provides no proof,
I am not required to provide proof either.
Clearly, we are at the stage were they claim
1 million lines of code, any yet, they have
not provided proof even for one single line.
Even of a comment line!
Today SCO wanted to show everyone that IBM turned Linux from
a bicycle to an enterprise os . I don't think
that the one comment, and the one declaration of
an unsigned int is sufficient proof to silence
the sceptics, their method of proof is best
suited for entertainment.
I remember that the real issue with non-free was about
"Free Software" vs. "being popular". Although
enough developers were also Free Software activists,
I am afraid, the majority was more interested
in the "being popular" and "adding functionality" through
non-free software.
In the mean time, Slashdot articles would
typically portray Debian as a pure Free Software
project because, well, because they had GNU on
its name, and Bruce (although he was gone by then),
would insist on Slashdot that Debian only
distriutes fee sofware because the non-free
are not part of the distribution, so they don't count. (unbelivable!)
I left Debian, not only because of their weak
Free Software stance, but mostly because "popularity"
was becoming more important to them and Free Software developers were
ridiculed on debian-privite. But publically on
Slashdot they were re-inforcing the perception
of a strong Free Software project -- got to
keep the donations coming
Also at the time, there was an insergence within
the ranks of the anti-Free people into
positions of Policy -- the same people who
would also lead the anti-Free crusades (people
like Manoj, and the author of apt in Canada).
In Free Software projects we vote with our feet,
the Debian project was no longer a place for me.
definitions. There is little need to expand
the subject into which team to support and why.
I think the conversation is heading to the
wrong direction since such definitions, as
commonly used, are too abstract to convey what
the talker intented to mean without a great
deal of explanation. Let's look, for example
at some less abstract terms: "computer", "Linux",
"OO Programming". All these terms can mean
different things to computer profeesionals, depending on their skills and knowledge.
So, not only these simple terms are not absolute,
but they will cause more confusion as they age.
To be sure, we can discuss such terms in the usual
fuzzy fashion, but to fight over what the term 'OO Programing'
realy means is meaningless. If we start a serious
conversation, we will agree on some definition and just
work from there.
> Now, if there are bans or restrictions on
> UCE/spam, they could be applied to me if someone decided
> they didn't like me.
The problem, therefore, is not restrictions through law.
The real problem is that someone decided to get you, and
they could do it in million different ways. The end result
is that you spend a 1-2 days in jail until you talk to
the judge, and then hope for the best.
This is the standard procedure of our legal system until a
judge decides what to do with you. I don't think the system
is great, but neither it is not terrible.
Still don't like it? Like we said, the truly is with our
overzealous guardians of God, Country, and Family Values
(also know as Fadayeens), combined with that
it is troublesome to find justice without inconvenience.
Your problem has little to do with new laws from wise men.
the economy, that is were spend the money. You
do that directly. But if you are crook, or
a deceiver, you can come up with as many other economic
theories you like.
In other words, if my aim is to send $100 to
GNU, I will send them a check.
End of story. But if I want to pretend and deceive,
but I would rather keep the money for myself.
I will appear on slashdot with silly speaches, like yours,
explaining why by keeping the money to myself, it will
will evenually trickle to GNU in someway or another. Nonsese!
And they are too obvious.
What logic is that? If India is not even
capable to distribute food efficiently to
its people, I bet they are no capable to
send man to the moon either. THey is issue
is not the cannot feed their people, the issue is that tney don't
care, because if they did, that would have
been solved way before their inter-planetary rides
into outer space.
Thas is funny. Thanks.
the homeless Vets begging on the streets in
Boston, and the homeless American women in
the riches country on Earth should be thankfull
because... they at least have safe driking water.
For the riches country on Earth we should
not feel proud if our prostitutes can at least
drink safe water. (Not should Mr. Gates should
be proud if he is able to provide his kids
a bowl of cereal in the morning. There is no
much pride in it.)
I think they will avoid SEC, almost everyone does.
Unless, of course, you are a 14-year old who
hypes a stock on the Yahoo board. The real, big-time,
criminals don't seem to attract interest from the SEC.
SCO management dumped their stock, and the
company has little money. If they already
plan to close their business and open a
new one, it makes not difference who much
money they will have to pay for all the
people the screw. If they empty the bank account
ahead of time and close shop, nobody will
get a dime. Make no practical differense if they are
liable or not.
seem that not only they will show proof, but
they would ENCOURAGE users to continue using
GNU/Linux so that they can be awarded as
much damages as possible, not as least damages
possible.
But of course, if your real goal is to spread
fud (as per Microsoft instructions), they they
should be in the fud bussinees (while they
pretend they are in litigation business).
issue a press release to keep the soap opera
going. It is quite typical of them to outdo
their previous nonsense with even greater nonsense.
And if this shift the talk away from the main
issue, which is PROOF, then it is a good strategy.
These people have to show us proof before they
are allowed to open their mouth again.
I am not even convinced they plan to show
in court with such week case. Maybe the objective
is not showing in court, so far, their actions
indicate that their are more interested to
spread FUD (as per Microsoft's intructions).
Read the article, please. The laywer clearly said
that even if you use SCO code in violation (assumeing
they ever provide proof), you still don't
have to pay SCO because it is IBM who will
pay for damages, and SCO cannot collect twice.
This answers the question of the poster which
was about having to pay damages, and was
not about whether he will be in violation
of SCO's (alleged) violation of trade secrets.
Read the article, please. The laywer clearly said
that even if you use SCO code in violation (assumeing
they ever provide proof), you still don't
have to pay SCO because it is IBM who will
pay for damages, and SCO cannot collect twice.
This answers the question of the poster which
was about having to pay damages, and was
not about whether he will be in violation
of SCO's (alleged) violation of trade secrets.
share, if you share." Corporations looking
for handouts should look into non-GPL software.
Of course, in a primitive civilization like ours, were you still have to pay
money to eat and care for your health, developoers
are not obligated to donate Free Software to
anyone. That is why I will never contribute
to Perl (which is GPL or Artistic, which makes it
just Artistic; in another words, free donations to Microsoft.)
You have no obligation to donate to others, unless others they
they are also willing to donate to you. That why
I will not donate (or use) freebsd either.
No. SCO executives seem to know well what their
are doing. So far, the left hand was dumping
stock while everyone was looking at their right
hand hold the U.S. Copyright Law. The real
question do *we* know what they are doing?
Or, are we distracted in the SCO v. IBM show, and in
claims of licensing fees,
when the real game is somewhere else?
so important what the release says, but what
it *implies*. SCO lawyers discussed the theory
whether the GPL is compatable with copyright laws, and perhaps
in a later press release they will informs us
whether the GPL violates the constitution.
But before they enlight us their legal theories,
they have to do the most basic of all things:
which is to provide us proof so we can stop
thinking of them as rope-dancers. The aim
of the new wave of legal theories fosters
the assumption that they already have proof, and
that they have been injured. WE ARE STILL WAITING!
I am afraid, no amount of extravagant legal theories
can make up for the fact that they must first provide
proof before they are allowed to open their mouth.
cannot find the right friends (or relatives)
to live like this, maybe, you should look for
new friends and relatives.
I don't want to live in my house suspecting
everyone as if they are crooks or thiefs.
And you treat your friends like potential thiefs, don't expect
much in return.
The reporter said that IBM was allowed to
write code based on methods and concepts of system V, and distribute it,
as long as IBM wrote it themself and did not
copy from other people's copyrighted works.
It seems SCO "discovers" more and more "violations"
every day, but have yet to show proof. Maybe it
time for me to join a similar racket and start
sueing IBM for billions. Why not? I can also
announce that thousant of files were stolen
from me throught the decades and placed on Linux
in open view, and yet I did not know about it
until now that I need the money.
Make no mistake, the SCO v.s IBM case is just
the podium from where SCO circulates FUD, as
instructed by Microsoft. Whover is is concerned
by "who will win the lawsuit" is totaly missing the point.