SCO employees are guilty for supporting a criminal organization. That is obvious. The hard question is whether they should be punished.
Should a crack dealer be punished for bringing food for his children? or should a bank robber be punished for earning a living? That is what the issue boils down. My sentiment (which is actually what "morality" is, according to Hume) is that these people should not be punished for trying to stay alive, but if they work to enhance their saving, then that is immoral an a danger to society (that is, a danger to the self-interests of the majority).
There was nothing wrong with your analogies, as far as illustrating your views. The logic, however, sucks. What counts is the benefit/cost ratio, and whether it is affordable. Rope-dancing, and logic without quantifiers, as shown in your post, is a logic I expect from CNN, FOX, etc., but not from you: just because there are benefits, it does not automatically imply that this is what we should do. It depends, and it does depend on a lot things, but at very least you should *weight* the advantages and disadvantage.
SCO's claims are based on the definition of derivate work. Their main argumement (so far) has been that linux is derivate from System V Unix because... "we believe" it does.
I don't see the point of using a comparator (assuming it works) when SCO's arguments are based on some arbitrary definition of derivative works which changes from month-to-month.
to actually *legally* guarantee that the code that is inserted into the source tree *does not* infringe any copyright.
How can anyone guarantee that the code does not infringe on any copyright without a written disclaimer from each programmer on earth (or their inheritors) ? And why should the Free Software community to this when no software company is required to provide such guarantees. At least with Free Software, the code is open of inspection and copyright violations can be detected and removed.
McBride was not talking about guarantee from possible infringement; he has only talking verifying submitions with the programmer's company to ensure that the programmer is not an unguided missile acting on his own. (That is, McBride still wants the world to believe that after so many years in the linux business, and after Mr. Love (former Caldera CEO) discussed about their GPL patches, we are to believe that all SCO/Calder releases under the GPL happened by accident.
Why is it disturbing? The media has no resposibility to you, their resposibility is to themselves, to their customers (advertizers), and to the authorities. Frankly, the only thing that is disturbing is people taking them seriously. They are whores, just like everyone else.
THere is more to this. IBM claims that SCO has violated the GPL; thus, they are not allowed to distribute Linux at all (for free, or otherwise).
From the GPL:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."
At this point, there is no reason to ask them to prove their claims since SCO is a well-known illegal distributor.
Right. Lets examine the quotes more carefully to see if the new SCO license is a linux license. SCO says it is a Unix license, but they later imply (and everyone else understand) the license is about Linux.
Here are two relevant some quotes from the article, with only the first as direct quote;
1. Stowell says "we were giving them a Unix license with..."
2. SCO also wants customers to be aware that the license is a
binary, run-time-only license to the Unix code found in Linux.
Looks like SCO is not selling a linux license at all! Perhaps they are selling Unix svr4.
Time to call SCO's isp and tell them about their copyright violation of Linux. It is also time for SCO to call the isp's that mirror kernel.org to have the linux removed, and it is time to call SGI's isp to have their copyright violations removed as well. You see where this is heading.
In my opinion, it is best for the courts to decide when (and if) to remove files from the web.
Everyone can state an opinion and philosophize from a distance. The main issue is, of course, the quality of the opinion, and how well he has done in the past.
Maddog has given lots of interviews throughout the years, and can I recall that he has been proven an astute observer on issue related to Linux. How he has done in the past is an indicator of what he is speeking today.
(BTW, I thought maddog never worked at VA Linux, since there was another Mr. Hall by the same name.)
What is up with lawyers? Lawyers are no different than people any other profesion. I have paid thousands of dollars to lawyers and doctors, since I had to deal with both many time times. I trust lawyers more than doctors.
Perhaps you are young, but as you grow older and you will deal with both doctors and lawyers, then maybe your view of he world will be different.
How do you know that SCO's objective is to collect money through licenses?
SCO said that they will sue companies that announce in public that they migrated to Linux. Perhaps SCO wants to stop companies announcing their linux migration. And that is what Microsoft also wants, and that is why they pay SCO. Microsoft does not particularly care if SCO collects on invoices.
Another reason why the SCO series is usefull is to learn our history, the origins of UNIX.
It was dry reading when 16-years ago I fisrt read about our history. Who wants to focus on the history (chapter 2 for many unix books), when the rest of the book deals with semaphors, sockes, and terminals?
We have skimmed over the history sections for too many years, but today it is fun to (finally) start learnning. And besides no unix book can provide enough comedy like SCO.
A note on the lined article: The thompson buy/sell charts are unreliable. These are tools used by beginner investors/traders as an indication on how "big money" is placing their bet. Not only thompson is unreliable, but even if it was reliable it would still mean very little. Just because big money is buying a stock, it does not automatically mean that they are betting the stock will move higher -- someone could have bought a huge blocks in order to hedge against other bets (naked puts, or write calls) in order to limit their downside, or they could have bought the blocks to complete their market-maker formulas to profit only from the bid/ask spread.
Thanks for the explanation, there was a lot of wisdom in what you wrote.
It seems IBM's injuction (if granted) is enough to ruin SCO, and IBM has he money to post bond. That is great.
Although I am ready to agree with all you wrote (provided I think of it again a little more), I am suspect that there is nothing we can do for cute little idiots like Rob Enderle: they will continue to write whatever comes to their head -- according to who pays them -- since their target audience is the uninformed and casual readers. That is fine, we can live with it.
One more thing. Always with reference to your link about IBM's counter-suit, IBM is saying that SCO no longer has the right to distribute Linux since they violated section 4 of the GPL. I think SCO has no choice but to drop dead soon.
When I receive free services from the Free Software community, or when I provide services in return (in order to keep this good system going), that is also a form of money.
It is great to live in the Free Software community. As long we all receive benefits, why care about principles, why care about convictions?
I have been fortunate since discoverd the Free Software community. The software community has been a great benefit to me, not only for their gifts, but also meeting great people. (As for morality, this I leave it to the moralists.)
You are no longer at the mercy of Microsoft, and your computer is no longer a black box. (Sorry, when you use Perl on a non-free operating system, it is still dependent on black-box system calls that behave not according to they should do, but according to what Microsoft decided that they should do. They could copy your data to Mircosoft, or this innocent system call might be directed to freeze you computer because that is what Microsoft might want.
You are missing the entire point of Free Software. Of course, if you language consists of "open source" softwaere, it is not a surprise that you don't think of Freedom.
IBM is supporting the community because it is their benefit to support the community. It is their benefit to share with others. When a company acts like a parasite, the system of sharing fails. IBM has seen the light, they understand that in order to keep the system working (for their benefit), they have no choice but to encourage sharing.
I disagree. IBM could have supported a superior product like BSD instead of Linux, but they chose Linux. Why? Because Linux is GPL and they don't want their work hijacked into Microsft products. They chose to share if you share model. Saying that GPL is as good as any other the Free Software license is not a valid argument -- at least, not for the companies that want to battle Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
obvious. The hard question is whether they should be punished.
Should a crack dealer be punished for bringing food for his children? or
should a bank robber be punished for earning a living? That is what the
issue boils down. My sentiment (which is actually what "morality" is, according
to Hume) is that these people should not be punished for trying to stay alive,
but if they work to enhance their saving, then that is immoral an a danger
to society (that is, a danger to the self-interests of the majority).
There was nothing wrong with your analogies,
as far as illustrating your views. The logic,
however, sucks. What counts is the benefit/cost
ratio, and whether it is affordable. Rope-dancing,
and logic without quantifiers, as shown in
your post, is a logic I expect from CNN, FOX, etc.,
but not from you: just because there are
benefits, it does not automatically imply that
this is what we should do. It depends, and it
does depend on a lot things, but at very least
you should *weight* the advantages and disadvantage.
derivate work. Their main argumement (so far)
has been that linux is derivate from System V
Unix because... "we believe" it does.
I don't see the point of using a comparator (assuming
it works) when SCO's arguments are based on some
arbitrary definition of derivative works
which changes from month-to-month.
to actually *legally* guarantee that the code that is inserted into the source tree *does
not* infringe any copyright.
How can anyone guarantee that the code does not infringe on any copyright without
a written disclaimer from each programmer on earth (or their inheritors) ?
And why should the Free Software community to this when no software company is
required to provide such guarantees. At least with Free Software, the code
is open of inspection and copyright violations can be detected and removed.
McBride was not talking about guarantee from possible infringement; he has only talking
verifying submitions with the programmer's company to ensure that the
programmer is not an unguided missile acting on his own. (That is, McBride
still wants the world to believe that after so many years in the linux
business, and after Mr. Love (former Caldera CEO) discussed about their
GPL patches, we are to believe that all SCO/Calder releases under the GPL
happened by accident.
SCO has violated the GPL. According to
section 4 of the GPL, SCO no longer
has the right to distribute Linux (for free,
or otherwise).
SCO. At what point will MS smile with
satisfaction for a job well done and exit?
it all depends how far Microsfot wants to
play this game before it moves to the next one.
Why is it disturbing? The media has no
resposibility to you, their resposibility
is to themselves, to their customers (advertizers), and to the authorities.
Frankly, the only thing that is disturbing
is people taking them seriously. They are whores,
just like everyone else.
has violated the GPL; thus, they are not
allowed to distribute Linux at all (for free,
or otherwise).
From the GPL:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance."
At this point, there is no reason to ask
them to prove their claims since SCO
is a well-known illegal distributor.
a linux license. SCO says it is a Unix license, but they later imply
(and everyone else understand) the license is about Linux.
Here are two relevant some quotes from the article, with only the first as direct quote
1. Stowell says "we were giving them a Unix license with
2. SCO also wants customers to be aware that the license is a
binary, run-time-only license to the Unix code found in Linux.
Looks like SCO is not selling a linux license at all! Perhaps they are selling Unix svr4.
about their copyright violation of Linux. It
is also time for SCO to call the isp's that
mirror kernel.org to have the linux removed,
and it is time to call SGI's isp to have
their copyright violations removed as well.
You see where this is heading.
In my opinion, it is best for the courts
to decide when (and if) to remove files from
the web.
from a distance. The main issue is, of course,
the quality of the opinion, and how well he
has done in the past.
Maddog has given lots of interviews throughout
the years, and can I recall that he has been
proven an astute observer on issue related to
Linux. How he has done in the past is
an indicator of what he is speeking today.
(BTW, I thought maddog never worked at VA Linux,
since there was another Mr. Hall by the same name.)
What happens when a monopoly collapses is that
tens of other companies will *compete*
for that turf. That means more jobs, not fewer.
I can also understand the rapist's point of view.
So what?
different than people any other profesion. I
have paid thousands of dollars to lawyers and
doctors, since I had to deal with both many
time times. I trust lawyers more than doctors.
Perhaps you are young, but as you grow older
and you will deal with both doctors and lawyers,
then maybe your view of he world will be different.
to collect money through licenses?
SCO said that they will sue companies that
announce in public that they migrated to Linux.
Perhaps SCO wants to stop companies announcing
their linux migration. And that is what Microsoft
also wants, and that is why they pay SCO.
Microsoft does not particularly care if
SCO collects on invoices.
is to learn our history, the origins of UNIX.
It was dry reading when 16-years ago I fisrt
read about our history. Who wants to focus on
the history (chapter 2 for many unix books), when
the rest of the book deals with semaphors, sockes,
and terminals?
We have skimmed over the history sections for
too many years, but today it is fun to (finally)
start learnning. And besides no unix book can
provide enough comedy like SCO.
nothing to do with Free Software, which
includes BSD-type licenses.
Microsoft and SCO don't have a problem with
BSD licenses: they are happy when you code
for them without pay.
and SCO released a lot of BSD under the GPL.
I think SCO mut prove that California is
an independent country; thus, the BSD selltlement
is not legally binding in Idaho.
buy/sell charts are unreliable. These are
tools used by beginner investors/traders
as an indication on how "big money"
is placing their bet. Not only thompson is
unreliable, but even if it was reliable it
would still mean very little. Just because
big money is buying a stock, it does not
automatically mean that they are betting the
stock will move higher -- someone could have
bought a huge blocks in order to hedge against other
bets (naked puts, or write calls) in order to limit their downside,
or they could have bought the blocks to complete
their market-maker formulas to profit only from
the bid/ask spread.
You are so funny. THANKS!
a lot of wisdom in what you wrote.
It seems IBM's injuction (if granted) is
enough to ruin SCO, and IBM has he money to post bond.
That is great.
Although I am ready to agree with all you wrote (provided
I think of it again a little more), I am suspect
that there is nothing we can do for
cute little idiots like Rob Enderle: they
will continue to write whatever comes to
their head -- according to who pays them --
since their target audience is the uninformed and
casual readers. That is fine, we can live with it.
One more thing. Always with reference to your
link about IBM's counter-suit, IBM is saying
that SCO no longer has the right to distribute
Linux since they violated section 4 of the GPL.
I think SCO has no choice but to drop dead soon.
Take care, and thanks for the explanation.
community, or when I provide services in return
(in order to keep this good system going), that is also a form of money.
It is great to live in the Free Software community.
As long we all receive benefits, why care
about principles, why care about convictions?
I have been fortunate since discoverd the
Free Software community. The software community
has been a great benefit to me, not only for their
gifts, but also meeting great people. (As for
morality, this I leave it to the moralists.)
You are no longer at the mercy of Microsoft,
and your computer is no longer a black box. (Sorry,
when you use Perl on a non-free operating system,
it is still dependent on black-box system calls
that behave not according to they should do,
but according to what Microsoft decided that
they should do. They could copy your data
to Mircosoft, or this innocent system call might
be directed to freeze you computer because
that is what Microsoft might want.
You are missing the entire point of Free Software. Of course,
if you language consists of "open source" softwaere,
it is not a surprise that you don't think of Freedom.
IBM is supporting the community because
it is their benefit to support the community.
It is their benefit to share with others.
When a company acts like a parasite, the
system of sharing fails. IBM has seen the
light, they understand that in order to
keep the system working (for their benefit),
they have no choice but to encourage sharing.
I disagree. IBM could have supported a superior
product like BSD instead of Linux, but they
chose Linux. Why? Because Linux is GPL and
they don't want their work hijacked into
Microsft products. They chose to share if
you share model. Saying that GPL is as good
as any other the Free Software license is
not a valid argument -- at least, not
for the companies that want to battle Microsoft.