SCO is charging licensing fees for Linux in direct violation of the GPL.
They benefit, while the kernel authors are not willing to sue, and Linus does not even withhold their use of the "Linux" trademark. How pathetic!
Don't tell me the kernel developers don't have money to protect their copyright. If they ask, I am sure most linux users will mail them at least $3 each, and they should have a few millions within 3 weeks.
The GPL is a contract between SCO and its customers. SCO choose (it does not matter why) to do business with their customers using the terms of GPL. Now, with SCO saying that the GPL is invalid, it automatically follows that their previous contracts with their clients is (in SCO's view) also invalid. Did SCO refund their money? That is the least they should do.
It one thing for a customer to dispute the validity of the contract, but for SCO to dispute the contract that *SCO* chose to do business with their customers is laughable.
Yes, but the worst case senario is better than that: if the GPL is deemed invalid, only a few sections will be removed, the rest of the GPL will still apply.
The problem is that Linux is gaining makrt share to the detriment of Microsoft. Since Microsoft has essentially been immune from anti-compentative practices (for decades), and since Linux is a threat, the SCO opera is nothing compared to what is coming next.
If SCO's claims are based on trade secrets, they it does not matter if SCO wins. The secrets are out, there is nothing you can do about it. All SCO can do is collect damages from IBM for leaking the trade secrets to the public. The linux code, or anyone knows what was then a secret, are not liable for anything. Only the person who leaked the secrets will be in trouble.
Yes, but SCO claims ignorance. They claim (even though they were in the linux distribution business for so many years), they had no knowledge that "their" code was distributed under the GPL . SCO claims they put the copyright notice under the GPL, but they did not intend to distribute the code. They claim that for so many years the code was distributed by accident.
Perhaps the 2-year olds would believe them, but how about 4-years? No, I doubt 4-year olds woud believe them.
I am glad this ruling was superseded by law, for the ruling was stupid. As a user I am only intrested to run the program, I don't care if the computer first copies the software into memory. I bet most people don't even know that (some) of the executable gets copied into RAM, all they know is that "you click, and it just works". And besides, because of they way the os works, the os *forces* it to load into RAM; then, how can I use the software without copying when all I want to do is just run the program?
It seems the "we will not sue Linux companies" is related to the "Red Hat vs SCO" request for injunction. This article at groklaw reports that SCO is trying to demonstrate to court that Red Hat is not under threat from lawsuits; thus, Red Hat is an unrelated party to in SCO opera so the have no legal staanding to demand an injuction.
Extortion is when you use fear to extract money from people you have no prior business relationship, and without giving reasons why they legaly have to pay you. I am sorry, "pay so I don't report you to the authorities", or "pay so I don't sue you" is illegal. It is simple extortion, as plain as it can possibly be.
Windows has (or had) stolen IP, this we know every time the lose a patent court case. Does DELL (or even Microsoft) offer indemnification for Windows? Never happended.
Now what do you want me to say? That you have to know gcc in order to load an image via the serial port (and if you can arrange it ahead of time, and if it is still possible)? Thus not readily hackable.
I claimed that I worked on this thing for pay. Perhaps you have a different opinion, but my word ought to be good enough.
I have worked on such uClinux gadgets (for pay);
although I have not bothered to read about this
product, it should be safe to make these observations:
1. Two posts only? That is not very useful at
all. You probably need a hub as well.
2. uClinux is not readily hackable, at least
until you drift of it, and also know how to recover
when this thing freezes. You can not just dive into it as if it was a linux PC.
3. The modem is probably the *best* part, but
that has been done for many, many years. Nothing
special.
If this thing had more than 2 eth ports, it
could be useful; but, I would rather have it wirelss.
The parent is moslty right, and his reasoning is right too. Maybe 6 people is not enough to form an opinion about the whole bsd group, but even 200 people is not enough either. Six is plenty! After all, how many people one has to meet for the countless decisions we make every day?
As for bsd, I love it more than linux. But lets cut the crap about "true unix" and "more mature", since there are plenty of advantages and disadvantages for both systems. (How could it be otherwise?)
No so. I care less about what Linux evangelists say and I have tried freebsd in the past for two years in ordr to get exposed to other systems. I love freebsd, and I would love to switch to it since I no longer feel home with the linux culture.
But you know what is holding me all these years? GPL is not the main license for *BSD. That is a non-starter.
You have a great os, but not an acceptable license for my (probable) contributions.
Re:Suing SCO in small claims court?
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 1
In worst case, only a few sections of the GPL might be found invalide. The rest of the GPL will remain valid.
According to the GPL:
"If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances."
Well, there a people who find benefit from the SCO vs. IBM lawsuit and will be very sad if it stops.
Eric Raymonds is a good example.
Eric: SCO claims there was not DoS last Friday. (See GrokLaw, yet you blame it on Linux without providing evidence, then declared yourself general. No comment.
Re:This thread is ? SCO sux? SCO is a clown?
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 1
For one, contrary to what most people might believe, you don't need a reason for a stock to rise. But let's not focus on this.
Ok, you really need a reason (to make you feel better?) How about SCO is now a profitable company due to Macrosoft? How about that they are in the fuding business and they are doing a good job? And if they keep doing well, they will get more Microsoft money in 2004 .
You people are concentrating on the trial! Despite of the cute articles in Newspapers, the trial is not the main issue. The main issue the new anti-competitive practices of Micrsoft who are set to raise the cost of doing business for Linux companies , and preferable distroy the upcoming threat of Linux and the GPL. So the hired SCO to do the fud job for them, whithout having to be exposed to huge liabilities for damages or get sued for anti-competitive practices.
The SCO stories, in general, are cute stories for the simple minded.
And SCO can be sued by their customers who bought SCO products under the GPL (that was SCO's choice of license) sinse they claim that GPL is invalid. The GPL was the contract between SCO and customers. In other words, SCO refuses to honor the contract they signed with their customers.
Re:business -- Do not threaten
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Threatening lawsuits is dangerous! Don't threaten them, just do it.
If you decide to sue SCO for extortion, go to the courthouse and ask the judge to issue declerative judgment saying that SCO cannot require payment since you are just an end-user (and not a Linux distributor) and you have never shown proof why SCO should demand money from someone they have never had a prior business relationship.
If a few hundred/thousant linux users win a declarative judgment just like that, then we should be in a better shape.
(As for me, I am still waiting for SCO to sure me. SCO, if you are listening, and I have posted it at least 5 time on slashdot already, please contact me via ntro at earthlin dot [NET] . Let's get started!)
Re:You know you're in deep water...
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 1
Really? Until SCO provides proof, they are irrelevent.
After all, we cannot collect money and hold it for 3 years every time some idiot just claim anything they want. SCO must demonstrate liability for damages (not just ownership) before they see a dime.
If that this the case, you may as well say "you don't have the right to LIVE". The one implies the other.
And if that is the case, and you don't have a right to a job or to live, then why should I be part of your society? Now that we know that your deal sucks, let's see what others have to offer. Almost anything could be better than your deal.
As we have learned from the SCO case, the copyright holder cannot impose any limitiations the want. The copyright law states *some* limitations that restrict the clauses imposed by copyright holders on licensees. For instance, the user is allowed to make one backup copy regardless of the license says.
If you recall, SCO is saying that some provisions of the GPL are contrary to copyright law: that is, the GPL cannot impose such restrictions on the user. (SCO argument, of course, is another smoke of crack, because the GPL does not impose many restrictions. It is the opposite, the GPL *grants* you rights that you normally would not have.)
Slashdot Mirror
in direct violation of the GPL.
They benefit, while the kernel authors
are not willing to sue, and Linus
does not even withhold their use of the
"Linux" trademark. How pathetic!
Don't tell me the kernel developers don't have money to
protect their copyright. If they ask, I am
sure most linux users will mail them at least $3 each,
and they should have a few millions within 3 weeks.
customers. SCO choose (it does not matter why) to do business with
their customers using the terms of GPL. Now,
with SCO saying that the GPL is invalid, it
automatically follows that their previous
contracts with their clients is (in SCO's view)
also invalid. Did SCO refund their money? That
is the least they should do.
It one thing for a customer to dispute the
validity of the contract, but for SCO
to dispute the contract that *SCO* chose
to do business with their customers is laughable.
Yes, but the worst case senario is better than
that: if the GPL is deemed invalid, only a
few sections will be removed, the rest of the
GPL will still apply.
to the detriment of Microsoft. Since Microsoft
has essentially been immune from anti-compentative
practices (for decades), and since Linux is
a threat, the SCO opera is nothing compared
to what is coming next.
There is no end in sight.
been all over the news for the last month.
Yes, they woke-up late.
If SCO's claims are based on trade secrets,
they it does not matter if SCO wins. The secrets
are out, there is nothing you can do about it.
All SCO can do is collect damages from IBM for
leaking the trade secrets to the public. The linux code,
or anyone knows what was then a secret, are
not liable for anything. Only the person who
leaked the secrets will be in trouble.
(even though they were in the linux distribution
business for so many years), they had no
knowledge that "their" code was distributed
under the GPL . SCO claims they put the
copyright notice under the GPL, but they
did not intend to distribute the code. They
claim that for so many years the code was
distributed by accident.
Perhaps the 2-year olds would believe them, but
how about 4-years? No, I doubt 4-year olds woud
believe them.
in public that they are moving to Linux. Threfore,
SCO is going to sue these companies.
This explains why SCO is acting in such
idiotic way; they have not choice but follow
Microsoft's instructions.
I am glad this ruling was superseded by
law, for the ruling was stupid. As a user
I am only intrested to run the program, I don't
care if the computer first copies the software into memory.
I bet most people don't even know that (some)
of the executable gets copied into RAM, all
they know is that "you click, and it just works".
And besides, because of they way the os works,
the os *forces* it to load into RAM; then, how
can I use the software without copying when
all I want to do is just run the program?
It seems the "we will not sue Linux companies"
is related to the "Red Hat vs SCO" request
for injunction. This article
at groklaw reports that SCO is trying to
demonstrate to court that Red Hat is not
under threat from lawsuits; thus, Red Hat
is an unrelated party to in SCO opera
so the have no legal staanding to demand an injuction.
Extortion is when you use fear to extract money
from people you have no prior business relationship,
and without giving reasons why they legaly have
to pay you. I am sorry, "pay so I don't report
you to the authorities", or "pay so I don't
sue you" is illegal. It is simple extortion,
as plain as it can possibly be.
time the lose a patent court case. Does DELL
(or even Microsoft) offer indemnification
for Windows? Never happended.
have to know gcc in order to load an image via the
serial port (and if you can arrange it ahead of time, and if it is still possible)? Thus not readily hackable.
I claimed that I worked on this thing for pay. Perhaps you
have a different opinion, but my word ought to
be good enough.
1. Two posts only? That is not very useful at all. You probably need a hub as well.
2. uClinux is not readily hackable, at least until you drift of it, and also know how to recover when this thing freezes. You can not just dive into it as if it was a linux PC.
3. The modem is probably the *best* part, but that has been done for many, many years. Nothing special.
If this thing had more than 2 eth ports, it could be useful; but, I would rather have it wirelss.
is right too. Maybe 6 people is not enough
to form an opinion about the whole bsd group, but even 200
people is not enough either. Six is plenty! After
all, how many people one has to meet
for the countless decisions we make every day?
As for bsd, I love it more than linux. But
lets cut the crap about "true unix" and "more
mature", since there are plenty of advantages and
disadvantages for both systems. (How could it be
otherwise?)
say and I have tried freebsd in the past for two years in ordr
to get exposed to other systems. I love freebsd, and
I would love to switch to it since I no longer
feel home with the linux culture.
But you know what is holding me all these years?
GPL is not the main license for *BSD. That is a non-starter.
You have a great os, but not an acceptable license for
my (probable) contributions.
might be found invalide. The rest of the GPL will
remain valid.
According to the GPL:
"If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances."
lawsuit and will be very sad if it stops.
Eric Raymonds is a good example.
Eric: SCO claims there was not DoS last Friday. (See GrokLaw
yet you blame it on Linux without providing evidence,
then declared yourself general. No comment.
don't need a reason for a stock to rise. But
let's not focus on this.
Ok, you really need a reason (to make you feel
better?) How about SCO is now a profitable
company due to Macrosoft? How about that they
are in the fuding business and they are doing
a good job? And if they keep doing well, they
will get more Microsoft money in 2004 .
You people are concentrating on the trial! Despite
of the cute articles in Newspapers, the trial
is not the main issue. The main issue the new anti-competitive
practices of Micrsoft who are set to raise the
cost of doing business for Linux companies , and preferable distroy
the upcoming threat of Linux and the GPL. So
the hired SCO to do the fud job for them, whithout
having to be exposed to huge liabilities for damages or
get sued for anti-competitive practices.
The SCO stories, in general, are cute stories for the simple minded.
bought SCO products under the GPL (that was
SCO's choice of license) sinse they claim that
GPL is invalid. The GPL was the contract between
SCO and customers. In other words, SCO refuses
to honor the contract they signed with their customers.
Threatening lawsuits is dangerous! Don't threaten them, just do it.
If you decide to sue SCO for extortion, go to
the courthouse and ask the judge to issue
declerative judgment saying that SCO cannot
require payment since you are just an end-user
(and not a Linux distributor) and you have
never shown proof why SCO should demand money
from someone they have never had a prior business relationship.
If a few hundred/thousant linux users win
a declarative judgment just like that, then
we should be in a better shape.
(As for me, I am still waiting for SCO to sure me. SCO,
if you are listening, and I have posted it at least
5 time on slashdot already, please contact me
via ntro at earthlin dot [NET] . Let's get started!)
irrelevent.
After all, we cannot collect money and hold it
for 3 years every time some idiot just claim anything
they want. SCO must demonstrate liability
for damages (not just ownership) before they
see a dime.
you don't have a right to a job
If that this the case, you may as well say
"you don't have the right to LIVE". The one
implies the other.
And if that is the case, and you don't have
a right to a job or to live, then why should
I be part of your society? Now that we know that your deal sucks, let's
see what others have to offer. Almost anything
could be better than your deal.
copyright holder cannot impose any limitiations
the want. The copyright law states *some* limitations
that restrict the clauses imposed by copyright
holders on licensees. For instance, the user
is allowed to make one backup copy regardless
of the license says.
If you recall, SCO is saying that some provisions
of the GPL are contrary to copyright law: that is,
the GPL cannot impose such restrictions on
the user. (SCO argument, of course, is another
smoke of crack, because the GPL does not
impose many restrictions. It is the opposite,
the GPL *grants* you rights that you normally
would not have.)