There are two groups here: those in the IT field, and those not IT. The IT people want their salaries to rise, but the non-IT people want everyone else (except themselves) to get lost so prices in the US stay low.
I can with no difficulty understand both groups: they all want what is best for them., and that fine. But please, leave morality arguments out of the discussion; such arguments are useless to both groups and the discourse becomes pathetic.
Otherwise, you're just being a self-serving hypocrite who is happy to enjoy cost savings
for jobs exported in every other industry except your own.
Is not it the whole point to benefit yourself? If this is you call hypocrisy, then everone should be a hypocrite. Who else can you survive? I think the America culture is attaching too much significance in pointing out hyporcrites, as opposed pointing out people who look after their self-interest. Don't we all??
Yes. I have not received any telephone call for contract work related to Linux since March, except one from IBM in early July.
I used to receive kernel-related telephone calls before March, but nothing since March.
I hold SCO responsible, and I will surely sue them once I get the extortion letter.
Today, the journalists said the the supposedly DoS attack on SCO, which it was not (see at CROKLAW ) , harmed innocenent bystandards. That is great! I hope Microsoft execs who finance SCO server life behind bars.
(As for ESR, this person is irresponsible with his comments and theatrics. A common karma whore, as he has always been.)
No, it was Microsft. Sun was separate deal.
For evidence that also was Microsft, I refere you this posting I found in
a discusion amoug lawyers about the SCO issue at Iamlow.com : Here is the relevant posting from WrapAndFlow:
August 16, 2003 - Saturday
8:15 AM PDT - SCO 10q and just how much has Microsoft agreed to pay SCO?
Bring up the above link and look for the heading "Recent Developments".
"The amount that we receive from any such licensee will generally depend on the license
rights that the licensee previously held and the amount and level of our intellectual
property the licensee desires to license. The two licensing agreements signed by us to
date resulted in revenue of $8,250,000 during the April 30, 2003 quarter and provide for
an aggregate of an additional $5,000,000 to be paid to us over the next three quarters.
These contracts do not provide for any payments beyond 2003, except that Microsoft was
granted the option to acquire expanded licensing rights, at its election, that would
result in additional payments to us if exercised. In connection with the execution of the
first license agreement, we granted a warrant to the licensee to purchase up to 210,000
shares of our common stock, for a period of five years, at a price of $1.83 per share.
This warrant has been valued, using the Black-Scholes valuation method, at $500,000.
Because the warrant was issued for no consideration, $500,000 of the license proceeds have
been recorded as warrant outstanding and the license revenue reduced accordingly."
What does this all mean?
Well. It appears that whatever portion of the $8 million that came from Microsoft is not
clear. But, it does appear that it only covers 2003. So when 2004 comes around and SCO
needs to cover a few more legal bills, Microsoft will have at least the option to pay more
money to SCO for their dirty work. Also interesting is the grant of a warrant for up to
210,000 shares of common stock of SCO. Of course, that means that Microsoft wants to
benefit from owning a piece of SCO. No surprise there.
Microsoft has plenty of money to fuel the ill conceived effort by SCO to harm the Linux
marketplace.
And, as I have pointed out, Microsoft benefits from the up side should that occur. And,
Microsoft is shielded from the down side should SCO's illegal activities result in
extensive liabilities to IBM, Red Hat, SuSE, others and Linux contributors.
In other words, Microsoft is directly involved in using its money to harm Linux. It may
be shielded from legal liability. But, there is no question that Microsoft thinks its
monopoly is better off engaging in this activity. And, it appears that Microsoft taking a
license has nothing to do with a need to license Unix. That is a non-issue. This is all
about causing harm to Linux and IBM in particular. And, it can not be about the respect
for IP or contracts rights because SCO plans to breach its Linux contracts (the GPL) and
steal all intellectual property in Linux and claim it as it's exclusive property. That is
clearly not respecting the IP rights of others.
And, Microsoft has the ability now to add more cash to the fire if the illegal effort is
going well and competitors are being harmed by SCO efforts or limit its losses if it is
not. But, it is absolutely clear that Microsoft is behind the effort to directly harm
Linux and it is NOT related to a needed Unix license. If Microsoft even thought it needed
a Unix license it would not have waited until now to get one NOR would it expire this
year. This is simply a sham to use illegal means against a competitor. Let SCO do the
dirty and illegal work but fund them as long as money fuels it. In other words, fund the
contract to go after Linux using illegal means.
[Thanks to GrokLaw for permitting a link to be placed on this site referring to SCO
documents as they accumulate and for providing some direction to the above information.]
We will only show you (a quick peek to) the code under NDA. Oh no, says SCO, these 6 ppt examples was not the actual code, it was an example of the proof, not part of the million lines of code of proof itself.
Or how about this: We sold our products to our customers under the GPL, but since the GPL is invalid, we promise that if you pay again for the new license we will not sue our customers. (Presumably valuable customers.) This time, we promise!
I don't get it. IBM makes more money from Linux than anyone else. Are they going to drop the suit agains IBM, or is IBM not included in the "Linux companies"?>
The basic issue remains. SCO should close the mouth until they show proof. Angthing else they say, like who we will sue and who we will not, is just a distraction from not showing proof.
So far SCO said the showed proof under NDA to some people who were not allowed to examine what they saw. Whe got to examine the 6 ppt slides of SCO last week, that leaked without NDA, SCO said they examples of future proof, not the proof itself!
SCO must first show at least one line out of the "millions of stolen lines", before they are allowed to talk. Sorry, who SCO may or may not sue, is not yet a relevant issue.
I doubt SCO does not know what they are doing. It might very well be that *we* don't know what they are doing, since things not fit *our* model of perception.
If SCO is after the GPL and Linux (as per Microsoft's instructions), why sue small Linux companies. They might might not be the right target.
As for sueing users, well, it has been 40 days since I told SCO to sue me. So, SCO, if you are listening, please contact me through ntro at earthlink dot [NET] so we can get started.
This means ESR has some explaining to do. For those who don't know about ESR, did to read more about the origins of Open Sourse and how they ripped-off Free Sofware by claiming credit for everything created by Free Software for the last decaded. ESR is the linux version of McBride, except that he has been successfull with their stealing.
There is no need for a public apology from ESR, it will mean nothing to me.
1. Why did he proclaim himself a general against SCO, when Linus and RMS (the Linux and GPL principals) did not partake in such theatrics.
2. Why did ESR claimed responsibility on behalf of Linux?
I know why: it is chance to play into the Linux crowd to earn karma. Well, it is non of his business. The target of SCO is IBM, Linux, and the GPL.
But ESR is not happy, apparently, he want the target to be Open Source too, who else can he gain karma? ESR wich his coup agains Free Software a few years ago, is very similar to McBride. --
If RMS is a "nutso prophet," ESR is the televangelist version.:-)
Have some respect, please. SCO does not need to provide proof for anything. For the last several months we always take the good world of SCO in account, it is not appropriate to demand proof from SCO.
--
If RMS is a "nutso prophet," ESR is the televangelist version.:-)
There is also the possiblity that McBride announced "SCO is under DoS attack", then everyone on the Internet clicked on www.sco.com to verify -- thus, this time causing a real DoS.
Perhaps McBride should offer proof before he goes around blaming others. Oh, wait, this is SCO. No proof is required.
You are right to blam SCO for harming your servers. And since SCO not willing to provide proof that the attack was from Linux, you are not required to provide proof either.
--
If RMS is a "nutso prophet," ESR is the televangelist version.:-)
By paying SCO, it is less safe! You will be entering with SCO into licensing agreement, then they can sue you for breach. They cannot sue you over copyright when you have no business relationship with them at all!
You are less safe if you do business with SCO, and you are a lot safer when you have no interaction with SCO at all.
SCO received my email in order to sue 40 days ago. I am still waiting. Why the delay? SCO, please contact asap via ntro at earthlink dot net so we gt started.
By buing a license you are stablishing a business relationship with SCO. They can later sue you for breach. Do you feel any safer? Right now, you have no relationship with SCO, there is nothing they can do to you.
But it includes is a promise that they won't sue you.
I bet this promise will not be included in the fine print. But I guess, you will discover this after you buy the license. If SCO's promise to their older customers via the GPL license (through which they bought the product) is an guide, I think I will not feel safer by a promise (which this time might not even be in writing)
I am all with you to sue SCO. I'm afraid, however, these charges are hard to prove. But I am sure we can prove defamation and extortion. Take a look at Iamlow.com, a link, of which a kind poster informed us last weekend. It is must read, before you sue SCO.
No, SCO has said a lot of things through their pres releases. SCO does not have to say such things in Germany in order to be violate the German injunction, since SCO's message can still reach the Germans. SCO has violated the German injuction, but there is little you can do if SCO is no longer present in Germany.
Don't forget that Slashdot usually publishes SCO's press releases within hours. But but in June, it took 20 days to publish the now famous FSF rebutal by Moglen.
Slashdot is not in the clear just yet. I hope they will be receiving less Microsft ads in the future in order to speed things up a little.
Slashdot Mirror
those not IT. The IT people want their salaries
to rise, but the non-IT people want everyone
else (except themselves) to get lost so prices
in the US stay low.
I can with no difficulty understand both groups:
they all want what is best for them., and that
fine. But please, leave morality arguments
out of the discussion; such arguments are useless to both
groups and the discourse becomes pathetic.
Otherwise, you're just being a self-serving hypocrite who is happy to enjoy cost savings
for jobs exported in every other industry except your own.
Is not it the whole point to benefit yourself?
If this is you call hypocrisy, then everone
should be a hypocrite. Who else can you survive?
I think the America culture is attaching too
much significance in pointing out hyporcrites,
as opposed pointing out people who look after
their self-interest. Don't we all??
I have not received any telephone call for
contract work related to Linux since March,
except one from IBM in early July.
I used to receive kernel-related telephone calls
before March, but nothing since March.
I hold SCO responsible, and I will surely sue them
once I get the extortion letter.
Today, the journalists said the the supposedly
DoS attack on SCO, which it was not (see at CROKLAW ) , harmed innocenent bystandards. That is great!
I hope Microsoft execs who finance SCO server life behind
bars.
(As for ESR, this person is irresponsible with his comments and theatrics.
A common karma whore, as he has always been.)
August 16, 2003 - Saturday 8:15 AM PDT - SCO 10q and just how much has Microsoft agreed to pay SCO?
Bring up the above link and look for the heading "Recent Developments". "The amount that we receive from any such licensee will generally depend on the license rights that the licensee previously held and the amount and level of our intellectual property the licensee desires to license. The two licensing agreements signed by us to date resulted in revenue of $8,250,000 during the April 30, 2003 quarter and provide for an aggregate of an additional $5,000,000 to be paid to us over the next three quarters. These contracts do not provide for any payments beyond 2003, except that Microsoft was granted the option to acquire expanded licensing rights, at its election, that would result in additional payments to us if exercised. In connection with the execution of the first license agreement, we granted a warrant to the licensee to purchase up to 210,000 shares of our common stock, for a period of five years, at a price of $1.83 per share. This warrant has been valued, using the Black-Scholes valuation method, at $500,000. Because the warrant was issued for no consideration, $500,000 of the license proceeds have been recorded as warrant outstanding and the license revenue reduced accordingly." What does this all mean? Well. It appears that whatever portion of the $8 million that came from Microsoft is not clear. But, it does appear that it only covers 2003. So when 2004 comes around and SCO needs to cover a few more legal bills, Microsoft will have at least the option to pay more money to SCO for their dirty work. Also interesting is the grant of a warrant for up to 210,000 shares of common stock of SCO. Of course, that means that Microsoft wants to benefit from owning a piece of SCO. No surprise there. Microsoft has plenty of money to fuel the ill conceived effort by SCO to harm the Linux marketplace. And, as I have pointed out, Microsoft benefits from the up side should that occur. And, Microsoft is shielded from the down side should SCO's illegal activities result in extensive liabilities to IBM, Red Hat, SuSE, others and Linux contributors. In other words, Microsoft is directly involved in using its money to harm Linux. It may be shielded from legal liability. But, there is no question that Microsoft thinks its monopoly is better off engaging in this activity. And, it appears that Microsoft taking a license has nothing to do with a need to license Unix. That is a non-issue. This is all about causing harm to Linux and IBM in particular. And, it can not be about the respect for IP or contracts rights because SCO plans to breach its Linux contracts (the GPL) and steal all intellectual property in Linux and claim it as it's exclusive property. That is clearly not respecting the IP rights of others. And, Microsoft has the ability now to add more cash to the fire if the illegal effort is going well and competitors are being harmed by SCO efforts or limit its losses if it is not. But, it is absolutely clear that Microsoft is behind the effort to directly harm Linux and it is NOT related to a needed Unix license. If Microsoft even thought it needed a Unix license it would not have waited until now to get one NOR would it expire this year. This is simply a sham to use illegal means against a competitor. Let SCO do the dirty and illegal work but fund them as long as money fuels it. In other words, fund the contract to go after Linux using illegal means. [Thanks to GrokLaw for permitting a link to be placed on this site referring to SCO documents as they accumulate and for providing some direction to the above information.]
We will only show you (a quick peek to) the code
under NDA. Oh no, says SCO, these 6 ppt examples was not the actual code, it
was an example of the proof, not part of the
million lines of code of proof itself.
Or how about this:
We sold our products to our customers under the
GPL, but since the GPL is invalid, we promise
that if you pay again for the new license we
will not sue our customers. (Presumably valuable
customers.) This time, we promise!
We have heard enough from the rope dancers.
SCOX stock, at approx. $1.83 per share.
Linux than anyone else. Are they going to
drop the suit agains IBM, or is IBM not
included in the "Linux companies"?>
The basic issue remains. SCO should close
the mouth until they show proof. Angthing else
they say, like who we will sue and who we will not,
is just a distraction from not showing proof.
So far SCO said the showed proof under NDA to
some people who were not allowed to examine what they saw.
Whe got to examine the 6 ppt slides of SCO last week, that
leaked without NDA, SCO said they examples of future
proof, not the proof itself!
SCO must first show at least one line out of
the "millions of stolen lines", before they are
allowed to talk. Sorry, who SCO may or may not
sue, is not yet a relevant issue.
I doubt SCO does not know what they are doing.
It might very well be that *we* don't know what they are
doing, since things not fit *our* model of
perception.
instructions), why sue small Linux companies. They
might might not be the right target.
As for sueing users, well, it has been 40 days
since I told SCO to sue me. So, SCO, if you
are listening, please contact me through ntro
at earthlink dot [NET] so we can get started.
For the legal timeline, go straight to
the United States District Court, For the
District of Utah. The dossier
is online.
those who don't know about ESR, did to read
more about the origins of Open Sourse and how
they ripped-off Free Sofware by claiming credit
for everything created by Free Software for the
last decaded. ESR is the linux version of
McBride, except that he has been successfull
with their stealing.
There is no need for a public apology from ESR,
it will mean nothing to me.
1. Why did he proclaim himself a general against
SCO, when Linus and RMS (the Linux and GPL principals)
did not partake in such theatrics.
2. Why did ESR claimed responsibility on behalf
of Linux?
I know why: it is chance to play into the Linux
crowd to earn karma. Well, it is non of his business. The
target of SCO is IBM, Linux, and the GPL.
But ESR is not happy, apparently, he want the
target to be Open Source too, who else can
he gain karma? ESR wich his coup
agains Free Software a few years ago, is very similar to McBride.
--
If RMS is a "nutso prophet," ESR is the televangelist version. :-)
-- Henry Spencer
need to provide proof for anything. For the
last several months we always take the good
world of SCO in account, it is not appropriate
to demand proof from SCO
--
If RMS is a "nutso prophet," ESR is the televangelist version. :-)
-- Henry Spencer
announced "SCO is under DoS attack", then
everyone on the Internet clicked on www.sco.com
to verify -- thus, this time causing a real DoS.
Perhaps McBride should offer proof before
he goes around blaming others. Oh, wait, this
is SCO. No proof is required.
But, if SCO is giving you guys so much trouble,
why don't you ask the landlord to kick them out
of the building?
servers. And since SCO not willing to provide
proof that the attack was from Linux, you are
not required to provide proof either.
--
If RMS is a "nutso prophet," ESR is the televangelist version. :-)
-- Henry Spencer
1. Microsoft is funding SCO to hurt Linux.
2. IBM get a few *Billions* of revenie each
quarter from their Linux investement. (See their
10k fillings).
Unless *Billions* of dollars means to you it is "practically non-existant",
then your facts and logic are also non-existant.
be entering with SCO into licensing agreement,
then they can sue you for breach. They cannot
sue you over copyright when you have no
business relationship with them at all!
You are less safe if you do business with SCO,
and you are a lot safer when you have no
interaction with SCO at all.
waiting. Why the delay? SCO, please contact asap
via ntro at earthlink dot net so we gt started.
the Brooklyn Bridge. And sinse they might not have
any, they have not commited fraud.
SCO has been saying that the "believe"
they onw the IP of thousand other developers.
Again, there is no fraud here as well.
But as soon as they demand money through fear,
as they just did, that is extortion.
business relationship with SCO. They can later
sue you for breach. Do you feel any safer? Right
now, you have no relationship with SCO, there is
nothing they can do to you.
But it includes is a promise that they won't sue you.
I bet this promise will not be included in
the fine print. But I guess, you will discover this
after you buy the license. If SCO's promise to
their older customers via the GPL license (through
which they bought the product) is an guide, I think
I will not feel safer by a promise (which this time might
not even be in writing)
I am all with you to sue SCO. I'm afraid, however, ,
these charges are hard to prove. But I am sure
we can prove defamation and extortion. Take a
look at Iamlow.com
a link, of which a kind poster informed us last
weekend. It is must read, before you sue SCO.
Well, SCO already sold their product under
the GPL knowing that such license is invalid.
No, SCO has said a lot of things through their
pres releases. SCO does not have to say such
things in Germany in order to be violate the
German injunction, since SCO's message can still
reach the Germans. SCO has violated the
German injuction, but there is little you can
do if SCO is no longer present in Germany.
SCO's press releases within hours. But but
in June, it took 20 days to publish the now
famous FSF rebutal by Moglen.
Slashdot is not in the clear just yet. I hope
they will be receiving less Microsft ads in
the future in order to speed things up a little.