You sold me a product under the GPL license, but now you tell me that the GPL is invalide. Instead of refunding my money, you are asking to pay for a Unixware license, for the promise that you will not sue me for Linux.
SCO has no relevence until they show evidence. Being unbiased (or biased) has not place in our discussion until SCO they show proof. Only when the show proof a conversation can begin, that is, until SCO shows they are relevent.
Filing agains IBM does not mean jack if SCO will not show up in court. It is common practice to sue big corporations mainly for other reason. In this case, SCO has refused to provide evidence during discovery (see Znet articl of Aug. 8) and did not even ask IBM to provide any documents during discovery that will support its own case (see same article). In addition, SCO's claim is (essentially) that the Sun will rise from the West, and the only effort they are doing is fuding of Linux and GPL which benefits Microsoft (the ones who are paying the bills.) I don't care what you read in the media, but it is not unreasoble to think that this case has little to do with litigation and more to do with fud. Just observer their actions, and were they spend their effort. It is a better guide!
Microsoft is not that stupid to pay SCO in order to fight Linux and the GPL. They cannot just front the money to SCO, so they gave the money to SCO by pretending they bought a license. Now, how much money Microft gave to SCO? Some say 8 million, some say as much as 70 million.
Microsft does not sell products based on Unix. They have very minor reason to pay that kind of money for "internal usage". They paid it to fund the war on Linux. Do you people actually believe what Microsft says? Move your head, just a little.
So much talk about SCO vs. IBM , you guys must be in deep sleep if you don't realize who benefits from the funding of Linux and the GPL. The SCO vs IBM case is just a destruction. Follow the money, follow who benefits, follow what SCO is fuding.
The person who pays their bills, and the person who benefits most from all this is Microsoft.
It is a Microsft vs. IBM case, without Microsft being exposed to potential damages to IBM or Red Hat.
SCO is doing so many crazy things at once, that it is no longer logic to expect that they actually plan to win in a trial. Judge SCO by what they do, not by what they say.
So far, they received 8 million (some say as much as 70 (seventy) million from Microsof to fun Linux and the GPL. It is more logical to think that they are in the fud business, and not (as SCO claims) in the litigation business.
It is a cheap way for Microsft to attach Linux and the GPL without getting sued. Who cares if SCO is in end liable for (extensive) damages, they are dead anyway.
Well, SCO is already liable to refund to all their previous customers since they received the product under the GPL license, which SCO claims is invalid.
Did SCO offer to give refunds to their customrs? No. Furthermore, SCO is asking to pay for the product *again* by buying a new license for $699 per cpu.
If you have no business relationship with SCO, they have no grouds to sue you. If you buy a "license" from SCO, you risk being sued for breach of contract.
SCO cannot touch you when you don't do business with them.
Of course, who wants to establish a business relationship with SCO and then get sued for breach of contract? An by extension, you are less safe from SCO if you buy their "linux license": Right now I have done no business with SCO, if I buy their "license", this will establish a business relationship between me and SCO. Then they could sue for breach of contract. I am a lot safer when I have no business with SCO at all.
As we stand now, SCO please sue me! Get in touch with me via my email [NTRO] at [EARTHLINK] dot [net] and I promise to sue you for extortion since you contacted and use fear to extract money.
Sorry, the article was about Free Software, not open source. If find it insulting reading about open source, when it specifically said it was about Free Software.
Let me tell you the story about Free Software and Open Sourse.
For the last several decades there was something called Free Software: they authors of Linux, of gcc, of bdb, af TeX, nad such things.
A few years ago someone (which limited capabilites in C programming) decided to steal the work of everyone and despite the objections of Free Software authors (including RMS) decided to rename it "Open Source" and declare himself it leader. It is the linux version of McBbride, a successfull McBride. His name is Eric R.
Nowdays the SCO Group declared war on the GPL and Linux. Did you see RMS or Linus leading the troops? No, nobody is representing noboby in Free Software. But Eric Raymonds just took the opportunity to represent the Kernel Developers, the GPL loyalists, and declare that all orders will come from Him. Now, *that* is the treat. I don't allow Mr. Raymonds to represent me. Let's remember the words of a linux developer:
If RMS is a "nutso prophet," ESR is the televangelist version.:-)
Allow me to nitpick a little. Why is sneaking code into Free Software a lot different than closed propriatory software? I could (and I have) copy entire files in violation of copyright at at work. In half of businesses where I worked, nobody would check at all. Even if I told them, they would not care about the infringement. In fact, when such issues appear during general planning, I am the only one who points out the possible copyright violations in their plans. It is not just developers, some manages are even more eager to violate copyrights or even steal other peoples products outright.
In my experiences thoughtout the years, the Free Softwares developes are at least 2000 times mre deligent on issues of copyrights. At least, they think about it!
Well, the example was intentional. Just because you have 10 cows (instead of 1 cow) it does not automatically mean, that overall, you are richer than the guy with only one cow. We have to look at other sources of wealth besides the number of cows.
Let's now look at the issue of "passing costs." There is no such thing as passing costs because it has nothing to do with selling price: as a programmer (or for that matter as a building contractor, or as a car dealer, or anything else) I always try to sell my product at the maximum selling price the market will bear. (Note this has nothing to do with my actual costs.) If tomorrow my costs increase by 5% then I cannot just increase my prices by 5% to make up the diffrence: if i could, I could have charged that extra 5% yesterday if people were willing to more, i don't have to way until the day my costs increaed by 5%. Why wait if the market is willing to pay more? No, my new costs have nothing to do with my maximum selling price. I don't have to wait for a reason to charge more, and when my costs increase then I just have to lump it (or perhaps get out of business) since I am already selling at that maximum selling price.
Nonsense. It does not matter HOW you tax things or how many times. What counts is *whom* you tax and how much.
I hope you agree that the total amount is more important how many times you tax, for sometines it is one and the same. When you tax cows at $50 per head, the amount is just the same as if you taxed the cow 5 times at $10 each time. Threre is no problem with double or triple taxation: what counts is the total amount.
Your seeks "logical" reasons why you should tax this and why not to tax that. THat is mystic logic. It makes far more sense to argue about *who* should be taxed and how much. I mean, a poor farmer with 10 cows should contribute less to the pot than a rich farmer whith only 1 cow.
True. It depends though what what you mean by "investment": for some it might be a day, for some it might be a year, and for others years. Eventually, we must sell what we bought, the key question is "after how long".
Almost all stocks eventually, after some arbitrary very long time, will dive to zero or near zero. This has historicaly been 99% true, even for the best of companies.
In my experience at the stock market (and I have been in it more that most of your been alive), playing based on fundamentals is terrible indicator to profitablility, but a reliable indecator that someone has is just beginner in this game carrying the usual convictions of someone who has yet to get screwd and start learning the very hard way. The most common case is that beginners just lose all their money and get washed away, they never get the chance to start all over with a more mature disposition.
Yes, SCO (and everyone else) can aquire any public domain code and release it anew under any license they want. The end user must follow the licensing terms of the version they got. Therefor, it depends from where you got your copy.
If you got your copy from the public domain, then you declair yourself as the copyright owner and set your own terms for licensing.
It is not legal combine my GPL code into your BSD code. But it is legal, for me to combine your BSD code into *my* GPL code. In fact, I can even take your BSD code and change its license into GPL anytime I want.
Let us assume that SCO is full of crack, will (1) they settle, (2) SCO withraw, and (3) will IBM forces them to go to trial ?
By our assumption, only (1) and (3) can be only logical outcomes.
Let's only discuss the 3rd option; that is, IBM forces them to go to trial. Surely, in the face of severe penalties against SCO for t extortion and defemation , their bank account will be already empty. As for ip assets? I don't think they have much, and most of it is under BSD or GPL already.
Still, IBM might decide to *force* them to court for a declative judgement, as a way to assure IBM customers that since the judge ruled for IBM they have nothing to fear. Let's see if SCO is still in business when that day arrives.
So far, the battle is not SCO vs IBM. If you look who is funding SCO, the battle is Miscrosft vs. IBM. , but it is done is such a way so Microsft will not be liable of fud and anti-competitive practices. All the fud and PR campaing is done through SCO.
SCO spends more effort their fud campaing than they do with the trial, using Microsoft's funding of $8 million for 2003. The purpose of their business is to cause as much harm as possible to IBM, to Linux, and to GPL. That is what they are paid to do, and that is is what everyone observes they are doing. If they can produce good results, maybe Microsoft will fund them for the year 2004. This is how SCO generates its revenue.
Who spoke about trial?
If SCO was in the litigation business, one would assume that they would spend money to read their own legal contracts (and not find the important Novel addendum misplaced *after* they filed the IBM lawsuit). And if they were into the litication business, SCO should at least have bothered to (at least) google for ten minutes to verify if they actually own the "proof" they displayed at their conference.
SCO does not seem to be spending time to build a case agaist IBM. But they do seem to spend most of their day reviewing the next press release and giving interviews every other day.
SCO is not in the litigation business. Their reveniew model places them in the fud and public relations business.
I am afraid, choice "D" does even begin to describe SCO. D. You borrowed the car and you made millions in profits. You borrowed the car, then claim that they borrowed the car from you, so it is now your car (no proof needed) and your friend has to pay you royalies, and if not, then he is an unpatriotic American. And you call everyone in town to know about it.
Not to mention, you also claim that your friend hacked into your house several times and should be excecuted. Again, no proof need.
"the business world has little interest in investing based on reality."/. I am sorry if their reality is different than yours. The question is not who is rational according to your reality, but who makes money and who loses money.
Who told you the they have to follow reality? hey follow thatever makes them money, which is a much more usefull measure than your view view of who you think the game should be played. The stock market is essentially a scam, and the sheep usually are the ones who follow "the reality". You are at the wrong business if you think the market is irratioanl. By definition: the market is always rational -- this is what determines who wins and loses. Tis is the biggest reality of all.
People buy the stock because it is going up, it has nothing to do with Slide A or Slide B. When the stock stops going up, the last guy loses. The stock market has little or nothing to do with "fundamentals". Most people I know who invest according to fundamentals, they have lost money. The stock market is not a place for such people and they are very ones who call the others stupid. Well, stupid are those who lose money, not those who make make based on "illogical" reasoning.
Slashdot Mirror
You sold me a product under the GPL license, but
now you tell me that the GPL is invalide. Instead
of refunding my money, you are asking to
pay for a Unixware license, for the promise that
you will not sue me for Linux.
SCO has no relevence until they show evidence.
Being unbiased (or biased) has not place in
our discussion until SCO they show proof. Only
when the show proof a conversation can begin,
that is, until SCO shows they are relevent.
Filing agains IBM does not mean jack if
SCO will not show up in court. It is common
practice to sue big corporations mainly
for other reason. In this case, SCO has refused
to provide evidence during discovery (see Znet
articl of Aug. 8) and did not even ask IBM to
provide any documents during discovery that
will support its own case (see same article).
In addition, SCO's claim is (essentially) that
the Sun will rise from the West, and the only
effort they are doing is fuding of Linux and GPL
which benefits Microsoft (the ones who are
paying the bills.) I don't care what you read
in the media, but it is not unreasoble to
think that this case has little to do with litigation
and more to do with fud. Just observer their
actions, and were they spend their effort. It
is a better guide!
order to fight Linux and the GPL. They cannot
just front the money to SCO, so they gave
the money to SCO by pretending they bought
a license. Now, how much money Microft gave
to SCO? Some say 8 million, some say as much
as 70 million.
Microsft does not sell products based on
Unix. They have very minor reason to pay that
kind of money for "internal usage". They paid it
to fund the war on Linux. Do you people actually
believe what Microsft says? Move your head, just
a little.
be in deep sleep if you don't realize who
benefits from the funding of Linux and the GPL.
The SCO vs IBM case is just a destruction. Follow
the money, follow who benefits, follow what SCO
is fuding.
The person who pays their bills, and the person
who benefits most from all this is Microsoft
It is a Microsft vs. IBM case, without Microsft
being exposed to potential damages to IBM or Red Hat.
it is no longer logic to expect that they actually
plan to win in a trial. Judge SCO by what they
do, not by what they say.
So far, they received 8 million (some say as much
as 70 (seventy) million from Microsof to fun
Linux and the GPL. It is more logical to
think that they are in the fud business, and
not (as SCO claims) in the litigation business.
It is a cheap way for Microsft to attach Linux
and the GPL without getting sued. Who cares if
SCO is in end liable for (extensive) damages, they
are dead anyway.
their previous customers since they received
the product under the GPL license, which
SCO claims is invalid.
Did SCO offer to give refunds to their customrs? No.
Furthermore, SCO is asking to pay for the product
*again* by buying a new license for $699 per cpu.
they have no grouds to sue you. If you buy
a "license" from SCO, you risk being sued for
breach of contract.
SCO cannot touch you when you don't do business
with them.
I am still waiting.
SCO, if you are listening, please contact me
via email: {NTRO} at {EARTHLINK} dot {NET} so
we get start the process.
relationship with SCO and then get sued for
breach of contract?
An by extension, you are less safe from SCO
if you buy their "linux license": Right now
I have done no business with SCO, if I buy
their "license", this will establish a
business relationship between me and SCO. Then
they could sue for breach of contract. I am
a lot safer when I have no business with SCO at all.
As we stand now, SCO please sue me! Get in
touch with me via my email [NTRO] at [EARTHLINK] dot [net] and
I promise to sue you for extortion since you
contacted and use fear to extract money.
Sorry, the article was about Free Software, not
open source. If find it insulting reading
about open source, when it specifically said
it was about Free Software.
Kudos for Brazil to use the term Free Software
for their week, instead of open source. Finally,
how refreshing.
and Open Sourse.
For the last several decades there was something
called Free Software: they authors of Linux, of
gcc, of bdb, af TeX, nad such things.
A few years ago someone (which limited capabilites
in C programming) decided to steal the work
of everyone and despite the objections of
Free Software authors (including RMS) decided
to rename it "Open Source" and declare himself
it leader. It is the linux version of McBbride,
a successfull McBride. His name is Eric R.
Nowdays the SCO Group declared war on the GPL
and Linux. Did you see RMS or Linus leading
the troops? No, nobody is representing noboby
in Free Software. But Eric Raymonds just took
the opportunity to represent the Kernel Developers,
the GPL loyalists, and declare that all orders
will come from Him. Now, *that* is the treat.
I don't allow Mr. Raymonds to represent me. Let's remember the words of a linux developer:
If RMS is a "nutso prophet," ESR is the televangelist version.
-- Henry Spencer
code into Free Software a lot different than closed
propriatory software? I could (and I have) copy
entire files in violation of copyright at
at work. In half of businesses where I worked,
nobody would check at all. Even if I told them,
they would not care about the infringement. In
fact, when such issues appear during general
planning, I am the only one who points out the
possible copyright violations in their plans.
It is not just developers, some manages are
even more eager to violate copyrights or
even steal other peoples products outright.
In my experiences thoughtout the years, the
Free Softwares developes are at least 2000 times
mre deligent on issues of copyrights. At least,
they think about it!
you have 10 cows (instead of 1 cow) it does
not automatically mean, that overall, you are richer
than the guy with only one cow. We have to look
at other sources of wealth besides the number
of cows.
Let's now look at the issue of "passing costs."
There is no such thing as passing costs because
it has nothing to do with selling price: as
a programmer (or for that matter as a building contractor, or as
a car dealer, or anything else) I always try
to sell my product at the maximum selling price
the market will bear. (Note this has nothing
to do with my actual costs.) If tomorrow
my costs increase by 5% then I cannot just
increase my prices by 5% to make up the diffrence:
if i could, I could have charged that extra
5% yesterday if people were willing to more, i don't
have to way until the day my costs increaed by
5%. Why wait if the market is willing to pay more? No, my
new costs have nothing to do with my maximum selling price. I don't
have to wait for a reason to charge more, and
when my costs increase then I just have to lump it (or perhaps get out of business) since
I am already selling at that maximum selling price.
or how many times. What counts is *whom* you
tax and how much.
I hope you agree that the total amount is
more important how many times you tax, for
sometines it is one and the same. When you
tax cows at $50 per head, the amount is just
the same as if you taxed the cow 5 times at $10
each time. Threre is no problem with double
or triple taxation: what counts is the total amount.
Your seeks "logical" reasons why you should
tax this and why not to tax that. THat is mystic logic.
It makes far more sense to argue about *who* should
be taxed and how much. I mean, a poor farmer with
10 cows should contribute less to the pot than a rich
farmer whith only 1 cow.
by "investment": for some it might be a day,
for some it might be a year, and for others
years. Eventually, we must sell what
we bought, the key question is "after how long".
Almost all stocks eventually, after some
arbitrary very long time, will dive to zero or
near zero. This has historicaly been 99% true, even
for the best of companies.
In my experience at the stock market (and
I have been in it more that most of your been alive),
playing based on fundamentals is terrible indicator
to profitablility, but a reliable indecator that
someone has is just beginner in this game
carrying the usual convictions of someone who
has yet to get screwd and start learning the
very hard way. The most common case is that
beginners just lose all their money and get washed away, they
never get the chance to start all over with
a more mature disposition.
and release it anew under any license they want.
The end user must follow the licensing terms
of the version they got. Therefor, it depends from where
you got your copy.
If you got your copy from the public domain,
then you declair yourself as the copyright owner
and set your own terms for licensing.
It is not legal combine my GPL code into your
BSD code. But it is legal, for me to combine
your BSD code into *my* GPL code. In fact,
I can even take your BSD code and change its
license into GPL anytime I want.
I followed your url, but it goes to Bruce's
homepage. Seems like McBride is DoSing Bruce.
Let us assume that SCO is full of crack, will
(1) they settle, (2) SCO withraw, and (3) will IBM
forces them to go to trial ?
By our assumption, only (1) and (3) can be
only logical outcomes.
Let's only discuss the 3rd option; that is,
IBM forces them to go to trial. Surely, in the
face of severe penalties against SCO for t
extortion and defemation , their bank account
will be already empty. As for ip assets? I don't
think they have much, and most of it is under
BSD or GPL already.
Still, IBM might decide to *force* them to court
for a declative judgement, as a way to assure
IBM customers that since the judge ruled for IBM
they have nothing to fear. Let's see if SCO is
still in business when that day arrives.
So far, the battle is not SCO vs IBM. If you
look who is funding SCO, the battle is Miscrosft
vs. IBM. , but it is done is such a way so
Microsft will not be liable of fud and anti-competitive
practices. All the fud and PR campaing is done through SCO.
SCO spends more effort their fud campaing than
they do with the trial, using Microsoft's funding of
$8 million for 2003. The purpose of their
business is to cause as much harm as possible
to IBM, to Linux, and to GPL. That is what
they are paid to do, and that is is what everyone
observes they are doing. If they can produce
good results, maybe Microsoft will fund them
for the year 2004. This is how SCO generates its revenue.
Who spoke about trial?
If SCO was in the litigation business, one
would assume that they would spend money to
read their own legal contracts (and not find
the important Novel addendum misplaced *after* they filed the IBM lawsuit). And
if they were into the litication business, SCO
should at least have bothered to (at least) google
for ten minutes to verify if they actually own
the "proof" they displayed at their conference.
SCO does not seem to be spending time to build
a case agaist IBM. But they do seem to spend most
of their day reviewing the next press release
and giving interviews every other day.
SCO is not in the litigation business. Their
reveniew model places them in the fud and public relations
business.
to describe SCO.
D. You borrowed the car and you made millions
in profits. You borrowed the car, then claim
that they borrowed the car from you, so it is
now your car (no proof needed) and your friend
has to pay you royalies, and if not, then he
is an unpatriotic American. And you
call everyone in town to know about it.
Not to mention, you also claim that your friend
hacked into your house several times and
should be excecuted. Again, no proof need.
I am sorry if their reality is different than
yours. The question is not who is rational
according to your reality, but who makes money and who loses money.
Who told you the they have to follow reality?
hey follow thatever makes them money, which is
a much more usefull measure than your view
view of who you think the game should be played.
The stock market is essentially a scam, and
the sheep usually are the ones who follow "the reality".
You are at the wrong business if you think
the market is irratioanl. By definition: the
market is always rational -- this is
what determines who wins and loses. Tis is the biggest
reality of all.
People buy the stock because it is going up,
it has nothing to do with Slide A or Slide B.
When the stock stops going up, the last guy
loses. The stock market has little or nothing
to do with "fundamentals". Most people I
know who invest according to fundamentals, they
have lost money. The stock market is
not a place for such people and
they are very ones who call the others stupid.
Well, stupid are those who lose money, not
those who make make based on "illogical" reasoning.