It seems to me that as offensive as this is to us as oss developers, it is needed. The courts need to make some sort of decision here so that these waters are no longer uncharted. If the studios win, it would only be because the point wasn't argued well enough. I don't think they will.
I have yet to see anything substantial in this area from this company. In my experience, the only way to fix code that messed up is to do a complete re-write plugging in bits of the origenal where it can. It's a lot of work, but worth it in the end.
That's a good point.
The cost to the linux community in the short term at least is pretty substantial. I wonder if they would be liable for punitive damages...
You know, this whole thing would smack of a microsoft plot, but I don't think m$ would hire homer simpson to do their dirty work. SCO is the retarded step child of the industry. And while amusing to watch, I don't think they will get far with this.
but they're claiming that they could still distribute it under gpl because they wearen't the ones who put the copyright notice in the code.
And if the author or copyright holder didn't put the code in, and it was distributed without the copyright holder's knowledge (even by the copyright holder in this case), then the GPL is nullified.
"They have no legal legs to stand on. Hopefully the courts will get this one right, and SCO will become irrelevent."
I hope you're right. But that doesn't matter in contract law. If SCO can prove that IBM violated their contract by contributing ACTUAL CODE to linux, then they have a case. But even if actual code from system V is in Linux, there is no garauntee that IBM was the one to put it there. And then they would have to prove that it was priveleged code, and not something publically available in say... BSD.
I say let them sue Linus. It will provice many a fun flame war. And the more they sue, the less likely they are to stay in business. Especially yesterday after their whole effort was discredited by novell.
Who would have thought three years ago that Caldera would morph into an evil entity, and declare jihad on linux. Everyone was pointing to red hat at the time.
I think this is great. The real truth is coming to light. It's funny how SCO is discredited at every turn. This could also make m$ look bad.
Only question I have is why did Novell let it get this far? Couldn't they have issued a statement the same day as mcbride?
Re:What the CIA needs:
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1
There was a great article on this a few months ago in the federal times. Wish I would have saved the link. I'm amazed we haven't heard more about in-q-tel
http://www.in-q-tel.com/
the cia's venture capital arm in all this.
I think the core problem is this: Information moves fast. Governments move slow. Always have. And the bigger they get, the slower they get.
It would appear as though they understand this and are trying to change, but not changing for so long makes this whole proccess a lot harder than it would be for a civilian agencey or group.
Maybe so.
But if linux is liable for "concepts" like they're talking about here. Isn't every posix compliant os in violation? I mean, if it smells like unix...
Why is this such a big question lately?
Standards keep everyone on the same page so to speak. This is why they exist.
I would think that as an open source community, we would embrace standards, rather than complain about how much they're hurting the industry.
Slashdot Mirror
It's actually pretty cool.
Might mean that broadcasters can actually release relevant programming for indavidual markets for a change.
I think it's great.
The outcome can only mean more star trek in my local area.
So life is good.
Why are they going on about their hosting? Do they have any idea how bad it makes them look?
Seeing this I need to ask the obvious question:
Do these people even come close to having the resources to pull something like this off?
It's proccess patenting. I have one I've been working on. Let me know what you think:
Method of granting legal monopoly to indaviduals or corporations in regard to the invention or alleged invention of a product, service, or method.
I think it's got potential.
So a use of this would be like, Man, I really got sco-ed in that deal.
I like it. Kind of rolls off the tongue.
I know it's like preaching to the quire here, but I find the concept of software patents offensive. Why hasn't anyone lobbied congress to change this?
Looks like novell is pissed. I think IBM is too. But they will rip them to pieces in a few weeks once this thing gets to court.
I'm curious to see just what patents are in question here. Does anybody know the patent numbers off hand?
It was the man in the rubber mask! Jinkies. Thanks for the correction. shows you how much tv I watch...
I could see the dukes of hazard reference. But it reminds me more of a scooby doo episode. If it wasn't for you silly kids...
I'll add $24.95 to that. What a bargain.
It seems to me that as offensive as this is to us as oss developers, it is needed. The courts need to make some sort of decision here so that these waters are no longer uncharted. If the studios win, it would only be because the point wasn't argued well enough. I don't think they will.
I have yet to see anything substantial in this area from this company. In my experience, the only way to fix code that messed up is to do a complete re-write plugging in bits of the origenal where it can. It's a lot of work, but worth it in the end.
That's a good point. The cost to the linux community in the short term at least is pretty substantial. I wonder if they would be liable for punitive damages...
You know, this whole thing would smack of a microsoft plot, but I don't think m$ would hire homer simpson to do their dirty work. SCO is the retarded step child of the industry. And while amusing to watch, I don't think they will get far with this.
I saw it done in three lines.
Correct me if I'm wrong,
but they're claiming that they could still distribute it under gpl because they wearen't the ones who put the copyright notice in the code.
And if the author or copyright holder didn't put the code in, and it was distributed without the copyright holder's knowledge (even by the copyright holder in this case), then the GPL is nullified.
It's a loophole.
I hope you're right. But that doesn't matter in contract law. If SCO can prove that IBM violated their contract by contributing ACTUAL CODE to linux, then they have a case. But even if actual code from system V is in Linux, there is no garauntee that IBM was the one to put it there. And then they would have to prove that it was priveleged code, and not something publically available in say... BSD.
It's suicide to take on IBM, but they deserve it.
:)I say let them sue Linus. It will provice many a fun flame war. And the more they sue, the less likely they are to stay in business. Especially yesterday after their whole effort was discredited by novell.
Uhm, that would be me. :) Just kidding.
Who would have thought three years ago that Caldera would morph into an evil entity, and declare jihad on linux. Everyone was pointing to red hat at the time.
Un phreaking believable.
I think this is great. The real truth is coming to light. It's funny how SCO is discredited at every turn. This could also make m$ look bad. Only question I have is why did Novell let it get this far? Couldn't they have issued a statement the same day as mcbride?
There was a great article on this a few months ago in the federal times. Wish I would have saved the link. I'm amazed we haven't heard more about in-q-tel
http://www.in-q-tel.com/
the cia's venture capital arm in all this.
I think the core problem is this:
Information moves fast. Governments move slow. Always have. And the bigger they get, the slower they get.
It would appear as though they understand this and are trying to change, but not changing for so long makes this whole proccess a lot harder than it would be for a civilian agencey or group.
Maybe so. But if linux is liable for "concepts" like they're talking about here. Isn't every posix compliant os in violation? I mean, if it smells like unix...
Why is this such a big question lately? Standards keep everyone on the same page so to speak. This is why they exist. I would think that as an open source community, we would embrace standards, rather than complain about how much they're hurting the industry.
The microsoft licenses oracle saying, "what conflict of interest? Na... We support your right to bilk the customer for all they're worth."
Actually bro, your wrong it's my se-quel. Not hard.