Believe me, you are doing the SCO user community a favor. There is no reason for any company to run their business on SCO software, for there are better alternatives - most likely, what prevents those users to change is corporate inertia + current SCO FUD.
GCT: proof that Hungarians are crazy. I know. I live here.:) I think it was Edward Teller (??) who in a conference, when someone asked for proof of extraterrestials, jumped up and said: there is proof! They are called Hungarians.
Anyhow, their homepage is quite interesting. See the prototype plans!!:) http://www.gctspace.com/
There is an interview with the Don of Lindon, in which he outlines the strategy of SCO:
"Hey, we have dis ting called no business model of any value, see, so I come on board, because I am a Don in da making anyway, and I decide to sue everyone or demand payment for having a freakin' computer. Surprisingly, da udder side just won't give in so I figure I make dem an offer dey can't refuse.
I offer dem da chance to pay me lots of money for doin nuttin' see, or I will cause such a stink like dey ain't never gonna hear da end of it. I got my button man Chris here, he goes to da papers, we buy a few stories here and dere, and we make all kinds of accusations and allegations.
Pretty soon, Don Gates and Don Ballmer come around, they wanna do a deal see? They wanna make like dey ain't doing nuttin' wrong or underhanded, but hey, we are paisans, no? Dey eben offa me some of dere reporters and shills in da press to use for free too.
now its up to 50 billion (unless its a typo hehe).
Utah-based SCO Group yesterday said it has revoked the right of IBM Corp. to sell two versions of the Unix operating system. SCO also said it is upping the ante in its lawsuit against IBM, seeking up to $50 billion in damages in a bitter battle over IBM's growing commitment to the Linux operating system.
"OS X is BSD, not a line of SysV in the beast, correct?"
According to an interview with BSD core developers:
M. Warner Losh : The code was *NOT* derived from System V, but rather from Unix 6th and 7th edition, as well as 32V. Only the copyrights were similar to those used in System V source files. The code in question was merely blessed by USL and acknowledges as originating there by the Regents. Read here.
and...
There never was any System V code in any BSD. Ever. The IP claims that USL made its 1992 suit were based on the inclusion of sixth and seventh editions and 32V. While these were the forerunners to System V and System III code bases, they are not specifically System V or System III. Furthermore, SCO released, under its ancient unix program, all sources that predated System III and System V to be freely distributed under a BSD-like license. These specifically included 6th edition, 7th edition and 32V.
Wrong!!! Transmeta hiring Linus was not merely for publicity. They needed his coding expertise. Unless, of course, you say that he was party to this, just to justify your speculation - after he was allowed to speak about what Transmeta is doing (it was secret for years) he spoke in superlative terms about the innovation and excitement involved in creating the code-morphing technology that Transmeta implemented in their Crusoe chips.
As Torvalds tells it, "The first day... when they were giving me a feel for what went on at Transmeta. I went back to the hotel that evening and I thought, "These people are CRAZY!" This was more than three years ago, when Transmeta had not a single chip. The simulations ran at GLACIAL speed. Still, The next day, I basically decided that, if I am to go to work for a company, I want to go to work for a company that does something fun - something interesting. And the first, initial reaction that, 'These people are crazy!' is a positive reaction in that sense."
So why choose a chip company, when every Linux start-up in the world was after him? Torvalds explains, "I've obviously gotten a lot of job offers from Linux companies, but I didn't want to polarize the Linux market. I'm really happy being an engineer at a company that is very interested in Linux, but is not seen as a Linux company. We're a chip company where Linux is seen as part of a much larger strategy - and that's something I find very comfortable. Besides, Transmeta has been able to give me opportunities that I wouldn't otherwise have had. It's also a very cool vehicle for doing debugging, when you control the whole chip!"
And Torvalds' skill as a debugger is legendary around Transmeta.
"He's a god," says Dave Taylor, a co-developer of the original Quake who gave up being CEO of his own company to work for Transmeta. "He can look at a Linux display and somehow predict, just from the way it misbehaves, exactly where, in 100,000 lines of code, the problem is. And, nine times out of 10, he's right."
Read the rest here.
Also, this might also be of interest.
So no, he was not just a posterboy there.
The problem is that SCO tries to convince the world that it is the sole UNIX owner, and defines the category of 'derivative' work quite broadly. In fact, they don't want this to be sorted out. It is quite clear that even if the infringing codes are disclosed in court, Darl and his cohorts wants to convince the court that replacement is impossible, for every code is 'derivative' in their view. This is clearly stated by Darl in his cnet interview:
Where people get a little confused is when they think of SCO Unix as just the Unix that runs the cash register at McDonalds. We think of this as a tree. We have the tree trunk, with Unix System 5 running right down the middle of the trunk. That is our core ownership position on Unix.
Off the tree trunk, you have a number of branches, and these are the various flavors of Unix. HP-UX, IBM's AIX, Sun Solaris, Fujitsu, NEC--there are a number of flavors out there.http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-1017308.html ?tag=fd_lede2_sl
So yes, they want another UNIX war. Once their precioussss is described as the trunk of all Unices (and stating that almost all vendors contributed to Linux in the same interview) what follows is that replacing the infringing code is impossible. That's why RMS a few weeks ago aimed directly at invalidating the claim to the unix codebase by proving that its already in the public sector (remember his call for people who had or have access to the code? - some people ridiculed him for this, but he saw this clearly coming).
At any rate, SCO does not stand a chance with such ridiculous claims (and no Unix vendor, not even SUN would be happy if the court accepts Darl's interpretation of their IP rights). Read one of the best analyses here (please, someone tell me how do I make a link, coz this is going to be long):
I noticed your sign. It might be happening right now - kernel developer sent cease and desist letter to SCO:
It's perhaps worth noting in passing that over 400 individuals worldwide are credited as authors who have added significant contributions to the Linux kernel, and thousands of others have also contributed kernel code. All of these Linux kernel developers have the right to transmit similar demands to SCO, and possibly pursue lawsuits, as this email suggests.
Read the demand on the Inquirer: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10018
I'd love to see this happening on a large scale. Also, it would be great if more linux related organizations would follow Germany's example, and bombard the suckers with preliminary injunctions against them.
YESSS!!! The germans did it! Every country should follow suit (oops, sorry).
Then, on 5 June 2003, Tarent GmbH obtained a similar preliminary injunction against SCO-Caldera from the Munich Regional Court.
Interestingly, it appears that SCO-Caldera did not fully-comply with the Munich Court Order. So, Tarent has asked the Munich Court to take action for what amounts to SCO's contempt of the Munich Court Order.
MozillaQuest Magazine has been discussing the Tarent preliminary injunction proceedings with Tarent GmbH CEO Elmar Geese and Till Jaeger, the attorney representing Tarent, via e-mail. Unfair Competition, Trade Libel, and Barratry
Till Jaeger told MozillaQuest Magazine that Tarent's lawsuit is based upon the German unfair competition act (UWG) Section 14, which outlaws denigrations (AnschwÃrzung) of competitors goods or services, unless the factual assertions are proven to be true.
MozillaQuest Magazine discussed the German injunctions with John S. Ferrell. He is an intellectual property attorney and a partner in the Palo Alto, California based Carr and Ferrell law firm. He also is Chairman of Carr & Ferrell's Intellectual Property Practice Group.
Read rest of the artical here: http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-19-Injun ction_Story01.html
And least there is a place where unfair competition acts are based on common sense.
Thanks - I'm into linux only for a year, and was not aware that it had issues like that in the past. Good thing is that it is resolved. Bad thing is that the article does not mention it - it makes it look like this was an ongoing issue.
Did the Linux kernel developers look at BSD? At least some of them did. In fact, people who are far smarter than I am about these things report there was at least one case where BSD developers noticed that significant amounts of Linux kernel code was stolen verbatim from BSD with attributions removed and GPL copyrights added.
That sounds like a very serious claim. Who made that claim? Is there any more info about it?
"On Monday we will see the full brunt of IBM's power come down on SCO."
I expected this to happen today. I'm dissapointed. Oh well.... SCO bought some time it seems.
Re:Cut the roots not the branches
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 1
FUD, FUD, FUD! Who modded this? Please tell us how or where does mplayer infringe on copyrights? And do you think that distributions like Mandrake would include it if that was the case?
Conspiracy theory: "Thats why it is based in hungary and not US or some other EU country." lol. Perhaps it never occured to you that MPLAYER is based in Hungary because it is developed by Hungarians?
(Are you a troll from the debian vs. mplayer flamefest btw?)
Who would pay for my travel to Utah? (I live in Hungary);)
how far can one go with this NDA.
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Yesterday when details of NDA came out everyone spoke about the impossiblity to say anything if you signed. This is obviously not the case, since you can say that "My impression is that [SCO's claim] is credible."
Lets mirror this. Someone familiar with the linux kernel signs the NDA, examines the code. Then without disclosing anything, greps the linux kernel (lets say current stable from kernel.org) for those annotations. I'm curious whether he or she will find them. But lets say they are there. From then on, it will be traceable where those annotations came from, and it may turn out that they came from a common source, or SCO directly. Then, making a public announcement that SCO's claims have no credibility would be perfectly legal, just as its OK to say thaat they have some credibility.
If SCO denies that, the evidence should be presented to them... under an NDA:)))
The question is: which linux kernel shows similarities with their Unix? SCO's own patched kernel, a RedHat kernel, a kernel from kernel.org?
I didn't see anyone asking that question. Would it be a breach of the NDA if DiDio would disclose this information? I very much doubt so - SCO must clarify this. They can't just go and say: here is our unix source code, here the linux kernel source.
The pressure sensor will transmit the data to a computer chip, which will then accumulate and send the necessary information, regarding the proper hydrogen mixture, to the injection jet.
Lets hope that chip doesn't run on WindowsCE. A crash during the calculation of the proper hydrogen mixture could be most unfortunate.
"MS has always given users what they want..."
Like the wonderful Internet Explorer? I used windows for quite some time, and the general feeling among windows users (thanks to the billions spent on advertisement) is that IE is _The Browser_. And since MS wants you to believe (they can't make a speech without mentioning 'innovation' at least 20 times) that their software The Bleeding Edge technology, the majority of its users won't even consider alternatives. They are browsing the net more slowly, more incoveniently than those who use Opera or Mozilla. That's what they want, yes?
MS wants to keep users in the dark, and what I have read on mandrakeusers.org, its succeeding. A guy there set up a client in an internet coffee running KDE with an Aqua like interface. He also provided a screenshot - it was quite beautiful. However, some people noticed the blue e on the panel, and asked what its doing there. The answer is simple: the average windows user Joe could not find the Internet (IE=Internet you see?).
Giving the customers what they want I guess..
The other part of modularity is less obvious, and more problematic. This is the run-time loading part, which everyone agrees is a good thing, but leads to new problems. The first problem is technical, but technical problems are (almost) always the easiest to solve. The more important problem is the non-technical issues. For example, at which point is a module a derived work of Linux, and therefore under the GPL?
When the first module interface was done, there were people that had written drivers for SCO, and they weren't willing to release the source, as required by the GPL, but they were willing to recompile to provide binaries for Linux. At that point, for moral reasons, I decided I couldn't apply the GPL in this kind of situation.
The GPL requires that works "derived from" a work licensed under the GPL also be licensed under the GPL. Unfortunately what counts as a derived work can be a bit vague. As soon as you try to draw the line at derived works, the problem immediately becomes one of where do you draw the line?
We ended up deciding (or maybe I ended up decreeing) that system calls would not be considered to be linking against the kernel. That is, any program running on top of Linux would not be considered covered by the GPL. This decision was made very early on and I even added a special read-me file (see Appendix B) to make sure everyone knew about it. Because of this commercial vendors can write programs for Linux without having to worry about the GPL.
You will be surprised at the date this was written: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/li nus.html
Ironic isn't it? In a generic paper written a long time ago, Linus singled out SCO as an example for rejecting proprietary code.
Or rather, taking a deep plunge. An hour ago: down 5% - now down 12%.
http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?page=charting&m ode=basics&intraday=on&timeframe=3m&charttype=line &splits=off&movingaverage=none&lowerstudy=volume&c omparison=off&index=&drilldown=off&symbol=SCOX&sel ected=SCOX
YESSS!!!
Yes, but that choice was not authorized by the boss. Of course, we can go to absolute relativism and claim that anyone can do anything. Not. Eating the apple (or whatever it was) was strictly forbidden. And don't forget: how can one have choice without knowledge? In fact, they only knew that its forbidden, but didn't know why. Didn't know what separates good from bad (which is the a priory of the ability to choose) - in fact, that knowledge (now I begin to remember) was the result of eating the fruit, for it was the fruit of good and bad knowledge (damn, I should install Bible time - I had it but removed when I upgraded MDK).
So their ability to make a choice came only after eating the fruit - before that, they could not formulate an educated reasoning: they eat it 'cause the snake said so. Eva was _seduced_ by the snake, and Adam was seduced by Eve in turn. The moral of the story is this: without knowledge, your are easily manipulated.
"And finally it would make Novell a hero to release the whole UNIX under an opensource license, preferably GPL, since they're contemplating moving to Linux anyway."
Unfortunately, its not as easy as it sounds (even if Novell would be inclined to do so). First of all, they would have to cancel their contract of exlusive licensing with SCO. That won't be easy, and probably could only be resolved in a Novell vs. SCO lawsuit, that would be an entirely different lawsuit than the one with which Novell threatens SCO at the moment. (You can't sell exclusive rights to licence something, than release that to the public as well). And a positive outcome is by no means guaranteed.
Unfortunately, law became to supplant ethical or moral judgment, and the interpretation of the law is is entirely arbitrary process. Those who tend to twist it around, are usually great fans of literal interpretation. And literally, SCO didn't do anything that would warrant Novell to cancel their contract. Their FUD is bad, their posing as sole owners of UNIX is bad, but if you take their words 'literally' - it can be interpreted as sole (i.e. exclusive) owners of the rights to licence the code. You know the usual blah blah.
Slashdot Mirror
Believe me, you are doing the SCO user community a favor. There is no reason for any company to run their business on SCO software, for there are better alternatives - most likely, what prevents those users to change is corporate inertia + current SCO FUD.
GCT: proof that Hungarians are crazy. I know. I live here. :) I think it was Edward Teller (??) who in a conference, when someone asked for proof of extraterrestials, jumped up and said: there is proof! They are called Hungarians.
Anyhow, their homepage is quite interesting. See the prototype plans!!:)
http://www.gctspace.com/
As SCO hinted at going after another "major hardware manufacturer" - it might very well be SGI now that you mention it. Articel here.
So yes, they want another UNIX war. Once their precioussss is described as the trunk of all Unices (and stating that almost all vendors contributed to Linux in the same interview) what follows is that replacing the infringing code is impossible. That's why RMS a few weeks ago aimed directly at invalidating the claim to the unix codebase by proving that its already in the public sector (remember his call for people who had or have access to the code? - some people ridiculed him for this, but he saw this clearly coming).
At any rate, SCO does not stand a chance with such ridiculous claims (and no Unix vendor, not even SUN would be happy if the court accepts Darl's interpretation of their IP rights). Read one of the best analyses here (please, someone tell me how do I make a link, coz this is going to be long):
http://forums.com.com/group/zd.News.Talkback/zd
Read the demand on the Inquirer: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10018
I'd love to see this happening on a large scale. Also, it would be great if more linux related organizations would follow Germany's example, and bombard the suckers with preliminary injunctions against them.
Read rest of the artical here: http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-19-Inju
And least there is a place where unfair competition acts are based on common sense.
Thanks - I'm into linux only for a year, and was not aware that it had issues like that in the past. Good thing is that it is resolved. Bad thing is that the article does not mention it - it makes it look like this was an ongoing issue.
"On Monday we will see the full brunt of IBM's power come down on SCO." I expected this to happen today. I'm dissapointed. Oh well .... SCO bought some time it seems.
FUD, FUD, FUD! Who modded this? Please tell us how or where does mplayer infringe on copyrights? And do you think that distributions like Mandrake would include it if that was the case?
Conspiracy theory: "Thats why it is based in hungary and not US or some other EU country." lol. Perhaps it never occured to you that MPLAYER is based in Hungary because it is developed by Hungarians?
(Are you a troll from the debian vs. mplayer flamefest btw?)
Who would pay for my travel to Utah? (I live in Hungary) ;)
Yesterday when details of NDA came out everyone spoke about the impossiblity to say anything if you signed. This is obviously not the case, since you can say that "My impression is that [SCO's claim] is credible."
... under an NDA :)))
Lets mirror this. Someone familiar with the linux kernel signs the NDA, examines the code. Then without disclosing anything, greps the linux kernel (lets say current stable from kernel.org) for those annotations. I'm curious whether he or she will find them. But lets say they are there. From then on, it will be traceable where those annotations came from, and it may turn out that they came from a common source, or SCO directly. Then, making a public announcement that SCO's claims have no credibility would be perfectly legal, just as its OK to say thaat they have some credibility.
If SCO denies that, the evidence should be presented to them
The question is: which linux kernel shows similarities with their Unix? SCO's own patched kernel, a RedHat kernel, a kernel from kernel.org? I didn't see anyone asking that question. Would it be a breach of the NDA if DiDio would disclose this information? I very much doubt so - SCO must clarify this. They can't just go and say: here is our unix source code, here the linux kernel source.
Lets hope that chip doesn't run on WindowsCE. A crash during the calculation of the proper hydrogen mixture could be most unfortunate.
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9471
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t272-s2132851,
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/190773/bm
"MS has always given users what they want..." Like the wonderful Internet Explorer? I used windows for quite some time, and the general feeling among windows users (thanks to the billions spent on advertisement) is that IE is _The Browser_. And since MS wants you to believe (they can't make a speech without mentioning 'innovation' at least 20 times) that their software The Bleeding Edge technology, the majority of its users won't even consider alternatives. They are browsing the net more slowly, more incoveniently than those who use Opera or Mozilla. That's what they want, yes? MS wants to keep users in the dark, and what I have read on mandrakeusers.org, its succeeding. A guy there set up a client in an internet coffee running KDE with an Aqua like interface. He also provided a screenshot - it was quite beautiful. However, some people noticed the blue e on the panel, and asked what its doing there. The answer is simple: the average windows user Joe could not find the Internet (IE=Internet you see?). Giving the customers what they want I guess..
Or rather, taking a deep plunge. An hour ago: down 5% - now down 12%. http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?page=charting&m ode=basics&intraday=on&timeframe=3m&charttype=line &splits=off&movingaverage=none&lowerstudy=volume&c omparison=off&index=&drilldown=off&symbol=SCOX&sel ected=SCOX
YESSS!!!
Yes, but that choice was not authorized by the boss. Of course, we can go to absolute relativism and claim that anyone can do anything. Not. Eating the apple (or whatever it was) was strictly forbidden. And don't forget: how can one have choice without knowledge? In fact, they only knew that its forbidden, but didn't know why. Didn't know what separates good from bad (which is the a priory of the ability to choose) - in fact, that knowledge (now I begin to remember) was the result of eating the fruit, for it was the fruit of good and bad knowledge (damn, I should install Bible time - I had it but removed when I upgraded MDK). So their ability to make a choice came only after eating the fruit - before that, they could not formulate an educated reasoning: they eat it 'cause the snake said so. Eva was _seduced_ by the snake, and Adam was seduced by Eve in turn. The moral of the story is this: without knowledge, your are easily manipulated.
"And finally it would make Novell a hero to release the whole UNIX under an opensource license, preferably GPL, since they're contemplating moving to Linux anyway." Unfortunately, its not as easy as it sounds (even if Novell would be inclined to do so). First of all, they would have to cancel their contract of exlusive licensing with SCO. That won't be easy, and probably could only be resolved in a Novell vs. SCO lawsuit, that would be an entirely different lawsuit than the one with which Novell threatens SCO at the moment. (You can't sell exclusive rights to licence something, than release that to the public as well). And a positive outcome is by no means guaranteed. Unfortunately, law became to supplant ethical or moral judgment, and the interpretation of the law is is entirely arbitrary process. Those who tend to twist it around, are usually great fans of literal interpretation. And literally, SCO didn't do anything that would warrant Novell to cancel their contract. Their FUD is bad, their posing as sole owners of UNIX is bad, but if you take their words 'literally' - it can be interpreted as sole (i.e. exclusive) owners of the rights to licence the code. You know the usual blah blah.
"You're so wrong I won't even correct you." A tremendous loss, I'm sure.