No, GNO/ME stands for:
GNO's Not ORCA / Multitasking Environment
The/ME was key because this was the first and only pre-emptive multitasking software for a IIgs.
When I released the GNO/ME sources, my intention was to allow people to do anything they wanted with it, except sell it. I maintain copyright on the software, so it is not public domain.
I will never license anything under the GNU Public Virus.
Some of the components of GNO/ME are actually borrowed from BSD and licensed under the BSD license. This is primarily BSD API.h interface files, and a number of the standalone utilities.
Is SCO trying to kill Linux? I don't think so. Even if they killed linux, nobody would buy SCO's UnixWare.
Or are they trying to co-opt it, to take it over?
At minimum, SCO is posturing to try to capture a revenue stream from Linux, something which they have been unable to do by providing the kind of value-add that Red Hat does. So rather than add value, perhaps they are merely trying to leech from the value others provide.
Linux is turning into big business. SCO still sells linux products and advertises them on their web page. But surely the value of SCO's core "UnixWare" products is minimal at this point. So why not trump up a claim that SCO owns a big chunk of "linux".
They can't sue Linus for anything. They can't sue individual end-users. When I say this, I mean: they -could- sue, but they couldn't make Big Bucks from it, it wouldn't be worth the effort. But if they can sue IBM, Red Hat, Fortune 500's, etc, and collect royalties, then they have de-facto taken ownership of the system. The ability to make others pay you for a piece of IP implies ownership of that IP.
Even though the IP under claim may be only small parts, if true, they can name their price. And that's what it means to own something.
The code can then be fixed by Linux hackers. And then SCO can do this again, and again, and it won't take much of this so that the issue will become so muddled in the minds of big potential customers, and so impossible for laymen to figure out, that they won't risk getting sued. They'll just pay SCO for Linux.
SCO then owns Linux.
This David Boies attorney is a snake. The fact that he pursued an anti-trust trial against Microsoft is all the proof I need of that. I believe anti-trust is the most evil kind of law, ambiguous so that any action undertaken in business can be anti-trust. If you charge too much, you're gouging -- anti-trust. If you charge too little you're dumping -- anti-trust. If you charge the same as others you're colluding -- anti-trust. So how can a company know when it's within this law or outside it? It can't. All it takes is a clever enough lawyer, and what was yesterday just shrewd business, is today's "anti-trust" case.
Boies is exactly the kind of lawyer who can twist a situation until it is unrecognizable, and make something mean anything. He can call a spade a tree, and pass it off in court.
Boies was also involved in the Farce the Democratic party tried (unsuccessfully) to pull off in Florida in the 2000 election.
In a strange irony, the fact that he is the one involved in this is probably the biggest fact pointing to the complete emptiness of SCO's claims.
SCO's comments are sleazy from another standpoint. They say, effectively, "Our extorting a couple billion from major players won't raise the cost of Linux for other people". I think that's a very strange comment. It's almost apologetic. What it i s is a rationalization that we're supposed to accept. SCO wants the end-user to believe that billion-dollar lawsuits won't hurt our use of linux, that it will be "someone else" who has to foot the bill.
The history of politics in this country the whole past century, has been getting the government to screw segments of the population, for the benefit of vocal political pressure groups. This is the same sort of game, and the comment about it not costing "us" anything is supposed to make us feel good about that rich IBM being the one that has to foot the bill.
Slashdot Mirror
No, GNO/ME stands for: GNO's Not ORCA / Multitasking Environment The /ME was key because this was the first and only pre-emptive multitasking software for a IIgs.
When I released the GNO/ME sources, my intention was to allow people to do anything they wanted with it, except sell it. I maintain copyright on the software, so it is not public domain.
.h interface files, and a number of the standalone utilities.
I will never license anything under the GNU Public Virus.
Some of the components of GNO/ME are actually borrowed from BSD and licensed under the BSD license. This is primarily BSD API
Or are they trying to co-opt it, to take it over?
At minimum, SCO is posturing to try to capture a revenue stream from Linux, something which they have been unable to do by providing the kind of value-add that Red Hat does. So rather than add value, perhaps they are merely trying to leech from the value others provide.
Linux is turning into big business. SCO still sells linux products and advertises them on their web page. But surely the value of SCO's core "UnixWare" products is minimal at this point. So why not trump up a claim that SCO owns a big chunk of "linux".
They can't sue Linus for anything. They can't sue individual end-users. When I say this, I mean: they -could- sue, but they couldn't make Big Bucks from it, it wouldn't be worth the effort. But if they can sue IBM, Red Hat, Fortune 500's, etc, and collect royalties, then they have de-facto taken ownership of the system. The ability to make others pay you for a piece of IP implies ownership of that IP.
Even though the IP under claim may be only small parts, if true, they can name their price. And that's what it means to own something.
The code can then be fixed by Linux hackers. And then SCO can do this again, and again, and it won't take much of this so that the issue will become so muddled in the minds of big potential customers, and so impossible for laymen to figure out, that they won't risk getting sued. They'll just pay SCO for Linux.
SCO then owns Linux.
This David Boies attorney is a snake. The fact that he pursued an anti-trust trial against Microsoft is all the proof I need of that. I believe anti-trust is the most evil kind of law, ambiguous so that any action undertaken in business can be anti-trust. If you charge too much, you're gouging -- anti-trust. If you charge too little you're dumping -- anti-trust. If you charge the same as others you're colluding -- anti-trust. So how can a company know when it's within this law or outside it? It can't. All it takes is a clever enough lawyer, and what was yesterday just shrewd business, is today's "anti-trust" case.
Boies is exactly the kind of lawyer who can twist a situation until it is unrecognizable, and make something mean anything. He can call a spade a tree, and pass it off in court.
Boies was also involved in the Farce the Democratic party tried (unsuccessfully) to pull off in Florida in the 2000 election.
In a strange irony, the fact that he is the one involved in this is probably the biggest fact pointing to the complete emptiness of SCO's claims.
SCO's comments are sleazy from another standpoint. They say, effectively, "Our extorting a couple billion from major players won't raise the cost of Linux for other people". I think that's a very strange comment. It's almost apologetic. What it i s is a rationalization that we're supposed to accept. SCO wants the end-user to believe that billion-dollar lawsuits won't hurt our use of linux, that it will be "someone else" who has to foot the bill.
The history of politics in this country the whole past century, has been getting the government to screw segments of the population, for the benefit of vocal political pressure groups. This is the same sort of game, and the comment about it not costing "us" anything is supposed to make us feel good about that rich IBM being the one that has to foot the bill.
Some games never change.