so that is what f'in happened, all the sudden everytime I misspell something I get a searcn page instead of domain not found....
stoke@hildur:~$ host fdlkfjdlksfjdlskjsflhsfdkljhsfdljkhsfd.com
fdlkfjdlksfjdlskjsflhsfdkljhsfdljkhsfd.com has address 64.94.110.11
stoke@hildur:~$ host verisignisonesneakyasswipebitch.com
verisignisonesneakyasswipebitch.com has address 64.94.110.11
if this isnt illegal, then what is? Netsol/Verisign etc has once again proven that they do not care about anyone but themselves!! You bastards!
I am no lawyer but I would question the legality of licensing binary/parts of GNU-GPL'd software.. Even if SCO wins their battle and proves that some of the source is theirs, how can they say "Yeah its ok to use if you pay us" without allowing the GPL to let anyone resdistribute as the GPL grants.. Or in other words, can SCO legally put another license on top of GPL that restricts what the whole purpose of the GPL is?
Slashdot Mirror
I guess they may have changed it now, since SCO does not show up in my search, grub.net is #4 and one of my own sites is #10..
so that is what f'in happened, all the sudden everytime I misspell something I get a searcn page instead of domain not found.... stoke@hildur:~$ host fdlkfjdlksfjdlskjsflhsfdkljhsfdljkhsfd.com fdlkfjdlksfjdlskjsflhsfdkljhsfdljkhsfd.com has address 64.94.110.11 stoke@hildur:~$ host verisignisonesneakyasswipebitch.com verisignisonesneakyasswipebitch.com has address 64.94.110.11 if this isnt illegal, then what is? Netsol/Verisign etc has once again proven that they do not care about anyone but themselves!! You bastards!
I am no lawyer but I would question the legality of licensing binary/parts of GNU-GPL'd software..
Even if SCO wins their battle and proves that some of the source is theirs, how can they say "Yeah its ok to use if you pay us" without allowing the GPL to let anyone resdistribute as the GPL grants.. Or in other words, can SCO legally put another license on top of GPL that restricts what the whole purpose of the GPL is?