Take a walk over to your local public library to see borrowing and shared property in action. I've been (legally) borrowing print, audio and digital media for years. Ben Franklin started the first library by coaxing a group of gentlemen to share their books in commmon. This first library was private. Even to a man of his financial means there were limits to his budget and ability to collect and store the full embodiment of the marketplace of ideas.
It's a shame that as a culture we're forgetting what OSC noted -- copyright is a limited monopoly. Ideas however communicated are not property. As many have noted that while you can give, sell or lose physical items ideas can only be shared. We lose a bit more ground every time we let others equivocate by labelling trademarks, copyrights and patents "intellectual property". Lawrence Lessig sadly realized too late that we lost Eldred in part because the debate was cast in terms of "property" and in the US property is almost as sacrosanct as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
If we're to restore balance in this debate we must talk about ideas and creativity in terms of "license" not property.
As much as I really like my TiPB, I always get the impression the PBs are designed by people who work in some business neverland (OK, so they do).
First -- where's the bloody VGA port? You can't just grab your TiPB and use it as a portable office. The one time you forget to put the DVI-2-VGA adapter in your pocket is the day you'll want to project the current project in the conference room. I wouldn't replace the DVI with VGA but add it to the base system.
Also, what's with moving all the ports to the sides? Have you spent any time typing on a laptop with cables sticking out the side? I know -- Apple's pushing wireless connectivity but most offices still don't (and won't) have 802.11x connectivity due to security concerns. And there's still no wireless Firewire. As a bonus the older TiPBs looked tidier with the cables flowing out the back, hidden by the screen. Now they look like Pippi Longstocking when cabled up.
Lastly, an old rant, two buttons on all mice -- especially the built-in track pad. I understand the argument that one mouse button is less confusing for some users, but for whom? All the Macworld video clips tout high-end use by graphic designers, photographers and music producers. I can hear them in the focus group "Come on, Wayne...it's for the noobs." How about putting a big red icon in the middle of the desktop that reads "Don't Panic". Clicking it (with either button) would display a help entry accompanied by soothing music: "Right-button - Mostly harmless. Used by the smart set to get more work done. Safely ignored by you."
"Clarifying" the name of the company by targeting "Sequent-IBM" may actually signal a change in SCO's tactics. SCO has previously claimed (generically they will claim) they were terminating IBM's license. As we've seen, they can't because of its irrevocable nature plus the fact that Novell won't go along. They now may claim (more precisely amend the suit to claim) only IBM's non-AIX-derived code lines are in contract violation. Sequent's license presumably doesn't have the same irrevocability and perhaps has more strict derivability clauses. Hence, SCO may try to claim that while IBM can distribute code developed under the AIX code line, Sequent had no such rights and since NUMA etc. were developed under the Sequent code line they're subject to interpretation under the license then in effect, i.e., Sequent's. It's a huge stretch, but it may be the only shot they've got left.
So, in addition to the question of "derivative works", this suit now may hinge on the heritage of the code and the license it was developed under. It could come to questions of when IBM bought Sequent, when the code was developed and whether the $10M+ IBM paid Novell covers other Unix Sys V-derived code they later add in. In other words, did IBM buy a universal license for any and all Unix development, including code acquired through M&A, or just for AIX development? Do IBM have the (bought and paid for) right to move code developed for Dynix/ptx to AIX and hence Linux?
Slashdot Mirror
It's a shame that as a culture we're forgetting what OSC noted -- copyright is a limited monopoly. Ideas however communicated are not property. As many have noted that while you can give, sell or lose physical items ideas can only be shared. We lose a bit more ground every time we let others equivocate by labelling trademarks, copyrights and patents "intellectual property". Lawrence Lessig sadly realized too late that we lost Eldred in part because the debate was cast in terms of "property" and in the US property is almost as sacrosanct as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
If we're to restore balance in this debate we must talk about ideas and creativity in terms of "license" not property.
First -- where's the bloody VGA port? You can't just grab your TiPB and use it as a portable office. The one time you forget to put the DVI-2-VGA adapter in your pocket is the day you'll want to project the current project in the conference room. I wouldn't replace the DVI with VGA but add it to the base system.
Also, what's with moving all the ports to the sides? Have you spent any time typing on a laptop with cables sticking out the side? I know -- Apple's pushing wireless connectivity but most offices still don't (and won't) have 802.11x connectivity due to security concerns. And there's still no wireless Firewire. As a bonus the older TiPBs looked tidier with the cables flowing out the back, hidden by the screen. Now they look like Pippi Longstocking when cabled up.
Lastly, an old rant, two buttons on all mice -- especially the built-in track pad. I understand the argument that one mouse button is less confusing for some users, but for whom? All the Macworld video clips tout high-end use by graphic designers, photographers and music producers. I can hear them in the focus group "Come on, Wayne...it's for the noobs." How about putting a big red icon in the middle of the desktop that reads "Don't Panic". Clicking it (with either button) would display a help entry accompanied by soothing music: "Right-button - Mostly harmless. Used by the smart set to get more work done. Safely ignored by you."
So, in addition to the question of "derivative works", this suit now may hinge on the heritage of the code and the license it was developed under. It could come to questions of when IBM bought Sequent, when the code was developed and whether the $10M+ IBM paid Novell covers other Unix Sys V-derived code they later add in. In other words, did IBM buy a universal license for any and all Unix development, including code acquired through M&A, or just for AIX development? Do IBM have the (bought and paid for) right to move code developed for Dynix/ptx to AIX and hence Linux?