Just because slashdot found a back door or hacked into their FTP servers does not mean SCO is still legally distributing it, especially not intentially.
has everybody gone crazy today? first this apparently unquestioning acceptance of SCO's claim that they do own code in the linux kernel, and now the preposterous statement that accessing an open ftp server with anonymous login is hacking into their ftp server? it seems SCO has,managed do make a few brains disfunctional
Nobody seems to have run any checks whether this code appears in BSD as well. If it does, this company is going to get buried under a ton of libel and slander accusations and will finish SCO.
care to explain how to do this when nobody knows what it is?
the same claim was made by USL (AT&T/Novell) when they sued BSD. they also made the same arguments (identical comments, etc). they didn;t get anywhere then. Dennis Ritchie has a couple of court documents on that case onh his home page. afair the court ruled then that the proofs they supplied were insufficient.
there are some (confirmed?) rumors that much of the duplicated code was lifted by USL out of BSD, with BSD copyrights removed and replace by USL copyrights
damnit. they claim to own the code. since *their* code is copyrighted, there is no point in not revealing what the allegedly offending code is. so far they haven't done it, and until they do and their claim id checked, their is no reason to belive them
guys, please don't panic. SCO so far only claims that they own code that is in the kernel. whether this claim is correct is still to be proven.
based on statements they made a few weeks ago it seems that their position is that anything tha ever got added to a systemY system is theirs, rgardless of who added it, and i suspect that their claim on ownership of linux kernel code is based on that. this is such a preposterous claim that it is unlikely that they can get away with it. since they are basing their action on copyright claims, they can't get away with not revealing the allegedly offending code, since copyrighted material can't be a trade secret.
and remember: the same argument (massive copuright infringement) with the same "proofs" (identical comments, variable names, etc) was made by USL against BSD, and we all know how that turned out
what's your problem? they got the copyright for Unix System V registered. it was anno8unced not so long ago that Novell had acknoeledged that this was part of the deal.
their claims to rights over linux because of that is another story
Microsoft.DOC files are commonly passed back and forth with business/government emails...it's become a defacto standard. Open Office mangles them horribly, I'm afraid.
i never had problems with openoffice or abiword. and even in the worst cases the documents still should be readable, albeit not quite pleasntly looking.
but Linux doesn't yet have support for many of the standards on which our infrastructure relies, like.DOC,.PDF,
openoffice and abiword for.doc, xpdf and acroread for.pdf
they must have a bunch of custom apps that currently run only under windows and will take some time to port. VMware most likely will be used to run only those until they have been ported.
if they are wise, they won't install any of the standard windows applications for wich they have already linux replacements (like MS Office). that would restrict the windows use to what is absolutely necessary
Microsoft stopped offering "machine independant" site licences in probably 1998 or so. All the newer licences require the customer to buy a new licence for each new machine. (At least in the US - can't say for Germany.)
the whole thing came about because MS stopped supoport for NT4.0 that they were using throughout, which shouldn't fall under the new license (and i doubt that MS can change the license retroactively).
i suspect that they use it to install custom software that only runs under NT and hasn't been ported yet. i expect them to gradually move all that stuff to run natively under linux
The only reason linux was chosen is jingoism by the city of Frankfurt.
this start demonstrates already how serious a reader can take you: the city in question is Munich, not Frankfurt
They simply didn't want an American winning,
so IBM is not an american company? could you please let us know where their headquarters are?
and were willing to do anything, even pay more, to accomplish that goal.
i suspect most of the extra cost is training for the new environment, a one-time cost. the main reason microsoft's offer ended up being so much cheaper is that they offered to pay the extra training out of their slush fund, something that they most likely would not offer again on the next upgrade. with linux additional training on future upgrades should be considerably less.
and do you really think that the only reason MS can lose is anti-americanism?
the outcome of the SCO/IBM trial won't have any effect on SCO's attitude. they now claim SCO IP is in linux that got there long before IBM's involvement, far exceeding any contribution IBM might have made
the GPL is not concerned about what you use a program for. instead, it only deals with the conditions under which you can redistribute it or derived work. the BK license tries to limit what you can use a program for.
Theo de Raadt(sp?) from OpenBSD expressed it best (paraphrased): a license shouldn't even stop the user of a program to develop baby mulching machines
RMS hates Linux... it's a fact. He's just pissy that his P.O.S. HURD just didn't make the cut, sees the Linux camp as jacking his "GNU OS" and trolling is his way of letting off steam.
you are confusede. the GNU project spent quite a lot of effort to build a complete infrastructure that runs on top of the kernel. you can see GNU stuff run practically everywhere. the kernel was supposed to come in as the last item (what goos is a kernel without any software running on it? by bringing it in last you can exploit technical developments that have come up in the meantime). linux was a kernel that happened to come along when this infrastructure was in place. without GNU, linux might have gone nowhere, considering the legal fight BSD was involved in at that time
nothing. nor can any closed source project can stop any of its members include code that he lifted from somewhere else. or do you have any suggestions about hpow to prevent that?
technically, email gets sent to whoever holds the account the email is directed to. if the sender mistakenly believes this to be a particular person, it is his problem. the equivalent in snail mail would be a letter addressed to "occupant of..."
get the domain, set up accounts with the ids of previous members and reroute the mail to your mailbox, and you are the legitimate recipient
if you want a particular person to read it rather than anybody who happens to have access to the email account the email is directed to, you better arrange some extra security (like GnuPG or PGP
i am not sure about the "not taking in contributed code": compared to linux, minix had two problems:
1. when it came out, the internet was far from ubiquous. so tanenbaum chose publishing through a established publisher (prentice hall?) as his method of distribution. part of the deal was a licensing setup that prohibited any kind of derived distribution. there were numerous patches to run minix in protected mode on the 386, plus other paches for various reasons, but whoever wanted an uptodate system had to search the patches, checxk them for conflicts, and apply them all by himself
2. even when linux started, most PCs were running 286s, where linux wouldn't run. the stated aim of minix was to make a unix like OS available that ran on machines that students could afford. so at that time tanenbam couldn't accept patches the would make specialise on the 386 (and 486) and include them in any distribution (not even considering the problems with the publisher that woud cause)
contrary to other free licenses, the GPL tries to assur the right of the end user to modify a program he gets hold of according to his needs. id somebody picks up a BSD licensed program, modifies and distributes the derived work under a more restrictive license (w/o source), the user is at the mercy of the distributer to get bug fixes or modifications he meeds to adapt the program to his needs. the GPL is designed to remove this dependency.
btw, the FSF forces projects that *use their code* to use their license (as is their right). i haven't heard of any attempt by them to force others (the *BSD projects, Xfree86) to use their license. can you provide an example for your claim?
> Consider the following. A programmer works for a
> company. The programmer creates a piece of
> software. Who owns the software? Is it the
> programmer or is it the company? The GPL and
> the German law on owner of the code conflicts
> here.
what has that to do with the GPL? the GPL doesn't touch the ownership of the code. it grants you the right to redistribute the code you picked up with your modifications provided you distribute it under the GPL. you still own your code and can distribute it anywat you like, but not with a conflicting license together with the code you picked up
not very likely: there are other copyright holders, and they have to get clearance from them before distributing. the non-SCO was contributed under the GPL and can't be combined with nonGPLed code
Re:Oh, come on. What are YOU talking about!?
on
Bill Gates On Linux
·
· Score: 0
pick any major distribution, select "install everything" and you have that with linux too (just make sure your disk is big eneough
both with wordperfect and lotus123 the early versions of microsoft's competing products were lousy, but got installed because microsoft offered package deals to the system builders like compac etc which enabled them to sell loaded systems with "everything you need preinstalled" for substantially less cost than sombody who packaged windows, wordperfect, and lotus123 on his machine (the same trick the tried later with internet explorer). don't forget that the end customer usually didn't have much infpormation to compare the installed software to available alternatives
they styed inferior until the marketing cut off the air supply of their competitors
wrong. they were used more than a 100 years ago by a guy named rockefeller (weren't his business practices respnsible for the anti trust laws?), probably also by many other robber barons long before that
apple iis didn't use the 68000. the used 6502s (forgot who made them, but they were similar to the motoola 6800s, and were also used in the pre amiga commodore machines)
Slashdot Mirror
has everybody gone crazy today? first this apparently unquestioning acceptance of SCO's claim that they do own code in the linux kernel, and now the preposterous statement that accessing an open ftp server with anonymous login is hacking into their ftp server? it seems SCO has ,managed do make a few brains disfunctional
care to explain how to do this when nobody knows what it is?
there are some (confirmed?) rumors that much of the duplicated code was lifted by USL out of BSD, with BSD copyrights removed and replace by USL copyrights
damnit. they claim to own the code. since *their* code is copyrighted, there is no point in not revealing what the allegedly offending code is. so far they haven't done it, and until they do and their claim id checked, their is no reason to belive them
based on statements they made a few weeks ago it seems that their position is that anything tha ever got added to a systemY system is theirs, rgardless of who added it, and i suspect that their claim on ownership of linux kernel code is based on that. this is such a preposterous claim that it is unlikely that they can get away with it. since they are basing their action on copyright claims, they can't get away with not revealing the allegedly offending code, since copyrighted material can't be a trade secret.
and remember: the same argument (massive copuright infringement) with the same "proofs" (identical comments, variable names, etc) was made by USL against BSD, and we all know how that turned out
their claims to rights over linux because of that is another story
i never had problems with openoffice or abiword. and even in the worst cases the documents still should be readable, albeit not quite pleasntly looking.
but Linux doesn't yet have support for many of the standards on which our infrastructure relies, like .DOC, .PDF,
openoffice and abiword for .doc, xpdf and acroread for .pdf
if they are wise, they won't install any of the standard windows applications for wich they have already linux replacements (like MS Office). that would restrict the windows use to what is absolutely necessary
originally. MS came up with a few extras that made them 11-15 million cheaper.
they also submitted a few comments that suggested that they had read a report they shouldn't have had access to
the whole thing came about because MS stopped supoport for NT4.0 that they were using throughout, which shouldn't fall under the new license (and i doubt that MS can change the license retroactively).
i suspect that they use it to install custom software that only runs under NT and hasn't been ported yet. i expect them to gradually move all that stuff to run natively under linux
this start demonstrates already how serious a reader can take you: the city in question is Munich, not Frankfurt
They simply didn't want an American winning,
so IBM is not an american company? could you please let us know where their headquarters are?
and were willing to do anything, even pay more, to accomplish that goal.
i suspect most of the extra cost is training for the new environment, a one-time cost. the main reason microsoft's offer ended up being so much cheaper is that they offered to pay the extra training out of their slush fund, something that they most likely would not offer again on the next upgrade. with linux additional training on future upgrades should be considerably less.
and do you really think that the only reason MS can lose is anti-americanism?
the outcome of the SCO/IBM trial won't have any effect on SCO's attitude. they now claim SCO IP is in linux that got there long before IBM's involvement, far exceeding any contribution IBM might have made
Theo de Raadt(sp?) from OpenBSD expressed it best (paraphrased): a license shouldn't even stop the user of a program to develop baby mulching machines
you are confusede. the GNU project spent quite a lot of effort to build a complete infrastructure that runs on top of the kernel. you can see GNU stuff run practically everywhere. the kernel was supposed to come in as the last item (what goos is a kernel without any software running on it? by bringing it in last you can exploit technical developments that have come up in the meantime). linux was a kernel that happened to come along when this infrastructure was in place. without GNU, linux might have gone nowhere, considering the legal fight BSD was involved in at that time
nothing. nor can any closed source project can stop any of its members include code that he lifted from somewhere else. or do you have any suggestions about hpow to prevent that?
technically, email gets sent to whoever holds the account the email is directed to. if the sender mistakenly believes this to be a particular person, it is his problem. the equivalent in snail mail would be a letter addressed to "occupant of ..."
if you want a particular person to read it rather than anybody who happens to have access to the email account the email is directed to, you better arrange some extra security (like GnuPG or PGP
1. when it came out, the internet was far from ubiquous. so tanenbaum chose publishing through a established publisher (prentice hall?) as his method of distribution. part of the deal was a licensing setup that prohibited any kind of derived distribution. there were numerous patches to run minix in protected mode on the 386, plus other paches for various reasons, but whoever wanted an uptodate system had to search the patches, checxk them for conflicts, and apply them all by himself
2. even when linux started, most PCs were running 286s, where linux wouldn't run. the stated aim of minix was to make a unix like OS available that ran on machines that students could afford. so at that time tanenbam couldn't accept patches the would make specialise on the 386 (and 486) and include them in any distribution (not even considering the problems with the publisher that woud cause)
contrary to other free licenses, the GPL tries to assur the right of the end user to modify a program he gets hold of according to his needs. id somebody picks up a BSD licensed program, modifies and distributes the derived work under a more restrictive license (w/o source), the user is at the mercy of the distributer to get bug fixes or modifications he meeds to adapt the program to his needs. the GPL is designed to remove this dependency. btw, the FSF forces projects that *use their code* to use their license (as is their right). i haven't heard of any attempt by them to force others (the *BSD projects, Xfree86) to use their license. can you provide an example for your claim?
> Consider the following. A programmer works for a > company. The programmer creates a piece of > software. Who owns the software? Is it the > programmer or is it the company? The GPL and > the German law on owner of the code conflicts > here. what has that to do with the GPL? the GPL doesn't touch the ownership of the code. it grants you the right to redistribute the code you picked up with your modifications provided you distribute it under the GPL. you still own your code and can distribute it anywat you like, but not with a conflicting license together with the code you picked up
not very likely: there are other copyright holders, and they have to get clearance from them before distributing. the non-SCO was contributed under the GPL and can't be combined with nonGPLed code
pick any major distribution, select "install everything" and you have that with linux too (just make sure your disk is big eneough
both with wordperfect and lotus123 the early versions of microsoft's competing products were lousy, but got installed because microsoft offered package deals to the system builders like compac etc which enabled them to sell loaded systems with "everything you need preinstalled" for substantially less cost than sombody who packaged windows, wordperfect, and lotus123 on his machine (the same trick the tried later with internet explorer). don't forget that the end customer usually didn't have much infpormation to compare the installed software to available alternatives they styed inferior until the marketing cut off the air supply of their competitors
wrong. they were used more than a 100 years ago by a guy named rockefeller (weren't his business practices respnsible for the anti trust laws?), probably also by many other robber barons long before that
apple iis didn't use the 68000. the used 6502s (forgot who made them, but they were similar to the motoola 6800s, and were also used in the pre amiga commodore machines)