This reminds me of the guy at a conference who was going on about all the benefits of being connected from anywhere in the world, 100% of the time, and, pausing for effect, asked, "Doesn't this sound like anyone elses idea of hell? Or is it just me?"
The Dragon site is real slow, and there aren't even a hundred posts in this topic yet.
I hope that isn't representative of the technology.
The 1 GB limit on memory kind of worried me. Is that a system limit (i.e. motherboard) or is it that the chip has only 30 bit addressing? Seems kind of odd.
Also, is this a system that will be affordable for the average worker in mainland China? Does anyone know?
According to SCO's logic, that would be any code, in kernel 2.4.x or later, containing the copyright of any vendor that has a Sys V contract with SCO (except SUN).
I wonder why SCO hasn't included the 2.3.x development branch of the kernel? After all, any code in the stable release should have been included in the development branch.
Actually, I suspect that SCO has focused on the 2.4.x and later kernels because they determined that their previous distribution would put them under a serious risk of laches claims that they wouldn't be able to defend against.
By claiming that only the 2.4.x and later kernels have the infringing code, they are trying to make it look as if they didn't really wait that long to bring allegations against Linux.
Well, that's right, SCO is distributing the binaries without source (I believe) and that is in flagrant violation of the GPL.
However, SCO's customers would not be liable unless they too distribute the binary without source. Please read the GPL again to become clear on this.
As for developers taking a class-action suit against SCO for distributing the code, well, let's say the FSF tries that. Then, let's say SCO brings itself into compliance with the GPL by no longer providing the kernel binary on it's web site. Case over. The FSF is not likely to pursue the case once a violator comes into compliance with the GPL; at least, that's been their M.O. so far.
If SCO continues to distribute the code and claim they have the right to do so, then the FSF might take them to court. But even SCO isn't likely to be that stupid.
Actually, maybe they are... Hmmm.
Anyway, the present circumstance is that SCO has not yet tried to force a license for Linux on anyone. They have simply announced that they intend to. Once they do so, then the FSF will have a stronger case and they may as well wait until that happens.
And as far as "the second kind of code" goes, SCO has NOT made any claims in court to enforce their allegations. In fact, they even admitted that the 80-odd lines of code they showed under NDA was not contributed by IBM. Which leaves one scratching their head wondering "What was the point then?'
"In essence, SCO has admitted that they don't really have *any* copyright case and that Linux intellectual property is all above board. They can still accuse IBM of breach of contract..."
Finally, someone gets it right. Darl has said in interviews, "We know IBM put code in there (Linux). Their copyrights are in it." Darl is not claiming that SCO owns the copyrights. Yet.
SCO alleges that IBM had no right to share code with the Linux project, because SCO's contracts with IBM compel IBM to keep any derivative work confidential. In other words, despite SCO's attempts to "license" Linux, the only case they have outstanding is still a contract breach with IBM.
"...but I really don't think any of us have the details on what the contracts stated."
The contracts are available at SCO's website. Go to http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit. The IBM contracts are Exhibits A-D on the right hand sidebar. Exhibit E is the letter from Darl to Palmisano threatening to terminate IBM's AIX license. Exhibits F-G are the Sequent contracts.
In Exhibit C (section 2), the contract grants ownership of IBM's derivative works to IBM. Exhibit D, section 3.04, would seem to confirm that IBM is not obligated to keep confidential any of its derivative works.
Besides, I doubt that a judge will be willing to accept a definition of "ownership" that obliges the owner to treat its own work as confidential.
So, SCO's case against IBM still looks pretty weak.
SCO's allegations that Linux illegally appropriates derivative work also seems equally weak. SCO's main allegation against Linux is that any code contributed by an ISV or IHV (that has contracts with SCO) is a misappropriation of code that should have been kept confidential under SCO's contracts with them.
This seems to also fall apart under section 3.04 of Exhibit D, because that clause is part of what looks like a standard contract that SCO used with *all* parties to renew System V licenses after its purchase of the source from Novell. In other words, that clause is not part of an IBM side agreement, but appears to be a grant SCO made to any ISV or IHV licensing the System V source.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so none of the above should be construed as legal advice. It's just my opinion, derived from reading the contracts that SCO published on their web site and referenced in their court claims.
"Novell retracted its claim of ownership over the IP."
No, they didn't. They reiterated their claim to own the Unix patents, and SCO has not refuted them.
Novell did back off the claim that they never included the copyrights in the Unix sale to SCO, but even then qualified it with the statemnt that SCO may own "some" copyrights.
If SCO owns the copyrights, but not the patents, then their claims to derivative rights over work based on "Unix methods and concepts" is baseless, no matter what rights it claims to "methods and concepts" in its contracts, since it owns NO patents on those methods and concepts.
There are several contracts involved. The most recent, to my knowledge, is Amendment X, which includes IBM, Novell, and (old) SCO.
I'm not sure how that would play out in court since (new) SCO is the successor to Caldera, while the successor to (old) SCO is Tarantella. BUT, Caldera might be considered the successor to (old) SCO's Unix rights and business.
Anyway, it's an interesting question and you *may* be right. Hard to tell what a judge will think of it.
"What if they're right? That's the key question over SCO's claims and it's also the one question the open-source community largely refuses to address."
The open source community largely refuses to address the question of whether SCO is right because there is so little evidence supporting that proposition, because SCO has made no effort to publically disclose any evidence (doing so under NDA does NOT qualify as public disclosure) supporting it, and because there is so much evidence refuting SCO's claims.
However, let's assume that some code from Unix System V made it into Linux, or code based on derived work made it into Linux, such that SCO can win a legal action.
As far as I know, there is no legal penalty for possesion of pirated material. The law assumes that people owning such materials do so in the reasonable faith that the supplier of such material has the right to do so. Therefore, SCO can only go after the distributors of the code. Again, as far as I know (I am not a lawyer), SCO cannot win a case against someone using their code without a license, only someone distributing it without paying them.
"Put the SCO argument another way: What if you found out something you had a hand in was now the basis of a multibillion-dollar empire?"
I'd go after the distributors. I'd try to collect money from them if they'd been making a profit from it. If they hadn't, I'd try to force them to stop misappropriating the code or, if the cause was good, maybe I'd give them a license to continue using it. I wouldn't go after the users though because, ethically, they rec'd the code in good faith and, legally, I wouldn't have a case.
Not really. I thought the same thing: Millions of years of computing at what number of intructions per second? 10? 10^10? 10^100? Actually, even that wouldn't be a good measurement unless you can define the relative efficiency between instruction sets and come up with a baseline for all of them.
Without defining what a "year of computation is", it's a nonsensical statistic.
They're assuming that any species capable of producing a radio signal has evolved on in an environment capable of providing the tools to do so. That pretty much leaves: planets.
Planets, as far our theories go, are generally formed during the creation of stars and seem to generally be captured in orbit around stars. (Of course, I doubt anyone has made a wide search for planets not close to stars.)
Throwing a hissy might have got Linus to take a look at the code after the feature freeze, but when he included it I assume it was because of the technology.
SCO today announced the aquisition of Vultus, Inc.
With this purchase, SCO also announced that it now owned all IP rights and copyrights over all HTML, XML, and JavaScript technologies and any derivative work. When asked if this meant that SCO owned the Internet, CEO Darl McBride answered, "No, no, of course not. This simply means that we own all content available over the Internet, not the Internet itself. Vultus encapsulates within it several technologies, including but not limited to HTML, that enable creation of web sites. We are simply enforcing our IP rights."
"We are aware," added McBride, "that many corporations and individuals use this technology to publish content over the web. Our new licensing for these technologies will simply enable them to come out from the cold, and be legal and square without a threat of lawsuit for illegaly using this free and unwarranted software. I mean, how can someone use HTML with a warranty; this is unprecedented for any software product."
Many people have expressed doubts. Sun's Scott McNealy, when apprised of SCO's claims regarding JavaScript, asked, "After all the money I gave those fucking bastards? How could they?"
SCO's German web sites have been shut down by the government. When asked for comment, German Chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder responded, "Entschildigung, Ich verstahe nicht English. Sprachen sie Deutsche?"
Australian rioters hung an "I'm Darl McBride, Kick Me!" sign around the neck of a jackass then set loose upon it a horde of rabid kangaroos. Much of Sydney was destroyed, but there were few fatalities.
When asked for IBM's response to SCO assertion, spokesperson Trink Guarino simply replied, "Fuck that noise. Out response will be on our web site."
Microsoft's Bill Gates, however, was unperturbed. "Frankly, we don't see how this affects us," he said. "Content is overrated. We've been doing without it for years."
In order to prevent Alta Vista getting getting/.'ed, here is the Babelfish translation for all to puzzle over:
The ex-Linux-ex-Linux-Vertreiber SCO may not maintain no more for the time being after provisional orders, Linux is an illegal beneficiary protected Unix code. After a warning by the LinuxTag e.V. now a provisional order is opposite SCO been issued that the enterprise may not state for the time being any longer, Linux contains to injustice code from the Unix existence by court. During offence SCO a punishment of 250.000 euro threatens; with a just as high penalty clause that occupied of Bremen regional court the German SCO address in the case of the expression mentioned, after the software house Univention had become before digit there - - this case is limited the effect however to the German address of SCO.
The today's SCO resident in the US Federal State Utah, is from the Linux linux-Vertreiber Caldera of system, Inc.. come out, the 2001 the active of the servers software division and the Professional services division of the 1979 created The Santa Cruz operation (SCO) took over and thereupon as Caldera international, Inc.. firmierte. Only in the year 2002 the new Caldera in SCO designated itself over. The new SCO bankruptcy-endangered in the meantime had arrived by the entrances from the original Santa Cruz operation into the possession of copyrights at the operating system Unix and in March IBM for a billion US dollar compensation sued, because Big Blue hurt the Unix vested titles by its Linux commitment allegedly.
Although in the public fast the suspicion arose, SCO wanted to provoke by in the meantime gratefully the action supported by Microsoft against Linux a firm buying up as last rescue , continued to heat up the SCO strategists the conflict lively and threatened meanwhile also the Linux author Linus Torvalds with legal steps. This showed up however little impressed and followed the being correct leaders, that wanted to see first proofs of SCO. Also Novell had denied and sees themselves the SCO requirements on Unix percentages of profits publicly now obviously likewise in the line of fire of the SCO lawyers.
Laura Didio (of The Yankee Group): Darl, is it true that SCO has ended all business ties with Germany?
McBride: Yes, and it's their loss. We're not gonna let them use Linux anymore.
Given Bush's electoral strategy, he might be more interested in making Utah happy than IBM. I mean, he knows he's got zero chance of winning New York, and he doesn't seem particularly worried about screwing us. Hell, we're still waiting for the post-9/11 money he promised us.
Actually, while the issue you raise is interesting, it's not relevant to the SCO v. IBM case. SCO can claim that it owns derivative rights to all of IBM's Unix work till the cows come home, but IBM's contracts with ATT explicitly grant IBM ownership to its derivative works and exempt it from the derivative works clause of the standard ATT Unix System V contract.
Umm, FYI, the Linux-ABI interface is part of SCO's complaint against IBM. It was the interface designed for emulating Unix, in particular Unixware, to run Unixware binaries.
So, yes, it is work on code done at Caldera's directive that SCO claims to be infringing on its IP rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Toshiba and (believe it or not) Dell are also making pretty solid laptops these days. And if you want a decent gaming laptop, there's Alienware.
I wish the Sony Vaio's were better though. Still too fragile and a pain to configure with OS's other than OEM'ed version they came with.
This reminds me of the guy at a conference who was going on about all the benefits of being connected from anywhere in the world, 100% of the time, and, pausing for effect, asked, "Doesn't this sound like anyone elses idea of hell? Or is it just me?"
The Dragon site is real slow, and there aren't even a hundred posts in this topic yet.
I hope that isn't representative of the technology.
The 1 GB limit on memory kind of worried me. Is that a system limit (i.e. motherboard) or is it that the chip has only 30 bit addressing? Seems kind of odd.
Also, is this a system that will be affordable for the average worker in mainland China? Does anyone know?
According to SCO's logic, that would be any code, in kernel 2.4.x or later, containing the copyright of any vendor that has a Sys V contract with SCO (except SUN).
I wonder why SCO hasn't included the 2.3.x development branch of the kernel? After all, any code in the stable release should have been included in the development branch.
That's the 2.4.13 kernel. For SCO Linux they are distributing the 2.4.19 kernel from their UnitedLinux partner Suse, without source.
Actually, I suspect that SCO has focused on the 2.4.x and later kernels because they determined that their previous distribution would put them under a serious risk of laches claims that they wouldn't be able to defend against.
By claiming that only the 2.4.x and later kernels have the infringing code, they are trying to make it look as if they didn't really wait that long to bring allegations against Linux.
"Dean of the Marriott School of Management"
That pretty much says it all. I mean, would you buy a used car from this guy?
Well, that's right, SCO is distributing the binaries without source (I believe) and that is in flagrant violation of the GPL.
However, SCO's customers would not be liable unless they too distribute the binary without source. Please read the GPL again to become clear on this.
As for developers taking a class-action suit against SCO for distributing the code, well, let's say the FSF tries that. Then, let's say SCO brings itself into compliance with the GPL by no longer providing the kernel binary on it's web site. Case over. The FSF is not likely to pursue the case once a violator comes into compliance with the GPL; at least, that's been their M.O. so far.
If SCO continues to distribute the code and claim they have the right to do so, then the FSF might take them to court. But even SCO isn't likely to be that stupid.
Actually, maybe they are... Hmmm.
Anyway, the present circumstance is that SCO has not yet tried to force a license for Linux on anyone. They have simply announced that they intend to. Once they do so, then the FSF will have a stronger case and they may as well wait until that happens.
And as far as "the second kind of code" goes, SCO has NOT made any claims in court to enforce their allegations. In fact, they even admitted that the 80-odd lines of code they showed under NDA was not contributed by IBM. Which leaves one scratching their head wondering "What was the point then?'
"In essence, SCO has admitted that they don't really have *any* copyright case and that Linux intellectual property is all above board. They can still accuse IBM of breach of contract..."
Finally, someone gets it right. Darl has said in interviews, "We know IBM put code in there (Linux). Their copyrights are in it." Darl is not claiming that SCO owns the copyrights. Yet.
SCO alleges that IBM had no right to share code with the Linux project, because SCO's contracts with IBM compel IBM to keep any derivative work confidential. In other words, despite SCO's attempts to "license" Linux, the only case they have outstanding is still a contract breach with IBM.
"...but I really don't think any of us have the details on what the contracts stated."
The contracts are available at SCO's website. Go to http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit. The IBM contracts are Exhibits A-D on the right hand sidebar. Exhibit E is the letter from Darl to Palmisano threatening to terminate IBM's AIX license. Exhibits F-G are the Sequent contracts.
In Exhibit C (section 2), the contract grants ownership of IBM's derivative works to IBM. Exhibit D, section 3.04, would seem to confirm that IBM is not obligated to keep confidential any of its derivative works.
Besides, I doubt that a judge will be willing to accept a definition of "ownership" that obliges the owner to treat its own work as confidential.
So, SCO's case against IBM still looks pretty weak.
SCO's allegations that Linux illegally appropriates derivative work also seems equally weak. SCO's main allegation against Linux is that any code contributed by an ISV or IHV (that has contracts with SCO) is a misappropriation of code that should have been kept confidential under SCO's contracts with them.
This seems to also fall apart under section 3.04 of Exhibit D, because that clause is part of what looks like a standard contract that SCO used with *all* parties to renew System V licenses after its purchase of the source from Novell. In other words, that clause is not part of an IBM side agreement, but appears to be a grant SCO made to any ISV or IHV licensing the System V source.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so none of the above should be construed as legal advice. It's just my opinion, derived from reading the contracts that SCO published on their web site and referenced in their court claims.
"Novell retracted its claim of ownership over the IP."
No, they didn't. They reiterated their claim to own the Unix patents, and SCO has not refuted them.
Novell did back off the claim that they never included the copyrights in the Unix sale to SCO, but even then qualified it with the statemnt that SCO may own "some" copyrights.
If SCO owns the copyrights, but not the patents, then their claims to derivative rights over work based on "Unix methods and concepts" is baseless, no matter what rights it claims to "methods and concepts" in its contracts, since it owns NO patents on those methods and concepts.
There are several contracts involved. The most recent, to my knowledge, is Amendment X, which includes IBM, Novell, and (old) SCO.
I'm not sure how that would play out in court since (new) SCO is the successor to Caldera, while the successor to (old) SCO is Tarantella. BUT, Caldera might be considered the successor to (old) SCO's Unix rights and business.
Anyway, it's an interesting question and you *may* be right. Hard to tell what a judge will think of it.
"What if they're right? That's the key question over SCO's claims and it's also the one question the open-source community largely refuses to address."
The open source community largely refuses to address the question of whether SCO is right because there is so little evidence supporting that proposition, because SCO has made no effort to publically disclose any evidence (doing so under NDA does NOT qualify as public disclosure) supporting it, and because there is so much evidence refuting SCO's claims.
However, let's assume that some code from Unix System V made it into Linux, or code based on derived work made it into Linux, such that SCO can win a legal action.
As far as I know, there is no legal penalty for possesion of pirated material. The law assumes that people owning such materials do so in the reasonable faith that the supplier of such material has the right to do so. Therefore, SCO can only go after the distributors of the code. Again, as far as I know (I am not a lawyer), SCO cannot win a case against someone using their code without a license, only someone distributing it without paying them.
"Put the SCO argument another way: What if you found out something you had a hand in was now the basis of a multibillion-dollar empire?"
I'd go after the distributors. I'd try to collect money from them if they'd been making a profit from it. If they hadn't, I'd try to force them to stop misappropriating the code or, if the cause was good, maybe I'd give them a license to continue using it. I wouldn't go after the users though because, ethically, they rec'd the code in good faith and, legally, I wouldn't have a case.
Because the resolution of the map is too low to differetiate the discepancies between the route of the configurations you noticed and a straight line?
In other words, the coast of Norway may be as ragged as the hem of a hippie's cutoffs but look straight on a low-res map.
Are you kidding? Americans won't even watch foriegn films from this planet.
Not really. I thought the same thing: Millions of years of computing at what number of intructions per second? 10? 10^10? 10^100? Actually, even that wouldn't be a good measurement unless you can define the relative efficiency between instruction sets and come up with a baseline for all of them. Without defining what a "year of computation is", it's a nonsensical statistic.
They're assuming that any species capable of producing a radio signal has evolved on in an environment capable of providing the tools to do so. That pretty much leaves: planets.
Planets, as far our theories go, are generally formed during the creation of stars and seem to generally be captured in orbit around stars. (Of course, I doubt anyone has made a wide search for planets not close to stars.)
Thus, to look for life, look near stars.
Umm, isn't this ultimately Linus's decision?
Throwing a hissy might have got Linus to take a look at the code after the feature freeze, but when he included it I assume it was because of the technology.
July 22, 2003 (Reuters)
SCO today announced the aquisition of Vultus, Inc.
With this purchase, SCO also announced that it now owned all IP rights and copyrights over all HTML, XML, and JavaScript technologies and any derivative work. When asked if this meant that SCO owned the Internet, CEO Darl McBride answered, "No, no, of course not. This simply means that we own all content available over the Internet, not the Internet itself. Vultus encapsulates within it several technologies, including but not limited to HTML, that enable creation of web sites. We are simply enforcing our IP rights."
"We are aware," added McBride, "that many corporations and individuals use this technology to publish content over the web. Our new licensing for these technologies will simply enable them to come out from the cold, and be legal and square without a threat of lawsuit for illegaly using this free and unwarranted software. I mean, how can someone use HTML with a warranty; this is unprecedented for any software product."
Many people have expressed doubts. Sun's Scott McNealy, when apprised of SCO's claims regarding JavaScript, asked, "After all the money I gave those fucking bastards? How could they?"
SCO's German web sites have been shut down by the government. When asked for comment, German Chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder responded, "Entschildigung, Ich verstahe nicht English. Sprachen sie Deutsche?"
Australian rioters hung an "I'm Darl McBride, Kick Me!" sign around the neck of a jackass then set loose upon it a horde of rabid kangaroos. Much of Sydney was destroyed, but there were few fatalities.
When asked for IBM's response to SCO assertion, spokesperson Trink Guarino simply replied, "Fuck that noise. Out response will be on our web site."
Microsoft's Bill Gates, however, was unperturbed. "Frankly, we don't see how this affects us," he said. "Content is overrated. We've been doing without it for years."
In order to prevent Alta Vista getting getting /.'ed, here is the Babelfish translation for all to puzzle over:
The ex-Linux-ex-Linux-Vertreiber SCO may not maintain no more for the time being after provisional orders, Linux is an illegal beneficiary protected Unix code. After a warning by the LinuxTag e.V. now a provisional order is opposite SCO been issued that the enterprise may not state for the time being any longer, Linux contains to injustice code from the Unix existence by court. During offence SCO a punishment of 250.000 euro threatens; with a just as high penalty clause that occupied of Bremen regional court the German SCO address in the case of the expression mentioned, after the software house Univention had become before digit there - - this case is limited the effect however to the German address of SCO.
The today's SCO resident in the US Federal State Utah, is from the Linux linux-Vertreiber Caldera of system, Inc.. come out, the 2001 the active of the servers software division and the Professional services division of the 1979 created The Santa Cruz operation (SCO) took over and thereupon as Caldera international, Inc.. firmierte. Only in the year 2002 the new Caldera in SCO designated itself over. The new SCO bankruptcy-endangered in the meantime had arrived by the entrances from the original Santa Cruz operation into the possession of copyrights at the operating system Unix and in March IBM for a billion US dollar compensation sued, because Big Blue hurt the Unix vested titles by its Linux commitment allegedly.
Although in the public fast the suspicion arose, SCO wanted to provoke by in the meantime gratefully the action supported by Microsoft against Linux a firm buying up as last rescue , continued to heat up the SCO strategists the conflict lively and threatened meanwhile also the Linux author Linus Torvalds with legal steps. This showed up however little impressed and followed the being correct leaders, that wanted to see first proofs of SCO. Also Novell had denied and sees themselves the SCO requirements on Unix percentages of profits publicly now obviously likewise in the line of fire of the SCO lawyers.
Laura Didio (of The Yankee Group): Darl, is it true that SCO has ended all business ties with Germany? McBride: Yes, and it's their loss. We're not gonna let them use Linux anymore.
Given Bush's electoral strategy, he might be more interested in making Utah happy than IBM. I mean, he knows he's got zero chance of winning New York, and he doesn't seem particularly worried about screwing us. Hell, we're still waiting for the post-9/11 money he promised us.
Actually, while the issue you raise is interesting, it's not relevant to the SCO v. IBM case. SCO can claim that it owns derivative rights to all of IBM's Unix work till the cows come home, but IBM's contracts with ATT explicitly grant IBM ownership to its derivative works and exempt it from the derivative works clause of the standard ATT Unix System V contract.
See paragraph 2 of the following document:
http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitC.qxd.pdf
If SCO loses they will make good on the license by providing all licensees with a copy of Unixware.
Umm, FYI, the Linux-ABI interface is part of SCO's complaint against IBM. It was the interface designed for emulating Unix, in particular Unixware, to run Unixware binaries.
So, yes, it is work on code done at Caldera's directive that SCO claims to be infringing on its IP rights.