IANAL, but a EULA with FSF IP involved may be applied with weak enforcement, i.e. the Linux Kernal with the GPL (which is also a EULA) but that doesn't preclude a party non-aligned with the FSF, such as IBM, HP, Sun or Linus, from enforcing their IP rights. It doesn't stop the FSF from enforcing their IP rights either. Just because AIX is based on Unix doesn't change this. IP is IP, SCO/M$ can't just take it. Selective IP enforcement is legal, as long as there is a harm or benefit caused implication, i.e. the RIAA lawsuits. The RIAA is able to coerce ISP's even to give ppl up. Unenforcability doesn't negate IP. That is BS! I wonder if someone can get an administrative subpoena under the DMCA for SCO transferral of IP they didn't own. That is exactly what Napster did, and they were shut down. That would be funny, lol.
Pure poetry!
The point of the GPL is not that it is free, but it offers 'freedom'. Linux and the GPL idea is also a very commercial, marketable product in the best tradition of the free market, not monopoly. It offers a strong revenue stream based on hardware and service sales in a field where competance, rather than market dominance rules, while at the same time utilizing massive economies of scale and aggregating development efforts. It is based on a science model, not a commerce model, where the software becomes basic research that companies use to make their products. It knocks down artificial barriers to competition, opening up superior and highly flexible service to customers and a wide range of products to choose from. The software is no longer product used to control, it is a tool of liberation. This is not a free ride, it is a long hard slog. But at the end is the freedom to be in command of the products that define your life; mainly computers, communication and media. The alternative is having a couple of corporations with complete control over every aspect of our lives down to the smallest detail by controlling the medium by which we communicate and work and forcing their product on us, M$, RIAA et cetera. This most definitely is not a free ride. Anyone who thinks it is a free ride is gravely mistaken, and extremely misinformed and is playing directly into the hands of SCO and their ilk. This ain't no commie, pinko scheme. This is in the tradition of FREEDOM AND LIBERTY, Let Freedom Ring BABY!!!!!!!
Sorry about the drama/cliches, I can't help myself...
Keith Devlin wrote a mathematics/philosophy book that deals with a similar issue. People are 'rational', not logical. Because we have such a long history using logic, and now the scientific method, which is a very specific logical process to define phenomena, we often assume that logic is the defining criteria when we make decisions. This is true in some cases, but it can also be a tremendous fallacy. People are not always logical, people will do what they 'feel' is appropriate most of the time.
EXAMPLE:
In Iraq, what made the few Republican Guard units that stood their ground hold fast, it wasn't a logic we usually appreciate. Logically, they would be destroyed, and they were destroyed. It was emotion, loyalty, pride or fear that made them stand firm; but that act lead to their doom, or in their eyes martyrdom. I imagine how these peoples families remember that sacrifice, and perhaps our failure to honor that sacrifice may be part of the problem we are facing now in Iraq.
EXAMPLE:
Linux supporters, why do they support Linux so blindly. For them, it seems Linux means freedom from control, it is a political and social statement, not a logical one. The idea of taking your future in your own hands is liberating, it feels good. Therefore, Linux is a superior model for providing freedom from control to users and coders by making software free and free to use. However Microsoft has a model which provides superior earnings from software by making it proprietary and expensive. The Linux proposition is freedom, the Microsoft proposition is to cash in. This is a value judgement, a statement about our beliefs and priorities. Where you stand depends on what you believe is most important. Interestingly, people who have to pay mortgages are more familiar with the Microsoft model, in my experience they are much more sympathetic to Microsoft than Linux.
It is a mistake to assume that logic is a superior tool to a rational human thought. Logic, especially scientific logic, it based on a discrete set of principles, where the process is structured around a hypothesis which is then built upon. For example, SCO logic is based on the hypothesis that all Unix inheritors should belong to them. It isn't strictly scientific, but it looks quasi scientific and thus appeals to superficial examination, especially by investors looking for a quick buck, or anyone enamored with the idea of making lots of money and locking down a permanent source of cash to enrich themselves beyond their wildest dreams. A logical SCO argument does not take a disparity between rationales into account. There is no place in the SCO methodology for any intervention to accomodate Linux users because the basic proposition of Linux is anathema to them. So the SCO logic is inexorably propelled forward to certain conclusions which cannot allow certain interventions or the entire logical proposition would collapse, I.E. make craploads of cash in perpetuity whereas Linux unlinks direct profit from software. 'Revoke AIX', 'License fees', 'Sue SGI'. These thoughts are highly logical, but are brought out of a warped and twisted rational framework that cannot 'fairly' consider the rights of Linux users. It is amazing how SCO has been corrupted, it now repudiates everything it once stoof for.
In the big picture. Linux users would do well not to underestimate SCO, or the future SCO's of this world. In a larger sense, SCO represents the Microsoft model, which is to make cash from a proprietary system. This is also the system that suburbanites appreciate; they like the idea of having direct control over a piece of real estate (as Microsoft does and they do), and using that property to accumulate wealth is central to their way of life. They would probably see Linux as a disturbing force, a force not compatible with their way of life, a threat to ownership and therefore 'Un-American'. These people were powerful enough to turn aside a judgement against Microsoft. If SCO is able to bring these people on board, Linux
MHO, Linux is to SCO (Openserver or Unixware) what a Stegosaur is to a Velociraptor! They (SCO) are and have been fossilized and moribund for years now and should quietly go extinct.
Linux : SCO=Stegasaur : Velociraptor
SCO=Openserver and Unixware
Linux=Stegasaur
SCO=Velociraptor
Stegasaur=Dinasuar fossil + Herbivore
Velociraptor=Dinasaur fossil + Carnivore
Linux=Dinasaur fossil + Herbivore
SCO=Dinasaur fossil + Carnivore
'Linux' (Dinasaur Fossil)= 'SCO' (Dinasaur Fossil)
Carnivore > Herbivore or Carnivore eats Herbivore
The 'SCO' Carnivore eats the 'Linux' Herbivore
'SCO'(Dinasaur Fossil)='Linux'(Dinasaur Fossil)=Extinct
Both are doomed to be extinct. But SCO may eat Linux before that happens. Linux cannot eat SCO
Furthermore if you remove Carnivore and Herbivore from the logic, you get the following:
SCO=Unixware and Openserver=Dinasaur Fossil
Linux=Dinasaur Fossil
Linux=SCO=Dinasaur Fossil=Unixware and Openserver
Linux=Unixware and Openserver CONCLUSION: You twit, this is exactly what Darl McBride has been saying all along!
Point 1: SCO is going to eat Linux
Point 2: Linux is equivalent to Openserver and Unixware
A few of quotes from that article:
"...one of my biggest concerns with the open-source software strategy: the inability to move against a threat strategically or in well-coordinated fashion."
"The (Linux)community has also has become a home for techno-insanity."
"The community must make a commitment to operate strategically to benefit the decision-makers who support open-source software,...rather than use these decision-makers as cannon fodder in the war against SCO."
The Linux community leadership is almost as bad as Darl when it comes to spouting off, and as a result (Just like SCO), they are endangering the future prospects for Linux adoption and enflaming the legal environment, giving the anti-Linux lawyers more openings for attack. That isn't smart. SCO ran its mouth off one time too many, and is now being counter sued by IBM over its violations of the GPL. If they had been smart and kept quiet, they might have gotten a better deal, now they are locked into a dispute with IBM, whereas before they always had the option of dropping the suit. Unless the open source leadership has something to say that is constructive, they shouldn't say anything, it could be used against them in court. And besides, what company is going to be comforted by the idea that the ESR/BP duo is going to launch a legal attack. What a joke. Forget about the SCO tour, it deserves to be ignored. That would be its ultimate punishment, a mocking silence.
It would be a feature movie. The cast would go like this.
Bill Gates = the voice of Optimus Prime
Darl McBride = Christopher Walkin "I don't understand Wwhat! Is the problem...here."
SCO Lawyer - Boies = John Travolta (the fat version sitting with bridged hands in a leather chair)"Elegant, isn't it."
Linus = Victoria Silvestedt (shes such a great actor, I lover her work, but she won't talk the whole show but will be in every scene)
Linux developers = Jack Black and the Mountain Dew guys (comic relief)
ESR/Perens = Nick Nolte, Michael Ironsides (pissed off and dramatic) Nolte: "Well damnit, this is bullshit, how much longer do I have to take this crap." Ironsides: "They (the aliens) sucked his brains out! Theres your problem."
The Intrepid Reporter = Nicholas Cage (the narrator eye for the story with his bad southern accent in Conair mode)
IBM CEO = Ian Mckellen (Gandalf)"This foe is beyond any of you.""Ahh, there it is, the air isn't as foul this way, when in doubt, always follow your nose."
IBM Lawyer = Samuel L. Jackson "We need shotguns for this job"
The Judge = Puppet Yoda(not CGI) or Grover "Begun this SCO war has", "now matters are worse"
The Jury = Chasey Lain and a pole "Oh yes, yes yes, Oh god, YES."
Interestingly, in that link, it shows BSD IP going into the SCO owned part of the tree (Xenix) back in 1981, one slender little line, but who knows what was moved into the SCO IP tree. You would think that would cause them to think a bit. They are 'contaminated' by their own admission.
Additionally, according to the diagram, BSD and Linux originate out of the same 'Open Server Heritage', which as many pwople may know was brought to court by AT&T, where they lost. As a logical proposition, the diagram shows that Linux and BSD originate from the same line, a line that is uncontaminated when it reaches Linux, and since that line has been effectrively rendered public domain in the BSD case, it is effectively severed as a link which SCO can use to bring an IP complaint.
According to the diagram, Linux is free of contamination until April 1983, when an unknown amount of the Xenix 3.0 crosses into the Linux line. This is a problem for Linux, a point of entry for the lawyers if it stands up, but I don't know the details there. The line is again free of contamination until Oct. 1984, when BSD contaminates the Linux line. From there the Linux tree splinters, but remains free of contamination. But in June and August 2000, Linux variants fork back into the the line which makes what is now SCO UnixWare7.1.3, that should give them pause. The IP theft complaint can in fact be reversed at this point, depending on the nature of the relationship.
I imagine this all makes a very interesting power point slide that can be talked about in a convincing way. Whether it is true or not is another issue. It also does not cover the contractual or ownership implications of each fork, which are significant issues, for example the line going from SCO to Sun or SCO to IBM would probably indicate a wholely owned and unlimited transfer, not a theft or random inclusion. The line going to BSD has been tested in court and has been cut. How many other lines have similar restrictions? There is no smoking gun here, although it is food for thought, and enough for a lawyer to chew on. It also shows a 'heritage gap' from Aug 1980 to Aug 1991, an 11 year gap, at which point they begin tracking all Linux as "SCO Linux Pedigree". I am not sure what they mean by 'Heritage', does it mean conceptually similar, or grounded in Unix related concepts or an actual transfer of legacy code?
I was always under the impression that Linus wrote the original Linux kernal in a clean room fashion, and am a bit confused why Linux is even on this tree as originating from UNIX, or how they can claim it is 'SCO pedigree'. It should start out as a separate, original line. Am I wrong?
OS programmer and a chip maker who are Chinese gentlement, and Kung Fu experts are attacked by M$ and Intel assasins intent on dishonoring the Chinese people and culture. I would pay $7 to see that. I might even buy the DVD.
I am sure the Chinese can do very well making computers and chips. However, 90% of their population is peasants, not chip engineers. The educated portion of the population is equivalent to the USA's population, who live in segregated cites. The peasants need a visa to even visit these cities. Thus it seems unlikely they will suddenly leap to the ultimate height of power, without mobilizing the masses. It seems hardly likely that China will be able to turn this around in 5 or 10 years, maybe 50 years. The real story is the US wanting to ensure perpetual dominance of the world so we can enjoy our unrivaled power and our place in the sun, USA #1, USA #1, USA #1.
Oh wait, if I did that I WOULD BOYCOTT THIS POST! Sun is just paying for more rights to UNIX to avoid the FUD surrounding IBM and Linux. They have a declining market position, they can't afford to get involved in this dispute. Besides, its only chicken feed as far as money goes.
SCO isn't dead yet. SCO is a shell for the Canopy group and don't really exist apart from them. If SCO goes down it will be because Canopy decides they need new cannon fodder, Canopy will buy some other worthless company, get some quasi useless IP, and start suing all over again.
Ultimately the problem comes down to quality and convenience versus cost. Half the albums you buy are crap and you only really want that one song. Really cool artists, who put out full package, nice albums, top to bottom, I buy. I just don't buy crap anymore. Ultimately I think the record industry is homogenized by Clear Channel and other such conglomerates. They aren't serving my needs. Swapping files would stop for me if they offered an affordable, convenient system that empowered my lifestyle. All they see are $$$ and so they try to rape my wallet. RIAA, NO MEANS NO!
Actually you are not a criminal by downloading, you are a criminal by uploading. I may be splitting hairs, but I think that is the way it works. That is why I suggest only uploading obscure hard to find files that people want and need and not dozens of top 40 albums. The top 40 stuff always sucks you band width, and who wants to share with those chumps anyway. Those are all the record companies care about too because they are the only songs they make cash on, that 2% of music that gets to the top of the charts. They lose cash on the rest. You are doing them a favor by saving them printing costs on all of the obscure, money losing music. If your worried about the artist losing cash, go see them live. We don't need any more Kid Rock floating around in swap land. Simply upload about 30 or 40 songs total of obscure music, that you find important, hard to find and valuable to the community. If they sue you and find you have 100 gigs on your computer just say you don't share them, you only download, and you will be telling the truth.
Another way to protect yourself is to combine music archives with friends. The problems with MP3's are keeping your songs organized and backed up. By pulling a spare drive and passing it around to friends you can have 10 backups on friendly machines and aggregate all of their collections into yours to make a super collection, which can be cleaned up and ORGANIZED, so you don't have 10 copies of the same song and throwing bad copies. By doing this you can have a 100 gig archive that will be so bloated with quality files you can play them for 6 months solid without a repeat, pick any song you want to hear or switch categories based on mood, WOW! We also ripped our entire CD collections and share them this way.
Also, since I just turned 30, I am too old to be in the scene any more, I can just get music from other people with better knowledge of whats happening and get the best stuff for the least work.
This in itself is a shaky comeback for MIT, and Boston College considering if some law was broken cross state lines, and mind you the DA's will
look at the fact downloads occurred all over the world. Law is law anywhere in the US, I don't know when it stopped being so.
If you get sued in California, but live in Boston, the problem of answering the lawsuit for any ordinary person or small organization can in and of itself cause a financial collapse. That is why you have to file in the district where the act was committed, the point of origin. It is true that Federal law is the same everywhere, but I would much rather face a judge in Boston than in Virginia. Virginia is where all the 'hang em all' federal judges sit.
If you go in the mainstream news outlets, the news is that Linux is under assault, that it could be declared illegal, like Napster and file swapping. They print everything Darl&SCO say, without rebuttal because it is very convenient to print and sounds good. Average folks in this day in age, when they hear people from SCO mimic the RIAA, they assume Linux is a pirated OS and if they use it they WILL BE SUED, they don't know the story, they believe the propoganda. IBM is hardly a lovable company, and people tend to root for the underdog, which to an outsider looks like SCO. By saying in 'non-legal' language the level of outrageous behavior by SCO, average people begin to understand what is going on. What ESR is doind is a wakeup call to them, in a language they understand.
If you approach this situation with purely stultifying logic, the average Joe will think you are guilty because he doesn't understand you. The minutia of evidence in a broad political sense is IRRELEVANT. The evidence was overwhelming that Microsoft abused their position, but they had the political support to get away with it because they have convinced the average Joe who voted for Bush. That is what is going on here, they are trying to win a political battle. If they win this battle, right or wrong, lawsuit or no lawsuit, they will prevail. This is big time, Linux people everywhere need to step it up. It needs to be clear in the media that SCO is the bad guy. Right now, no matter how you feel about SCO, they have a better position in the media. And I remind you, this is the same media that has Jerry Springer, and Fox News. That is the kind of audience that needs to be educated, not programmers or hackers. The message that needs to be put forward is that SCO are a bunch of carpet baggers, who use lawyers to steal the IP of others. That message is NOT getting out!
There is no universal law that says good will always triumph over evil. We cannot afford to be complacent about this. We need to be active, relentless and intelligent in our decision or we may LOSE. It needs to be clear they are putting a multi $billion industry and a $5 billion OS investment in danger for a company that netted under $15 million and makes a living by suing other companies.
The Canopy Co.(owner of SCO) sounds similar to the Umbrella Co. (Resident Evil).
I doubt any judge would declare the GPL invalid even if there was an explicit inclusion of BSD code because this is a project put forward by multiple groups, and to do so would penalize them all, when harm to BSD copyright holders is non-existent. I would add that SCO cannot sue anyone over BSD code, they aren't a party to any of those damages. You also have to be reasonable, this is common sense at a certain point.
I'm an architect and have worked a bit with different light technologies. The LED works OK right now, but has a very narrow spectrum, even more narrow than flourescent. That is why it is so energy efficient, but also why it makes everyone look so terrible when they are under it. People look blue or extremely pale, basically zombified. For some applications like a utility closet this is fine. IF you need to see color forget it, use incandescent. Also, another advantage for LED is vibration for places like in factories where vibration fries light bulbs. It is also safe and will not explode in shards of glass, so is good for use in dangerous environments. The best application for LED is for lighting small ornamental things or for lighting effects. So far I haven't seen any floods or spots of decent size to be used for anything major.
The value of Linux to large companies is that it is a viable system that is FREE to use, and cheap to modify. Companies like IBM and Redhat can tweak it to get whatever they want out of it for low cost. I have heard that to develop a full modern OS from scratch would cost $5-10 billion. That cost has been shared among dozens of companies, that in the past bore it alone, only to see products go obsolete. By sharing the cost burden, and eliminating re-duplication efforts, we now have a quality OS with fantastic support from organizations and governments around the world. In addition we have and extremely skilled and rabidly loyal fan base that rivals and even surpasses the extreme behavior of Mac fans. Linux fans are loyal because they are a part of what they use, it is more of a community than a product. The catch is companies don't own the proprietary rights to the OS, they share them with everyone else, including their fans, friends, supporters, rivals and enemies. It is like the air, everyone can breath it without being charged.
The value to IBM is in the service and the hardware, they can make money there. The OS software has been a losing battle for them in the past. The value to customers is in the quality of the product, the service, and the strategic upgrade path, timed to suit their needs, and they have multiple sources to bid their work out to, giving them fair cost comparisons or to develop special custom application. Programmers like it because it is constantly being customized and they then have a job. You actually have a non-monolpoly, functioning market with Linux, that shares the wealth, and a market that can NEVER be monopolized. The playing field is always level becuase the way the system works is completely exposed and free.
This is also a strategic move against M$. In addition to a 90% markup, they place their product at the front end of the customer relationship, forcing all others into a commodity, diposable and easily replaced position. In that universe IBM, and others, have an extremely limited profit potential, and would probably be terminated as a going concern at some point. And looking even further down the road, this makes piracy irrelevant, since Linux can't be pirated in a traditional way since it is legal to copy for free.
This is not about idealism, this is about rival business models and survival moving into the broadband era. The Linux model replaces difficult to maintain and protect IP and software sales with service and hardware sales, things which are much easier to protect and market. It places nuts and bolts above the virtual values of IP. It has superior affordability because IP burdens are shared, and a vast economy of scale is acheived. It is a powerful competitive advantage.
This is not communism. If it was companies would avoid it like the plague and Linus would be another minor academic, who wrote an obsolete OS that never went anywhere. This is about freedom, and being in control of your own destiny.
I don't like to re-post my ideas, but I think this applies. IBM has taken out major adds on just about every internet news source running this story, paying them $$$. These starved companies will probably try not to bite the hand that feeds them. The next time you see a SCO story, either pro or con, I bet you see an IBM add, except on the M$ whore sites. This is the slick way for IBM to get what they want. These stupid journailists often don't know anything about these topics as they seem to print verbatim the SCO line without checking the other side. But if their biggest advertiser is IBM, they will think twice and print both sides, and check carefully, so as to not say stupid things to cause IBM to yank adds. A week ago almost all stories ran with the unchecked SCO 'facts' as the lead, with the death of Linux as the conclusion. Now the SCO scam leads, with the bogus evidence. Even a cursory glance of the IBM position reveals that it is the obvious winner. And since IBM is paying them $$$ they had better tell their side. So now the headline reads "SCO CLAIMS INFLATED/BOGUS/INCOPETANT", instead of "DAVID VS. GOLIATH - IBM steals IP".
Did you notice that most of the advertising on the so called news sites seems to be IBM. All of the sudden IBM is everywhere, reminding the internet news outlets who pays the checks. I think the news slant may shift a wee bit because of this.
Ridiculous claims like he invented the question mark. If he is married to a web footed prostitute named Cloe, and likes to make meat helmets in the summer, I think I know Darl's true identity. THE FATHER OF DR. EVIL!
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but a EULA with FSF IP involved may be applied with weak enforcement, i.e. the Linux Kernal with the GPL (which is also a EULA) but that doesn't preclude a party non-aligned with the FSF, such as IBM, HP, Sun or Linus, from enforcing their IP rights. It doesn't stop the FSF from enforcing their IP rights either. Just because AIX is based on Unix doesn't change this. IP is IP, SCO/M$ can't just take it. Selective IP enforcement is legal, as long as there is a harm or benefit caused implication, i.e. the RIAA lawsuits. The RIAA is able to coerce ISP's even to give ppl up. Unenforcability doesn't negate IP. That is BS! I wonder if someone can get an administrative subpoena under the DMCA for SCO transferral of IP they didn't own. That is exactly what Napster did, and they were shut down. That would be funny, lol.
Pure poetry!
The point of the GPL is not that it is free, but it offers 'freedom'. Linux and the GPL idea is also a very commercial, marketable product in the best tradition of the free market, not monopoly. It offers a strong revenue stream based on hardware and service sales in a field where competance, rather than market dominance rules, while at the same time utilizing massive economies of scale and aggregating development efforts. It is based on a science model, not a commerce model, where the software becomes basic research that companies use to make their products. It knocks down artificial barriers to competition, opening up superior and highly flexible service to customers and a wide range of products to choose from. The software is no longer product used to control, it is a tool of liberation. This is not a free ride, it is a long hard slog. But at the end is the freedom to be in command of the products that define your life; mainly computers, communication and media. The alternative is having a couple of corporations with complete control over every aspect of our lives down to the smallest detail by controlling the medium by which we communicate and work and forcing their product on us, M$, RIAA et cetera. This most definitely is not a free ride. Anyone who thinks it is a free ride is gravely mistaken, and extremely misinformed and is playing directly into the hands of SCO and their ilk. This ain't no commie, pinko scheme. This is in the tradition of FREEDOM AND LIBERTY, Let Freedom Ring BABY!!!!!!!
Sorry about the drama/cliches, I can't help myself...
Keith Devlin wrote a mathematics/philosophy book that deals with a similar issue. People are 'rational', not logical. Because we have such a long history using logic, and now the scientific method, which is a very specific logical process to define phenomena, we often assume that logic is the defining criteria when we make decisions. This is true in some cases, but it can also be a tremendous fallacy. People are not always logical, people will do what they 'feel' is appropriate most of the time.
EXAMPLE:
In Iraq, what made the few Republican Guard units that stood their ground hold fast, it wasn't a logic we usually appreciate. Logically, they would be destroyed, and they were destroyed. It was emotion, loyalty, pride or fear that made them stand firm; but that act lead to their doom, or in their eyes martyrdom. I imagine how these peoples families remember that sacrifice, and perhaps our failure to honor that sacrifice may be part of the problem we are facing now in Iraq.
EXAMPLE:
Linux supporters, why do they support Linux so blindly. For them, it seems Linux means freedom from control, it is a political and social statement, not a logical one. The idea of taking your future in your own hands is liberating, it feels good. Therefore, Linux is a superior model for providing freedom from control to users and coders by making software free and free to use. However Microsoft has a model which provides superior earnings from software by making it proprietary and expensive. The Linux proposition is freedom, the Microsoft proposition is to cash in. This is a value judgement, a statement about our beliefs and priorities. Where you stand depends on what you believe is most important. Interestingly, people who have to pay mortgages are more familiar with the Microsoft model, in my experience they are much more sympathetic to Microsoft than Linux.
It is a mistake to assume that logic is a superior tool to a rational human thought. Logic, especially scientific logic, it based on a discrete set of principles, where the process is structured around a hypothesis which is then built upon. For example, SCO logic is based on the hypothesis that all Unix inheritors should belong to them. It isn't strictly scientific, but it looks quasi scientific and thus appeals to superficial examination, especially by investors looking for a quick buck, or anyone enamored with the idea of making lots of money and locking down a permanent source of cash to enrich themselves beyond their wildest dreams. A logical SCO argument does not take a disparity between rationales into account. There is no place in the SCO methodology for any intervention to accomodate Linux users because the basic proposition of Linux is anathema to them. So the SCO logic is inexorably propelled forward to certain conclusions which cannot allow certain interventions or the entire logical proposition would collapse, I.E. make craploads of cash in perpetuity whereas Linux unlinks direct profit from software. 'Revoke AIX', 'License fees', 'Sue SGI'. These thoughts are highly logical, but are brought out of a warped and twisted rational framework that cannot 'fairly' consider the rights of Linux users. It is amazing how SCO has been corrupted, it now repudiates everything it once stoof for.
In the big picture. Linux users would do well not to underestimate SCO, or the future SCO's of this world. In a larger sense, SCO represents the Microsoft model, which is to make cash from a proprietary system. This is also the system that suburbanites appreciate; they like the idea of having direct control over a piece of real estate (as Microsoft does and they do), and using that property to accumulate wealth is central to their way of life. They would probably see Linux as a disturbing force, a force not compatible with their way of life, a threat to ownership and therefore 'Un-American'. These people were powerful enough to turn aside a judgement against Microsoft. If SCO is able to bring these people on board, Linux
Linux : SCO=Stegasaur : Velociraptor
SCO=Openserver and Unixware
Linux=Stegasaur
SCO=Velociraptor
Stegasaur=Dinasuar fossil + Herbivore
Velociraptor=Dinasaur fossil + Carnivore
Linux=Dinasaur fossil + Herbivore
SCO=Dinasaur fossil + Carnivore
'Linux' (Dinasaur Fossil)= 'SCO' (Dinasaur Fossil)
Carnivore > Herbivore or Carnivore eats Herbivore
The 'SCO' Carnivore eats the 'Linux' Herbivore
'SCO'(Dinasaur Fossil)='Linux'(Dinasaur Fossil)=Extinct
Both are doomed to be extinct. But SCO may eat Linux before that happens. Linux cannot eat SCO
Furthermore if you remove Carnivore and Herbivore from the logic, you get the following:
SCO=Unixware and Openserver=Dinasaur Fossil
Linux=Dinasaur Fossil
Linux=SCO=Dinasaur Fossil=Unixware and Openserver
Linux=Unixware and Openserver
CONCLUSION: You twit, this is exactly what Darl McBride has been saying all along!
Point 1: SCO is going to eat Linux
Point 2: Linux is equivalent to Openserver and Unixware
Do they serve free food, if they do, forget about what the above post.
"Free food always tastes better."
Peter Vevang
http://www.linuxworld.com.au/nindex.php?id=9928835 0&fp=2&fpid=1
A few of quotes from that article:
"...one of my biggest concerns with the open-source software strategy: the inability to move against a threat strategically or in well-coordinated fashion."
"The (Linux)community has also has become a home for techno-insanity."
"The community must make a commitment to operate strategically to benefit the decision-makers who support open-source software,...rather than use these decision-makers as cannon fodder in the war against SCO."
The Linux community leadership is almost as bad as Darl when it comes to spouting off, and as a result (Just like SCO), they are endangering the future prospects for Linux adoption and enflaming the legal environment, giving the anti-Linux lawyers more openings for attack. That isn't smart. SCO ran its mouth off one time too many, and is now being counter sued by IBM over its violations of the GPL. If they had been smart and kept quiet, they might have gotten a better deal, now they are locked into a dispute with IBM, whereas before they always had the option of dropping the suit. Unless the open source leadership has something to say that is constructive, they shouldn't say anything, it could be used against them in court. And besides, what company is going to be comforted by the idea that the ESR/BP duo is going to launch a legal attack. What a joke. Forget about the SCO tour, it deserves to be ignored. That would be its ultimate punishment, a mocking silence.
It would be a feature movie. The cast would go like this.
Bill Gates = the voice of Optimus Prime
Darl McBride = Christopher Walkin "I don't understand Wwhat! Is the problem...here."
SCO Lawyer - Boies = John Travolta (the fat version sitting with bridged hands in a leather chair)"Elegant, isn't it."
Linus = Victoria Silvestedt (shes such a great actor, I lover her work, but she won't talk the whole show but will be in every scene)
Linux developers = Jack Black and the Mountain Dew guys (comic relief)
ESR/Perens = Nick Nolte, Michael Ironsides (pissed off and dramatic) Nolte: "Well damnit, this is bullshit, how much longer do I have to take this crap." Ironsides: "They (the aliens) sucked his brains out! Theres your problem."
The Intrepid Reporter = Nicholas Cage (the narrator eye for the story with his bad southern accent in Conair mode)
IBM CEO = Ian Mckellen (Gandalf)"This foe is beyond any of you.""Ahh, there it is, the air isn't as foul this way, when in doubt, always follow your nose."
IBM Lawyer = Samuel L. Jackson "We need shotguns for this job"
The Judge = Puppet Yoda(not CGI) or Grover "Begun this SCO war has", "now matters are worse"
The Jury = Chasey Lain and a pole "Oh yes, yes yes, Oh god, YES."
Director= Ridley Scott
TITLE: Project Monterey
Interestingly, in that link, it shows BSD IP going into the SCO owned part of the tree (Xenix) back in 1981, one slender little line, but who knows what was moved into the SCO IP tree. You would think that would cause them to think a bit. They are 'contaminated' by their own admission.
Additionally, according to the diagram, BSD and Linux originate out of the same 'Open Server Heritage', which as many pwople may know was brought to court by AT&T, where they lost. As a logical proposition, the diagram shows that Linux and BSD originate from the same line, a line that is uncontaminated when it reaches Linux, and since that line has been effectrively rendered public domain in the BSD case, it is effectively severed as a link which SCO can use to bring an IP complaint.
According to the diagram, Linux is free of contamination until April 1983, when an unknown amount of the Xenix 3.0 crosses into the Linux line. This is a problem for Linux, a point of entry for the lawyers if it stands up, but I don't know the details there. The line is again free of contamination until Oct. 1984, when BSD contaminates the Linux line. From there the Linux tree splinters, but remains free of contamination. But in June and August 2000, Linux variants fork back into the the line which makes what is now SCO UnixWare7.1.3, that should give them pause. The IP theft complaint can in fact be reversed at this point, depending on the nature of the relationship.
I imagine this all makes a very interesting power point slide that can be talked about in a convincing way. Whether it is true or not is another issue. It also does not cover the contractual or ownership implications of each fork, which are significant issues, for example the line going from SCO to Sun or SCO to IBM would probably indicate a wholely owned and unlimited transfer, not a theft or random inclusion. The line going to BSD has been tested in court and has been cut. How many other lines have similar restrictions? There is no smoking gun here, although it is food for thought, and enough for a lawyer to chew on. It also shows a 'heritage gap' from Aug 1980 to Aug 1991, an 11 year gap, at which point they begin tracking all Linux as "SCO Linux Pedigree". I am not sure what they mean by 'Heritage', does it mean conceptually similar, or grounded in Unix related concepts or an actual transfer of legacy code?
I was always under the impression that Linus wrote the original Linux kernal in a clean room fashion, and am a bit confused why Linux is even on this tree as originating from UNIX, or how they can claim it is 'SCO pedigree'. It should start out as a separate, original line. Am I wrong?
OS programmer and a chip maker who are Chinese gentlement, and Kung Fu experts are attacked by M$ and Intel assasins intent on dishonoring the Chinese people and culture. I would pay $7 to see that. I might even buy the DVD.
I am sure the Chinese can do very well making computers and chips. However, 90% of their population is peasants, not chip engineers. The educated portion of the population is equivalent to the USA's population, who live in segregated cites. The peasants need a visa to even visit these cities. Thus it seems unlikely they will suddenly leap to the ultimate height of power, without mobilizing the masses. It seems hardly likely that China will be able to turn this around in 5 or 10 years, maybe 50 years. The real story is the US wanting to ensure perpetual dominance of the world so we can enjoy our unrivaled power and our place in the sun, USA #1, USA #1, USA #1.
China doesn't have 2 billion people. It is closer to one billion.
One chip to rule them all, one chipe to find them. One chip to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
Oh wait, if I did that I WOULD BOYCOTT THIS POST! Sun is just paying for more rights to UNIX to avoid the FUD surrounding IBM and Linux. They have a declining market position, they can't afford to get involved in this dispute. Besides, its only chicken feed as far as money goes.
SCO isn't dead yet. SCO is a shell for the Canopy group and don't really exist apart from them. If SCO goes down it will be because Canopy decides they need new cannon fodder, Canopy will buy some other worthless company, get some quasi useless IP, and start suing all over again.
Ultimately the problem comes down to quality and convenience versus cost. Half the albums you buy are crap and you only really want that one song. Really cool artists, who put out full package, nice albums, top to bottom, I buy. I just don't buy crap anymore. Ultimately I think the record industry is homogenized by Clear Channel and other such conglomerates. They aren't serving my needs. Swapping files would stop for me if they offered an affordable, convenient system that empowered my lifestyle. All they see are $$$ and so they try to rape my wallet. RIAA, NO MEANS NO!
Actually you are not a criminal by downloading, you are a criminal by uploading. I may be splitting hairs, but I think that is the way it works. That is why I suggest only uploading obscure hard to find files that people want and need and not dozens of top 40 albums. The top 40 stuff always sucks you band width, and who wants to share with those chumps anyway. Those are all the record companies care about too because they are the only songs they make cash on, that 2% of music that gets to the top of the charts. They lose cash on the rest. You are doing them a favor by saving them printing costs on all of the obscure, money losing music. If your worried about the artist losing cash, go see them live. We don't need any more Kid Rock floating around in swap land. Simply upload about 30 or 40 songs total of obscure music, that you find important, hard to find and valuable to the community. If they sue you and find you have 100 gigs on your computer just say you don't share them, you only download, and you will be telling the truth.
Another way to protect yourself is to combine music archives with friends. The problems with MP3's are keeping your songs organized and backed up. By pulling a spare drive and passing it around to friends you can have 10 backups on friendly machines and aggregate all of their collections into yours to make a super collection, which can be cleaned up and ORGANIZED, so you don't have 10 copies of the same song and throwing bad copies. By doing this you can have a 100 gig archive that will be so bloated with quality files you can play them for 6 months solid without a repeat, pick any song you want to hear or switch categories based on mood, WOW! We also ripped our entire CD collections and share them this way.
Also, since I just turned 30, I am too old to be in the scene any more, I can just get music from other people with better knowledge of whats happening and get the best stuff for the least work.
This in itself is a shaky comeback for MIT, and Boston College considering if some law was broken cross state lines, and mind you the DA's will look at the fact downloads occurred all over the world. Law is law anywhere in the US, I don't know when it stopped being so.
If you get sued in California, but live in Boston, the problem of answering the lawsuit for any ordinary person or small organization can in and of itself cause a financial collapse. That is why you have to file in the district where the act was committed, the point of origin. It is true that Federal law is the same everywhere, but I would much rather face a judge in Boston than in Virginia. Virginia is where all the 'hang em all' federal judges sit.
If you go in the mainstream news outlets, the news is that Linux is under assault, that it could be declared illegal, like Napster and file swapping. They print everything Darl&SCO say, without rebuttal because it is very convenient to print and sounds good. Average folks in this day in age, when they hear people from SCO mimic the RIAA, they assume Linux is a pirated OS and if they use it they WILL BE SUED, they don't know the story, they believe the propoganda. IBM is hardly a lovable company, and people tend to root for the underdog, which to an outsider looks like SCO. By saying in 'non-legal' language the level of outrageous behavior by SCO, average people begin to understand what is going on. What ESR is doind is a wakeup call to them, in a language they understand.
If you approach this situation with purely stultifying logic, the average Joe will think you are guilty because he doesn't understand you. The minutia of evidence in a broad political sense is IRRELEVANT. The evidence was overwhelming that Microsoft abused their position, but they had the political support to get away with it because they have convinced the average Joe who voted for Bush. That is what is going on here, they are trying to win a political battle. If they win this battle, right or wrong, lawsuit or no lawsuit, they will prevail. This is big time, Linux people everywhere need to step it up. It needs to be clear in the media that SCO is the bad guy. Right now, no matter how you feel about SCO, they have a better position in the media. And I remind you, this is the same media that has Jerry Springer, and Fox News. That is the kind of audience that needs to be educated, not programmers or hackers. The message that needs to be put forward is that SCO are a bunch of carpet baggers, who use lawyers to steal the IP of others. That message is NOT getting out!
There is no universal law that says good will always triumph over evil. We cannot afford to be complacent about this. We need to be active, relentless and intelligent in our decision or we may LOSE. It needs to be clear they are putting a multi $billion industry and a $5 billion OS investment in danger for a company that netted under $15 million and makes a living by suing other companies.
The Canopy Co.(owner of SCO) sounds similar to the Umbrella Co. (Resident Evil).
I doubt any judge would declare the GPL invalid even if there was an explicit inclusion of BSD code because this is a project put forward by multiple groups, and to do so would penalize them all, when harm to BSD copyright holders is non-existent. I would add that SCO cannot sue anyone over BSD code, they aren't a party to any of those damages. You also have to be reasonable, this is common sense at a certain point.
I'm an architect and have worked a bit with different light technologies. The LED works OK right now, but has a very narrow spectrum, even more narrow than flourescent. That is why it is so energy efficient, but also why it makes everyone look so terrible when they are under it. People look blue or extremely pale, basically zombified. For some applications like a utility closet this is fine. IF you need to see color forget it, use incandescent. Also, another advantage for LED is vibration for places like in factories where vibration fries light bulbs. It is also safe and will not explode in shards of glass, so is good for use in dangerous environments. The best application for LED is for lighting small ornamental things or for lighting effects. So far I haven't seen any floods or spots of decent size to be used for anything major.
SCO doesn't have any debt, if the suit drives them bankrupt the first person in line to receive cash or assets would be IBM.
...kick him in the nuts!
The value of Linux to large companies is that it is a viable system that is FREE to use, and cheap to modify. Companies like IBM and Redhat can tweak it to get whatever they want out of it for low cost. I have heard that to develop a full modern OS from scratch would cost $5-10 billion. That cost has been shared among dozens of companies, that in the past bore it alone, only to see products go obsolete. By sharing the cost burden, and eliminating re-duplication efforts, we now have a quality OS with fantastic support from organizations and governments around the world. In addition we have and extremely skilled and rabidly loyal fan base that rivals and even surpasses the extreme behavior of Mac fans. Linux fans are loyal because they are a part of what they use, it is more of a community than a product. The catch is companies don't own the proprietary rights to the OS, they share them with everyone else, including their fans, friends, supporters, rivals and enemies. It is like the air, everyone can breath it without being charged.
The value to IBM is in the service and the hardware, they can make money there. The OS software has been a losing battle for them in the past. The value to customers is in the quality of the product, the service, and the strategic upgrade path, timed to suit their needs, and they have multiple sources to bid their work out to, giving them fair cost comparisons or to develop special custom application. Programmers like it because it is constantly being customized and they then have a job. You actually have a non-monolpoly, functioning market with Linux, that shares the wealth, and a market that can NEVER be monopolized. The playing field is always level becuase the way the system works is completely exposed and free.
This is also a strategic move against M$. In addition to a 90% markup, they place their product at the front end of the customer relationship, forcing all others into a commodity, diposable and easily replaced position. In that universe IBM, and others, have an extremely limited profit potential, and would probably be terminated as a going concern at some point. And looking even further down the road, this makes piracy irrelevant, since Linux can't be pirated in a traditional way since it is legal to copy for free.
This is not about idealism, this is about rival business models and survival moving into the broadband era. The Linux model replaces difficult to maintain and protect IP and software sales with service and hardware sales, things which are much easier to protect and market. It places nuts and bolts above the virtual values of IP. It has superior affordability because IP burdens are shared, and a vast economy of scale is acheived. It is a powerful competitive advantage.
This is not communism. If it was companies would avoid it like the plague and Linus would be another minor academic, who wrote an obsolete OS that never went anywhere. This is about freedom, and being in control of your own destiny.
I don't like to re-post my ideas, but I think this applies. IBM has taken out major adds on just about every internet news source running this story, paying them $$$. These starved companies will probably try not to bite the hand that feeds them. The next time you see a SCO story, either pro or con, I bet you see an IBM add, except on the M$ whore sites. This is the slick way for IBM to get what they want. These stupid journailists often don't know anything about these topics as they seem to print verbatim the SCO line without checking the other side. But if their biggest advertiser is IBM, they will think twice and print both sides, and check carefully, so as to not say stupid things to cause IBM to yank adds. A week ago almost all stories ran with the unchecked SCO 'facts' as the lead, with the death of Linux as the conclusion. Now the SCO scam leads, with the bogus evidence. Even a cursory glance of the IBM position reveals that it is the obvious winner. And since IBM is paying them $$$ they had better tell their side. So now the headline reads "SCO CLAIMS INFLATED/BOGUS/INCOPETANT", instead of "DAVID VS. GOLIATH - IBM steals IP".
Did you notice that most of the advertising on the so called news sites seems to be IBM. All of the sudden IBM is everywhere, reminding the internet news outlets who pays the checks. I think the news slant may shift a wee bit because of this.
Ridiculous claims like he invented the question mark. If he is married to a web footed prostitute named Cloe, and likes to make meat helmets in the summer, I think I know Darl's true identity. THE FATHER OF DR. EVIL!