He wasn't talking about writing code for a game, if I read the article right, he wanted to design 'levels' for the game. This is a big difference. It is much more like being a choreographer/graphic artist/set designer/cad operator than a traditional programmer. I am an architect and looked into using Unreal Tournament as a modeling environment to do my masters thesis project in but decided the jurors might decide to 'lock and load' instead of look at my work. It also might be awkward if I ended up shooting my thesis advisor with a rocket launcher. Although, in retrospect, it would have been more fun than showing drawings.
Another fun use of these editing programs could be making sets for movies, like the guys who wrote that Halo movie, shot with an Xbox...pretty funny. The point is, there are a lot of creative things you can do with the level editors they send out with some of these games if you want to get into that end of the business.
Why do so many Slashdot posters have trouble with basic syllables?
Yah, my bad, I don't write none too good and me do not know how to write good like you is, but I write tricorder good and spleld it correrectly. Go to the source if you dernt believed me. I've seen all the old Startrek, and all of the Next Generation and most of Deep Space Nine and a little of Voyager and a tiny amount of Enterprise.
I remember a general saying something about this. He said that if you shoot a computer, it is a broken piece of junk, if you shoot a map it is still a map.
The applications for this are endless. It means a screen can be built into just about anything and 3-D surfaces can theoretically become interactive screens. My favorite is the stealth suit, which gives a soldier a chameleons changing ability, like the alien in Predator. It could also be built into things like PDA's with big roll out screens that when combined with a keyboard give them the functionality of a laptop, which would be my second favorite use.
IBM had better beware that they don't go too far. The patent looks like a method of serfdom to me. Imagine the reaction if they use this to screw other developers though! They could get blacklisted, and get cut off from other development groups, which would be a disaster for them. All Linus has to say is go make your own kernal IBM and they are screwed.
You can't protect a data scheme like this. If someone were to alphabetize a product and make it searchable, anyone else with a similar scheme could sue. What isn't talked about either is that people can make lists of items, which form a standard. They can copyright it and hold it forever just about. Imagine what that would do to software development!
Why wouldn't someone get a binary copy of the Unix V code that was supposedly lifted from SCO if they signed up for a license or at least a detailed description of the property they were buying? Otherwise they are requiring a license, but not providing a product they are licensing.
For example: Eolas goes to end users demanding a license fee for a specific product found in a Internet Explorer version distributed by Microsoft under an existing license. Eolas doesn't have the right to change the existing EULA between Microsoft and the end user, they can only tell the end user to stop using the product. But if Eolas were to send out a CD or piece of paper describing the patent they owned and a piece of paper saying they could use that patent under blah blah terms, then the end user would not need to be re-negotiating the Internet Explorer agreement, he would be buying the rights to use a patent directly from Eolas.
Now enter SCO, they would have to say EXACTLY what rights they were selling. For example, they would have to say "we are selling you the rights to use this portion of Unix V which performs 'blank' function, this is our patent/copyright we are letting you use". They can't sell you the 'right not to be sued'. They can't sell you the right to use SMP or any other IBM developed code because they don't have a copyright or patent to it.
We need to change the question. It should be changed from 'why should we buy your license?' to 'what are you selling and is the procuct you are selling going to give us the right to use the Linux code you dispute?'. I would wager that a careful examination of the license would indicate that they are not selling a product which would solve any legal issues for anyone, that it is merely an assurance that SCO will not sue them over unspecified violations. Conveniently, the license is not available on the SCO web site that I could find. I cannot read the text of the license.
Zip...that one went right by you didn't it. I hate to explain this, but I feel my joke was a bit obtuse. The parent post was all in bold, ergo it was a bold statement. The reference to italic was to reinforce this pun.
Opera? State level? What isn't right here? State legislators don't go to the opera perhaps? How do you call only wives? This sounds like BS/lies, IMHO.
SCO Prayer:
Now I lay me down to sleep,
I pray the Lord my soul to keep free of copyright violations,
If I should die before I wake, I pray the Lord my SCO to take.
Also God, before I finish this prayer, please sign this non-disclosure agreement before I tell you any secrets, even though you already know everything I am going to say.
Also God, please know that we own the path to salvation and will charge a licence fee for anyone using that path. And by the way opening salvation up to all people free of charge is against morality because it is against the Bible. Amen.
This move also has one SIGNIFICANT advantage. Anyone can still modify the code after it comes from Redhat and still be under warranty for the specific product supplied by Redhat (although I imagine the new code wouldn't be under warranty). They can be assured that the base they are working on is rock solid. To me that is more useful than having to check with your distributor every time you wanted to change something. It also doesn't lock a person in to an expensive service agreement. It is a more flexible solution than indemnification and preserves open source values better. In short, for people who just want to buy a reliable Linux distribution without being bothered by unnecessary services, this is an easy way to get a reliable product. This is a better solution than indemnification for most small/midsize users and an equivalent value for large businesses.
This warranty also says something about the quality of RedHats work. They are willing to stand up for the code they put out. Indemnification only means they will have lawyers back you up and you won't pay any penalties in court, not necessarily that the code is free of IP defects which could be more damaging if chunks of code need to be re-written while you are trying to run a business. A warranty also puts some implied liability with RedHat, as they are to blame if any dirty code is distributed, thus indirectly shielding end users in a way that is similar to indemnification. This is a much more elegant solution than indemnification.
Nazi, fascists, Gestapo? No! I agree they go to far, especially locking people up without a trial, but that doesn't excuse people from stealing code from Valve. You may hate the FBI and Secret Service, but who are we going to rely on to protect ourselves?? Valve was royally fucked by a bunch of vandals who went in and thouroughly ransacked their operation. What are they supposed to do? OK I will get my Mk-23 SD and a couple of clips, wait in the shadows accross the street from the fool who hacks my shit and put a bullet in his brain? Is that the solution? Perhaps we should let corporations/RIAA enforce the law?
Like it or not we need law enforcement. They often abuse their power, but they are necessary. I am probably trashing my Karma over defending the FBI but the truth is people on/. like to talk trash about the FBI but if they were the victim of a crime like identity theft or a family member was kidnapped they would run straight to the FBI and the FBI would probably help them. I don't excuse violations of peoples rights but we need to be reasonable about this.
What mistreatment? They didn't kick his ass or harass him at work in front of his boss to get him fired. All they did was toss his flat on a tip. He is innocent until proven guilty, but how are you supposed to investigate if you don't have 'suspects'. You have to be able to create some kind of link to a suspect or it would be impossible to try anyone for any crime. Innocent does not mean you have a right to be free from reasonable suspicion. It means you cannot be put in jail until you are convicted of a crime by a judge and jury of your peers.
Ex: A man has a smoking gun in his hand next to a dead body full of bullet holes, that must mean he is without suspicion by your logic!
don't shed a tear when you are put in the same position
All I have to say to that is "Top of the world ma, top of the world!"
So are you saying it's ok to steal a little or that it's ok to steal as long as it isn't something you care about?
Good point, the way I would answer though is that its the size of the crime that matters. Jaywalking, speeding and eating a grape at the supermarket, installing photoshop and downloading an MP3 are all small crimes, so small in fact that they amount to nothing except when taken to excess. Destroying someones livelihood is a big crime. Destroying the livlihoods of dozens of people and destroying vast amounts of property is a huge crime and must be punished severely.
They got a warrant and took his computers legally. I agree that computers get taken for too long, but the fact remains they had a warrant. They had every RIGHT to take those computers because a judge said they could. How else are they supposed to collect evidence? Beat down your door and haul you away to be interrogated with rubber truncheons, jumper cables and ice water? They ignored nothing, this is what the police have ALWAYS done. The person being searched was treated fairly if his article is accurate. A word to you people who want to keep things private. Tell your wife, a clergyman or your lawyer, anything else can be used against you. If they have probable cause they can and will search anywhere and everywhere, you do not have a right to stop them from searching unless that search is without merit. That is just the way it is and has always been. You can't put something in a box and say, "That box is private, you can't go there." That isn't the way the law works, that is the first place the police will look.
You are denying the fact the guy is innocent until proven otherwise.
I am not saying anything about his guilt. I don't know who the FBI is after, perhaps him, perhaps a friend, perhaps his machines had been compromised and were zombies being used by the Russian mob, who knows. But if the police do not have the right to investigate, no criminal will be found EVER. They got a warrant from a judge because they had a reasonable expectation that this guy had some stolen material. That was a reasonable expectation given observations they had made. And given that he did not cooperate with the police in tracking down what was a blant theft, also given that he probably knows more than he is telling, I am more than a little suspicious of what he is saying. This isn't some innocent kid downloading MP3's, he knows what he is doing and what is going on if his pals are into the hacking scene. I'm not saying he is guilty, but his conduct indicates he is not being fully honest and he is associated with people who may have knowledge of a crime. Hence, they tossed his flat and took his computers.
Slashdot Mirror
He wasn't talking about writing code for a game, if I read the article right, he wanted to design 'levels' for the game. This is a big difference. It is much more like being a choreographer/graphic artist/set designer/cad operator than a traditional programmer. I am an architect and looked into using Unreal Tournament as a modeling environment to do my masters thesis project in but decided the jurors might decide to 'lock and load' instead of look at my work. It also might be awkward if I ended up shooting my thesis advisor with a rocket launcher. Although, in retrospect, it would have been more fun than showing drawings.
Another fun use of these editing programs could be making sets for movies, like the guys who wrote that Halo movie, shot with an Xbox...pretty funny. The point is, there are a lot of creative things you can do with the level editors they send out with some of these games if you want to get into that end of the business.
Tri-corders As in recorder - but Tri.
Why do so many Slashdot posters have trouble with basic syllables?
Yah, my bad, I don't write none too good and me do not know how to write good like you is, but I write tricorder good and spleld it correrectly. Go to the source if you dernt believed me. I've seen all the old Startrek, and all of the Next Generation and most of Deep Space Nine and a little of Voyager and a tiny amount of Enterprise.
it conjures up more of an image of Bill Gates with his hand up Darl's... er...
Hey! lets keep it clean. And besides, its none of our business what Darl and Bill Gates do behind closed doors.
I remember a general saying something about this. He said that if you shoot a computer, it is a broken piece of junk, if you shoot a map it is still a map.
The applications for this are endless. It means a screen can be built into just about anything and 3-D surfaces can theoretically become interactive screens. My favorite is the stealth suit, which gives a soldier a chameleons changing ability, like the alien in Predator. It could also be built into things like PDA's with big roll out screens that when combined with a keyboard give them the functionality of a laptop, which would be my second favorite use.
You know, these would make great Star Trek 'tri-quarters'. Unfortunately we would have to pay the Roddenberry estate $billions for the rights.
Your right, technically they are contract workers. I wonder if they have to send out IRS forms, that would confirm their status.
IBM had better beware that they don't go too far. The patent looks like a method of serfdom to me. Imagine the reaction if they use this to screw other developers though! They could get blacklisted, and get cut off from other development groups, which would be a disaster for them. All Linus has to say is go make your own kernal IBM and they are screwed.
You can't protect a data scheme like this. If someone were to alphabetize a product and make it searchable, anyone else with a similar scheme could sue. What isn't talked about either is that people can make lists of items, which form a standard. They can copyright it and hold it forever just about. Imagine what that would do to software development!
You feel that? Its called oppression.
Why wouldn't someone get a binary copy of the Unix V code that was supposedly lifted from SCO if they signed up for a license or at least a detailed description of the property they were buying? Otherwise they are requiring a license, but not providing a product they are licensing.
For example: Eolas goes to end users demanding a license fee for a specific product found in a Internet Explorer version distributed by Microsoft under an existing license. Eolas doesn't have the right to change the existing EULA between Microsoft and the end user, they can only tell the end user to stop using the product. But if Eolas were to send out a CD or piece of paper describing the patent they owned and a piece of paper saying they could use that patent under blah blah terms, then the end user would not need to be re-negotiating the Internet Explorer agreement, he would be buying the rights to use a patent directly from Eolas.
Now enter SCO, they would have to say EXACTLY what rights they were selling. For example, they would have to say "we are selling you the rights to use this portion of Unix V which performs 'blank' function, this is our patent/copyright we are letting you use". They can't sell you the 'right not to be sued'. They can't sell you the right to use SMP or any other IBM developed code because they don't have a copyright or patent to it.
We need to change the question. It should be changed from 'why should we buy your license?' to 'what are you selling and is the procuct you are selling going to give us the right to use the Linux code you dispute?'. I would wager that a careful examination of the license would indicate that they are not selling a product which would solve any legal issues for anyone, that it is merely an assurance that SCO will not sue them over unspecified violations. Conveniently, the license is not available on the SCO web site that I could find. I cannot read the text of the license.
SCO source license page
RICO = Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Thats what it is. It would be tough to get anything out of SCO though. Can't squeeze blood from a stone.
If I leave the door to my house unlocked it isn't an invitation for people to come in.
According to the article, it was the incoming Republican chairman of the judiciary who messed this up, so they were in charge of the lock the broke.
Zip...that one went right by you didn't it. I hate to explain this, but I feel my joke was a bit obtuse. The parent post was all in bold, ergo it was a bold statement. The reference to italic was to reinforce this pun.
Opera? State level? What isn't right here? State legislators don't go to the opera perhaps? How do you call only wives? This sounds like BS/lies, IMHO.
SCO Prayer:
Now I lay me down to sleep,
I pray the Lord my soul to keep free of copyright violations,
If I should die before I wake, I pray the Lord my SCO to take.
Also God, before I finish this prayer, please sign this non-disclosure agreement before I tell you any secrets, even though you already know everything I am going to say.
Also God, please know that we own the path to salvation and will charge a licence fee for anyone using that path.
And by the way opening salvation up to all people free of charge is against morality because it is against the Bible. Amen.
Senator Orinn Hatch's son was representing SCO in court back at their last hearing. Hmmm......
Sloppy, damn sloppy - Jean Luc Picard
A bold statement...but lets see how well you do in italic.
I can see the news analysis after a debate. "There is an 87% chance that they were lying 99% of the time."
This move also has one SIGNIFICANT advantage. Anyone can still modify the code after it comes from Redhat and still be under warranty for the specific product supplied by Redhat (although I imagine the new code wouldn't be under warranty). They can be assured that the base they are working on is rock solid. To me that is more useful than having to check with your distributor every time you wanted to change something. It also doesn't lock a person in to an expensive service agreement. It is a more flexible solution than indemnification and preserves open source values better. In short, for people who just want to buy a reliable Linux distribution without being bothered by unnecessary services, this is an easy way to get a reliable product. This is a better solution than indemnification for most small/midsize users and an equivalent value for large businesses.
This warranty also says something about the quality of RedHats work. They are willing to stand up for the code they put out. Indemnification only means they will have lawyers back you up and you won't pay any penalties in court, not necessarily that the code is free of IP defects which could be more damaging if chunks of code need to be re-written while you are trying to run a business. A warranty also puts some implied liability with RedHat, as they are to blame if any dirty code is distributed, thus indirectly shielding end users in a way that is similar to indemnification. This is a much more elegant solution than indemnification.
Nazi, fascists, Gestapo? No! I agree they go to far, especially locking people up without a trial, but that doesn't excuse people from stealing code from Valve. You may hate the FBI and Secret Service, but who are we going to rely on to protect ourselves?? Valve was royally fucked by a bunch of vandals who went in and thouroughly ransacked their operation. What are they supposed to do? OK I will get my Mk-23 SD and a couple of clips, wait in the shadows accross the street from the fool who hacks my shit and put a bullet in his brain? Is that the solution? Perhaps we should let corporations/RIAA enforce the law?
/. like to talk trash about the FBI but if they were the victim of a crime like identity theft or a family member was kidnapped they would run straight to the FBI and the FBI would probably help them. I don't excuse violations of peoples rights but we need to be reasonable about this.
Like it or not we need law enforcement. They often abuse their power, but they are necessary. I am probably trashing my Karma over defending the FBI but the truth is people on
Dude...cmon...hot Vulcans in shower scenes, definitely assets for the series. The real problem is the theme song.
What mistreatment? They didn't kick his ass or harass him at work in front of his boss to get him fired. All they did was toss his flat on a tip. He is innocent until proven guilty, but how are you supposed to investigate if you don't have 'suspects'. You have to be able to create some kind of link to a suspect or it would be impossible to try anyone for any crime. Innocent does not mean you have a right to be free from reasonable suspicion. It means you cannot be put in jail until you are convicted of a crime by a judge and jury of your peers.
Ex: A man has a smoking gun in his hand next to a dead body full of bullet holes, that must mean he is without suspicion by your logic!
don't shed a tear when you are put in the same position
All I have to say to that is "Top of the world ma, top of the world!"
So are you saying it's ok to steal a little or that it's ok to steal as long as it isn't something you care about?
Good point, the way I would answer though is that its the size of the crime that matters. Jaywalking, speeding and eating a grape at the supermarket, installing photoshop and downloading an MP3 are all small crimes, so small in fact that they amount to nothing except when taken to excess. Destroying someones livelihood is a big crime. Destroying the livlihoods of dozens of people and destroying vast amounts of property is a huge crime and must be punished severely.
They got a warrant and took his computers legally. I agree that computers get taken for too long, but the fact remains they had a warrant. They had every RIGHT to take those computers because a judge said they could. How else are they supposed to collect evidence? Beat down your door and haul you away to be interrogated with rubber truncheons, jumper cables and ice water? They ignored nothing, this is what the police have ALWAYS done. The person being searched was treated fairly if his article is accurate. A word to you people who want to keep things private. Tell your wife, a clergyman or your lawyer, anything else can be used against you. If they have probable cause they can and will search anywhere and everywhere, you do not have a right to stop them from searching unless that search is without merit. That is just the way it is and has always been. You can't put something in a box and say, "That box is private, you can't go there." That isn't the way the law works, that is the first place the police will look.
You are denying the fact the guy is innocent until proven otherwise.
I am not saying anything about his guilt. I don't know who the FBI is after, perhaps him, perhaps a friend, perhaps his machines had been compromised and were zombies being used by the Russian mob, who knows. But if the police do not have the right to investigate, no criminal will be found EVER. They got a warrant from a judge because they had a reasonable expectation that this guy had some stolen material. That was a reasonable expectation given observations they had made. And given that he did not cooperate with the police in tracking down what was a blant theft, also given that he probably knows more than he is telling, I am more than a little suspicious of what he is saying. This isn't some innocent kid downloading MP3's, he knows what he is doing and what is going on if his pals are into the hacking scene. I'm not saying he is guilty, but his conduct indicates he is not being fully honest and he is associated with people who may have knowledge of a crime. Hence, they tossed his flat and took his computers.