Ummmm... I hate to break it to you, but LinuxInsider is not what I'd call, ah, an *impartial* source. I think they work for Billy-boy, too. Really, read the [deleted] articles they publish. Did you see how LinuxInsider treated Ken Brown of AdTI? They "broke" the story that Linus "didn't invent Linux." LinuxInsider seems to have pulled that piece of [deleted], but see this one for an example of their "Fair and Balanced(tm)" reporting style.
The Flatlander
Free Advice: Ignore LinuxInsider as a news source.
He definitely, ah, favors Microsoft.:-) Very unusual for a security guy.
Microsoft is a security consultant's wet-dream come true. It's like, lifetime employment. Fix/indentify one exploit, and *pop* there's another. No fear of working yourself out of a job.
The executives at McDonalds knew this was happening and didn't change their policies on the serving of coffee.
Quite right. Moreover, it was the jury, which became angered over McDonald's callous disregard for their customers, (this was far from the first such case), that ordered the enormous reward. The Plantiff had only asked to have her legitimate medical expenses covered.
Sorry to rant but, I hate how the facts of this case get left behind in the rush to engage in hyperbole over it.
We might not like the DRM, but in two years time when most folk get their music that way, it's going to be a big obsticle for Linux adoption if folk can't buy tunes.
Frankly, I'd rather do without than to have anything to do with DRM, and, if enough of us react that way, DRM will die the quick, quiet death it so richly deserves.
In fact, DRM may be the death of Windows' dominance as more and more people decide to head for free software, (free, as in speech).
IBM could easily turn on everybody as soon as that nasty Microsoft is finished off. Watch out.
Well, naturally, you might be right. But. If that were IBM's goal then you'd expect them to simply purchase the SCOundrels outright. (It would be much less expensive than carrying this lawsuit to completion. SCOX's market cap is less than 120 Million USD.) IBM's actions to date would tend to lead one to believe that they are "sending a message" to all the would-be-SCOundrels out there. Namely: We do not negotiate with theives; we will crush you and use the burnt out remains of your business as a lawn ornament in Armonk.
Because part of going bankrupt is to divest all assets, including Intellectual Property. Someone (like Microsoft) would probably leverage their power to buy all Intellectual Property interests left by the demise of SCO and continue these lawsuits on their own.
And that is what IBM's counter suit is for. There will be no remaining "Intellectual", (or any other, for that matter), property left when IBM's patent infringment and Lanham Act violations damages are awarded. This disease dies with the SCOundrels!
The Flatlander
Hey Darl? Is that a subpoena in your pocket? Or are you just happy to sue us?
Will I (some random guy on the Internet) get to see it? [...] infringing code that they claim to be in the Linux kernel?
Yes. They will have to identify line numbers and files, so with just the least bit of work you will be able to see what they claim is theirs. Of course, that is predicated on the notion that the SCOundrels will make an attempt to comply. In truth, they told the Court a month ago that they couldn't really identify any infringing code in the Linux kernel, so what you may get to see will be *nothing*. But that, I presume, will be almost as satisfying.
[Deep shame] I said I'd give you the last word, but you've asked a question I can not walk away from....
Sorry, but are you somehow saying that South-Asian coders are worth less than you? Look, if they work hard and produce equal quality work, good for them.
No. My point was, like yours, "good for them." They are worth whatever they are willing to work for and someone is willing to pay them. This is how a free-market economy works. I am not sure how you read that as I thought them to be worth less than me. They are a better deal for people looking to purchase programming services.
The same logic that protects coder bits protects musician bytes, and vice-versa.
Musicans existed before digital, or even analog, encoding of their work. They have been paid, one way or another, through all of recorded history. I would expect that to continue. I do not, have not, never will suggest that anyone should steal someone else's property. But there are limits to the rights I am willing to give up to ensure that no one steals anything of yours, or even of mine. And I never suggested disregard for others' rights in the rude terms you have chosen.
No, I have never worked as a roadie, but I have carried more electric hospital beds up and down narrow stair cases than most folks you'll meet.
FSF is not about free everything. Your repeating that they are, in ever more strident terms does little to further your point. I must confess, that I remain completely ignorant of what, exactly, your point in this ranting is.
The Flatlander
I will really be done now, you may attack as you please.
No. You are wrong. And you are not engaging in logical argument.
Look, it's like this: If you wish to be paid to write code, but to keep all the value you create for yourself, then *you* must be the company, too. It isn't a big deal, lots of people start their own businesses. If you want finacial control, go for it.
The Artists aren't the ones who earn money off of CD sales. The Artists make their money at the concerts. See, for example, The Hell Freezes Over Tour. (It wasn't because The Eagles CDs didn't sell anymore.) File downloading hurts the record companies. Tough luck, you can't legislate around evolution.
Our programming jobs have moved to South-Central Asia, where the work is done as well, or better, and cheaper than it can be done here. Well, this means I need a new job, not another stinking law. It wasn't free software that did that to me either, it was just good ol' capitalism. (The everything costs money, nothing is free movement.)
The Flatlander
You may have the last word, if you wish, I'll be done here. Be well.
Still, with respect, no not free everything. And anyway, it is free as in liberty, not free as in beer.
Do I fault EFF over file-sharing? Nope. Unenforcable laws are an abomination. To put a file on a server violates no laws, at least not until the DCMA came along. To donwload it might violate laws. Tell me how to tell. Tell me how to prevent it.
I respect copyrights. I don't download music, or anything else that I suspect may be another's property But if ensuring compliance with the law requires taht the police observe every byte that travels down the wire, then I say to heck with compliance! I am not prepared to give up my privacy for your property rights.
If I want to write software and not give it away (and sell it), that should be my business.
Indeed. That is fine. No one has a problem with that. But don't write your code and then claim no one else can write code that does the same thing. Don't write your code and claim you own the method of doing whatever it is your code does.
Just so you know, however, the large numbers of programmers available to open source projects, and the many, many eyes taht can review open source projects will probably render your proprietary code worthless in short order. That's not a problem for you, is it?
You intentionally misinterpret the Professors argument. It ain't free as in beer. It's free as in speech. When the code is available, when the algorithm can be examined, fixed, improved upon, everyone benefits.
Red Hat, HP, and IBM seem to be doing okay with software that's "free." How do they do that? Because the *service* ain't free - it's only the code that you can get free.
What a patronizing way to refer to people (like me) who are trying to make a living selling their own work.
Respectfully, no, it is not patronizing. You are allowed to sell your work. Encouraged to sell your work. Respected for selling your work. But do not claim that an idea you have had is "property". The Freedom the good professor is talking about is the freedom to speak, think and have ideas; and to build on the ideas of others. If your idea becomes your property then I can not legally think that thought; that would be bad. If you are a programmer, like it or not, you are in the service business, and your service should not be free, or at least Professor Moglen has neither said, nor I suspect believes, that it should be.
It is patronizing if you are one of the guys who wants to put a paste-it label with a price tag on every idea on earth, but I doubt he means you.
"Of course, he's made millions selling SCO stock since this fiasco began, he'll never need to work again."
As luck would have it, Darlin' Darl the Dark, does not have any vested stock options to sell at this time. He draws a realtively small, (about 160K), salary and his stock options are held up pending a string of profitable quarters. Regrettably, IBM appears to have interceded in that endevour and the SCOundrels will not see another quarter. (read that either way: profit, or wrt time.)
On Groklaw, were it not now/.'ed you could read the article for yourself and follow the links. No *trust* required.
Sure, the truth looks slanted against the SCOundrels, but that is hardly Groklaw's fault; Darl's the one who chose to tie *himself* the the railroad tracks of history.
I, too, wish to be a party to SCO Group's lawsuit. Regrettably, I believe that I lack the cheif qualification... I am not rich. They are not interested in suing poor folks. They aren't really intertested in protecting their (putative) IP rights; they just want a fast buck without working for it.
As for SCO employees who want to keep their jobs... I am sorry folks, I've been where you are about to be... (I spent 18 months unemployed). Start looking NOW, because when all your co-workers are looking too, it just makes it harder.
Slashdot Mirror
The Flatlander
Free Advice: Ignore LinuxInsider as a news source.
The Flatlander
I believe and hope that, as you suggest, their case is doomed.
The Flatlander
The Flatlander
Sorry to rant but, I hate how the facts of this case get left behind in the rush to engage in hyperbole over it.
The Flatlander
(Have you watched their stock making a run at zero over the course of the week?)
The Flatlander
In fact, DRM may be the death of Windows' dominance as more and more people decide to head for free software, (free, as in speech).
The Flatlander
The Flatlander
The Flatlander
Hey Darl? Is that a subpoena in your pocket? Or are you just happy to sue us?
The Flatlander
The Flatlander
Someone had to say it, and, I do, really, drive a Civic.
The Flatlander
No, I have never worked as a roadie, but I have carried more electric hospital beds up and down narrow stair cases than most folks you'll meet.
FSF is not about free everything. Your repeating that they are, in ever more strident terms does little to further your point. I must confess, that I remain completely ignorant of what, exactly, your point in this ranting is.
The Flatlander
I will really be done now, you may attack as you please.
No. You are wrong. And you are not engaging in logical argument.
Look, it's like this: If you wish to be paid to write code, but to keep all the value you create for yourself, then *you* must be the company, too. It isn't a big deal, lots of people start their own businesses. If you want finacial control, go for it.
The Artists aren't the ones who earn money off of CD sales. The Artists make their money at the concerts. See, for example, The Hell Freezes Over Tour. (It wasn't because The Eagles CDs didn't sell anymore.) File downloading hurts the record companies. Tough luck, you can't legislate around evolution.
Our programming jobs have moved to South-Central Asia, where the work is done as well, or better, and cheaper than it can be done here. Well, this means I need a new job, not another stinking law. It wasn't free software that did that to me either, it was just good ol' capitalism. (The everything costs money, nothing is free movement.)
The Flatlander
You may have the last word, if you wish, I'll be done here. Be well.
Still, with respect, no not free everything. And anyway, it is free as in liberty, not free as in beer.
Do I fault EFF over file-sharing? Nope. Unenforcable laws are an abomination. To put a file on a server violates no laws, at least not until the DCMA came along. To donwload it might violate laws. Tell me how to tell. Tell me how to prevent it.
I respect copyrights. I don't download music, or anything else that I suspect may be another's property But if ensuring compliance with the law requires taht the police observe every byte that travels down the wire, then I say to heck with compliance! I am not prepared to give up my privacy for your property rights.
The Flatlander
The Flatlander
Just so you know, however, the large numbers of programmers available to open source projects, and the many, many eyes taht can review open source projects will probably render your proprietary code worthless in short order. That's not a problem for you, is it?
You intentionally misinterpret the Professors argument. It ain't free as in beer. It's free as in speech. When the code is available, when the algorithm can be examined, fixed, improved upon, everyone benefits.
Red Hat, HP, and IBM seem to be doing okay with software that's "free." How do they do that? Because the *service* ain't free - it's only the code that you can get free.
The Flatlander
It is patronizing if you are one of the guys who wants to put a paste-it label with a price tag on every idea on earth, but I doubt he means you.
The Flatlander
One reason to choose Linux over SCO-Unix:
In a year, there will likely still be Linux vendors.
The SCO Group? In a year? Are you kidding? With IBM gunning for them? They are history; just a stain on IBM's rug.
"Of course, he's made millions selling SCO stock since this fiasco began, he'll never need to work again."
As luck would have it, Darlin' Darl the Dark, does not have any vested stock options to sell at this time. He draws a realtively small, (about 160K), salary and his stock options are held up pending a string of profitable quarters. Regrettably, IBM appears to have interceded in that endevour and the SCOundrels will not see another quarter. (read that either way: profit, or wrt time.)
The Flatlander
On Groklaw, were it not now /.'ed you could read the article for yourself and follow the links. No *trust* required.
Sure, the truth looks slanted against the SCOundrels, but that is hardly Groklaw's fault; Darl's the one who chose to tie *himself* the the railroad tracks of history.
The Flatlander
Ah, "Sue Goodwill", they used her name because, as some jokester on Groklaw pointed out, "SCO Sucks" didn't work for Novell, at that time.....
TFL
February? Hah. They're gone by mid-January. 2004-01-12, no?
TFL
I've never seen a penguin eat a SCOnk before....
I, too, wish to be a party to SCO Group's lawsuit. Regrettably, I believe that I lack the cheif qualification... I am not rich. They are not interested in suing poor folks. They aren't really intertested in protecting their (putative) IP rights; they just want a fast buck without working for it.
As for SCO employees who want to keep their jobs... I am sorry folks, I've been where you are about to be... (I spent 18 months unemployed). Start looking NOW, because when all your co-workers are looking too, it just makes it harder.
TFL
You are mistaken, SCO Group showed a loss. They just called it a profit. They earned less than they paid their stinking lawyer.
TFL