contact SCO to inquire about SCO's Intellectual Property License for Linux
Contact, yes. Probably to laugh at them over the phone, like so many/.ers did...
I have not read the DMCA, but it would seem that if the file actually is PacMan, it would violate regular copyright law, not so much the DMCA. Hosting a file that allegedly infringes on a copyright is not the same as circumventing a copy-protection mechanism.
Does anyone else sense that companies are using the acronym DMCA as a buzzword and for intimidation purposes, instead of using the proper term?
Besides, I think PacMan should have been in the public domain long since. I can't imagine that these companies are going to make more money off of people buying old versions of PacMan. Anyone with any decent experience could program his own. I even had a version on my calculator at one point.
I had massive problems with ATTBI. I counted over a dozen major outages (over 2 hours) over the 8 months that my roommates and I subscribed. Most of the time, I knew about the outage LONG before the tech unsupport had heard of it. But yes, the pattern was:
-power cycle modem
-power cycle computer
-unplug everything (network cables, power, you name it)
-plug everything in and turn it all on.
-make an appointment to spend $45 to fix a problem they had caused.
They might as well have put an automated, voice-recognized system in, for all the help it gave us.
"Move away from the GPL" implies to me that SCO has some sort of large weapon with which it intends to vaporize the GPL. And it's telling IBM that 'for it's own good' it should stand away.
The only problem (for SCO) is when IBM stands between SCO and the GPL. SCO fires, and the bullet bounces right back at it.
Why hasn't someone else already done this? True, IBM has the System V code, but we all have 2.4.19 and 2.4.18 kernels (and every other conceivable version). It would only be a matter of time before the 'incriminating' code would be either found in the kernel or found to be vaporware.
a court is obviously going to find that there isn't a way SCO could have known right away
Even if they hadn't known right away, it would be hard to use that argument now, since they still are distributing it free via their ftp site. They've had far more than sufficient opportunity to remove the GPL'd code. Since the suit against IBM was filed, it's been available for how many months now?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that joe sixpack and his friends will STILL run the attachment!
Even if SCO say that they don't distribute, they still are distributing it via their FTP.
The thing is that their shares are no longer skyrocketing in response to their claims. Temporarily creeping up, perhaps.
SCOX
contact SCO to inquire about SCO's Intellectual Property License for Linux Contact, yes. Probably to laugh at them over the phone, like so many /.ers did...
I have not read the DMCA, but it would seem that if the file actually is PacMan, it would violate regular copyright law, not so much the DMCA. Hosting a file that allegedly infringes on a copyright is not the same as circumventing a copy-protection mechanism.
Does anyone else sense that companies are using the acronym DMCA as a buzzword and for intimidation purposes, instead of using the proper term?
Besides, I think PacMan should have been in the public domain long since. I can't imagine that these companies are going to make more money off of people buying old versions of PacMan. Anyone with any decent experience could program his own. I even had a version on my calculator at one point.
I had massive problems with ATTBI. I counted over a dozen major outages (over 2 hours) over the 8 months that my roommates and I subscribed. Most of the time, I knew about the outage LONG before the tech unsupport had heard of it. But yes, the pattern was: -power cycle modem -power cycle computer -unplug everything (network cables, power, you name it) -plug everything in and turn it all on. -make an appointment to spend $45 to fix a problem they had caused. They might as well have put an automated, voice-recognized system in, for all the help it gave us.
"Move away from the GPL" implies to me that SCO has some sort of large weapon with which it intends to vaporize the GPL. And it's telling IBM that 'for it's own good' it should stand away. The only problem (for SCO) is when IBM stands between SCO and the GPL. SCO fires, and the bullet bounces right back at it.
Why hasn't someone else already done this? True, IBM has the System V code, but we all have 2.4.19 and 2.4.18 kernels (and every other conceivable version). It would only be a matter of time before the 'incriminating' code would be either found in the kernel or found to be vaporware.
Every time they hold a press confrence or pass out a new release their claims get more and more ridiculous.
However, the response in their stock price decreases each time. Investors are (finally) beginning to see SCO's statements for what they really are.
In Russian, ironically, it means, "Give, SCO, give!"
a court is obviously going to find that there isn't a way SCO could have known right away
Even if they hadn't known right away, it would be hard to use that argument now, since they still are distributing it free via their ftp site. They've had far more than sufficient opportunity to remove the GPL'd code. Since the suit against IBM was filed, it's been available for how many months now?
There's still a lot about money. Except now, the money will be flowing OUT of SCO instead of the hoped-for IN.