Uh, dude, we have been off the "gold standard" since 1913 and the dollar hasn't been backed by gold. I don't know where you get the idea that dollars are supposted to be represnted by some gold somewhere.
Although there does need to be reform, you are a conspiracy nut.
That would be illegal because you had not purchased the "toll rights" to the bridge. Your claim would not be in good faith, unless you actually did purchase the "toll rights".
SCO presumably thinks that linux infringes on their IP, so they have made a claim in good faith. Whether or not you or I or the rest of Slashdot believes it to be true doesnt matter.
It is acceptable if YOU DO ACTUALLY OWN THE GIRDER. Maybe SCO ACTUALLY OWNS SOME IP IN LINUX! No wait, I can't say that here - I will just get modded down.
Evidence has been shot down? By who? Slashbots?The entire thing issue hasn't been resolved yet, even though Slashdot and Groklaw would like to present it as such. It is CERTAINLY not clear that Linux doesn't violate SCO's IP - no matter how much you may wish upon a star.
-Hardware isn't a problem. hee hee. -Applications aren't a problem. HAHA. -File exchange isn't a problem. Any major file format that Windows/Mac users read/write and be read/written in Linux. Oh my. Good one. -With the proliferation of sub-$500 computers, Windows and 3rd party software becomes a major portion of the price tag. Linux makes economic sense here. Yes! I wonder why everyone doesn't use it given all the advantages you stated above.
Could it be because you are caught in a reality distortion field?
Oh, you mean "Open Source as what opensource.org defines it" not "open". There are plenty of examples of "open" sourcecode on MSDN that you can incorporate into your software, with less restrictions than the GPL. *gasp* hard to believe for a OSS zealot I know!
That is certainly not extortion - you may make any claim you wish and demand payment as long as that claim is in "good faith". However I believe that you are making that claim in bad faith, since you obviously don't believe the truthfulness of your own claim, which would be a problem in a court of law.
I don't know why this is so hard for slashbots to understand. SCO is making a good faith claim to IP and asking people to license the IP. You can either enter in a licensing agreement or not. No one is forcing you to.
It is certainly not illegal to claim that you own part of the bridge if someone actually did steal the girders from you. However if it ends up you were claiming this in bad faith then you may end up in legal trouble. If you DID happen to the have a belief that own part of the bridge, it is not illegal to make that claim and require payment of some sort.
You would quickly be prevented from collecting tolls because it is well known that you own no part of the bridge.
In this case SCO has presented an argument that they own IP that is in Linux and that you must license that IP in order to use it. They have no legal requirement to establish that fact before offering licenses.
We offered them a significant discount to indemnify most of their server base and they accepted it. The $699 fee is a one off license fee. If you have more than one server that needs to be licensed, please contact your account rep.
Uh, how is this extortion? SCO claims to own IP in Linux and is asking for money to license this IP. Companies are coming forward and licensing it. Oh yeah, and these guys aren't the first licensees either. The other ones are asking to remain anonymous.
Yes comrade, the economic plans that you have shown above have shown me the light.
Wait no, they are full of crap and they don't work! If it did make economic sense, then they would be used. This is the ultimate test of any theory.
This line in GNU manifesto is partiuarly telling: "Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.". The important words in that sentence is "OR CAN", because the amount of money you can charge for software that you are giving away is pretty close to $0 - unless you find someone particuarly stupid who is willing to pay for for something they can get legally for free.
I'll tell you what - why don't YOU try out any of the above for one year and tell me how it goes economically?
Well it IS much more beneficial for the execs and those on top. They can save a lot more money and use that money to expand thieir profits, which makes their options and bonuses go up.
"and are acting like manufacturers did in the 1970s and 1980s"
Yes, and we all know how well that worked out for the manufacturing workers in the US. What a stupid comment by Hemos.
Of course, this is to be expected from Slashdot staff, whose parent corporation VALINUX produces software to assist in the offshoring of jobs. Don't believe me? Check out their press releases or my journal for more info.
Yes, we all know it is good for the CORPORATIONS. After all, they get all this code for free! What about the guy who is giving it away and doesn't work for the corporations?
Yeah, because young guys hate meaningless relationships and sex. I am sure those guys were going to bars with their lab coats on to find their one true love. Give me a break.
Stallman started the GPL with the idea that ALL SOFTWARE should be free, and the idea that all non-free software is evil. Of course, he is living on academic subsidy so it works out for him!
Huh, guess you wouldn't write a book either then, or sell a piece of artwork. What a life!
So far, no one has explained to me why books shouldn't be "free" and software should.
If he hates open so much, why do they release do much source code via MSDN? Oh you mean he "hates open" because he doesn't give away the source code (intentionally anyway) to Windows and Office? Huh, I wonder why - what a lunatic.
"they can"? Who can? Who is willing to take over someones code base and continue on?
Sure, go ahead and start on it. You can even call it XFree2004.
In this case, the GPL is silly. There is no reason you can't have a license where someone is required to PUT A SINGLE LINE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THOUSANDS OF MAN HOURS OF FREE WORK. The argument is that if every project had that as a requirement than the acknowledgements could come to MANY MANY LINES. Wow, thats really horrible.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, dude, we have been off the "gold standard" since 1913 and the dollar hasn't been backed by gold. I don't know where you get the idea that dollars are supposted to be represnted by some gold somewhere.
Although there does need to be reform, you are a conspiracy nut.
damn, you are a junior in COLLEGE with spelling like that? Wow, time to revoke their charter...
That would be illegal because you had not purchased the "toll rights" to the bridge. Your claim would not be in good faith, unless you actually did purchase the "toll rights".
SCO presumably thinks that linux infringes on their IP, so they have made a claim in good faith. Whether or not you or I or the rest of Slashdot believes it to be true doesnt matter.
"But SCO are making their IP ownership claim in bad faith, or so many people believe:"
Well as long as "many people" believe it, it must be true, right?
If SCO believes that the claim is true, then their claim is in good faith. It doesn't matter what "many people" think.
It is acceptable if YOU DO ACTUALLY OWN THE GIRDER. Maybe SCO ACTUALLY OWNS SOME IP IN LINUX! No wait, I can't say that here - I will just get modded down.
Evidence has been shot down? By who? Slashbots?The entire thing issue hasn't been resolved yet, even though Slashdot and Groklaw would like to present it as such. It is CERTAINLY not clear that Linux doesn't violate SCO's IP - no matter how much you may wish upon a star.
-Hardware isn't a problem.
hee hee.
-Applications aren't a problem.
HAHA.
-File exchange isn't a problem. Any major file format that Windows/Mac users read/write and be read/written in Linux.
Oh my. Good one.
-With the proliferation of sub-$500 computers, Windows and 3rd party software becomes a major portion of the price tag. Linux makes economic sense here.
Yes! I wonder why everyone doesn't use it given all the advantages you stated above.
Could it be because you are caught in a reality distortion field?
Oh, you mean "Open Source as what opensource.org defines it" not "open". There are plenty of examples of "open" sourcecode on MSDN that you can incorporate into your software, with less restrictions than the GPL. *gasp* hard to believe for a OSS zealot I know!
That is certainly not extortion - you may make any claim you wish and demand payment as long as that claim is in "good faith". However I believe that you are making that claim in bad faith, since you obviously don't believe the truthfulness of your own claim, which would be a problem in a court of law.
I don't know why this is so hard for slashbots to understand. SCO is making a good faith claim to IP and asking people to license the IP. You can either enter in a licensing agreement or not. No one is forcing you to.
It is certainly not illegal to claim that you own part of the bridge if someone actually did steal the girders from you. However if it ends up you were claiming this in bad faith then you may end up in legal trouble. If you DID happen to the have a belief that own part of the bridge, it is not illegal to make that claim and require payment of some sort.
Flamebait. Nice. How is this flamebait. I am stating facts as they are mentioned in the article. I am sorry you guys dont like the facts.
You would quickly be prevented from collecting tolls because it is well known that you own no part of the bridge.
In this case SCO has presented an argument that they own IP that is in Linux and that you must license that IP in order to use it. They have no legal requirement to establish that fact before offering licenses.
We offered them a significant discount to indemnify most of their server base and they accepted it. The $699 fee is a one off license fee. If you have more than one server that needs to be licensed, please contact your account rep.
Uh, how is this extortion? SCO claims to own IP in Linux and is asking for money to license this IP. Companies are coming forward and licensing it. Oh yeah, and these guys aren't the first licensees either. The other ones are asking to remain anonymous.
Yes comrade, the economic plans that you have shown above have shown me the light.
Wait no, they are full of crap and they don't work! If it did make economic sense, then they would be used. This is the ultimate test of any theory.
This line in GNU manifesto is partiuarly telling: "Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.". The important words in that sentence is "OR CAN", because the amount of money you can charge for software that you are giving away is pretty close to $0 - unless you find someone particuarly stupid who is willing to pay for for something they can get legally for free.
I'll tell you what - why don't YOU try out any of the above for one year and tell me how it goes economically?
Well it IS much more beneficial for the execs and those on top. They can save a lot more money and use that money to expand thieir profits, which makes their options and bonuses go up.
Understand it now?
"and are acting like manufacturers did in the 1970s and 1980s"
Yes, and we all know how well that worked out for the manufacturing workers in the US. What a stupid comment by Hemos.
Of course, this is to be expected from Slashdot staff, whose parent corporation VALINUX produces software to assist in the offshoring of jobs. Don't believe me? Check out their press releases or my journal for more info.
Ah yes. We can all work for universities. What a good idea.
BTW, writing a software program is engineering - not pure research.
Yes, we all know it is good for the CORPORATIONS. After all, they get all this code for free! What about the guy who is giving it away and doesn't work for the corporations?
Yeah, because young guys hate meaningless relationships and sex. I am sure those guys were going to bars with their lab coats on to find their one true love. Give me a break.
"Does that mean fewer programmers are needed? Probably. Does that mean no programmers are needed? Not at all."
And explain to me why this is a good thing again, from the perspective of a young programmer?
I know engineers aren't known for being particularly adept that the business world, but this is ridiculous.
Stallman started the GPL with the idea that ALL SOFTWARE should be free, and the idea that all non-free software is evil. Of course, he is living on academic subsidy so it works out for him!
Huh, guess you wouldn't write a book either then, or sell a piece of artwork. What a life! So far, no one has explained to me why books shouldn't be "free" and software should.
If he hates open so much, why do they release do much source code via MSDN? Oh you mean he "hates open" because he doesn't give away the source code (intentionally anyway) to Windows and Office? Huh, I wonder why - what a lunatic.
"they can"? Who can? Who is willing to take over someones code base and continue on?
Sure, go ahead and start on it. You can even call it XFree2004.
In this case, the GPL is silly. There is no reason you can't have a license where someone is required to PUT A SINGLE LINE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THOUSANDS OF MAN HOURS OF FREE WORK. The argument is that if every project had that as a requirement than the acknowledgements could come to MANY MANY LINES. Wow, thats really horrible.