Looks like Verisign is becoming the SCO of the DNS world...
Verisign received trusteeship of the COM and NET TLDs by ICANN, the government and the rest of the Internet standards bodies. They are free to promote the domains but are obligated to act in a neutral fashion and keep the DNS running. They are required to act as a neutral third-party with regard to providing a network service much in the same way it did when DNS was run as a government funded, non-profit organization (InterNIC).
ICANN's pissed and rightly so. The average Internet user has no idea how the net really works with regard to DNS. To them, www.google.com is the Internet. To the techies, we know the names are just thin veneers over the IP addresses that really control and make things happen. Until this affects the average user, only the geeks and techies of the world will care about this.
Verisign has gone and broken THE CORE PROTOCOL of what makes the Internet work! Without DNS, we would have to use and memorize IP addresses. DNS is supposed to work by returned an answer as to whether or not a name is mapped to an IP address and provide that address.
By building SiteFinder, they have waived their right as a neutral third party and are now trying to co-opt the largest domain registries in the world for their own personal profit and use. In doing so, they have also broken the software contract between DNS and its users. They've changed the interface that people expect to work a certain and broken or severely damaged the functionality of software around the world. When mail servers can't figure out if an e-mail is forged or not, it's only going to be a matter of time before the spammers clue in and increase bandwidth usage across the board until things change.
What Verisign fails to acknowledge is that registry is not theirs to do that with. It was paid for by taxpayer dollars and grants over many years from countless communities and can be considered a public utility. There cannot be preferential treatment in this. Or they can claim that the COM/NET TLDs are their intellectual property and they can do with it as they please. They want to do that? Fine, they can push for a new TLD to be added to the hierarchy for private use which they can manage. Turn over COM/NET to a neutral non-profit and let them run it as a public trust.
The final frontier may be coin-operated license kiosks at Radio Shack, to be fully integrated with pay toilets. After all, we want people to be assured that there really is a use for our Linux licenses."
With SCO licenses being used as toilet paper. At least in that role, they would have some value provided they were double-quilted.:)
I do work in the Websphere Portal environment where you have to have a) consistent user interfaces between portlets and b) portlets that are bulletproof. They must fail gracefully when errors occur. If they don't, then all the portlets get taken out.
Portal is a tough world to play in because it is web-based without the rich toolkit of AWT, Swing, the window libraries, etc but users have a expectation of functionality and capability that is similar. Writing web-apps is hard enough to do right, doing it in portal is a challenge.
The key to good UI design and management is separation of responsibilities. You better be really good at using the State pattern in building mutli-tab/page UIs. State management is vital in the Portal world. You can't do, you won't be able to write a portlet that can be customized and configured.
Portal development teaches you about simplicity and good UI design. The small amount of real estate available (which you have no control over how much) and the unknowns in how and where your portlet will be used will force you into good design and development overall.
I've had to relive my previous life as a UI builder when I moved to Portal except the old stuff was easy by comparison!
If SCO distributed JFS, RCU, etc with their kernels, then IBM's counterclaims make sense since SCO is now going against section 4 of the GPL.
Despite all the ranting about the possible "questionable" validity of the GPL, a lot of folks seem to forget one thing: the GPL was conceived by Richard Stallman but the actual license text was written by and reviewed by lawyers! It isn't some individual attempting to produce a quasi-legal sounding license, it is a legally binding agreement and had to pass some pretty serious legal muster before it could be released and used.
The mere fact that in the entire time the GPL has existed, NO ONE has dared to try and challenge it. There's been lots of "analysis", but there has been no one to ever try to challenge the GPL even on principle in a court of law (unlike the DMCA, for example). A few companies got caught violating the terms of the GPL (i.e. incorporating GPL'd code into proprietary products) and all of them had the chance to fight the GPL but didn't! They all settled, rewrote and backed off. How is SCO any different under the circumstances?
Remember, SCO first has to prove that any code that IBM wrote independently is in fact a derivative work of the SysV codebase or produce the "line for line" copied code that they claim IBM dropped into the kernel. In past GPL violations, this is exactly what the violators did with GPL'd code: dropped it as-is into their products. Regardless of IBM's motives or aims, does anyone seriously believe that a company like IBM who has an extremely long history of legal wrangling over patents, copyrights, anti-trust, etc, would be that stupid? Especially considering they have a clear policy and process on how code developed by IBM can migrate into the kernel. IBM is also required by the kernel maintainers to waive any and all current or future patent claims on any code they contribute.
So yes, IBM is being friendly now. Even 5-10 years down the road if they changed their tune, they would still be unable to try and make claims against Linux because of their previous agreements to waive their rights to patent infringement. The best they could do is pursue copyright infringement claims againt a rogue developer or third party.
Yes, there is a reason: to let the 600 other people out there who own the CDs who want an MP3 of a track from it but lacks the time/energy/skill to rip it themselves.
Isn't it only infringement if someone downloads a file that they don't have a legal right to? And who is the infringer? The person who offered it for download or the person who downloads it? And then, those who own the track in question are not committing copyright infringement. There is a "non-infringing" element here.
So, technically, it is legitimate. If I could ever stand before a court as an average consumer, that would be my argument. The only question is where is the infringement truly occurring and who is responsible?
If I listen to a CD in a kiosk at a music store to sample a CD in making a purchase decision, am I not guilty of infringment at that point? I'm listening to music I don't own. I don't see much of a difference between that behavior and P2P sharing except that the P2P version leaves a copy (which could then be erased).
Something's got to give.
Re:They've copyrighted BLANK LINES!!!!
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 2
I got an extra 10 points on a C programming exam in college for writing an essay on the back of such a page explaining how the term was a paradox.
I wish I could've gotten a copy of the exam paper and framed it.
In watching this whole affair, I am wondering what will happen when SCO is in Chapter 7, the execs have drifted away on their golden parachutes, employees are out of work and the creditors are picking over the bones looking for assets to use to recoup their losses?
I am sure someone (M$ maybe) will come up with the bright idea to buy the Sys V sources and perhaps use it to continue to spread the FUD. This assumes, of course, that SCO dies before reaching trial or the code doesn't wind up in the public domain as a result of litigation.
Maybe we in the community should start a fund to buy the Sys V sources from SCO, much in the same way Blender was bought? That way, there can be no more arguments about mis-appropriated code from the next weasel (no offense to the noble weasel) out there who wishes to try a similar stunt but has deeper pockets.
Or, we could release the Sys V sources under th GPL and then go and sue all the Unix companies, past and present, for misappropriating GPL'd code. Maybe SCO would consider that a sustainable, workable business model for the Open Source Community?;)
Why don't they go after the FSF and Apple?
on
SCO's Next Target: SGI?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Since SCO seems to be claiming all "derivative works" from original Unix, why don't they go after Apple and the FSF (for OS X and the Hurd respectively)?
Even through they are not derived from Unix Sys V sources, there were certainly "inspired" from Unix and use "Unix concepts and methods.". Mind you, SCO has no patents on any these methods. But why limit themselves to traditional Unix when you have all the other 'nixs out there.
Has SCO even thought of the fact that the Unix interfaces themselves were codified into the POSIX standard? An open, approved standard that anyone can implement. Are they going to claim they own the POSIX standards body now?
Maybe McBride ought to pick a copy of "Just For Fun" by Linus Torvalds and read about how Linux came about. Man, if a filesystem implementation that ties into a Unix kernel a "derivative work", then the ext2, ext3, ReiserFS and every other filesystem builder out there is pretty much screwed.
Come on McBride, invoice me for a license! I even use the SMP code on my dual processor Sun boxes running SuSe. Got Red Hat and Debian too. As long as its on good quality bond, it will make excellent liner for my litter box.
I was under the impression that MP3 (MPEG-1, Layer 3) was a lossy algorithm. Even with the same ripper settings working off the same stored raw CD audio file, will it actually produce identical output? Can the MP3 encoder drop different bits as irrelevant on different passes in time on the same data with the same settings? If this is indeed the case (I don't know, I am not familiar with the detail of the algortithm), then MD5 sums become a virtually foolproof way to identify a file since an identical sum can only be produced from the exact source MP3, not one that is close.
Just a thought on that matter.
And a second point, more of an idea really...
Has anyone thought of trapping RIAA? Here is my proposal...
1) Go and buy 50-100 CDs from your local music stores (I know, this is abhorrent since you are lining the pockets of the people you want to fight but it is a means to an end). SAVE ALL THE RECEIPTS! You will need these.
2) Download a popular P2P program and sign on.
3) Go download crazy and download an MP3 for EVERY SINGLE SONG on the pack of CDs you just purchased. Be obviously, be a bandwidth pig, get somone's attention.
4) Take screenshots and printouts of the directories containing your "booty". This will establish the timestamps of when they were downloaded. Sign and date the screenshots, preferably with witnesses who sign them as well.
5) Wait for a supoena from RIAA.
6) Join RIAA in court and argue "fair use" by throwing up your stack of legally purchased CDs and the receipts for them clearly indicating that they were purchased PRIOR to the supposed infringement and you were simply wanting MP3s of CDs you own but lacked the knowledge/skill/time/tools to rip them.
Is such a case copyright infringement? It's a dangerous game to play because the fair use doctrine has been supported, it is not a matter of law. The outcome could be undesired because it could cause a rethinking of what constitutes fair use. The fun part of such rethinking could be the broadening of what is considered infringement into areas where it was not infringement and ignite an absolute firestorm.
Slashdot Mirror
Verisign received trusteeship of the COM and NET TLDs by ICANN, the government and the rest of the Internet standards bodies. They are free to promote the domains but are obligated to act in a neutral fashion and keep the DNS running. They are required to act as a neutral third-party with regard to providing a network service much in the same way it did when DNS was run as a government funded, non-profit organization (InterNIC).
ICANN's pissed and rightly so. The average Internet user has no idea how the net really works with regard to DNS. To them, www.google.com is the Internet. To the techies, we know the names are just thin veneers over the IP addresses that really control and make things happen. Until this affects the average user, only the geeks and techies of the world will care about this.
Verisign has gone and broken THE CORE PROTOCOL of what makes the Internet work! Without DNS, we would have to use and memorize IP addresses. DNS is supposed to work by returned an answer as to whether or not a name is mapped to an IP address and provide that address.
By building SiteFinder, they have waived their right as a neutral third party and are now trying to co-opt the largest domain registries in the world for their own personal profit and use. In doing so, they have also broken the software contract between DNS and its users. They've changed the interface that people expect to work a certain and broken or severely damaged the functionality of software around the world. When mail servers can't figure out if an e-mail is forged or not, it's only going to be a matter of time before the spammers clue in and increase bandwidth usage across the board until things change.
What Verisign fails to acknowledge is that registry is not theirs to do that with. It was paid for by taxpayer dollars and grants over many years from countless communities and can be considered a public utility. There cannot be preferential treatment in this. Or they can claim that the COM/NET TLDs are their intellectual property and they can do with it as they please. They want to do that? Fine, they can push for a new TLD to be added to the hierarchy for private use which they can manage. Turn over COM/NET to a neutral non-profit and let them run it as a public trust.
With SCO licenses being used as toilet paper. At least in that role, they would have some value provided they were double-quilted. :)
I do work in the Websphere Portal environment where you have to have a) consistent user interfaces between portlets and b) portlets that are bulletproof. They must fail gracefully when errors occur. If they don't, then all the portlets get taken out.
Portal is a tough world to play in because it is web-based without the rich toolkit of AWT, Swing, the window libraries, etc but users have a expectation of functionality and capability that is similar. Writing web-apps is hard enough to do right, doing it in portal is a challenge.
The key to good UI design and management is separation of responsibilities. You better be really good at using the State pattern in building mutli-tab/page UIs. State management is vital in the Portal world. You can't do, you won't be able to write a portlet that can be customized and configured.
Portal development teaches you about simplicity and good UI design. The small amount of real estate available (which you have no control over how much) and the unknowns in how and where your portlet will be used will force you into good design and development overall.
I've had to relive my previous life as a UI builder when I moved to Portal except the old stuff was easy by comparison!
Despite all the ranting about the possible "questionable" validity of the GPL, a lot of folks seem to forget one thing: the GPL was conceived by Richard Stallman but the actual license text was written by and reviewed by lawyers! It isn't some individual attempting to produce a quasi-legal sounding license, it is a legally binding agreement and had to pass some pretty serious legal muster before it could be released and used.
The mere fact that in the entire time the GPL has existed, NO ONE has dared to try and challenge it. There's been lots of "analysis", but there has been no one to ever try to challenge the GPL even on principle in a court of law (unlike the DMCA, for example). A few companies got caught violating the terms of the GPL (i.e. incorporating GPL'd code into proprietary products) and all of them had the chance to fight the GPL but didn't! They all settled, rewrote and backed off. How is SCO any different under the circumstances?
Remember, SCO first has to prove that any code that IBM wrote independently is in fact a derivative work of the SysV codebase or produce the "line for line" copied code that they claim IBM dropped into the kernel. In past GPL violations, this is exactly what the violators did with GPL'd code: dropped it as-is into their products. Regardless of IBM's motives or aims, does anyone seriously believe that a company like IBM who has an extremely long history of legal wrangling over patents, copyrights, anti-trust, etc, would be that stupid? Especially considering they have a clear policy and process on how code developed by IBM can migrate into the kernel. IBM is also required by the kernel maintainers to waive any and all current or future patent claims on any code they contribute.
So yes, IBM is being friendly now. Even 5-10 years down the road if they changed their tune, they would still be unable to try and make claims against Linux because of their previous agreements to waive their rights to patent infringement. The best they could do is pursue copyright infringement claims againt a rogue developer or third party.
If only bullshit were a traded commodity, then everyone would be rich.
Isn't it only infringement if someone downloads a file that they don't have a legal right to? And who is the infringer? The person who offered it for download or the person who downloads it? And then, those who own the track in question are not committing copyright infringement. There is a "non-infringing" element here.
So, technically, it is legitimate. If I could ever stand before a court as an average consumer, that would be my argument. The only question is where is the infringement truly occurring and who is responsible?
If I listen to a CD in a kiosk at a music store to sample a CD in making a purchase decision, am I not guilty of infringment at that point? I'm listening to music I don't own. I don't see much of a difference between that behavior and P2P sharing except that the P2P version leaves a copy (which could then be erased).
Something's got to give.
I wish I could've gotten a copy of the exam paper and framed it.
In watching this whole affair, I am wondering what will happen when SCO is in Chapter 7, the execs have drifted away on their golden parachutes, employees are out of work and the creditors are picking over the bones looking for assets to use to recoup their losses? I am sure someone (M$ maybe) will come up with the bright idea to buy the Sys V sources and perhaps use it to continue to spread the FUD. This assumes, of course, that SCO dies before reaching trial or the code doesn't wind up in the public domain as a result of litigation. Maybe we in the community should start a fund to buy the Sys V sources from SCO, much in the same way Blender was bought? That way, there can be no more arguments about mis-appropriated code from the next weasel (no offense to the noble weasel) out there who wishes to try a similar stunt but has deeper pockets. Or, we could release the Sys V sources under th GPL and then go and sue all the Unix companies, past and present, for misappropriating GPL'd code. Maybe SCO would consider that a sustainable, workable business model for the Open Source Community? ;)
Even through they are not derived from Unix Sys V sources, there were certainly "inspired" from Unix and use "Unix concepts and methods.". Mind you, SCO has no patents on any these methods. But why limit themselves to traditional Unix when you have all the other 'nixs out there.
Has SCO even thought of the fact that the Unix interfaces themselves were codified into the POSIX standard? An open, approved standard that anyone can implement. Are they going to claim they own the POSIX standards body now?
Maybe McBride ought to pick a copy of "Just For Fun" by Linus Torvalds and read about how Linux came about. Man, if a filesystem implementation that ties into a Unix kernel a "derivative work", then the ext2, ext3, ReiserFS and every other filesystem builder out there is pretty much screwed.
Come on McBride, invoice me for a license! I even use the SMP code on my dual processor Sun boxes running SuSe. Got Red Hat and Debian too. As long as its on good quality bond, it will make excellent liner for my litter box.
I was under the impression that MP3 (MPEG-1, Layer 3) was a lossy algorithm. Even with the same ripper settings working off the same stored raw CD audio file, will it actually produce identical output? Can the MP3 encoder drop different bits as irrelevant on different passes in time on the same data with the same settings? If this is indeed the case (I don't know, I am not familiar with the detail of the algortithm), then MD5 sums become a virtually foolproof way to identify a file since an identical sum can only be produced from the exact source MP3, not one that is close. Just a thought on that matter. And a second point, more of an idea really... Has anyone thought of trapping RIAA? Here is my proposal... 1) Go and buy 50-100 CDs from your local music stores (I know, this is abhorrent since you are lining the pockets of the people you want to fight but it is a means to an end). SAVE ALL THE RECEIPTS! You will need these. 2) Download a popular P2P program and sign on. 3) Go download crazy and download an MP3 for EVERY SINGLE SONG on the pack of CDs you just purchased. Be obviously, be a bandwidth pig, get somone's attention. 4) Take screenshots and printouts of the directories containing your "booty". This will establish the timestamps of when they were downloaded. Sign and date the screenshots, preferably with witnesses who sign them as well. 5) Wait for a supoena from RIAA. 6) Join RIAA in court and argue "fair use" by throwing up your stack of legally purchased CDs and the receipts for them clearly indicating that they were purchased PRIOR to the supposed infringement and you were simply wanting MP3s of CDs you own but lacked the knowledge/skill/time/tools to rip them. Is such a case copyright infringement? It's a dangerous game to play because the fair use doctrine has been supported, it is not a matter of law. The outcome could be undesired because it could cause a rethinking of what constitutes fair use. The fun part of such rethinking could be the broadening of what is considered infringement into areas where it was not infringement and ignite an absolute firestorm.