At least part of the above post is not just wrong but absurdly misleading. The putative quote regarding nosediving is contextually crippled. The original quote comes from another absurd post: iPad magazine sales drop wherein the observation is made that Wired and other made-for-iPad magazines are not faring well after their initial launches. The article fails to assess the impact of absurd subscription pricing policies on peoples' willingness to engage in self-abuse.
Hulu is really not worth using. There must be a more effective service for boxee. I can't use Hulu because my IP address doesn't appear to be in the U.S. and they claim some license restrictions that don't permit anywhere but the U.S. to view their content. What utter garbage to spend time worrying over a lame service further restricting who can use them!
Yes, I intended to refer to the two different JFS implementations and to indicate that the one in use in Linux is not dependent on the questions of derivation in the SCO license to IBM.
The fact that there was a JFS predating SCO and that was at one time implemented in AIX does not necessarily contradict the SCO position depending on how the derivation restrictions are interpreted; however, the fact that the JFS contributed to Linux was a clean-room version (to be demonstrated in court) would certainly negate that claim by SCO.
There is so much smoke around the SCO v IBM that it seems that the basic issue that SCO has with IBM has been lost. The basic issues are their claims that 1) IBM derived some functionality such as JFS from the code that SCO licensed to IBM and that 2) the license prohibits IBM from contributing such functionality to Linux.
The point is that simply looking at Linux doesn't rule in or out SCO's claims. They hinge on the specifics of the license and side letters and such and in that context SCO seeks information from IBM - that only IBM can know - that will illuminate just how the JFS and any other similar functionality arose.
In other words can IBM demonstrate (as I recollect they have claimed) that the JFS which they contributed to Linux was in fact developed without infringing the derivative works conditions of their license from SCO?
The GROKLAW article claims that the issue of deriviative works is in fact moot since the side letter negates it. This issue and the above issue are in fact not matters of simple analysis of public Linux. They are matters of legal interpreatation of existing agreements and results of discovery.
It is completely appropriate for IBM to request SCO to reveal what specific functionality SCO believes IBM derived from the licensed code and subsequently contributed to Linux and it is equally appropriate for SCO to request IBM to demonstrate the internal information that reflects how the contested functionality was derived.
As to which claims - SCOs versus IBMs - need to be answered, if at all, and in what temporal order, are the questions before the court.
Slashdot Mirror
At least part of the above post is not just wrong but absurdly misleading. The putative quote regarding nosediving is contextually crippled. The original quote comes from another absurd post: iPad magazine sales drop wherein the observation is made that Wired and other made-for-iPad magazines are not faring well after their initial launches. The article fails to assess the impact of absurd subscription pricing policies on peoples' willingness to engage in self-abuse.
Hulu is really not worth using. There must be a more effective service for boxee. I can't use Hulu because my IP address doesn't appear to be in the U.S. and they claim some license restrictions that don't permit anywhere but the U.S. to view their content. What utter garbage to spend time worrying over a lame service further restricting who can use them!
The fact that there was a JFS predating SCO and that was at one time implemented in AIX does not necessarily contradict the SCO position depending on how the derivation restrictions are interpreted; however, the fact that the JFS contributed to Linux was a clean-room version (to be demonstrated in court) would certainly negate that claim by SCO.
There is so much smoke around the SCO v IBM that it seems that the basic issue that SCO has with IBM has been lost. The basic issues are their claims that 1) IBM derived some functionality such as JFS from the code that SCO licensed to IBM and that 2) the license prohibits IBM from contributing such functionality to Linux. The point is that simply looking at Linux doesn't rule in or out SCO's claims. They hinge on the specifics of the license and side letters and such and in that context SCO seeks information from IBM - that only IBM can know - that will illuminate just how the JFS and any other similar functionality arose. In other words can IBM demonstrate (as I recollect they have claimed) that the JFS which they contributed to Linux was in fact developed without infringing the derivative works conditions of their license from SCO? The GROKLAW article claims that the issue of deriviative works is in fact moot since the side letter negates it. This issue and the above issue are in fact not matters of simple analysis of public Linux. They are matters of legal interpreatation of existing agreements and results of discovery. It is completely appropriate for IBM to request SCO to reveal what specific functionality SCO believes IBM derived from the licensed code and subsequently contributed to Linux and it is equally appropriate for SCO to request IBM to demonstrate the internal information that reflects how the contested functionality was derived. As to which claims - SCOs versus IBMs - need to be answered, if at all, and in what temporal order, are the questions before the court.