IANAL, but reading the agreement you have to enter into leads me to believe that use of the software is licensed only as long as you maintain your Action Pack subscription. See for yourself here.
This is a pretty clever way to entice consultants into adding to the revenue stream in Redmond themselves while likely ensnaring their clients into paying much larger amounts to the same place.
At least he has the documents. I couldn't find those on Groklaw.
The Groklaw link in the story submission itself has the same document that appears at ip-wars.net. It is noteworthy, however, that the motion is not included in the case documents in Groklaw's section dedicated to collating all the documents for the various legal proceedings. It's possibly an oversight that needs to be brought to the attention of the page maintainer (not PJ in this instance).
"Twelve months ago high speed internet users made up just over one third of the audience in Europe; now they are more than 50% and we expect this number to keep growing," said Gabrielle Prior, Nielsen/NetRatings analyst.
"As the number of high-speed surfers grows, websites will need to adapt, update and enhance their content to retain their visitors and encourage new ones."
They apparently don't see themselves that this is anything other than a switch from one form of passive viewing to another. My hope is that this view is entirely unfounded. I can say with certainty that my own TV viewing decreased dramatically once I had an always-on 'Net connection, and I think it's a good thing.
You make an interesting point, but one of the things that the Gentoo designers stress is that it's about choice. Making choices based on a thorough reading of the outstanding (IMHO) installation handbook is a very different thing from making choices based on an interactive installer.
Am I interested in seeing what the interactive installer does? You bet! But I don't believe it's easy or necessarily even possible to translate the process of installing Gentoo from CLI with handbook to installing it with a graphical automated process.
At first glance, it appears to me that you're blaming the Linux distro for what may be a hardware issue. Looks like the hard drive from the Dell Optiplex box is okay, but beyond that it's hard to tell. If I were in your shoes, I would have closed with this line instead:
Needless to say, I'm no longer impressed with my Dell Optiplex with three NIC's in it.
If you're serious about getting your box running, I heartily recommend that you post to the Kernel and Hardware forum at the Gentoo forums site with real details of your issues.
It is, however, completely absurd to suggest suing Microsoft for the actions of spammers.
Well, we're not talking about normal channels of communication where the end-user might reasonably expect to receive this kind of spam, if that's what you like to call invasive pop-up messages. It is reasonable to consider whether Microsoft acted with negligence in light of the fact that this particular method of spam requires the recipient to be running a Microsoft Windows-only service which has historically been enabled by default.
Proposing that the government arbitrarily punish a company that you don't like for breaking laws that don't exist is completely asinine.
Punishments are arbitrary when they fail to be consistent with respect to all parties. My original point was that the punishment against D Squared could actually be viewed in this light. Rendering judgement against a malicious actor without addressing the larger concern of an unnecessary vulnerability (which only invites more malicious actors!) could very easily be considered arbitrary.
If you can cite a good reason why the messenger service should be enabled by default on a computer system designed with the ability to be connected directly to the Internet without expert technical assistance, I'll give some thought to your assertion that my argument is ridiculous.
US regulators have acted against a company that used a Microsoft loophole to bombard PCs with pop-up ads.
San Diego-based D Squared has been banned from using a little known feature, Windows Messenger, to send unwanted adverts to computer owners.
Seems to me that Microsoft should have been a co-defendant here. I agree that proper regulation is a necessary evil, but it should applied with an eye to all responsible parties, shouldn't it?
I have seen computers pre-loaded with Windows XP Pro that had the messenger service disabled, but that was due to the actions of the OEM; on a default install of Windows XP the messenger service is set to automatically start. I think the FTC should consider this an enabling activity on the part of Microsoft and move to put a stop to it!
from what i found at the USPTO search.. there is no trademark on katie.com. Katie needs to TM her domain (prior art back to 1996, remember), and then she will be the one with all the power.
First off, Katie Jones is a resident of the United Kingdom, not the United States, so it's little surprise that your search came up empty. I am not a lawyer either, but does it make sense that one should be expected to register a trademark for one's own properly-registered domain just to prevent this kind of thing? I don't know the costs involved, but it seems to put an unnecessary burden on the little guys of the 'Net. I think the idea to donate to Katie Jones for legal fees is wonderful, but don't encourage the courts to favor the view that one must pay twice in order to safely harbor a domain.
Warning: I am not an investment expert. Do not consider anything I have to say here as worthy investment advice!
Quoth the parent:
For someone interested in shorting SCOX, a temporary bubble like this is a great opportunity
Short shares in SCOX are nearly impossible to find unless you're a major player. The chances of becoming an overnight bag-holder are ridiculously high, too. Personally, I can't understand anyone being willing to hand over $5/share if they took the time to see what has happened with SCOX in the past year.
I'd like to see that email from Linus with full headers, please;-) I suppose it's possible
that Lyons engaged Linus in email correspondence, but my initial reaction to seeing his quote was, "Yeah, sure, Linus sent Dan Lyons an email, riiigghht..."
Did Lyons indicate that he attempted to interview the source of the study, Dan Ravicher? Heck, no! Instead, he decided to take potshots at Ravicher's character from the bully pulpit Forbes provided him. The Lyons piece is, as usual, utter tripe as far as I'm concerned. YMMV
The Forbes article mentioned by parent is written by Dan Lyons, a person who appears to have an ax to grind and a rather worn-out stone with which to grind it. In my opinion, it should not be considered an article, but rather an opinion piece; c'mon, the only person he got a direct quote from was Rob Enderle!
The Apache liscense has a similar clause (mostly to protect against SCO-like suits). It will be interesting to see if they are asked to revise their liscense as well.
Don't confuse licenses with contracts. As much as some entities would like us to believe they're one and the same, they're not. What's more, the Apache Foundation doesn't charge money for use of its licensed software, in contrast to Microsoft.
Any spammer with half a clue will just move to a different port system.
It's difficult to send to listening SMTP servers on ports they're not listening to. This is about preventing outbound connections to port 25 on servers foreign to Comcast's network.
Just put these dickhead spammers in jail for 5-10 years for causing so much disruption and cost to the world.
Sure. Just hand over the exact physical address where all these dickhead spammers are, along with admissable evidence of their illegal and disruptive activities, to the appropriate local authorities for arrest. While you're waiting for the warrants to issue you might consider finding ways to make bulk unsolicited emailing unprofitable. My guess is you'll have enough time to create and implement a solution before the bad guys are pulled off the streets;-)
REAL men know that they can hit Ctrl-L to pop up a filename input box.
Funny, that only works for hidden directories, it's totally useless for actual files like ~/.bash_profile. The Gnome team really needs to provide an option in the file open dialog to allow non-neophyte users to show hidden objects for selection if they wish.
To expand on your point in this exception, it's actually possible to have competent programmers to maintain your own changes with open source, because open source helps distribute programming knowledge as well as source code. This is a far cry from being at the mercy of the original developer for a project; hence my earlier reply. It is simply misleading to state that software users are at the mercy of the original developers of open source software for maintenance to that software.
No matter where you get your software, you're at the mercy of the developer to maintain it--commercial or open source.
Ahem.
This is one of the very important differences between proprietary software and open source software. If you have GPL software you want to modify, thanks to the license terms, you can do so. The original developer isn't even required to see your changes if you only use the modified code yourself!
Maybe you could have checked the article before approving the submission and noted in the summary that there's 2 parts - it's slow as snot right now due to the Slashdot effect, but there is a rebuttal which should be worth mentioning so that those who can't be bothered to read the article will at least know this isn't a one-sided affair.
If you write Free software (Open Source software covered by the GPL) you are welcome to download and use the Free Edition of Qt
Since there is no Free Edition of Qt for the Windows platform, is Trolltech making some kind of statement that Free software does not exist for Windows? I can think of an example off the top of my head of a GPL program which is available only on Win32: FileZilla.
I'm not saying Trolltech is obligated to make a Qt Free edition for Windows, but perhaps they should word things a bit differently on their website, along the lines of "If you write Free software for X11/Mac..." It's just plain misleading, to my thinking, to state it the way they are.
Let this be a warning to any other states which have not yet completed class actions against Microsoft for anticompetitive pricing. Any settlement reached should require that Microsoft place the settlement amount, in cash, into an escrow account managed by an impartial third party with disbursements to be managed by said third party with strict guidelines and regular court oversight.
It's time to stop letting these things get turned into PR circuses benefiting the the defendant who chooses to settle out of court (and apparently giving no benefit to the plaintiffs, so far).
Standard disclaimer: IANAL, use this advice at your own peril, yada-yada-yada.
I'd suggest that Patent rules require someone who is applying for a patent to put a patent pending mark on their products which have patents pending and (a hotlink to) a discription of the patent and it's application number. That would allow people to respond intelligently to the application now, rather than after 5 years of entrenched use, and an entreched patent award.
This sounds like a great idea at first glance, but what happens when patent applications are filed for methods and processes which aren't actually being employed by the applicant (think PanIP)? Perhaps this needs to be a further condition for application: claims will be rejected out of hand when the applicant shows no evidence that the "invention" is being used by the applicant in a manner which should be afforded the protection a patent is intended to offer.
I believe that the SCO Group has been waiting for this very thing to happen - the press release was probably boilerplated the same day McBride & Co. started spouting off about "lack of indemnification." When I read the news headline for HP's move, my instant reaction was, "Oh no, they've just given SCO more ammunition to claim that end users of Linux need legal protection!"
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but reading the agreement you have to enter into leads me to believe that use of the software is licensed only as long as you maintain your Action Pack subscription. See for yourself here.
This is a pretty clever way to entice consultants into adding to the revenue stream in Redmond themselves while likely ensnaring their clients into paying much larger amounts to the same place.
The Groklaw link in the story submission itself has the same document that appears at ip-wars.net. It is noteworthy, however, that the motion is not included in the case documents in Groklaw's section dedicated to collating all the documents for the various legal proceedings. It's possibly an oversight that needs to be brought to the attention of the page maintainer (not PJ in this instance).
They apparently don't see themselves that this is anything other than a switch from one form of passive viewing to another. My hope is that this view is entirely unfounded. I can say with certainty that my own TV viewing decreased dramatically once I had an always-on 'Net connection, and I think it's a good thing.
Am I interested in seeing what the interactive installer does? You bet! But I don't believe it's easy or necessarily even possible to translate the process of installing Gentoo from CLI with handbook to installing it with a graphical automated process.
At first glance, it appears to me that you're blaming the Linux distro for what may be a hardware issue. Looks like the hard drive from the Dell Optiplex box is okay, but beyond that it's hard to tell. If I were in your shoes, I would have closed with this line instead:
Needless to say, I'm no longer impressed with my Dell Optiplex with three NIC's in it.
If you're serious about getting your box running, I heartily recommend that you post to the Kernel and Hardware forum at the Gentoo forums site with real details of your issues.
It is, however, completely absurd to suggest suing Microsoft for the actions of spammers.
Well, we're not talking about normal channels of communication where the end-user might reasonably expect to receive this kind of spam, if that's what you like to call invasive pop-up messages. It is reasonable to consider whether Microsoft acted with negligence in light of the fact that this particular method of spam requires the recipient to be running a Microsoft Windows-only service which has historically been enabled by default.
Proposing that the government arbitrarily punish a company that you don't like for breaking laws that don't exist is completely asinine.
Punishments are arbitrary when they fail to be consistent with respect to all parties. My original point was that the punishment against D Squared could actually be viewed in this light. Rendering judgement against a malicious actor without addressing the larger concern of an unnecessary vulnerability (which only invites more malicious actors!) could very easily be considered arbitrary.
If you can cite a good reason why the messenger service should be enabled by default on a computer system designed with the ability to be connected directly to the Internet without expert technical assistance, I'll give some thought to your assertion that my argument is ridiculous.
I have seen computers pre-loaded with Windows XP Pro that had the messenger service disabled, but that was due to the actions of the OEM; on a default install of Windows XP the messenger service is set to automatically start. I think the FTC should consider this an enabling activity on the part of Microsoft and move to put a stop to it!
from what i found at the USPTO search.. there is no trademark on katie.com. Katie needs to TM her domain (prior art back to 1996, remember), and then she will be the one with all the power.
First off, Katie Jones is a resident of the United Kingdom, not the United States, so it's little surprise that your search came up empty. I am not a lawyer either, but does it make sense that one should be expected to register a trademark for one's own properly-registered domain just to prevent this kind of thing? I don't know the costs involved, but it seems to put an unnecessary burden on the little guys of the 'Net. I think the idea to donate to Katie Jones for legal fees is wonderful, but don't encourage the courts to favor the view that one must pay twice in order to safely harbor a domain.
Warning: I am not an investment expert. Do not consider anything I have to say here as worthy investment advice!
Quoth the parent:
For someone interested in shorting SCOX, a temporary bubble like this is a great opportunity
Short shares in SCOX are nearly impossible to find unless you're a major player. The chances of becoming an overnight bag-holder are ridiculously high, too. Personally, I can't understand anyone being willing to hand over $5/share if they took the time to see what has happened with SCOX in the past year.
I'd like to see that email from Linus with full headers, please ;-) I suppose it's possible
that Lyons engaged Linus in email correspondence, but my initial reaction to seeing his quote was, "Yeah, sure, Linus sent Dan Lyons an email, riiigghht..."
Did Lyons indicate that he attempted to interview the source of the study, Dan Ravicher? Heck, no! Instead, he decided to take potshots at Ravicher's character from the bully pulpit Forbes provided him. The Lyons piece is, as usual, utter tripe as far as I'm concerned. YMMV
The Forbes article mentioned by parent is written by Dan Lyons, a person who appears to have an ax to grind and a rather worn-out stone with which to grind it. In my opinion, it should not be considered an article, but rather an opinion piece; c'mon, the only person he got a direct quote from was Rob Enderle!
Of course, your mileage may vary.
The Apache liscense has a similar clause (mostly to protect against SCO-like suits). It will be interesting to see if they are asked to revise their liscense as well.
Don't confuse licenses with contracts. As much as some entities would like us to believe they're one and the same, they're not. What's more, the Apache Foundation doesn't charge money for use of its licensed software, in contrast to Microsoft.
Any spammer with half a clue will just move to a different port system.
It's difficult to send to listening SMTP servers on ports they're not listening to. This is about preventing outbound connections to port 25 on servers foreign to Comcast's network.
Just put these dickhead spammers in jail for 5-10 years for causing so much disruption and cost to the world.
;-)
Sure. Just hand over the exact physical address where all these dickhead spammers are, along with admissable evidence of their illegal and disruptive activities, to the appropriate local authorities for arrest. While you're waiting for the warrants to issue you might consider finding ways to make bulk unsolicited emailing unprofitable. My guess is you'll have enough time to create and implement a solution before the bad guys are pulled off the streets
REAL men know that they can hit Ctrl-L to pop up a filename input box.
Funny, that only works for hidden directories, it's totally useless for actual files like ~/.bash_profile. The Gnome team really needs to provide an option in the file open dialog to allow non-neophyte users to show hidden objects for selection if they wish.
To expand on your point in this exception, it's actually possible to have competent programmers to maintain your own changes with open source, because open source helps distribute programming knowledge as well as source code. This is a far cry from being at the mercy of the original developer for a project; hence my earlier reply. It is simply misleading to state that software users are at the mercy of the original developers of open source software for maintenance to that software.
Ahem.
This is one of the very important differences between proprietary software and open source software. If you have GPL software you want to modify, thanks to the license terms, you can do so. The original developer isn't even required to see your changes if you only use the modified code yourself!
Maybe you could have checked the article before approving the submission and noted in the summary that there's 2 parts - it's slow as snot right now due to the Slashdot effect, but there is a rebuttal which should be worth mentioning so that those who can't be bothered to read the article will at least know this isn't a one-sided affair.
I'm not saying Trolltech is obligated to make a Qt Free edition for Windows, but perhaps they should word things a bit differently on their website, along the lines of "If you write Free software for X11/Mac..." It's just plain misleading, to my thinking, to state it the way they are.
It's time to stop letting these things get turned into PR circuses benefiting the the defendant who chooses to settle out of court (and apparently giving no benefit to the plaintiffs, so far).
Standard disclaimer: IANAL, use this advice at your own peril, yada-yada-yada.
I believe that the SCO Group has been waiting for this very thing to happen - the press release was probably boilerplated the same day McBride & Co. started spouting off about "lack of indemnification." When I read the news headline for HP's move, my instant reaction was, "Oh no, they've just given SCO more ammunition to claim that end users of Linux need legal protection!"