The falacy underlying "Amendment No. 2" is that ownership of a copyright does not confer the right to DO anything. It only confers the right to exclude others from exploiting what is copyrighted. A mere license will fully satisfy the need for any requisite rights. So it is idiotic to say that any copyright is "required" to be owned in order for SCO to exercise its rights (whatever those rights may be, which also was never made clear).
I see nothing in the agreement guaranteeing SCO "exclusive" rights. There is some language about Novell not having granted exclusive rights to others, but that would be consistent with SCO having NONexclusive rights.
The sum total of all of this, including the amendment, may simply amount to an agreement by Novell not to use its copyrights to block SCO from exercising its commercial rights with respect to UNIX, which would come up quite a bit short of where SCO would need to be in order to be in a position to maintain its own claim against third parties (e.g., Linux users) for copyright infringement. It is the burden of the party wishing to maintain such a lawsuit to prove that it OWNs the relevant copyright.
IMO they have about as much chance at the end of the day of doing that as they do of proving they own the BROOKLYN BRIDGE and erecting a TOLL BOOTH on the center span!
What crap! First, there is a blatant typo in the most crucial provision of the asset agreement (saying "Section 1.1(a)" where they meant "Schedule 1.1(a)"). Then, in Schedule 1.1(b) (where the exceptions are listed), they flatly EXCLUDE ALL COPYRIGHTS from the asset transfer! Wow! SCO was represented by Brobeck, it seems - what were THEY thinking? And the schedules themselves are unbelievably vague, listing things like "some APIs" (honest to God!).
Then they did an amendment to fix this all up, supposedly. What did SCO get then? Not much, arguably. Basically it seems to be a circular grant - all copyrights SCO needed in order for SCO to exercise the rights it acquired. But WTF did they acquire in the first place?
Sheer incompetence on someone's part, it would seem.
Since some court is going to have to give SOME meaning to this pile of turd, I would venture to say that what SCO got was in effect an agreement that Novell wouldn't assert against them any copyright (or trademark) that would prevent them from exercising commercial rights in UNIX. Maybe some judge will cut them a break and read this more generously, but I just don't see in this obfuscated verbiage an omnibus written transfer of all copyrights. I've got to believe this is (still) a HUGE cloud on SCO's title.
It's pretty funny for Slashdot to report the idea of software escrow as "News".
Yes you CAN encrypt the source as you suggest. But then you have to put the pass phrase into escrow. No bigee, but you do have to do that to make your proposal work.
Theoretically, it is easier (and maybe a little safer) to escrow a pass phrase than it is to escrow a bunch of source media, but not much easier in this day of data DVDs and high-volume tapes.
The idea of encrypted escrow has been around for a long time, actually, and it works perfectly well, compared to conventional escrow of the unencrypted source. It has been done.
However, business people don't seem to be able to understand or trust the encryption part, so it never caught on.
Another issue is that it adds another layer of verification - first to verify that the pass phrase works, and second to verify that the application compiles, links and executes properly.
The escrow companies are not interested in this because they have to learn about encryption and there is no more money in it for them, Plus there is the issue of diminishing returns due to better removable mass storage that exists today. It's hard to think of any source code that doesn't fit on one DVD.
You should also know that one company, DSI, bought up just about every established escrow company that existed, as far as I can tell. They have shown no interest at all (that I am aware of) in this type of escrow. Why should they?
The big drawback of ALL these schemes is the amount of time it can take to get something out of escrow if there is a dispute. Another drawback is that if things go bad the odds are that the source code sucks anyway. Escrow can be useful to have, but it is no panacea.
I like my old Wetsuit bag (a snug-fitting bag made oout of neoprene wetsuit material). While it doesn't provide sufficient protection by itself, it works great when stowed inside a backpack, in my case a Kelty day pack with a light aluminum pack frame. The combination is very effective.
Except for one thing. Take Debian, for example, which supports both - if you're running either Gnome or KDE as your desktop, apps from the other work, so it really is no big deal. However, if as a result of this, you can't run KDE apps, then that does make a difference, because there are a lot of things in KDE that don't have corresponding apps in Gnowme that are as developed. Not as much as there used to be, but it is still an issue.
"Lindows" always seemed iffy to me - the whole point, as far as I can tell, was simply to appropriate an unmistakeable part of the other guy's trademark so as pull away some of his customers. In other words, a ripoff.
If you want to know about design patterns (and you SHOULD), the Gang of Four book is the classic. However, I have found another book (Design Patterns Explained, by Shalloway) that really lays it out, explaining how to evaluate which pattern is right (or best) for a particular task or project. Read that book first.
Apache is installed by default on most Linux distros and is easily installed under Windows.
Making the database accessible through a Web browser interface eliminates platform issues. A standalone app must be supplied in a version that will run on the client workstation.
You do a search on any one of the many databases for this. The query system on the USPTO database is pretty badly broken, but the one on Delphion (www.delphion.com) works well.
For those who tried to follow the (broken) link, I looked this up. It's U.S. published application number 220030159071, which was published on August 12, 2003 and originally filed on Feb. 21, 2002.
This is merely a PUBLISHED PATENT APPLICATION, not a PATENT. There is no indication that the application has as yet been examined. The most that can be said is that IBM has asked to patent what is claimed. Whether it will be allowed, amended, etc., remains to be seen. Anyway, this is claim 1, which is representative of what IBM is going after in this patent:
1. A method within a computing platform of graphically providing a secure field value retrieval and entry, wherein said computing platform includes a display device, a field activation device and a user selection device, said method comprising: displaying a user dialogue to receive a master key value from a user responsive to activation of a field; receiving a computing context indicator regarding the context of said activated field; determining said master key value is a correct master key value; retrieving a field value from a secure field value store which is associated with said computing context, said activated field and a user identification; and automatically entering said retrieved field value into said activated field.
Maybe the examiner will find the good prior art, or maybe even IBM will be good enough to cite it themselves. In any event, what would be NICE, rather than relying merely on the effectiveness of the examiner and the bona fides of the applicant, would be a mechanism to take comments from the public on pending patent applications after they are published and after (or maybe even before) they are examined. This is (more or less) how it works in most other countries (it's called "opposition"), and variations of this approach have been suggested many times in this country and repeatedly shot down or watered down to the point of being useless. Now the Federal Trade Commission is jumping on this as well (it is one of their recebnt suggestions), but it will probably get nowhere because the small inventor lobby (decidedly NOT the IBMs of the world) is too strong.
IBM, as some other poster has pointed out, has been pretty much a model citizen in the patent world.
Bah - SCO knows what they're getting into. Sure it makes Boies want to blow a lot of hot air - but that is the same thing his client wants to do. Unsavory, yes, unethical, probably not.
Actually, I didn't - I looked at some docs at the time but didn't see anything for 'search'. Thanks for the explanation - seems straightforward, what you would expect. Anyway, I'm talking about clicking on perfectly good URLs like www.slashdot.org clicked on from the address bar history drop-down. When I get rid of the 'search' directive in resolv.conf the browser behaves properly and goes to slashdot. With 'search' it goes to web1000. I don't think the response below explains it either. Maybe it is just the browser, I don't know.
Fundamentally, I think some of the complainers here are just bitching because Verisign grabbed for itself the ability to scam via redirection that these folks previously were independently making money off of.
This sort of bogus redirecting is rampant. Not just with people who hoard typo domains, but with more "reputable" companies such as major ISPs.
I still haven't gotten to the bottom of this one, but when my machines were set up to get their DNS settings via DHCP, I would find weird "search" directives inserted into my resolv.conf files, to some name server within my ISPs address space, I believe (this is with TWC-Roadrunner), with the result that my browser would get redirected whenever I picked a page (even a properly spelled one) from my recent history list. This was happening on every machine on my LAN when they were running Mozilla-Firebird. Every frigging time you tried to go to a page via the history drop-down list, you'd end up at Web100.com or worse. I never completely figured out what was going on, but when I switched everything to static addressing on the workstations (that is, behind my NAT box) and hard-coded resolv.conf to delete any "search" directive and simply point to known, non-bullshit name servers, the problem went away.
Commercial companies abuse their superior position on the network all the time to take advantage of those below them on the food chain.
Verisign isn't the only one or the main one, just the one in the best position to trump everybody else. Perhaps letting them do it and control it is better than the alternative, which is a free for all. The way the current system is set up there must be a root server, and someone has to control it. Do you really think the GOVERNMENT would do a better job?
...doesn't implicate Linux per se (though part of the intent undoubtedly is to taint Linux by association).
The release says that IBM was (allegedly) contractually obligated to treat its OWN work product which it developed based on SCO's predecessor's code in the same way (i.e., subject to the same restrictions) as the code it had licensed from SCO. It quite carefully says that IBM contributed "148 files of direct Sequent UNIX code" to Linux. But what SCO is talking about here ("Sequent UNIX code") is IBM's code, and not SCO's or AT&T's code. If IBM agreed to make its own code be subject to the license (and IBM says that it did not, since it claims that this provision was overriden by a side letter agreement that made completely different arrangements), then this would be a matter of contract between IBM and SCO (which IBM is very vigorously contesting). It would not mean that SCO owns the copyright to subject matter independently developed by IBM.
It would not, even if true, give SCO any rights vis-a-vis a Linux user who had nothing to do with IBM and/or its contract with SCO. Off hand, I would say that the only way a Linux user would be at risk would be if there were substantial code written by the original copyright owner that found its way in some recognizable form into the Linux 2.4 or 2.5 kernels, and (even it that turned out to be the case), if the copyright owner never gave its permission for that code to be included. I have not seen where either of these contentions has been clearly alleged, except by implication, as a result fo SCO's threats.
It is of course possible that there is such code overlap, but it is SCO's burden to prove it. I have not seen any proof of this. Even if they were to prove it, the Linux user would then be allowed to show SCO's consent to this inclusion, such as by the authorized release of the code in question under the GPL.
It seems to me that SCO's case against the typical Linux business user is awfully speculative at this point.
if you call UI's IP, micrsoft is the worst theif of all! look at the copying from apple, the attempts to make the FS more like UNIX, and the press releases stating that the next release of windows will have multiple taskbars and multiple desktops. come ON.
Yes, it needs to connect to Outlook, and to other clients as well, such as Evolution and Mozilla Mail.
But what an Exchange replacement REALLY needs is to provide a handle on the mess of emails that pile up -- by parsing every incoming header, message and attachment and putting all that info into a relational database, where it can be properly indexed (including the attachments!!) and managed. Then, searching your email will be feasible and it will be possible to selectively purge and archive stuff. Plus, there will be all the Web connectivity you normally get with a database. These are the areas in which Exchange really falls down.
A good product in this area could clean up, because Exchange is really deficient when it comes to search and management.
So the idea should not be to clone Exchange, but to provide a vastly superior system that is backward compatible with Exchange's client interface.
Today, many users use their email as a de facto document management system, and with Exchange/Outlook, this has a lot of very bad consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
The falacy underlying "Amendment No. 2" is that ownership of a copyright does not confer the right to DO anything. It only confers the right to exclude others from exploiting what is copyrighted. A mere license will fully satisfy the need for any requisite rights. So it is idiotic to say that any copyright is "required" to be owned in order for SCO to exercise its rights (whatever those rights may be, which also was never made clear).
I see nothing in the agreement guaranteeing SCO "exclusive" rights. There is some language about Novell not having granted exclusive rights to others, but that would be consistent with SCO having NONexclusive rights.
The sum total of all of this, including the amendment, may simply amount to an agreement by Novell not to use its copyrights to block SCO from exercising its commercial rights with respect to UNIX, which would come up quite a bit short of where SCO would need to be in order to be in a position to maintain its own claim against third parties (e.g., Linux users) for copyright infringement. It is the burden of the party wishing to maintain such a lawsuit to prove that it OWNs the relevant copyright.
IMO they have about as much chance at the end of the day of doing that as they do of proving they own the BROOKLYN BRIDGE and erecting a TOLL BOOTH on the center span!
What crap! First, there is a blatant typo in the most crucial provision of the asset agreement (saying "Section 1.1(a)" where they meant "Schedule 1.1(a)"). Then, in Schedule 1.1(b) (where the exceptions are listed), they flatly EXCLUDE ALL COPYRIGHTS from the asset transfer! Wow! SCO was represented by Brobeck, it seems - what were THEY thinking? And the schedules themselves are unbelievably vague, listing things like "some APIs" (honest to God!).
Then they did an amendment to fix this all up, supposedly. What did SCO get then? Not much, arguably. Basically it seems to be a circular grant - all copyrights SCO needed in order for SCO to exercise the rights it acquired. But WTF did they acquire in the first place?
Sheer incompetence on someone's part, it would seem.
Since some court is going to have to give SOME meaning to this pile of turd, I would venture to say that what SCO got was in effect an agreement that Novell wouldn't assert against them any copyright (or trademark) that would prevent them from exercising commercial rights in UNIX. Maybe some judge will cut them a break and read this more generously, but I just don't see in this obfuscated verbiage an omnibus written transfer of all copyrights. I've got to believe this is (still) a HUGE cloud on SCO's title.
It's pretty funny for Slashdot to report the idea of software escrow as "News".
Yes you CAN encrypt the source as you suggest. But then you have to put the pass phrase into escrow. No bigee, but you do have to do that to make your proposal work.
Theoretically, it is easier (and maybe a little safer) to escrow a pass phrase than it is to escrow a bunch of source media, but not much easier in this day of data DVDs and high-volume tapes.
The idea of encrypted escrow has been around for a long time, actually, and it works perfectly well, compared to conventional escrow of the unencrypted source. It has been done.
However, business people don't seem to be able to understand or trust the encryption part, so it never caught on.
Another issue is that it adds another layer of verification - first to verify that the pass phrase works, and second to verify that the application compiles, links and executes properly.
The escrow companies are not interested in this because they have to learn about encryption and there is no more money in it for them, Plus there is the issue of diminishing returns due to better removable mass storage that exists today. It's hard to think of any source code that doesn't fit on one DVD.
You should also know that one company, DSI, bought up just about every established escrow company that existed, as far as I can tell. They have shown no interest at all (that I am aware of) in this type of escrow. Why should they?
The big drawback of ALL these schemes is the amount of time it can take to get something out of escrow if there is a dispute. Another drawback is that if things go bad the odds are that the source code sucks anyway. Escrow can be useful to have, but it is no panacea.
I like my old Wetsuit bag (a snug-fitting bag made oout of neoprene wetsuit material). While it doesn't provide sufficient protection by itself, it works great when stowed inside a backpack, in my case a Kelty day pack with a light aluminum pack frame. The combination is very effective.
Except for one thing. Take Debian, for example, which supports both - if you're running either Gnome or KDE as your desktop, apps from the other work, so it really is no big deal. However, if as a result of this, you can't run KDE apps, then that does make a difference, because there are a lot of things in KDE that don't have corresponding apps in Gnowme that are as developed. Not as much as there used to be, but it is still an issue.
"Lindows" always seemed iffy to me - the whole point, as far as I can tell, was simply to appropriate an unmistakeable part of the other guy's trademark so as pull away some of his customers. In other words, a ripoff.
If you want to know about design patterns (and you SHOULD), the Gang of Four book is the classic. However, I have found another book (Design Patterns Explained, by Shalloway) that really lays it out, explaining how to evaluate which pattern is right (or best) for a particular task or project. Read that book first.
Apache is installed by default on most Linux distros and is easily installed under Windows.
Making the database accessible through a Web browser interface eliminates platform issues. A standalone app must be supplied in a version that will run on the client workstation.
If you read their announcement, you'll see that this thing needs a database backend too.
With PHP and XML, I don't really see why we need another database front end. What is it that makes this a "Killer App"? I don't see it.
. . . like, for example, Documentum, PC Docs, iManage, etc., etc.
Those are the commercial implementations of this concept.
You do a search on any one of the many databases for this. The query system on the USPTO database is pretty badly broken, but the one on Delphion (www.delphion.com) works well.
For those who tried to follow the (broken) link, I looked this up. It's U.S. published application number 220030159071, which was published on August 12, 2003 and originally filed on Feb. 21, 2002.
This is merely a PUBLISHED PATENT APPLICATION, not a PATENT. There is no indication that the application has as yet been examined. The most that can be said is that IBM has asked to patent what is claimed. Whether it will be allowed, amended, etc., remains to be seen. Anyway, this is claim 1, which is representative of what IBM is going after in this patent:
1. A method within a computing platform of graphically providing a secure field value retrieval and entry, wherein said computing platform includes a display device, a field activation device and a user selection device, said method comprising: displaying a user dialogue to receive a master key value from a user responsive to activation of a field; receiving a computing context indicator regarding the context of said activated field; determining said master key value is a correct master key value; retrieving a field value from a secure field value store which is associated with said computing context, said activated field and a user identification; and automatically entering said retrieved field value into said activated field.
Maybe the examiner will find the good prior art, or maybe even IBM will be good enough to cite it themselves. In any event, what would be NICE, rather than relying merely on the effectiveness of the examiner and the bona fides of the applicant, would be a mechanism to take comments from the public on pending patent applications after they are published and after (or maybe even before) they are examined. This is (more or less) how it works in most other countries (it's called "opposition"), and variations of this approach have been suggested many times in this country and repeatedly shot down or watered down to the point of being useless. Now the Federal Trade Commission is jumping on this as well (it is one of their recebnt suggestions), but it will probably get nowhere because the small inventor lobby (decidedly NOT the IBMs of the world) is too strong.
IBM, as some other poster has pointed out, has been pretty much a model citizen in the patent world.
Bah - SCO knows what they're getting into. Sure it makes Boies want to blow a lot of hot air - but that is the same thing his client wants to do. Unsavory, yes, unethical, probably not.
umm,
what about this?
or this?
Actually, I didn't - I looked at some docs at the time but didn't see anything for 'search'. Thanks for the explanation - seems straightforward, what you would expect. Anyway, I'm talking about clicking on perfectly good URLs like www.slashdot.org clicked on from the address bar history drop-down. When I get rid of the 'search' directive in resolv.conf the browser behaves properly and goes to slashdot. With 'search' it goes to web1000. I don't think the response below explains it either. Maybe it is just the browser, I don't know.
Fundamentally, I think some of the complainers here are just bitching because Verisign grabbed for itself the ability to scam via redirection that these folks previously were independently making money off of.
This sort of bogus redirecting is rampant. Not just with people who hoard typo domains, but with more "reputable" companies such as major ISPs.
I still haven't gotten to the bottom of this one, but when my machines were set up to get their DNS settings via DHCP, I would find weird "search" directives inserted into my resolv.conf files, to some name server within my ISPs address space, I believe (this is with TWC-Roadrunner), with the result that my browser would get redirected whenever I picked a page (even a properly spelled one) from my recent history list. This was happening on every machine on my LAN when they were running Mozilla-Firebird. Every frigging time you tried to go to a page via the history drop-down list, you'd end up at Web100.com or worse. I never completely figured out what was going on, but when I switched everything to static addressing on the workstations (that is, behind my NAT box) and hard-coded resolv.conf to delete any "search" directive and simply point to known, non-bullshit name servers, the problem went away.
Commercial companies abuse their superior position on the network all the time to take advantage of those below them on the food chain.
Verisign isn't the only one or the main one, just the one in the best position to trump everybody else. Perhaps letting them do it and control it is better than the alternative, which is a free for all. The way the current system is set up there must be a root server, and someone has to control it. Do you really think the GOVERNMENT would do a better job?
And this addresses NEITHER ONE OF THEM.
It's not open enough for techies and it's too wierd for the rest of the market.
This seems pretty pointless. Who financed it?
Yes, Knoppix is a painless way to do an installation that trivially converts to official Debian. There is no catch that I am aware of.
"If that be the law sir, then the law is a ass."
--Charles Dickens, OLIVER TWIST
...doesn't implicate Linux per se (though part of the intent undoubtedly is to taint Linux by association).
The release says that IBM was (allegedly) contractually obligated to treat its OWN work product which it developed based on SCO's predecessor's code in the same way (i.e., subject to the same restrictions) as the code it had licensed from SCO. It quite carefully says that IBM contributed "148 files of direct Sequent UNIX code" to Linux. But what SCO is talking about here ("Sequent UNIX code") is IBM's code, and not SCO's or AT&T's code. If IBM agreed to make its own code be subject to the license (and IBM says that it did not, since it claims that this provision was overriden by a side letter agreement that made completely different arrangements), then this would be a matter of contract between IBM and SCO (which IBM is very vigorously contesting). It would not mean that SCO owns the copyright to subject matter independently developed by IBM.
It would not, even if true, give SCO any rights vis-a-vis a Linux user who had nothing to do with IBM and/or its contract with SCO. Off hand, I would say that the only way a Linux user would be at risk would be if there were substantial code written by the original copyright owner that found its way in some recognizable form into the Linux 2.4 or 2.5 kernels, and (even it that turned out to be the case), if the copyright owner never gave its permission for that code to be included. I have not seen where either of these contentions has been clearly alleged, except by implication, as a result fo SCO's threats.
It is of course possible that there is such code overlap, but it is SCO's burden to prove it. I have not seen any proof of this. Even if they were to prove it, the Linux user would then be allowed to show SCO's consent to this inclusion, such as by the authorized release of the code in question under the GPL.
It seems to me that SCO's case against the typical Linux business user is awfully speculative at this point.
At least you know the hardware is compatible, since it is running kernel 2.4.18. Just install the Linux distro of your choice and you are good to go.
why not just donate?
if you call UI's IP, micrsoft is the worst theif of all! look at the copying from apple, the attempts to make the FS more like UNIX, and the press releases stating that the next release of windows will have multiple taskbars and multiple desktops. come ON.
Yes, it needs to connect to Outlook, and to other clients as well, such as Evolution and Mozilla Mail.
But what an Exchange replacement REALLY needs is to provide a handle on the mess of emails that pile up -- by parsing every incoming header, message and attachment and putting all that info into a relational database, where it can be properly indexed (including the attachments!!) and managed. Then, searching your email will be feasible and it will be possible to selectively purge and archive stuff. Plus, there will be all the Web connectivity you normally get with a database. These are the areas in which Exchange really falls down.
A good product in this area could clean up, because Exchange is really deficient when it comes to search and management.
So the idea should not be to clone Exchange, but to provide a vastly superior system that is backward compatible with Exchange's client interface.
Today, many users use their email as a de facto document management system, and with Exchange/Outlook, this has a lot of very bad consequences.