Ha! No sooner had I submitted this than two others showed up with the same observation, who got their post in before me. Well, rats, mark it down as redundant:-)
>Note: The information transmitted in this Notice is intended only for the >person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential >and/or privileged material. Any review, reproduction, retransmission, >dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, >this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient >is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender >and delete the material from all computers.
Seems like the mailing list (and now/., courtesy of l'i'l ole me) thus open themselves up to real DMCA violations...
What is the practical effect of forever copyrights? Lack of creativity. Copyright holders concentrate on protecting the value of their current copyright rather than think up new things to copyright.
Imagine if Disney had had to keep on thinking up new characters and ideas, instead of the same old mouse and duck. Those would have been retired, new ideas would have come into play, and Disney would stand for new ideas every few years rather than tired variations of the same old mouse products. There would be no incentive for others to mimic the mouse and duck, because it would be so out of fashion, no one would care. Every generation would have their own Disney memories.
When the same stuff gets repeated over and over, the public just doesn't care. That old stuff becomes part of public history whether it's copyrighted or not, a de facto public domain.
I wonder if rock n roll is the same... I wonder if it's coincidence that the trend before rock n roll was for each generation to come up with their own kinds of music sooner and sooner... ragtime, early jazz, swing.... then rock n roll came along, and has dominated ever since and shows no signs of going away. The Roilling Stones still going after 40 years? Bizarre! I bet if their coyrights weren't still in force, there's be much different kinds of music ruling the airwaves now.
Seems to me, if I were an/the all knowing, all powerful god, it would not be in my best interest to let all these bogus copies float around, and let my words be corrupted into so many different ambiguous versions.
As for taking the safe bet that there just might be a god who could condemn me for bad thoughts... which god should I choose?
I would suggest a much more likely reason for monks to be burning an old manuscript was not because it was imprecise, but because it was politically wrong, ie, it disagreed with current church teachings. It was trash only in the sense of being politically incorrect.
The California 1849 gold rush started as personal placer mining (with a pan or trough), but as the easy stuff was taken, it turned into corporate hydraulic mining. They built big canals and diverted lots of water to erode hills in their search for gold; the diggins near me used to be a hill 400 feet higher. They also stripped the forests to build the flumes and canals; almost all the big trees around me date from 120 years ago when you count the rings. The eroded hills washed downstream and silted up rivers, caused flooding and destroyed farms and orchards. No one liked hydraulic mining, but the legislators were in the pocket of the miners (and the railroad, but that's another story). What stopped the mining was the downstream victims suing and pressing enormous damages.
Yes, 120 years ago, lawyers did good with huge lawsuits, remarkably similar to nowadays. As much as I despise lawyers, they do have a way of bypassing corrupt and powerful corporations and politicians. As much as I would love to get rid of lawyers, I don't want to until there is some method in place to replace their function.
Same deal with antibiotics, or any other organism and the cruel cruel world. That's how life works -- more organisms are born they can survive, the ones with bad mutations don't survive under "normal" conditions, but when conditions change, normal and abnormal swap places, the ones that used to live die, and some of the ones that used to die now live.
If they won't provide content without DRM, someone else will. The old media content providers have their fossilized heads up their sterilized asses and want DRM so as to keep new content providers from thinking up a better business model.
Suppose your records show your sold twice as many meals for the amount of food you bought as any other restaurant. Or cleaned twice as many clothes for the amount of cleaning material used as any other cleaner.
Has to be data, content, not anything material. Even then, a simple trace would show how much was actually transferred in the period you claimed.
He literally claims that developing any code for a UNIX clone violates UNIX IP rights, thus if you or I or anyone writes code for Linux, it belongs to SCO.
In a theroretical sense, it makes sense -- if I own land, and you build a house on it, thanks, you just built me a house (actually happened to the land I won, with the people I bought it from). Look at all the Harry Potter parodies which have been shut down.
SCO will certainly lose long term, the question is how much of a circus it will be getting there.
You do not understand the arrogance of McBride and his brethren. He has claimed in interviews that all of Linux, and every other UNIX clone, is a derivative of UNIX, whether the code was developed from scratch or not. He even hinted that Windows was not immune to this, that the license bought by Microsoft did not protect them from being sued for violating SCO rights concerning UNIX.
And that's a very intriguing development, from the point of Redmond. Defeating the GPL likely will invalidate just about every other software license. Not only is there a real question of whether SCO wants what they appear to be going after, but you have to wonder about what is going on at Microsoft right now... no way do they want software licensing defeated. As much as they want to destroy the GPL, I can't believe they want to destroy licensing itself. I imagine all sorts of shock in Microsoft conference rooms right now.
They claim that Linux is an illegal derivative of Unix, to which they own the copyright. That's in their latest press release. What they have claimed before is that they own all sorts of crap related to Unix, and that any operating system which incorporates those ideas is violating their intellectual property rights. No joke, they seriously believe that just about every current OS violates their rights to Unix. If you are to read their comments and interviews and take them seriously, the recent license they sold to Microsoft does not preclude later claims against Windows for violating their UNIX IP rights.
This is entirely separate from SCO code having made its way into the Linux sources.
They also claim that any code IBM contributed to Linux belongs to SCO, because they UNIX license IBM has makes all subsequent UNIX development at IBM belong to SCO.
SCO will hold harmless commercial Linux customers that purchase a UnixWare license against any past copyright violations, and for any future use of Linux in a run-only, binary format.
and
In May, SCO announced that Linux contained SCO's UNIX System V source code and that Linux was an unauthorized derivative of UNIX.
Does SCO claim they own Linux? Do they claim to license Linux binaries that every one else provides? Will they distribute binaries only, and not provide the source? Are they going to sue everyone else who distributes Linux?
I cannot believe the gall of these idiots, it is breathtaking, far exceeding any nonsense coming out of Redmond.
I wonder if this will be the first GPL case to go to court. And Microsoft... what a position... they sure don't want to make the GPL illegal, since it could cascade into making all copyright licenses illegal. I wonder if they knew who they were going to bed with when they bought a license from SCO to keep them afloat. As much as I despise Microsoft, I can't believe this would do them any good, except in the short term FUD department. If SCO can claim ownership of Linux, it doesn't seem like a far stretch to own every other OS which ever borrowed from Unix ideas.
I worked with a component engineer whose job was to scour the world for cheaper parts. If he could save a penny on resistors for just one product, he paid his own way. He had shelves of data books, and said the absolute last resort was the French books. German, even Japanese, he could at least make a preliminary stab at understanding, because they used the common English words, even if the rest was Greek (ha ha) to him. The French ones used so many artificial bogus terms that he had too much trouble with them.
I always wondered how much business the French firms lost because their technical books were politically correct rather than useful.
Slashdot Mirror
I for one welcome SCO's new IBM overlords ... in fact, I like 'em so much I wish for a GRID of them!
I predicted this, see, see?!?
Even if they do have dads, it's odds-on they don't know who.
... or are they already?
Ha! No sooner had I submitted this than two others showed up with the same observation, who got their post in before me. Well, rats, mark it down as redundant :-)
Note the following from the posting:
/., courtesy of l'i'l ole me) thus open themselves up to real DMCA violations ...
>Note: The information transmitted in this Notice is intended only for the
>person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
>and/or privileged material. Any review, reproduction, retransmission,
>dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
>this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient
>is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender
>and delete the material from all computers.
Seems like the mailing list (and now
I have all the Spike Jones CDs I could find. You have made my day!
I was under the impression that it's pretty easy to annul an uncomsummated marriage.
Godwin's law states that any usenet flamefest will eventually degenerate into comparisons with Nazis, or something to that effect.
Have we replaced Nazis with SCO, such that any slashdot discussion will eventually end up with comparisons to SCO?
I like it!
He didn't say it was Linux code.
What is the practical effect of forever copyrights? Lack of creativity. Copyright holders concentrate on protecting the value of their current copyright rather than think up new things to copyright.
... I wonder if it's coincidence that the trend before rock n roll was for each generation to come up with their own kinds of music sooner and sooner ... ragtime, early jazz, swing .... then rock n roll came along, and has dominated ever since and shows no signs of going away. The Roilling Stones still going after 40 years? Bizarre! I bet if their coyrights weren't still in force, there's be much different kinds of music ruling the airwaves now.
Imagine if Disney had had to keep on thinking up new characters and ideas, instead of the same old mouse and duck. Those would have been retired, new ideas would have come into play, and Disney would stand for new ideas every few years rather than tired variations of the same old mouse products. There would be no incentive for others to mimic the mouse and duck, because it would be so out of fashion, no one would care. Every generation would have their own Disney memories.
When the same stuff gets repeated over and over, the public just doesn't care. That old stuff becomes part of public history whether it's copyrighted or not, a de facto public domain.
I wonder if rock n roll is the same
Seems to me, if I were an/the all knowing, all powerful god, it would not be in my best interest to let all these bogus copies float around, and let my words be corrupted into so many different ambiguous versions.
... which god should I choose?
As for taking the safe bet that there just might be a god who could condemn me for bad thoughts
I would suggest a much more likely reason for monks to be burning an old manuscript was not because it was imprecise, but because it was politically wrong, ie, it disagreed with current church teachings. It was trash only in the sense of being politically incorrect.
This seems a much more likely concusion to draw.
The California 1849 gold rush started as personal placer mining (with a pan or trough), but as the easy stuff was taken, it turned into corporate hydraulic mining. They built big canals and diverted lots of water to erode hills in their search for gold; the diggins near me used to be a hill 400 feet higher. They also stripped the forests to build the flumes and canals; almost all the big trees around me date from 120 years ago when you count the rings. The eroded hills washed downstream and silted up rivers, caused flooding and destroyed farms and orchards. No one liked hydraulic mining, but the legislators were in the pocket of the miners (and the railroad, but that's another story). What stopped the mining was the downstream victims suing and pressing enormous damages.
Yes, 120 years ago, lawyers did good with huge lawsuits, remarkably similar to nowadays. As much as I despise lawyers, they do have a way of bypassing corrupt and powerful corporations and politicians. As much as I would love to get rid of lawyers, I don't want to until there is some method in place to replace their function.
Same deal with antibiotics, or any other organism and the cruel cruel world. That's how life works -- more organisms are born they can survive, the ones with bad mutations don't survive under "normal" conditions, but when conditions change, normal and abnormal swap places, the ones that used to live die, and some of the ones that used to die now live.
If they won't provide content without DRM, someone else will. The old media content providers have their fossilized heads up their sterilized asses and want DRM so as to keep new content providers from thinking up a better business model.
Singing his ode to Daisy.
Suppose your records show your sold twice as many meals for the amount of food you bought as any other restaurant. Or cleaned twice as many clothes for the amount of cleaning material used as any other cleaner.
Has to be data, content, not anything material. Even then, a simple trace would show how much was actually transferred in the period you claimed.
He literally claims that developing any code for a UNIX clone violates UNIX IP rights, thus if you or I or anyone writes code for Linux, it belongs to SCO.
In a theroretical sense, it makes sense -- if I own land, and you build a house on it, thanks, you just built me a house (actually happened to the land I won, with the people I bought it from). Look at all the Harry Potter parodies which have been shut down.
SCO will certainly lose long term, the question is how much of a circus it will be getting there.
You do not understand the arrogance of McBride and his brethren. He has claimed in interviews that all of Linux, and every other UNIX clone, is a derivative of UNIX, whether the code was developed from scratch or not. He even hinted that Windows was not immune to this, that the license bought by Microsoft did not protect them from being sued for violating SCO rights concerning UNIX.
And that's a very intriguing development, from the point of Redmond. Defeating the GPL likely will invalidate just about every other software license. Not only is there a real question of whether SCO wants what they appear to be going after, but you have to wonder about what is going on at Microsoft right now ... no way do they want software licensing defeated. As much as they want to destroy the GPL, I can't believe they want to destroy licensing itself. I imagine all sorts of shock in Microsoft conference rooms right now.
I believe the recent action merely transferred the copyright, which had been granted long ago.
They claim that Linux is an illegal derivative of Unix, to which they own the copyright. That's in their latest press release. What they have claimed before is that they own all sorts of crap related to Unix, and that any operating system which incorporates those ideas is violating their intellectual property rights. No joke, they seriously believe that just about every current OS violates their rights to Unix. If you are to read their comments and interviews and take them seriously, the recent license they sold to Microsoft does not preclude later claims against Windows for violating their UNIX IP rights.
This is entirely separate from SCO code having made its way into the Linux sources.
They also claim that any code IBM contributed to Linux belongs to SCO, because they UNIX license IBM has makes all subsequent UNIX development at IBM belong to SCO.
The sheer arrogance is amazing.
This is not at all clear.
... what a position ... they sure don't want to make the GPL illegal, since it could cascade into making all copyright licenses illegal. I wonder if they knew who they were going to bed with when they bought a license from SCO to keep them afloat. As much as I despise Microsoft, I can't believe this would do them any good, except in the short term FUD department. If SCO can claim ownership of Linux, it doesn't seem like a far stretch to own every other OS which ever borrowed from Unix ideas.
SCO will hold harmless commercial Linux customers that purchase a UnixWare license against any past copyright violations, and for any future use of Linux in a run-only, binary format.
and
In May, SCO announced that Linux contained SCO's UNIX System V source code and that Linux was an unauthorized derivative of UNIX.
Does SCO claim they own Linux? Do they claim to license Linux binaries that every one else provides? Will they distribute binaries only, and not provide the source? Are they going to sue everyone else who distributes Linux?
I cannot believe the gall of these idiots, it is breathtaking, far exceeding any nonsense coming out of Redmond.
I wonder if this will be the first GPL case to go to court. And Microsoft
I worked with a component engineer whose job was to scour the world for cheaper parts. If he could save a penny on resistors for just one product, he paid his own way. He had shelves of data books, and said the absolute last resort was the French books. German, even Japanese, he could at least make a preliminary stab at understanding, because they used the common English words, even if the rest was Greek (ha ha) to him. The French ones used so many artificial bogus terms that he had too much trouble with them.
I always wondered how much business the French firms lost because their technical books were politically correct rather than useful.