I agree. On the other hand, we are systematically taking over the world and roughly half of us are in favor of that. On the other-other hand, we're pretty well brainwashed by the telescreen, which we'll not cease to pour our hard-earned cash into via products like TiVo. I can't remember---did the characters in 1984 have to buy their telescreens or did the government provide them?
Every week I do a backup of everything important on my SuSE box, the entire public dir on my live web server and two testing servers plus the MySQL databases on all four. My email and document files go back to about 1995 and still everything fits on a single CD. (I also burn another copy for off-site b/u.) So, I have multiple copies of everything that's more than a week or two old. As soon as I have more data than will fit on one CD, I'll move to an incremental system... and start to worry about CD rot.
As I said before, the fact that their case is weak suggests that a stronger case cannot be made. If there was a stronger case to be made, SCO would have made it, or if there was a stronger case that couldn't be made by SCO but could be made by a different entity, MS would have supported them instead of SCO. I guess we'll see...
Well, if that's their argument, then Linux is safe, because that's insane. It's neither illegal nor unconstitutional to give up your rights. It's just practically unheard of, which is why it's stirring the pot so much.
First, jbolden, I recognize that you don't agree with SCO's position and you're doing this just to keep the conversation going in order to test out SCO's theory... Thanks for that...
A major point that I was trying to make is that (AFAIK & IDKM) there is nothing in the copyright law that requires the copyright holder to make money---or to intend to make money---off the copyrighted work. The copyright law is there to protect rights of the originator. A right is not an obligation. If the originator chooses to let others copy his/her product, that's fine. The GPL does just that. It's a lot like the rest of the law: If I buy (or grow) an apple, I can give it to you for free. Nobody's going to court, even if I put Billy's Fruit Stand out of business because of it. On the other hand, if you take my apple without permission, I could take you to court for the fair market value of the apple plus any cost I incur in the process of making you pay the fair market value (plus the fact that the apple was MY BEST FRIEND and, oh <cries> the pain and suffering!!!)
I don't think you can deduce that/. is a bunch of white guys simply because people don't comment on an article that's written in Chinese. You could speculate that most Slashdotters don't speak Chinese, however. You could also base that assumption on the fact that it's an English-language Website.
That's a good point, but I think it is a bit scarier. The entities that you listed don't have access to the information that the others have. (e.g. My landlord can't [legally] obtain my bank records.)
If I write something and publish it, I'm not obligated to make a profit on it; I'm not even obligated to try. I can give it to anyone I want and, if I want, I can put restrictions on it's use for as long as I hold the copyright.
The GPL is a license. It says that the authors are permitting anyone who's willing to follow some rules can use the product that the author has the rights to. (IOW: The authors are forfeiting their exclusive rights over the product with some restrictions.)
There is nothing illegal about the GPL---at least not in its general concept---under any reasonable theory of law. The problem is that the idea of giving something away for free really undermines the whole concept of capitalism. Those who rely on bullying competitors with their almost limitless funds don't like this. But I do.:-)
AFAIK (and IDKM [I don't know much]), there's nothing about encouraging commerce in the copyright laws, other than the fact that they exist to protect the copyright owners' rights to make all the money, if any, off of the copyrighted product. People make a lot of money off Linux, myself included, but there's nothing that prevents a copyright holder from giving his/her product away, even if (s)he puts restrictions on who uses it or how it's used. Linux is here to stay. MS is too, but I think that they're eventually going to have to play fair.
That's a good point. It would be very interesting to see a break-down of what has been tested by this case, and any others. On the other hand, I don't think SCO is a bunch of idiots, as some people tend to believe. I think that if there was anything at all that they could have built a legitimate case on, they would have found it. Also, I'm sure that MS has taken apart Linux and looked at it carefully under a microscope. And SCO's case is the best thing that they could find to encourage/support? Seems like a pretty good test to me, but I really don't know. Thoughts?
Mod parent up... If enough FP attempts fail so miserably (and so humorously) maybe people will stop trying to make 'em... (Yes, in case you noticed, I learned my lesson too, on a later article.)
Google's not trying to control anything; they're trying to track everything... Take a look at what they know about you, using the google cookie and their database:
o What you search for (interests)
o What you email about (interests)
o Who you email (networks of people)
o Who you invite to join GMail (networks of people)
o What groups you browse/join (interests)
o Where you live, via maps/weather (interests, networks of people, location)
o Where you travel, via maps/weather (same as above)
o What you buy (interests, financial standing?)
o News you read (interests, location)
o The list goes on...
Who would have thought that basing a company on litigation, scare tactics, and spreading FUD wouldn't work?
I agree. They can't be so stupid not to understand that the courts would eventually figure out what they're doing and put an end to this. In my experience, judges are very down-to-earth people and really frown upon people/organizations who are trying to take advantage of the system. Of course, it seems that SCO & friends knew that it would take a ton of time and money to demonstrate to the non-technical folks (e.g. judges, corporate execs.) that their case is frivolous, and that the news of a lawsuit against Linux would strike fear in the hearts of corporate execs, whose job security depends on their ability to make decisions that help the company in the long run.
In that sense, SCO succeeded in buying (a) commercial OS maker(s) some time to fix their (its) flawed products. I take pleasure in the fact that it doesn't seem to have been enough time... I recently talked with an exec at a company that just switched to Linux and they're saving over $1 million annually! As long as Linux works for them---and it does---why wouldn't they make the switch. It's simple business. That's what has the big OS companies (company) shaking in their (its) penny loafers.
Slashdot Mirror
GIMP
I agree. On the other hand, we are systematically taking over the world and roughly half of us are in favor of that. On the other-other hand, we're pretty well brainwashed by the telescreen, which we'll not cease to pour our hard-earned cash into via products like TiVo. I can't remember---did the characters in 1984 have to buy their telescreens or did the government provide them?
Parent is not off topic.
Every week I do a backup of everything important on my SuSE box, the entire public dir on my live web server and two testing servers plus the MySQL databases on all four. My email and document files go back to about 1995 and still everything fits on a single CD. (I also burn another copy for off-site b/u.) So, I have multiple copies of everything that's more than a week or two old. As soon as I have more data than will fit on one CD, I'll move to an incremental system... and start to worry about CD rot.
<snort> Hey, thanks!
Please wake me up when there's a Planet SuSE...
http://www.linuxcertified.com/linux-laptop-lc2464. html
< drools >
As I said before, the fact that their case is weak suggests that a stronger case cannot be made. If there was a stronger case to be made, SCO would have made it, or if there was a stronger case that couldn't be made by SCO but could be made by a different entity, MS would have supported them instead of SCO. I guess we'll see...
Well, if that's their argument, then Linux is safe, because that's insane. It's neither illegal nor unconstitutional to give up your rights. It's just practically unheard of, which is why it's stirring the pot so much.
First, jbolden, I recognize that you don't agree with SCO's position and you're doing this just to keep the conversation going in order to test out SCO's theory... Thanks for that...
A major point that I was trying to make is that (AFAIK & IDKM) there is nothing in the copyright law that requires the copyright holder to make money---or to intend to make money---off the copyrighted work. The copyright law is there to protect rights of the originator. A right is not an obligation. If the originator chooses to let others copy his/her product, that's fine. The GPL does just that. It's a lot like the rest of the law: If I buy (or grow) an apple, I can give it to you for free. Nobody's going to court, even if I put Billy's Fruit Stand out of business because of it. On the other hand, if you take my apple without permission, I could take you to court for the fair market value of the apple plus any cost I incur in the process of making you pay the fair market value (plus the fact that the apple was MY BEST FRIEND and, oh <cries> the pain and suffering!!!)
Also, the first article link is in English.
I don't think you can deduce that /. is a bunch of white guys simply because people don't comment on an article that's written in Chinese. You could speculate that most Slashdotters don't speak Chinese, however. You could also base that assumption on the fact that it's an English-language Website.
That's a good point, but I think it is a bit scarier. The entities that you listed don't have access to the information that the others have. (e.g. My landlord can't [legally] obtain my bank records.)
If I write something and publish it, I'm not obligated to make a profit on it; I'm not even obligated to try. I can give it to anyone I want and, if I want, I can put restrictions on it's use for as long as I hold the copyright.
:-)
The GPL is a license. It says that the authors are permitting anyone who's willing to follow some rules can use the product that the author has the rights to. (IOW: The authors are forfeiting their exclusive rights over the product with some restrictions.)
There is nothing illegal about the GPL---at least not in its general concept---under any reasonable theory of law. The problem is that the idea of giving something away for free really undermines the whole concept of capitalism. Those who rely on bullying competitors with their almost limitless funds don't like this. But I do.
AFAIK (and IDKM [I don't know much]), there's nothing about encouraging commerce in the copyright laws, other than the fact that they exist to protect the copyright owners' rights to make all the money, if any, off of the copyrighted product. People make a lot of money off Linux, myself included, but there's nothing that prevents a copyright holder from giving his/her product away, even if (s)he puts restrictions on who uses it or how it's used. Linux is here to stay. MS is too, but I think that they're eventually going to have to play fair.
That's a good point. It would be very interesting to see a break-down of what has been tested by this case, and any others. On the other hand, I don't think SCO is a bunch of idiots, as some people tend to believe. I think that if there was anything at all that they could have built a legitimate case on, they would have found it. Also, I'm sure that MS has taken apart Linux and looked at it carefully under a microscope. And SCO's case is the best thing that they could find to encourage/support? Seems like a pretty good test to me, but I really don't know. Thoughts?
Mod parent up... If enough FP attempts fail so miserably (and so humorously) maybe people will stop trying to make 'em... (Yes, in case you noticed, I learned my lesson too, on a later article.)
Google's not trying to control anything; they're trying to track everything... Take a look at what they know about you, using the google cookie and their database:
o What you search for (interests)
o What you email about (interests)
o Who you email (networks of people)
o Who you invite to join GMail (networks of people)
o What groups you browse/join (interests)
o Where you live, via maps/weather (interests, networks of people, location)
o Where you travel, via maps/weather (same as above)
o What you buy (interests, financial standing?)
o News you read (interests, location)
o The list goes on...
It's a little scary, IMHO
and if they're smart, they're hiding from us. fp?
Who would have thought that basing a company on litigation, scare tactics, and spreading FUD wouldn't work?
I agree. They can't be so stupid not to understand that the courts would eventually figure out what they're doing and put an end to this. In my experience, judges are very down-to-earth people and really frown upon people/organizations who are trying to take advantage of the system. Of course, it seems that SCO & friends knew that it would take a ton of time and money to demonstrate to the non-technical folks (e.g. judges, corporate execs.) that their case is frivolous, and that the news of a lawsuit against Linux would strike fear in the hearts of corporate execs, whose job security depends on their ability to make decisions that help the company in the long run.
In that sense, SCO succeeded in buying (a) commercial OS maker(s) some time to fix their (its) flawed products. I take pleasure in the fact that it doesn't seem to have been enough time... I recently talked with an exec at a company that just switched to Linux and they're saving over $1 million annually! As long as Linux works for them---and it does---why wouldn't they make the switch. It's simple business. That's what has the big OS companies (company) shaking in their (its) penny loafers.
Some people believe that the researchers will be reincarnated as lab monkies.
Sticking f-ing probes in an innocent monkey's brain?!?
Leave the monkies alone!
I trust you are not connecting these two events?
I think he's connecting them by cause, not effect.
Research: video games decrease brain activity
One presumes MS know what they're doing, but this is certainly a weird gambit.
Have you lost your mind?
Or as Jesus said, "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."