Er, no. IBM would still have to meet the conditions of the GPL. So the possibilities work something like this:
1) IBM's settlement gives them non-transferrable rights to the SCO IP. IBM distributes Linux with SCO IP included, under redistribution restrictions. Every single contributor to the packages IBM included SCO IP in gets to sue IBM for breaking the license (GPL) under which IBM gets to distribute their IP.
2) IBM's settlement gives them non-transferrable rights to the SCO IP. IBM distributes Linux without SCO IP included. A clean version of Linux now exists that can be freely redistributed without SCO claims.
3) IBM's settlement gives them transferrable rights to the SCO IP. IBM distributes Linux either with or without SCO IP included, under GPL. A version of Linux either with or without SCO IP in it now exists that can be freely redistributed.
1) means IBM faces potentially thousands of lawsuits, from a variety of corporations and many individuals. It's not something any legal department would allow a company to risk, so it's not really a possibility. 2) and 3) get rid of all problems with future distribution of Linux.
Red Hat, SuSE, etc., under any of the three scenarios still have to beat SCO in court for their past actions if SCO comes after them. If IBM settles, then they're, at worst, in the exact same position as they would have been if SCO had gone after them first instead of IBM.
Re:Intresting, but...
on
SCO DOS'ed
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It was unintentional until they discovered the code.
Today, Sunday May 4 2003, 2:23 am MDT, they know their code is in it, and they are stilldistributing it under the GPL. They'd have had a case if they'd pulled it, but they haven't. From this point forward, SCO, by knowingly distributing the code under the GPL, are knowingly licensing that code for use under the GPL.
This, by the way, also hurts their damage claims. "If this code is so valuable that its distribution under the GPL caused you harm, then why did you knowingly continue to distribute it under the GPL?"
Let's see how long until SCO picks up on this and stops distributing Linux with the disputed code in it. My bet: never.
Since SCO distributed Linux that contained the offending code, SCO, upon trying to end the distribution, would be violating the terms of the license under which they copied and distributed Linux. SCO therefore would have violated the copyright of everyone who made a legitimate contribution to the Linux kernel.
If I were IBM, I'd countersue for SCO distributing my code in violation of the license and copyright, with intent of making it a class action by all the non-SCO Linux programmers. Since at least 95% of the kernel code used by SCO (nee Caldera) was developed by others, my target would be, retroactively, 95% of SCO's lifetime Linux revenue, plus an injunction against SCO ever distributing *any* code licesned under the GPL ever again.
Look, when a package compiles and runs on nineteen different operating systems as varied as AIX, BeOS, BSD/OS, DG/UX, FreeBSD, HPUX, Irix, Linux, MacOS, MacOS X, NetBSD, OpenUNIX/Unixware, OpenVMS, OS/2, QNX, Solaris, Tru64, and Win9x, and WinNT, the problem on the 20th probably isn't Mozilla being non-portable; it's that the 20th operating system is doing something unusual.
Not only do diamonds' surfaces oxidize, they're pretty easy to burn, and only metastable in any case.
Diamonds are *not* forever.
Re:ok, so he removes it from his lexicon so what?
on
Verbing Weirds Google
·
· Score: 1
"Does it hurt Kleenex that people refer to facial tissue as Kleenexes?"
Yes. Just because you're ignorant of a problem doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
To keep the trademarks to Kleenex, Velcro, and Xerox, the owning companies have to spend millions of dollars each year sending cease & desist letters to those who use the terms in print to mean "facial tissues", "hook-and-loop fasteners" and "photocopy". If they didn't, they'd lose their trademark, and competing companies could, for example, sell a "Canon Xerox Machine"
If Google does not send C&D letters to stop genercization of "google", then Microsoft could launch a search engine named, for example, "Microsoft Google", and Google wouldn't be able to stop them.
Microsoft is only RTM-ing versions of Windows 2003 Server for processors that are already available. A production version of Windows 2003 Server for x86-64 will be available through normal channels when x86-64 chips are available through normal channels.
You know, last week I downloaded a new Linux distro, and, upon running it, I said, "I've been waiting for NT file system read/write support for six years, and the developers spent time writing a GNOME Tetris clone and giving it more support?"
If we replaced every single acre of farmland and grazing land *on Earth* with high-oil crops and used every milliliter of the vegetable oil obtained to make biodiesel, you could fuel no more than 20% of the current demand for diesel. You can then feed the remaining biomass to fermentation and distilling and maybe get 20% of the current demand for gas replaced with alcohol. This would cost billions and simultaneously starve billions of people.
The only way biodiesel could become a serious alternative to crude oil is if we flooded large areas of desert with salt water and high-oil algae, at a cost of billions and untold enviromental damage.
What makes you think reality had to be made in the first place? Why did the gestalt need to be "allowed" to exist? Even if you "answered" your question, you'd simply regress to "Okay, what made that?" There is no valid Origin of Existence Question, because, whatever the origin is (an ultimate cause, an infinite regression of causes with no begining, a closed causality loop where everything exists because everything else exists) it had to have existence without making.
Whether there's a truly infinite regress of causes, or there is an ultimate cause, or existience is a closed causality loop, at some point the answer is "It just is. It needed no creation. The whole gestalt exists because it exists." The only question is "what exists?"
"Why" can only have proximate answers, not ultimate ones -- and the reason you ask why is because you're misapplying a evolved instinct to seek proximate causes to the existence of the universe. The only thing you need to understand on the origin question is, ultimately, there's no "why" to understand.
Er, it isn't a police argument; it's a Supreme Court of the U.S. ruling. And in plain language, it goes like this:
When you put the trash out on the curb, you are surrendering your property rights to it. It is therefore no longer yours; if it was still yours, the trash man taking it away, for example, would be theft. Since it isn't yours, the trash you put on the curb isn't your person, your house, your papers, or your effects anymore. Therfore, the the Fourth Amendment, which only protects your person, your house, your papers, and your effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, doesn't apply.
Now, if it's on your curb, it's on your land, in which case a police officer who comes on your land may be trespassing. Generally, the law allows reasonable non-injurious crossing of your land unless you assert that you want people to stay off: thus, the police could normally access the garbage on the curb, but if you didn't put the trash on an easment and you have a "No Trespassing" sign up, they can't, because it would be the crime of tresspass.
Similarly, they can usually do anything legal, reasonable, and non-injurious on your land, but if you have rules against something, somebody doing it on your land is legally trespassing, so a "Don't Open Garbage" sign transforms the act from a legal investigation of unowned property into trespassing.
Note, however, the police *could* simply come by when the garbageman, who is normally allowed to come on to your land to collect the garbage, collects it, and have the garbageman hand them the trash on the street. Because the trash isn't yours, because you surrendered your rights to it when you put it out to be taken away by other people.
Er, in the U.S. you better damn well be expecting it; the U.S. Supreme Court specifically ruled that putting trash out on the curb is a voluntary abandonment of property; since it isn't yours any more, the police don't need a warrant to examine it any more than they would need a warrant to examine the ballistics of a gun found in a river.
. . . if the U.S. sucessfully tested a U-235 bomb in 1944, why did it test another U-235 bomb at White Sands in 1945? The U.S. could have had three bombs read for use in 1945 then, or at the very least, the U.S. could have tested the plutonium bomb at White Sands and had two bombs of known-good design to drop on Japan.
Since Google will probably wind up creating a google.kids.us site anyway, and Google already tracks what pages link to where as part of its indexing mechanism, the checking could be contracted out to them for trivial (on a government scale) amounts of money.
The definition you quote has aboslutely nothing to do with modern political "conservatism" in the U.S., and hasn't for between forty and seventy years.
Dell makes no mention of this fact on their website, product brochures, or any other material you would read before purchasing the laptop
Actually, Dell does. On the product web page.
Look at the actual web page detailing the computer.
First, see footnote #2. "Power management features limit processor speed when running on battery."
Then go up the page to where it has "Learn More" next to Processors, and click on it. That explains the difference between a Penitum 4 and a Pentium 4-M. Look at the "Details" tab and note the footnote on the Pentium 4 speeds that says "Power management features limit processor speed when running on battery."
Now, finally, note that there's no M after the processor name in the specs.
What does this mean? Dell both said that speed is reduced when running on battery AND that it isn't the mobile processor. All on the product web page.
but many other capitalists out there figure it's cheaper to buy politicians than new hardware.
Did you ever read this "Randian fiction"? Buisnessmen manipulating governments for their own advantage are the primary bad guys in the first section of Atlas Shrugged, which is the only one of her books that deals with the character of capitalists.
Well, the NexGen-AMD core line (Nx586, K6, Athlon, Hammer) is independently designed, but the AMD chips through the "586" used Intel microcode under license. (I'm not sure what the K5, AMD's last processor before acquiring NexGen, used.)
Slashdot Mirror
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. The license is the only thing that keeps the redistribution from being a copyright violation.
Er, no. IBM would still have to meet the conditions of the GPL. So the possibilities work something like this:
1) IBM's settlement gives them non-transferrable rights to the SCO IP. IBM distributes Linux with SCO IP included, under redistribution restrictions. Every single contributor to the packages IBM included SCO IP in gets to sue IBM for breaking the license (GPL) under which IBM gets to distribute their IP.
2) IBM's settlement gives them non-transferrable rights to the SCO IP. IBM distributes Linux without SCO IP included. A clean version of Linux now exists that can be freely redistributed without SCO claims.
3) IBM's settlement gives them transferrable rights to the SCO IP. IBM distributes Linux either with or without SCO IP included, under GPL. A version of Linux either with or without SCO IP in it now exists that can be freely redistributed.
1) means IBM faces potentially thousands of lawsuits, from a variety of corporations and many individuals. It's not something any legal department would allow a company to risk, so it's not really a possibility. 2) and 3) get rid of all problems with future distribution of Linux.
Red Hat, SuSE, etc., under any of the three scenarios still have to beat SCO in court for their past actions if SCO comes after them. If IBM settles, then they're, at worst, in the exact same position as they would have been if SCO had gone after them first instead of IBM.
It was unintentional until they discovered the code.
Today, Sunday May 4 2003, 2:23 am MDT, they know their code is in it, and they are still distributing it under the GPL. They'd have had a case if they'd pulled it, but they haven't. From this point forward, SCO, by knowingly distributing the code under the GPL, are knowingly licensing that code for use under the GPL.
This, by the way, also hurts their damage claims. "If this code is so valuable that its distribution under the GPL caused you harm, then why did you knowingly continue to distribute it under the GPL?"
Let's see how long until SCO picks up on this and stops distributing Linux with the disputed code in it. My bet: never.
Since SCO distributed Linux that contained the offending code, SCO, upon trying to end the distribution, would be violating the terms of the license under which they copied and distributed Linux. SCO therefore would have violated the copyright of everyone who made a legitimate contribution to the Linux kernel.
If I were IBM, I'd countersue for SCO distributing my code in violation of the license and copyright, with intent of making it a class action by all the non-SCO Linux programmers. Since at least 95% of the kernel code used by SCO (nee Caldera) was developed by others, my target would be, retroactively, 95% of SCO's lifetime Linux revenue, plus an injunction against SCO ever distributing *any* code licesned under the GPL ever again.
When SCO (nee Caldera) distributed Linux under the GPL, there was an SCO authorized distribution of the previously stolen code under the GPL.
At the very least, this indemnifies *everyone* past the first rogue, and arguably makes it impossible for SCO to call the code back.
True in general, but there's one more factor -- the x86-64 instruction set has more registers than x86-32.
Uh, the Itanium 2 processor at 1GHz performs about as well as a 2.5GHz P4.
On 32-bit x86 code, which is what this benchmarking tested?
Look, when a package compiles and runs on nineteen different operating systems as varied as AIX, BeOS, BSD/OS, DG/UX, FreeBSD, HPUX, Irix, Linux, MacOS, MacOS X, NetBSD, OpenUNIX/Unixware, OpenVMS, OS/2, QNX, Solaris, Tru64, and Win9x, and WinNT, the problem on the 20th probably isn't Mozilla being non-portable; it's that the 20th operating system is doing something unusual.
No, this isn't . . . the "death of Mozilla"...
Phoenix will become the Mozilla browser, Thunderbird will become the mail program.
Ah, right. So this isn't the death of Mozilla. It's just that Mozilla is being killed and replaced. Such an insightful correction.
In particular, might there be a requirement that the US and Canada follow suit?
No.
Not only do diamonds' surfaces oxidize, they're pretty easy to burn, and only metastable in any case.
Diamonds are *not* forever.
"Does it hurt Kleenex that people refer to facial tissue as Kleenexes?"
Yes. Just because you're ignorant of a problem doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
To keep the trademarks to Kleenex, Velcro, and Xerox, the owning companies have to spend millions of dollars each year sending cease & desist letters to those who use the terms in print to mean "facial tissues", "hook-and-loop fasteners" and "photocopy". If they didn't, they'd lose their trademark, and competing companies could, for example, sell a "Canon Xerox Machine"
If Google does not send C&D letters to stop genercization of "google", then Microsoft could launch a search engine named, for example, "Microsoft Google", and Google wouldn't be able to stop them.
How about this:
Microsoft is only RTM-ing versions of Windows 2003 Server for processors that are already available. A production version of Windows 2003 Server for x86-64 will be available through normal channels when x86-64 chips are available through normal channels.
You know, last week I downloaded a new Linux distro, and, upon running it, I said, "I've been waiting for NT file system read/write support for six years, and the developers spent time writing a GNOME Tetris clone and giving it more support?"
If we replaced every single acre of farmland and grazing land *on Earth* with high-oil crops and used every milliliter of the vegetable oil obtained to make biodiesel, you could fuel no more than 20% of the current demand for diesel. You can then feed the remaining biomass to fermentation and distilling and maybe get 20% of the current demand for gas replaced with alcohol. This would cost billions and simultaneously starve billions of people.
The only way biodiesel could become a serious alternative to crude oil is if we flooded large areas of desert with salt water and high-oil algae, at a cost of billions and untold enviromental damage.
What made this reality?
What makes you think reality had to be made in the first place? Why did the gestalt need to be "allowed" to exist? Even if you "answered" your question, you'd simply regress to "Okay, what made that?" There is no valid Origin of Existence Question, because, whatever the origin is (an ultimate cause, an infinite regression of causes with no begining, a closed causality loop where everything exists because everything else exists) it had to have existence without making.
Whether there's a truly infinite regress of causes, or there is an ultimate cause, or existience is a closed causality loop, at some point the answer is "It just is. It needed no creation. The whole gestalt exists because it exists." The only question is "what exists?"
"Why" can only have proximate answers, not ultimate ones -- and the reason you ask why is because you're misapplying a evolved instinct to seek proximate causes to the existence of the universe. The only thing you need to understand on the origin question is, ultimately, there's no "why" to understand.
Er, it isn't a police argument; it's a Supreme Court of the U.S. ruling. And in plain language, it goes like this:
When you put the trash out on the curb, you are surrendering your property rights to it. It is therefore no longer yours; if it was still yours, the trash man taking it away, for example, would be theft. Since it isn't yours, the trash you put on the curb isn't your person, your house, your papers, or your effects anymore. Therfore, the the Fourth Amendment, which only protects your person, your house, your papers, and your effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, doesn't apply.
Now, if it's on your curb, it's on your land, in which case a police officer who comes on your land may be trespassing. Generally, the law allows reasonable non-injurious crossing of your land unless you assert that you want people to stay off: thus, the police could normally access the garbage on the curb, but if you didn't put the trash on an easment and you have a "No Trespassing" sign up, they can't, because it would be the crime of tresspass.
Similarly, they can usually do anything legal, reasonable, and non-injurious on your land, but if you have rules against something, somebody doing it on your land is legally trespassing, so a "Don't Open Garbage" sign transforms the act from a legal investigation of unowned property into trespassing.
Note, however, the police *could* simply come by when the garbageman, who is normally allowed to come on to your land to collect the garbage, collects it, and have the garbageman hand them the trash on the street. Because the trash isn't yours, because you surrendered your rights to it when you put it out to be taken away by other people.
Er, in the U.S. you better damn well be expecting it; the U.S. Supreme Court specifically ruled that putting trash out on the curb is a voluntary abandonment of property; since it isn't yours any more, the police don't need a warrant to examine it any more than they would need a warrant to examine the ballistics of a gun found in a river.
. . . if the U.S. sucessfully tested a U-235 bomb in 1944, why did it test another U-235 bomb at White Sands in 1945? The U.S. could have had three bombs read for use in 1945 then, or at the very least, the U.S. could have tested the plutonium bomb at White Sands and had two bombs of known-good design to drop on Japan.
Since Google will probably wind up creating a google.kids.us site anyway, and Google already tracks what pages link to where as part of its indexing mechanism, the checking could be contracted out to them for trivial (on a government scale) amounts of money.
The definition you quote has aboslutely nothing to do with modern political "conservatism" in the U.S., and hasn't for between forty and seventy years.
Dell makes no mention of this fact on their website, product brochures, or any other material you would read before purchasing the laptop
Actually, Dell does. On the product web page.
Look at the actual web page detailing the computer.
First, see footnote #2. "Power management features limit processor speed when running on battery."
Then go up the page to where it has "Learn More" next to Processors, and click on it. That explains the difference between a Penitum 4 and a Pentium 4-M. Look at the "Details" tab and note the footnote on the Pentium 4 speeds that says "Power management features limit processor speed when running on battery."
Now, finally, note that there's no M after the processor name in the specs.
What does this mean? Dell both said that speed is reduced when running on battery AND that it isn't the mobile processor. All on the product web page.
but many other capitalists out there figure it's cheaper to buy politicians than new hardware.
Did you ever read this "Randian fiction"? Buisnessmen manipulating governments for their own advantage are the primary bad guys in the first section of Atlas Shrugged, which is the only one of her books that deals with the character of capitalists.
Well, the NexGen-AMD core line (Nx586, K6, Athlon, Hammer) is independently designed, but the AMD chips through the "586" used Intel microcode under license. (I'm not sure what the K5, AMD's last processor before acquiring NexGen, used.)
... and a workalike of an OS originally designed for a PDP-11.