can't bare to look at myself in the mirror now that they have gone and signed a deal with The Devil -- now I have to go and ammend my upcoming textbook for PostgreSQL! I could never support MySQL again.I figure a teacher could spell, but since you're a troll I'll forgive the fleAs mistake. Oh yeah, you're promoting knee-jerk zealotry over non-news for what reason? --bold added.
You have no space between the period after the word "again" and the word "I" starting the next sentence. Feel free to go forgive yourself.
SCO doesn't need an olive branch. One needs only to look at their past behavior to realize they would take the branch and use it to try and whip the one who offered it. "See, they must have done something wrong, and they felt so guilty about wronging us that they gave us this olive branch," or something like that.
By partnering with SCO, MySQL has embraced their unethical, tangled web business model. This is unacceptable to me. That's why I have just started evaluating PostgreSQL for use in a company database, after already setting it up using MySQL. It's a small app, but our company is growing fast, and the DB is a critical component of managing the growing amounts of information we need to handle. MySQL has worked well, but, fortunately, they have made this SCO decision at a stage where I can replace it before deployment within our organization.
MySQL has decided to engage in business with SCO while SCO is still being run by quick-buck schemers. MySQL chose to do this, so I choose not to use their software (wish I could do the same for Microsoft stuff, but that's another topic). MySQL also is in no postition to offer any kind of "olive branch," anyway.
In other words, there's no way to polish this turd.
Actually, all political stuff aside, you bring up a good point. The President (as the Executive Branch) sets the foreign policy of the US, except for ratification of treaties by the Senate. When one party of like mindedness controls both the Executive Branch and the Senate, the President does have a tremendous amount of power unrestrained by the Jucicial Branch. Full control of the Legislative Branch is not even necessary.
...ask yourself how much good was done by other governments as powerfull as ours were all institutions were in the hands of a single party?
Spelling not withstanding, perhaps the question should be "...ask yourself why one party keeps getting elected by the people." But liberals have never thought the people were smart enough to make decisions for themselves.
Judge Judy's the one. I can hear it now, "You got a patent for what! The Smiley Face! Well, maybe you can get a patent on the frown you'll see in the mirror when I'm through with you."
So the first point here is that regardless of you call your Linux
distribution "Linux Something" or something totally different, you'll want
to protect that name if you are serious about making a big commercial
distribution. -- Linus Torvalds
I haven't forgotten history, you just don't pay attention to the present. Check here to see some of the things you might have missed while living in mommy's basement.
The only reason there's any support for licensing the trademark at all is Linus has a good track record, but he might not always control the trademark. Then what happens? This is a real issue, and being concerned about it doesn't make me a troll.
Preserving the good name of "Linux" is what this is all about.
Baloney. This is being done primarily because the large vendors want Linux®, not Linux generic. "Protecting the good name of Linux" is just the sugar coating used to get the sheep to swallow it.
The lawyer says "one of the purposes of sending the letter out in the first place was to discern which organisations might use the name for commercial gain." That means he was trolling for people/organizations to possibly sue in the future. Respond to that letter and you're on the hook, whether you agree, sign, or not.
If you think that Linus Torvalds is a reasonable person, and won't ask for anything unreasonable, then what about his heirs? What if Microsoft decides to buy the Linux trademark from him for a billion dollars? (He's a sane individual and would take the money.)
BINGO! The LMI Sublicense Agreement is written in such a way that it gives total control over ALL licensed distributions, businesses, services, and organizations to the owner of the trademark. All in one neat little package that would easily be worth $1 billion to a company like Microsoft, or IBM, or Sun. In fact, a bidding war between those three companies alone could bring a much higher price.
Even if Linus won't sell, nobody lives forever, and eventually his heirs will control the name. Or he may get legally outmanuevered by others who like the idea of becoming billionaires. It wouldn't be the first time in history that trusted associates turned against someone.
People need to read this agreement and think rationally about what's in it, and the potential for abuse that it contains, instead of just going ba-aah whenever they hear "Linus says."
Anyway, you are allowed to call your distro "Jekler Linux", just as you always have.
Yes, if the Linux Mark Institute agrees to license you. But if you agree to the license, then the LMI has veto power over the packages you can include with the distribution. They don't like a package, they can revoke your license if you don't remove it from your (or would it really be their,) distro.
Also, if you start a business that includes the Linux® mark in the name ("Linux Support Squad", for example,) you cannot sell that business, or change majority ownership stakes without getting the LMI's permission.
While the actions of the LMI are seemingly benign at the moment, the agreement flies in the face of the entire concept of "free as in speech" software, and gives the LMI dictatorial control over a licensee's distribution, service, name, and company. And that is NOT the way it's always been.
The only reason he's jumping on Linux is because it provides an easy target for cheap-shot advertisement.
Stallman's not jumping on Linux, and Stallman isn't sending letters out of the blue to users telling them to license the word/entity/trademark/whatever GNU, or setting a fee scale for it. The Linux Mark Instituteis doing that.
The real reason Linux® is being "protected" and not given to the public domain as a generic trademark is not to prevent "tarnishing of the Linux name," it's being done because the larger commercial vendors and users want the name trademarked for their protection.
With all the legal heavy-lifting the large organizations like IBM, Red Hat, and AutoZone are doing against the SCOboys, I can see why they want "Linux" to become "Linux®", but in reality, the term "Linux" is already generic (like "Pizza",) and should be declared such. So, instead of jumping on Stallman and saying "He should just require (as others do) that it mention somewhere in the materials that it uses GNU software", perhaps Linus should release "Linux®" to the public domain, where it would be protected by a "social license" instead of a very restrictive legal one.
You bet he messed up Garibaldi. Moved him clear off the tube and onto the radio. That's too bad, too, because I always wanted to see Garibaldi get some payback from Bester.
Ah, yes, the mainstream media and global warming. Or was it global cooling? This writeup reminds us of some of the media's prior conclusions regarding global climate change, and the methods of scientists who use the media for promotion. I really liked the last paragraph which described Dr. Stephen Schneider's attitude toward informing the public:
Stephen Schneider once noted that "as scientists... ethically bound to the scientific method... we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts." On the other hand, "we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination," which entails "getting loads of media coverage." Consequently, that means "we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have." This dilemma for Schneider and his fellow catastrophic climatologists is made easier by the fact that the opinion cartel has assigned their embarrassing "ice age" predictions to the memory hole.
It seems to imply that the media doesn't understand either science or ethics. What a shock!
I don't think "$300 / seat for something proprietary" really matters that much.
Google wasn't always worth billions. $300 bucks for anything is a lot of money to most college students. And if it shouldn't matter to Google, then it really shouldn't matter to Microsoft.
However, if it's not so much to you, then could you mail me $300? I'll be glad to pay it back should I ever become worth billions.:)
Perhaps Microsoft is not including Monad because (maybe) it incorporates methods and concepts licensed from SCO, but that SCO did not have the right to license?
Slashdot Mirror
can't bare to look at myself in the mirror now that they have gone and signed a deal with The Devil -- now I have to go and ammend my upcoming textbook for PostgreSQL! I could never support MySQL again.I figure a teacher could spell, but since you're a troll I'll forgive the fleAs mistake. Oh yeah, you're promoting knee-jerk zealotry over non-news for what reason? --bold added.
You have no space between the period after the word "again" and the word "I" starting the next sentence. Feel free to go forgive yourself.
SCO doesn't need an olive branch. One needs only to look at their past behavior to realize they would take the branch and use it to try and whip the one who offered it. "See, they must have done something wrong, and they felt so guilty about wronging us that they gave us this olive branch," or something like that.
By partnering with SCO, MySQL has embraced their unethical, tangled web business model. This is unacceptable to me. That's why I have just started evaluating PostgreSQL for use in a company database, after already setting it up using MySQL. It's a small app, but our company is growing fast, and the DB is a critical component of managing the growing amounts of information we need to handle. MySQL has worked well, but, fortunately, they have made this SCO decision at a stage where I can replace it before deployment within our organization.
MySQL has decided to engage in business with SCO while SCO is still being run by quick-buck schemers. MySQL chose to do this, so I choose not to use their software (wish I could do the same for Microsoft stuff, but that's another topic). MySQL also is in no postition to offer any kind of "olive branch," anyway.
In other words, there's no way to polish this turd.
Actually, all political stuff aside, you bring up a good point. The President (as the Executive Branch) sets the foreign policy of the US, except for ratification of treaties by the Senate. When one party of like mindedness controls both the Executive Branch and the Senate, the President does have a tremendous amount of power unrestrained by the Jucicial Branch. Full control of the Legislative Branch is not even necessary.
Spelling not withstanding, perhaps the question should be "...ask yourself why one party keeps getting elected by the people
I, for one, welcome our new Chief Justice Ballmer to lead us!
Ha ha! Ballmer'd finally get to tell Bill Gates what to do!
Judge Judy's the one. I can hear it now, "You got a patent for what! The Smiley Face! Well, maybe you can get a patent on the frown you'll see in the mirror when I'm through with you."
Oh, man. That is so bad it's really good.
So the first point here is that regardless of you call your Linux distribution "Linux Something" or something totally different, you'll want to protect that name if you are serious about making a big commercial distribution. -- Linus Torvalds
I haven't forgotten history, you just don't pay attention to the present. Check here to see some of the things you might have missed while living in mommy's basement.
The only reason there's any support for licensing the trademark at all is Linus has a good track record, but he might not always control the trademark. Then what happens? This is a real issue, and being concerned about it doesn't make me a troll.
Preserving the good name of "Linux" is what this is all about.
Baloney. This is being done primarily because the large vendors want Linux®, not Linux generic. "Protecting the good name of Linux" is just the sugar coating used to get the sheep to swallow it.
The lawyer says "one of the purposes of sending the letter out in the first place was to discern which organisations might use the name for commercial gain." That means he was trolling for people/organizations to possibly sue in the future. Respond to that letter and you're on the hook, whether you agree, sign, or not.
That's exactly what I think.
...almost all the code in Linux is copyrighted by someone else than Linus, and licensed under various GPL-compatible licenses.
So, there is no Linux in Linux®? Or is it there is no Linux® in Linux?
If you think that Linus Torvalds is a reasonable person, and won't ask for anything unreasonable, then what about his heirs? What if Microsoft decides to buy the Linux trademark from him for a billion dollars? (He's a sane individual and would take the money.)
BINGO! The LMI Sublicense Agreement is written in such a way that it gives total control over ALL licensed distributions, businesses, services, and organizations to the owner of the trademark. All in one neat little package that would easily be worth $1 billion to a company like Microsoft, or IBM, or Sun. In fact, a bidding war between those three companies alone could bring a much higher price.
Even if Linus won't sell, nobody lives forever, and eventually his heirs will control the name. Or he may get legally outmanuevered by others who like the idea of becoming billionaires. It wouldn't be the first time in history that trusted associates turned against someone.
People need to read this agreement and think rationally about what's in it, and the potential for abuse that it contains, instead of just going ba-aah whenever they hear "Linus says."
Anyway, you are allowed to call your distro "Jekler Linux", just as you always have.
Yes, if the Linux Mark Institute agrees to license you. But if you agree to the license, then the LMI has veto power over the packages you can include with the distribution. They don't like a package, they can revoke your license if you don't remove it from your (or would it really be their,) distro.
Also, if you start a business that includes the Linux® mark in the name ("Linux Support Squad", for example,) you cannot sell that business, or change majority ownership stakes without getting the LMI's permission.
While the actions of the LMI are seemingly benign at the moment, the agreement flies in the face of the entire concept of "free as in speech" software, and gives the LMI dictatorial control over a licensee's distribution, service, name, and company. And that is NOT the way it's always been.
The only reason he's jumping on Linux is because it provides an easy target for cheap-shot advertisement.
Stallman's not jumping on Linux, and Stallman isn't sending letters out of the blue to users telling them to license the word/entity/trademark/whatever GNU, or setting a fee scale for it. The Linux Mark Institute is doing that.
The real reason Linux® is being "protected" and not given to the public domain as a generic trademark is not to prevent "tarnishing of the Linux name," it's being done because the larger commercial vendors and users want the name trademarked for their protection.
With all the legal heavy-lifting the large organizations like IBM, Red Hat, and AutoZone are doing against the SCOboys, I can see why they want "Linux" to become "Linux®", but in reality, the term "Linux" is already generic (like "Pizza",) and should be declared such. So, instead of jumping on Stallman and saying "He should just require (as others do) that it mention somewhere in the materials that it uses GNU software", perhaps Linus should release "Linux®" to the public domain, where it would be protected by a "social license" instead of a very restrictive legal one.
You bet he messed up Garibaldi. Moved him clear off the tube and onto the radio. That's too bad, too, because I always wanted to see Garibaldi get some payback from Bester.
Verifiy at the source, stream to end hardware as symbolized by the double slash -- //, and then Verifiy again at the user's hardware.
This way, they can double-Vuck you.
... could be called Microsux without being charged?
Ah, yes, the mainstream media and global warming. Or was it global cooling? This writeup reminds us of some of the media's prior conclusions regarding global climate change, and the methods of scientists who use the media for promotion. I really liked the last paragraph which described Dr. Stephen Schneider's attitude toward informing the public:
... ethically bound to the scientific method ... we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts." On the other hand, "we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination," which entails "getting loads of media coverage." Consequently, that means "we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have." This dilemma for Schneider and his fellow catastrophic climatologists is made easier by the fact that the opinion cartel has assigned their embarrassing "ice age" predictions to the memory hole.
Stephen Schneider once noted that "as scientists
It seems to imply that the media doesn't understand either science or ethics. What a shock!
Many environmentalists fail to factor in production into their calculations.
As do nearly all journalists.
Modded flamebait? The only flamebait I see is a pentium running at 7.1 GHz! I hope those folks had a fire extinguisher nearby at all times. :)
I don't think "$300 / seat for something proprietary" really matters that much.
:)
Google wasn't always worth billions. $300 bucks for anything is a lot of money to most college students. And if it shouldn't matter to Google, then it really shouldn't matter to Microsoft.
However, if it's not so much to you, then could you mail me $300? I'll be glad to pay it back should I ever become worth billions.
...they could easily claim the infringement was accidental and they made a best effort to remedy it, short of notifying the copyright owners.
Isn't that what they're suing Autozone for?
If I set WINE to claim to be Windows 3000, will by computer be updated to support time travel?
Yes, because the year 3000 is when Vista will finally be released.
No, with the large numbers of "features" being dropped from Vista, Microsoft should add the letters ru, representing "Reduced Usefulness, to the name.
...and yes, I know Monad was dropped before the viral announcement.
Windows Virusta.
Perhaps Microsoft is not including Monad because (maybe) it incorporates methods and concepts licensed from SCO, but that SCO did not have the right to license?
MSLinux, anyone?