I really do wish you people would take the time to RTFA. Mainly the part about it not being clear whether the code was just there or actually integrated into LKP. Or even how it was used. God bless Slashdot, the land of intellects who can't make it through a 2 page article.
Is it really so difficult to use IE for Windows Update and Firefox for everything else? You lose, what, 5 or 6 seconds opening a new program? Since you are on Slashdot, I doubt your time is that incredibly valuable.
Most home users don't even realize Windows Update runs through IE. They think it runs through its own program, and thus don't care.
Or install Windows and use OpenOffice.org on Windows, thus saving him money just like he would running OpenOffice.org on Linux? Funny how that works eh?
Yes, I am a Linux Advocate, but this garbage about saving money on Office by using Linux doesn't exactly fly.
You can buy support for Ubuntu, just like Linspire.
Besides, if support was a big issue, the schools would most likely buy something like Novell Linux Desktop or Red Hat Desktop, both of which have educational discounts if I am not mistaken.
Yes, because I'm sure schools would run Linspire of all distros to teach kids these concepts. The same distro that renamed Gaim as Internet Messenger, etc.
I suppose your next proposition will be to use Windows XP Home to teach students operating system design?
You are missing the point. What he is saying is that SCO does NOT have the right to alter existing Unix SVR4 licenses without Novell's consent. SCO amended Sun's license, amended Microsoft's license, terminated Sequent's license and terminated IBM's license without permission from Novell. This is not allowed by the APA between Novell and Santa Cruz (later sold to Caldera a.k.a. the SCO Group). Novell did step in and waived SCO's termination of IBM's license. SCO proceeded on anyways and sued IBM over copyright infringement for continuing to distribute AIX without a license. Part of Novell's countersuit is that SCO breached their contract with Novell by doing this.
No, you are wrong. SCO sued IBM originally in their first complaint for breach of contract and trade secret theft. The matter was only between IBM and SCO though, and SCO needed cash, so they started announcing that the Linux kernel infringed their copyrights. Novell stepped in at this point and demanded to see the infringing code, and told the world that Novell owned the copyrights, and not SCO.
SCO then began licensing Linux and if I am not mistaken, ammended their complaint against IBM to include copyright infringement. Novell continued saying they owned the copyrights, and SCO filed suit against Novell.
The contract was NOT between AT&T and Santa Cruz. AT&T spun off Unix Systems Laboratories as a subsidiary. USL then was aquired by Novell. 2 years later (1995) Novell assigned the Open Group the Unix trademark, and sold its Unixware business to Santa Cruz. The deal also allowed Santa Cruz to license SVR4 on Novell's behalf, for a 5% administration fee. This is what confuses people. Santa Cruz did NOT get ripped off. If Santa Cruz licensed your business Unixware, Santa Cruz got 100% of the licensing fee. If Santa Cruz licensed IBM SVR4, Novell would get 95% of the deal. Unixware != Unix SVR4. Novell still holds the Unix copyrights.
So AT&T sold Unix to Novell, and then Novell sold certain Unix assets to Santa Cruz, not AT&T to Santa Cruz and Novell at the same time. Then Santa Cruz sold Caldera their server division, which included these assets received from Novell.
Also, Project Monterey was not a port of Unix to Intel a.k.a. x86. It was a port of AIX combined with Unixware to the Itanium. When Linux gained so many enterprise features between 2.2 and 2.4, and Itanium kept getting delayed, IBM dropped Monterey and proceeded with Linux on Power and x86/x86_64. (I believe they also support Itanium with Linux too...I know HP does)
Exactly. It would serve no point. We would lose things like 3D Acceleration, which is needed by some people, and companies like the one that makes Unreal Tournament, for what, freedom? If you don't want to use Nvidia's proprietary drivers, don't. Use the nv driver, which works perfectly for 2D.
There aren't any non-free comments IN the kernel. There are non-free device drivers (such as Nvidia's) but they normally have free replacements, so the kernel is GPL. They also plug into the kernel as modules, but are not actually part of the kernel. Even still, they are legally questionable. Anyone sueing them would be stupid though, since they would scare away future software development on the Linux Platform. The kernel source at kernel.org, for instance, doesn't contain these modules. If you, for instance, extended the SMP capabilities of Linux and didn't contribute the changes back under the GPL, it would be a breach of the GPL.
He never said the original source would go away. I think you misunderstood him. He meant that MS could enhance the system and not contribute the changes back, with Linux MS can't legally do this.
Windows 2000 is Windows NT 5.0. XP is NT 5.1. Longhorn/Vista is going to be NT 6.0. There is some about windows screen (cant remember how to get to it) where it says that XP is actually NT 5.1.
Yes, makes sense. They have clear evidence of not only the copied code, but who did it, but they figure its a good idea to sit on the evidence until they go bankrupt....makes a lot of sense indeed....
HP probably felt that by paying the insurance instead of offering indemnification, they would be admitting guilt. They probably also have access to the source code and did their own audit of Linux and gave the green light.
That link doesn't contain that info, but it shows he likes to file lawsuits. He won $3 million last time around, I doubt he'll even get that much this time.
Slashdot Mirror
He is indebted to you for life, you saved him a quarter of a second of his time.
That wasn't really funny....what a waste of a mouseclick
I really do wish you people would take the time to RTFA. Mainly the part about it not being clear whether the code was just there or actually integrated into LKP. Or even how it was used. God bless Slashdot, the land of intellects who can't make it through a 2 page article.
Small nitpick, Unix Systems Laboratories, not Unix Support Group.
/me spits drink on screen
Is it really so difficult to use IE for Windows Update and Firefox for everything else? You lose, what, 5 or 6 seconds opening a new program? Since you are on Slashdot, I doubt your time is that incredibly valuable.
Most home users don't even realize Windows Update runs through IE. They think it runs through its own program, and thus don't care.
The codecs are available at mplayerhq.hu I'm surprised MS hasn't done anything about it though.
Or install Windows and use OpenOffice.org on Windows, thus saving him money just like he would running OpenOffice.org on Linux? Funny how that works eh?
Yes, I am a Linux Advocate, but this garbage about saving money on Office by using Linux doesn't exactly fly.
You can buy support for Ubuntu, just like Linspire.
Besides, if support was a big issue, the schools would most likely buy something like Novell Linux Desktop or Red Hat Desktop, both of which have educational discounts if I am not mistaken.
Yes, because I'm sure schools would run Linspire of all distros to teach kids these concepts. The same distro that renamed Gaim as Internet Messenger, etc.
I suppose your next proposition will be to use Windows XP Home to teach students operating system design?
Nice to see you like Robbin Williams ;-)
You are missing the point. What he is saying is that SCO does NOT have the right to alter existing Unix SVR4 licenses without Novell's consent. SCO amended Sun's license, amended Microsoft's license, terminated Sequent's license and terminated IBM's license without permission from Novell. This is not allowed by the APA between Novell and Santa Cruz (later sold to Caldera a.k.a. the SCO Group). Novell did step in and waived SCO's termination of IBM's license. SCO proceeded on anyways and sued IBM over copyright infringement for continuing to distribute AIX without a license. Part of Novell's countersuit is that SCO breached their contract with Novell by doing this.
No, you are wrong. SCO sued IBM originally in their first complaint for breach of contract and trade secret theft. The matter was only between IBM and SCO though, and SCO needed cash, so they started announcing that the Linux kernel infringed their copyrights. Novell stepped in at this point and demanded to see the infringing code, and told the world that Novell owned the copyrights, and not SCO.
SCO then began licensing Linux and if I am not mistaken, ammended their complaint against IBM to include copyright infringement. Novell continued saying they owned the copyrights, and SCO filed suit against Novell.
The contract was NOT between AT&T and Santa Cruz. AT&T spun off Unix Systems Laboratories as a subsidiary. USL then was aquired by Novell. 2 years later (1995) Novell assigned the Open Group the Unix trademark, and sold its Unixware business to Santa Cruz. The deal also allowed Santa Cruz to license SVR4 on Novell's behalf, for a 5% administration fee. This is what confuses people. Santa Cruz did NOT get ripped off. If Santa Cruz licensed your business Unixware, Santa Cruz got 100% of the licensing fee. If Santa Cruz licensed IBM SVR4, Novell would get 95% of the deal. Unixware != Unix SVR4. Novell still holds the Unix copyrights.
So AT&T sold Unix to Novell, and then Novell sold certain Unix assets to Santa Cruz, not AT&T to Santa Cruz and Novell at the same time. Then Santa Cruz sold Caldera their server division, which included these assets received from Novell.
Also, Project Monterey was not a port of Unix to Intel a.k.a. x86. It was a port of AIX combined with Unixware to the Itanium. When Linux gained so many enterprise features between 2.2 and 2.4, and Itanium kept getting delayed, IBM dropped Monterey and proceeded with Linux on Power and x86/x86_64. (I believe they also support Itanium with Linux too...I know HP does)
Exactly. It would serve no point. We would lose things like 3D Acceleration, which is needed by some people, and companies like the one that makes Unreal Tournament, for what, freedom? If you don't want to use Nvidia's proprietary drivers, don't. Use the nv driver, which works perfectly for 2D.
There aren't any non-free comments IN the kernel. There are non-free device drivers (such as Nvidia's) but they normally have free replacements, so the kernel is GPL. They also plug into the kernel as modules, but are not actually part of the kernel. Even still, they are legally questionable. Anyone sueing them would be stupid though, since they would scare away future software development on the Linux Platform. The kernel source at kernel.org, for instance, doesn't contain these modules. If you, for instance, extended the SMP capabilities of Linux and didn't contribute the changes back under the GPL, it would be a breach of the GPL.
You can't extend a GPL'd piece of software and then release your extensions under the LGPL. Perhaps you should read the GPL.
Unless of course you are talking about something in userspace...then that is of course possible.
He never said the original source would go away. I think you misunderstood him. He meant that MS could enhance the system and not contribute the changes back, with Linux MS can't legally do this.
Windows 2000 is Windows NT 5.0. XP is NT 5.1. Longhorn/Vista is going to be NT 6.0. There is some about windows screen (cant remember how to get to it) where it says that XP is actually NT 5.1.
Of course, a consumer would not know this.
Not sure, perhaps you should direct your question to Linksys. They more than likely know the answer to that question.
Click here for more info
It also could just indicate that the Spread Firefox admins don't read Slashdot, no?
Yes, makes sense. They have clear evidence of not only the copied code, but who did it, but they figure its a good idea to sit on the evidence until they go bankrupt....makes a lot of sense indeed....
HP never bought insurance from SCO. HP was going to, and then backed out at the last minute and announced indemnification for their customers.
Click here for story
HP probably felt that by paying the insurance instead of offering indemnification, they would be admitting guilt. They probably also have access to the source code and did their own audit of Linux and gave the green light.
Hear hear!
Like I said when I first submitted the story, he has been hired by other companies that, shortly after him being hired, have gone on IP rampages.
More info here.
That link doesn't contain that info, but it shows he likes to file lawsuits. He won $3 million last time around, I doubt he'll even get that much this time.
Darl McBride is just another non-technical businessman who thinks that operating systems are black magic that only huge teams of people can write.
You mean....like....the teams of people from Caldera/SCO that were helping along kernel development themselves???
Lol, yeah, I shouldve checked it over before submitting it better :-P