SCO can find things to sue about for years to come if they have cash.
Well, spending $4,000,000 to make $11,000 (as the groklaw article reports) is not a substainable business model. They're spending 36,000% of their income on lawsuits.
Wow... say it with me... thrity-six-thousand-percent.
In other news, after returning to dock from it's maiden voyage and unloading the crew, Sweden has apparently misplaced its new stealth ship.
The Captain of the ship was quoted as saying, "I know we brought it back... after all we were on it." He remains adament it will turn up somewhere, he just can't remember where he parked it.
lockefire's and ItWasThem's levity aside, I find it ironic that people will invaribly be typing in messages on here about how their privacy is being invaded because records are maybe being kept of things they may have typed elsewhere.
To a time when inflation has goeetn so far out of hand that a loaf of bread is $1,000.00 and gas is $1,500.00 a gallon..... to a time when a $15,000.00 playtoy for your camera or mp3 player is a reasonable expendature.
This topic reminds me of a cartoon I saw once. In it there were two people at a chalk board. The chalk board was filled with a complicated flow chart; each box containing formulas and numbers and equations. Near the end, right before the "Answer" box was one that stated "Here a miracle happens". The caption was "I think we need to work on this part a little".
Anyway, my point is that the assumption that ease of use = lack of security is a non sequiter. There was nothing stated in the topic to support that conclusion. Additionally, I don't know of any evidence to support the assumption that security flaws are inherit to easy user interfaces.
The truth is, Java is not worth working with for complex projects. Java has been 75% hype, 20% buzz words, 5% capability, and 0% necessity from the beginning.
It's not that people can't program in Java, it's that Java is not worth getting deeply involved with - so very few actually do.
I can't think of a single project that would be better in Java than another language.
The write once, run anywhere concept is a bust. The entire VM concept is flawed. So now, instead of worrying about multiple versions for various operating systems, you have to worry about multiple versions for multiple slightly incompatible VMs with their own bugs and quirks on multiple OSes.
It doesn't work well for an applet in a browser, and it doesn't work well for stand alone apps.
I think most Java programmers are like me, they played with it enough to find out it's not worth the trouble.
On a slightly related topic, 47% of all statistics are made up and the other 50% don't add up.
Think of telling your kids about the old "Internet V.1.0 where you could say and do what you want without the fear of having your door knocked down because you don't agree with the ruling party.
You act like this is a technical problem. It's not a technical problem, it's a government problem. As long as people keep voting like they don't care about freedom (and the personal responsibility that goes with it), governments will continue to be more oppressive in the name of "protecting" the citizens.
Don't confuse being able to get away with saying what you want with being able to freely say what you want.
It's my hope that the "abolish online copyrights" crowd will chime in on this case and explain better than I can why pirating MP3s and movies is okay, and this is not.
It's simple really. Most slashdotters can't make music or movies, therefore those things should be free. Many slashdotters can make web pages, therefore they deserve credit for them.
It seems to be all to common and very trendy these days, especially here. Some people have no respect for the work of others, only their own.
I expect someone self-righteous jackass who thinks everyone owes them a free ride will come along moderate this down, but you all know I'm right.
1) Office and suite are both common terms. That's like saying it is new and original if someone puts a collar on a dog and sells it as "Dog Collar". The two terms would not have been used together before the invention of the "dog collar", but that doesn't make "Dog Collar" an innovative name.
2) My father worked at Kimberly Clark (coincidentally enough, in the diaper plant in Memphis). I've heard it all hundreds of times. Trust me on the Kleenex thing. Huggies are in the Kleenex line. However, unlike Microsoft, K-C doesn't just throw any generic word out as the title of it's products. And therefore acheives good brand recognition. It would dilute the brand name for them to make a big deal about Huggies actually being "Kimberly Clark Kleenex Huggies Diapers". And since they chose good brand names for their products, they don't have to.
I am not the one who tried to compare "Kleenex" to "office suite". They are not at all the same.
So in that sense, calling is "office suite" is really just co-opting the brand name for the generic use, ala Kleenex. The term just didn't exist before Microsoft Office.
The term "office" did.
Kimberly Clark didn't decide to call one of their products "tissues", they called it "Kleenex tissues" - with "Kleenex" being the registered trademark, not "tissues". Worth noting - Kleenex isn't "tissue paper". Kleenex is Kimberly Clark's "best of" product line. Their top of the line diapers are also called Kleenex. Kleenex is also a made up word. It became well known because it is a brand name representing good products.
The word "office" has been around much longer than a microcomputer software maker named "MicroSoft". I just don't accept your line of reasoning.
"What should we call a collection of programs intended for use at the office?"
Microsoft has a habit of using generic terms as names for its products then trademarking them. I believe it purposely done for anti-competitive reasons. Had they not been declared a monopoly, it probably wouldn't be a problem. However, they were... why aren't people filing complaints about them co-opting common words?
Mocrosoft's Naming System
What should we call our... office suite: Office the word processor in it: Word disk operating system: DOS windowing operatind system: Windows flight simulator game: Flight Simulator media player: Media Player
It makes you wonder if Bill Gates sues his neighbors for calling home their dog, "Come 'ere dog", since I'm sure that's what his dog is named.
The link seems to be Slashdotted and I don't know where else to look up this information, and I am not familiar with the ins-and-outs of the XFree license... but anyway, here is my possibly very ignorant question:
Is there anything legally preventing another group from taking the XFree source and creating a fork that is GPLed?
Re:*5* Reasons?
on
SCOoby Snacks
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
And #5... wasn't Linux legally unencumbered until SCO filed the lawsuits?
I scanned through the messages to see if anyone else was focusing on #5.
SCO is very legally encumbered.
Novell has legal control over IP shared between Novell and SCO, which Novell is now taking action aginst SCO over.
IBM has already in forced SCO to drop their claims of owernship over some of what just a month ago SCO was threatening to sue every Linux user over.
And finally, SCO claims the GPL is invalid yet has distributed GPLed code. So either they are claiming that they have distributed code illegally (since they claim to have no valid license to do so), or the distribution was legal (because they accepted the GPL as valid) and are now attempting to illegally extort money.
It's hard to get more legally encumbered than SCO. Though Darl might find a way.
Why are we in the U.S. always the last to get new cellular toys?
Because you have several competing, incompatible cellular networks, when the rest of the world seems to have enough sense to agree on GSM. GSM is an easier, and denser market to conquer.
I used to work for a telecom company based in the US that offered cellular services outside of the US. I has nothing to do with the nonsense all the America bashers like to spout off about.
Ironically, it's because the US has such a good wired phone network already in place. Americans have been slower to adopt cell phones because it has been much cheaper to use land lines, and still is.
Cell phones are getting much more popular in the US, and the prices are dropping. Many people are now trying to decide if they want to:
1) Do away with their land lines in favor of cell only - which is almost universially more expensive in the US.
2) Keep land lines and cell phones - using cell phones only when necessary to reduce minute charges. This is even more expensive.
3) Not have cell phones. Much less expensive though also much less convienient.
In the areas where cell phone adoption has been rapid you'll find that they had expensive and/or poor quality land lines or the wired infastructure didn't exist. Mountainous regions are easier to cover with cell, for example.
It's cheaper and easier to put up a new cell tower than to run hundreds or thousands of miles of wire. It's easier to maintain cell towers than hundreds or thousands of miles of wire.
So, the situation is that because the US was so far ahead in phone technology in the past, we have the expensive (wired) infastructure already in place. It is cheaper to use what's already here than to build new stuff.
This is all in a state of change though. As I meantioned it is cheaper and easier to build NEW cell infastructure. So slowly, but surely, the old is being replaced by the new.
There are two things preventing land line from becoming extinct (or at least relegated to use only for special purposes). Price and quality. Land lines still have cell phones beat in the US. But it's sure to change. As far as I am concerned, Europe and the third world can have the cutting edge telephone technology this time - and work out the bugs.
CVS will indeed show who contributed the infringing code into Linux, but what CVS will *NOT* show is whether or not the contributer was actually the _AUTHOR_ of that code, or if he got it from somewhere else.
For that to have any validity at all, you would have to assume IBM willfully decieved Linus into inserting code improperly. IBM keeps records, Linus keeps records. It can all be traced.
Try your troll on AOL where it might actually fool someone.
Even basic research into the principles of photography would expose one to the fact that the camera doesn't see things the same way the eye does.
Any colors captured on Mars are subject to various elements that would alter color. Such as different atmosphere than Earth, changing atmosphere during day, changing angle of light source, light reflected off surroundings. Even if calibrated against the sundial, changing the direction the camera is pointed will change things.
Mars isn't exactly a controlled environment like a studio.
The article says that Amendment 2 states that ownership of the copyrights is not transferred until/unless it is shown that ownership of the copyrights is required for SCO to fulfill the purchase agreement
Not exactly. It says that they get "All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies."
In other words, they get the rights to use, sell, and license code related to Unix and UnixWare. It doesn't say they have exclusive rights to it.
If I were to write a program, then sell you the rights to use it however you wanted, that wouldn't necessarily take away my rights to do whatever I wanted with it unless we both agreed to that in the terms of the contract.
The amendment even goes on to say that should either party be involved in a buy-out of the copyrights (complete transfer of all rights) the other must be notified. This clearly indicates that the Amendment doesn't transfer all rights to SCO.
By the time it starts loading, the damage is already done.
The idea of the 1 pixel transparent version is stealth. However, you're right, in this case it would make little difference.
Another variation is to create a link to an image that doesn't even have to exist. The filename would encode some information (like some information about the person it was sent to). Then when the error log reports an attempt to access a file called john.doe.at.somedomain.com.jpg you know john doe has read the mail and was at the IP in the log. Of course if you're trying to be stealthy, you need to redirect to the one pixel transparent image or some other innocuous looking item.
This is a good reason to not even open spam. Or at least don't display HTML except from trusted sources; like your grandma who you just can't convince to stop sending you those silly postcards and then calls you to make sure you got them.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, spending $4,000,000 to make $11,000 (as the groklaw article reports) is not a substainable business model. They're spending 36,000% of their income on lawsuits.
Wow... say it with me... thrity-six-thousand-percent.
In other news, after returning to dock from it's maiden voyage and unloading the crew, Sweden has apparently misplaced its new stealth ship.
The Captain of the ship was quoted as saying, "I know we brought it back... after all we were on it." He remains adament it will turn up somewhere, he just can't remember where he parked it.
Because they use Windows where he works.
And we are watching and recording what is being said.
lockefire's and ItWasThem's levity aside, I find it ironic that people will invaribly be typing in messages on here about how their privacy is being invaded because records are maybe being kept of things they may have typed elsewhere.
Well, I guess it's time for everyone to go copy the numbers off the stickers on the floor displays at Best Buy again.
To a time when inflation has goeetn so far out of hand that a loaf of bread is $1,000.00 and gas is $1,500.00 a gallon..... to a time when a $15,000.00 playtoy for your camera or mp3 player is a reasonable expendature.
This topic reminds me of a cartoon I saw once. In it there were two people at a chalk board. The chalk board was filled with a complicated flow chart; each box containing formulas and numbers and equations. Near the end, right before the "Answer" box was one that stated "Here a miracle happens". The caption was "I think we need to work on this part a little".
Anyway, my point is that the assumption that ease of use = lack of security is a non sequiter. There was nothing stated in the topic to support that conclusion. Additionally, I don't know of any evidence to support the assumption that security flaws are inherit to easy user interfaces.
The truth is, Java is not worth working with for complex projects. Java has been 75% hype, 20% buzz words, 5% capability, and 0% necessity from the beginning.
It's not that people can't program in Java, it's that Java is not worth getting deeply involved with - so very few actually do.
I can't think of a single project that would be better in Java than another language.
The write once, run anywhere concept is a bust. The entire VM concept is flawed. So now, instead of worrying about multiple versions for various operating systems, you have to worry about multiple versions for multiple slightly incompatible VMs with their own bugs and quirks on multiple OSes.
It doesn't work well for an applet in a browser, and it doesn't work well for stand alone apps.
I think most Java programmers are like me, they played with it enough to find out it's not worth the trouble.
On a slightly related topic, 47% of all statistics are made up and the other 50% don't add up.
You act like this is a technical problem. It's not a technical problem, it's a government problem. As long as people keep voting like they don't care about freedom (and the personal responsibility that goes with it), governments will continue to be more oppressive in the name of "protecting" the citizens.
Don't confuse being able to get away with saying what you want with being able to freely say what you want.
It's my hope that the "abolish online copyrights" crowd will chime in on this case and explain better than I can why pirating MP3s and movies is okay, and this is not.
It's simple really. Most slashdotters can't make music or movies, therefore those things should be free. Many slashdotters can make web pages, therefore they deserve credit for them.
It seems to be all to common and very trendy these days, especially here. Some people have no respect for the work of others, only their own.
I expect someone self-righteous jackass who thinks everyone owes them a free ride will come along moderate this down, but you all know I'm right.
1) Office and suite are both common terms. That's like saying it is new and original if someone puts a collar on a dog and sells it as "Dog Collar". The two terms would not have been used together before the invention of the "dog collar", but that doesn't make "Dog Collar" an innovative name.
2) My father worked at Kimberly Clark (coincidentally enough, in the diaper plant in Memphis). I've heard it all hundreds of times. Trust me on the Kleenex thing. Huggies are in the Kleenex line. However, unlike Microsoft, K-C doesn't just throw any generic word out as the title of it's products. And therefore acheives good brand recognition. It would dilute the brand name for them to make a big deal about Huggies actually being "Kimberly Clark Kleenex Huggies Diapers". And since they chose good brand names for their products, they don't have to.
I am not the one who tried to compare "Kleenex" to "office suite". They are not at all the same.
Office suite and some of the Kleenex line of products
</rant>
So in that sense, calling is "office suite" is really just co-opting the brand name for the generic use, ala Kleenex. The term just didn't exist before Microsoft Office.
The term "office" did.
Kimberly Clark didn't decide to call one of their products "tissues", they called it "Kleenex tissues" - with "Kleenex" being the registered trademark, not "tissues". Worth noting - Kleenex isn't "tissue paper". Kleenex is Kimberly Clark's "best of" product line. Their top of the line diapers are also called Kleenex. Kleenex is also a made up word. It became well known because it is a brand name representing good products.
The word "office" has been around much longer than a microcomputer software maker named "MicroSoft". I just don't accept your line of reasoning.
"What should we call a collection of programs intended for use at the office?"
Microsoft has a habit of using generic terms as names for its products then trademarking them. I believe it purposely done for anti-competitive reasons. Had they not been declared a monopoly, it probably wouldn't be a problem. However, they were... why aren't people filing complaints about them co-opting common words?
Mocrosoft's Naming System
What should we call our...
office suite: Office
the word processor in it: Word
disk operating system: DOS
windowing operatind system: Windows
flight simulator game: Flight Simulator
media player: Media Player
It makes you wonder if Bill Gates sues his neighbors for calling home their dog, "Come 'ere dog", since I'm sure that's what his dog is named.
The link seems to be Slashdotted and I don't know where else to look up this information, and I am not familiar with the ins-and-outs of the XFree license... but anyway, here is my possibly very ignorant question:
Is there anything legally preventing another group from taking the XFree source and creating a fork that is GPLed?
And #5... wasn't Linux legally unencumbered until SCO filed the lawsuits?
I scanned through the messages to see if anyone else was focusing on #5.
SCO is very legally encumbered.
Novell has legal control over IP shared between Novell and SCO, which Novell is now taking action aginst SCO over.
IBM has already in forced SCO to drop their claims of owernship over some of what just a month ago SCO was threatening to sue every Linux user over.
And finally, SCO claims the GPL is invalid yet has distributed GPLed code. So either they are claiming that they have distributed code illegally (since they claim to have no valid license to do so), or the distribution was legal (because they accepted the GPL as valid) and are now attempting to illegally extort money.
It's hard to get more legally encumbered than SCO. Though Darl might find a way.
These are the managers, not the techies. Do you really expect them to understand the numbers?
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but yes, yes I do expect managers to understand what they manage.
If they don't, fire them.
Why are we in the U.S. always the last to get new cellular toys?
Because you have several competing, incompatible cellular networks, when the rest of the world seems to have enough sense to agree on GSM. GSM is an easier, and denser market to conquer.
I used to work for a telecom company based in the US that offered cellular services outside of the US. I has nothing to do with the nonsense all the America bashers like to spout off about.
Ironically, it's because the US has such a good wired phone network already in place. Americans have been slower to adopt cell phones because it has been much cheaper to use land lines, and still is.
Cell phones are getting much more popular in the US, and the prices are dropping. Many people are now trying to decide if they want to:
1) Do away with their land lines in favor of cell only - which is almost universially more expensive in the US.
2) Keep land lines and cell phones - using cell phones only when necessary to reduce minute charges. This is even more expensive.
3) Not have cell phones. Much less expensive though also much less convienient.
In the areas where cell phone adoption has been rapid you'll find that they had expensive and/or poor quality land lines or the wired infastructure didn't exist. Mountainous regions are easier to cover with cell, for example.
It's cheaper and easier to put up a new cell tower than to run hundreds or thousands of miles of wire. It's easier to maintain cell towers than hundreds or thousands of miles of wire.
So, the situation is that because the US was so far ahead in phone technology in the past, we have the expensive (wired) infastructure already in place. It is cheaper to use what's already here than to build new stuff.
This is all in a state of change though. As I meantioned it is cheaper and easier to build NEW cell infastructure. So slowly, but surely, the old is being replaced by the new.
There are two things preventing land line from becoming extinct (or at least relegated to use only for special purposes). Price and quality. Land lines still have cell phones beat in the US. But it's sure to change. As far as I am concerned, Europe and the third world can have the cutting edge telephone technology this time - and work out the bugs.
CVS will indeed show who contributed the infringing code into Linux, but what CVS will *NOT* show is whether or not the contributer was actually the _AUTHOR_ of that code, or if he got it from somewhere else.
For that to have any validity at all, you would have to assume IBM willfully decieved Linus into inserting code improperly. IBM keeps records, Linus keeps records. It can all be traced.
Try your troll on AOL where it might actually fool someone.
Who's scruffy looking?
You, you nerd hearder.
Maybe that's the reason its "small"? :)
I do think its great you refuse to use closed/patented formats. Nice to have morals above enriching yourself.
That's quite a leap of logic.
<sarcasm>Of only he had embraced closed standards, he would have toppled Microsoft.</sarcasm>
How about homotheistic and heterotheistic?
"Homo" is "same", "hetero" is "different".
I think NetBSD design submitters ought to choose a new animal
Or maybe a bottle of Windex.
Even basic research into the principles of photography would expose one to the fact that the camera doesn't see things the same way the eye does.
Any colors captured on Mars are subject to various elements that would alter color. Such as different atmosphere than Earth, changing atmosphere during day, changing angle of light source, light reflected off surroundings. Even if calibrated against the sundial, changing the direction the camera is pointed will change things.
Mars isn't exactly a controlled environment like a studio.
The article says that Amendment 2 states that ownership of the copyrights is not transferred until/unless it is shown that ownership of the copyrights is required for SCO to fulfill the purchase agreement
Not exactly. It says that they get "All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies."
In other words, they get the rights to use, sell, and license code related to Unix and UnixWare. It doesn't say they have exclusive rights to it.
If I were to write a program, then sell you the rights to use it however you wanted, that wouldn't necessarily take away my rights to do whatever I wanted with it unless we both agreed to that in the terms of the contract.
The amendment even goes on to say that should either party be involved in a buy-out of the copyrights (complete transfer of all rights) the other must be notified. This clearly indicates that the Amendment doesn't transfer all rights to SCO.
By the time it starts loading, the damage is already done.
The idea of the 1 pixel transparent version is stealth. However, you're right, in this case it would make little difference.
Another variation is to create a link to an image that doesn't even have to exist. The filename would encode some information (like some information about the person it was sent to). Then when the error log reports an attempt to access a file called john.doe.at.somedomain.com.jpg you know john doe has read the mail and was at the IP in the log. Of course if you're trying to be stealthy, you need to redirect to the one pixel transparent image or some other innocuous looking item.
This is a good reason to not even open spam. Or at least don't display HTML except from trusted sources; like your grandma who you just can't convince to stop sending you those silly postcards and then calls you to make sure you got them.