I've gotten more than a halfdozen today. I'm in Sweden, although only one of my addresses is a.se. Considering I have 5 addresses I use regularly, and one guy is claiming 5000 copies of it this morning, I guess I got off lucky. For the moment.
My mac is obviously immune to the thing, and so is my windows box, seeing that it has IE and Outlook completely removed (yes, every last stupid.dll killed and a couple programs patched to work without it) so it wouldn't get any traction there, even if I used it for email, which I dont.
But the worrying thing is I'm already getting attachment removal notices from mailservers that delete these things, so at least one copy of this bloody thing is forging my address when it tries to reproduce. Bloody hell.
Are you sure Caldera was the first to release it under BSD? I'm pretty sure it was actually released that way several years earlier, and Caldera essentially just republished it, but I could be wrong.
But either way you're of course quite right, there are plenty of legitimate ways for that comment and many more like them to have wound up in linux code.
Also note that it's already been removed, along with the code below it, as has been planned for some time. It was one of those ugly hacks they had been planning to rewrite for some time anyway.
I don't know what the heck they were thinking when they did that, it was a pretty dumb way to try and hide something that doesn't seem to be very important anyway. As another poster suggested, it may have just been a setup to the kind of dumb-joke jocks-turned-managers always love... 'heheh all this geeky computer code is greek to me' or something.
But the cool thing is this example turns out to be exactly what we've been saying from the beginning it likely was - stuff that does indeed appear in the source tree Caldera bought along with the name of SCO, but NOT stuff that they have an unencumbered copyright on. This comment dates at least to 76, it appears in print in a K&R book, in the Lions book, and in a number of different BSD licensed Unices. Not to mention that it's a comment not code, so it wouldn't matter even if that weren't true.
And the second shot seems totally worthless to me, since we see the Linux code, but have no proof that "SCO's" code contains those lines...
That's because SCOs code doesn't contain them. The file is copyright SGI and has to do with functionality SCOs code has never had. SCO is still in their fantasyland where new work that a Unix licensee adds to their own version of Unix is now magically SCO property.
Anyone ever given serious thought that perhaps the SCO code was lifted from the Linux source? The SCO engineers obviously had the same level of access as everyone else in the public domain -- perhpas the case will come down to who can prove what was released when..anacron
That may be the case in many of their claimed 'infringing lines' but not in these two.
The first one shows comments (not code) which match. They're also straightforward descriptions of functionality, date back at least to 1979, and occur in a number of old unix versions which have been commonly read and used for teaching purposes for years, as well as the Lions book.
In this case the comment definately predates Linux so couldn't have been copied from Linux, but the fact it occurs in Linux code is not strong evidence of copyright infringement.
The second section of code is copyright of and contributed by SGI, and concerns functionality that SysV doesn't have. It's only relevant on the assumption that SCOs theory that it owns every technology any Unix licensee ever added to their own version of Unix holds water, which means only if the court winds up throwing the entirety of copyright law and precedent out the window and writing new law just for SCOs benefit.
I can't read greek very well, but I do know the greek alphabet. Here is what the obfuscated section of the first picture says:
As part of the kernel evolution towards modular naming, the functions malloc and mfree are being renamed to rmalloc and rmfree.
Compatibility will be maintained by the following assembler code:
(also see mfree/rmfree below)
This is a very bad idea. First because it's unecessary, and second because the result would be a license which is NOT compatible with the GPL and not even a Free Software license. Such discriminatory licensing would be cutting off your foot to spite your face, or some such homily.
Under the existing terms of the GPL it seems that SCO has very likely already disallowed itself from using any GPL code by its actions anyway. It's just a matter of someone providing enough support that the SAMBA team and others feel confident they can move against them without incurring legal fees they can't afford to pay.
I thought it was actually kind of funny... not a real but guster but I cracked a smile when I read it.
Isn't vi available on windows? I'm pretty sure it is... of course. Here you go, pick your poison.
Of course you can also install emacs on windows, and run it in viper mode, in case you ever come to your senses you could then just change modes instead of having to download another editor.;)
Umm this was in response to SCOs counsel stating in public, with his bald face hanging out, that copyright law prohibits the making of more than one backup copy even if you have a license from the copyright holder saying otherwise and claiming that this meant the GPL, and by implication every license allowing for multiple copies to be made of any copyrighted work, including every OEM and site license in the software world, is illegal.
That's a claim so absurd on its face that the reaction is pretty obviously justified.
With SCO having violated the GPL, flagrantly and continually, there is a theory that under the terms of the GPL they have lost legal right to modify or distribute any GPL software. I'm not sure if that's correct or not, even after re-reading the license, and IANAL, but I've been told this many times and if it is the case then SAMBA would be a great place to start enforcing it. The key clause is section 4: 'You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.'
I think this would be a great time for the Samba team to serve SCO a C&D. I'm sure someone will be willing to step up and handle the legal fees? IBM? Redhat? Anyone else?
Have you actually had to use one of those bargain-basement computer systems? They're torturously slow, plagued with instability problems, and in general are something I'd rather not have to deal with on a regular basis.
I've used them, yes, one of my coworkers got one a few months ago. It's working great. Stable as a rock, and reasonably fast. In short, you're trolling and/or you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
The best thing about them is OSX. Most of the advantages of Linux, along with a GUI that beats the crap out of Windows.
They are a little slower for the money than a typical Windows clone, on most benchmarks - much faster on a handful. In practical terms you aren't likely to notice the difference.
Naturally the hardware integration, drivers, and so forth are superb, being a single-source supplier.
And of course I run Windows. Because my neighbours do.. although at the rate I'm being asked to fix peoples computers, its probably worth the extra 1000$ for me to *not* have Windows and be able to feign ignorance when begged for help.
$1,000? How do you figure that? E-macs (not to be confused with emacs, although it is included) start at $699 last I checked.
I think you're greatly misinterpreting the statement. He made it clear, if asked to recommend a distro, he'd recommend the only one he knew of that was 100% Free software. If there were more than one, then he'd choose between them on pragmatic grounds. That's nothing more or less than just RMS being RMS, and should surprise no one.
He didn't diss Debian. He just sayed he'd always recommend a distro with no unfree software over one that had some. Period.
Where did he say it was not recommended? Come on people, quit trying to manufacture flame wars. He said he ran Debian on his laptop, for christs sake.
He recommends the Extremadura distribution because it has no unfree software at all. He didn't say don't use Debian, he said it was the best commonly used distribution, but as 'Mr Free Software' of course he has to prefer the only distribution with absolutely no unfree software in it, now that it exists.
Your conclusion shows that you don't understand what force means. He forces nothing on anyone. He works to promote what he believes should be. There is a huge difference.
Why do so many people these days worship 'compromise?' Compromise is not always a good thing. From RMS point of view, mixing a little proprietary software into your Free software is like mixing a little poison into your food. You may agree or disagree, but he's not forcing anyone to do anything.
Slashdot Mirror
I've gotten more than a halfdozen today. I'm in Sweden, although only one of my addresses is a .se. Considering I have 5 addresses I use regularly, and one guy is claiming 5000 copies of it this morning, I guess I got off lucky. For the moment.
My mac is obviously immune to the thing, and so is my windows box, seeing that it has IE and Outlook completely removed (yes, every last stupid .dll killed and a couple programs patched to work without it) so it wouldn't get any traction there, even if I used it for email, which I dont.
But the worrying thing is I'm already getting attachment removal notices from mailservers that delete these things, so at least one copy of this bloody thing is forging my address when it tries to reproduce. Bloody hell.
Are you sure Caldera was the first to release it under BSD? I'm pretty sure it was actually released that way several years earlier, and Caldera essentially just republished it, but I could be wrong.
But either way you're of course quite right, there are plenty of legitimate ways for that comment and many more like them to have wound up in linux code.
Also note that it's already been removed, along with the code below it, as has been planned for some time. It was one of those ugly hacks they had been planning to rewrite for some time anyway.
I don't know what the heck they were thinking when they did that, it was a pretty dumb way to try and hide something that doesn't seem to be very important anyway. As another poster suggested, it may have just been a setup to the kind of dumb-joke jocks-turned-managers always love... 'heheh all this geeky computer code is greek to me' or something.
But the cool thing is this example turns out to be exactly what we've been saying from the beginning it likely was - stuff that does indeed appear in the source tree Caldera bought along with the name of SCO, but NOT stuff that they have an unencumbered copyright on. This comment dates at least to 76, it appears in print in a K&R book, in the Lions book, and in a number of different BSD licensed Unices. Not to mention that it's a comment not code, so it wouldn't matter even if that weren't true.
http://unix-archive.pdp11.org.ru/PDP-11/Trees/2. 11BSD/sys/sys/subr_rmap.c
Deliberately not making links so as to hopefully not slashdot more servers than necessary. If you want to see it, cut and paste.
BSD 2.11, for the PDP-11, had it. This is very very ancient Unix.
I think the intent is plain, but it certainly could be argued. That's what lawyers do.
New version of GPL should come out immediately making it crystal clear, imhop.
That's because SCOs code doesn't contain them. The file is copyright SGI and has to do with functionality SCOs code has never had. SCO is still in their fantasyland where new work that a Unix licensee adds to their own version of Unix is now magically SCO property.
That may be the case in many of their claimed 'infringing lines' but not in these two.
The first one shows comments (not code) which match. They're also straightforward descriptions of functionality, date back at least to 1979, and occur in a number of old unix versions which have been commonly read and used for teaching purposes for years, as well as the Lions book.
In this case the comment definately predates Linux so couldn't have been copied from Linux, but the fact it occurs in Linux code is not strong evidence of copyright infringement.
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/32VKern/usr/src/ sys/sys/malloc.c.htmls ys/malloc.c.htmll oc.c.html
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/Interdata_v6/usr/
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/Ausam/sys/ken/mal
The second section of code is copyright of and contributed by SGI, and concerns functionality that SysV doesn't have. It's only relevant on the assumption that SCOs theory that it owns every technology any Unix licensee ever added to their own version of Unix holds water, which means only if the court winds up throwing the entirety of copyright law and precedent out the window and writing new law just for SCOs benefit.
Obviously they were silly enough to believe that since they had every legal right to copy it, they didn't need to hide the copying.
No one expects the spanish inquisition!?
I can't read greek very well, but I do know the greek alphabet. Here is what the obfuscated section of the first picture says:
This is a very bad idea. First because it's unecessary, and second because the result would be a license which is NOT compatible with the GPL and not even a Free Software license. Such discriminatory licensing would be cutting off your foot to spite your face, or some such homily.
Under the existing terms of the GPL it seems that SCO has very likely already disallowed itself from using any GPL code by its actions anyway. It's just a matter of someone providing enough support that the SAMBA team and others feel confident they can move against them without incurring legal fees they can't afford to pay.
I thought it was actually kind of funny... not a real but guster but I cracked a smile when I read it.
Isn't vi available on windows? I'm pretty sure it is... of course. Here you go, pick your poison.
Of course you can also install emacs on windows, and run it in viper mode, in case you ever come to your senses you could then just change modes instead of having to download another editor. ;)
Umm this was in response to SCOs counsel stating in public, with his bald face hanging out, that copyright law prohibits the making of more than one backup copy even if you have a license from the copyright holder saying otherwise and claiming that this meant the GPL, and by implication every license allowing for multiple copies to be made of any copyrighted work, including every OEM and site license in the software world, is illegal.
That's a claim so absurd on its face that the reaction is pretty obviously justified.
You're correct but you're missing the point.
With SCO having violated the GPL, flagrantly and continually, there is a theory that under the terms of the GPL they have lost legal right to modify or distribute any GPL software. I'm not sure if that's correct or not, even after re-reading the license, and IANAL, but I've been told this many times and if it is the case then SAMBA would be a great place to start enforcing it. The key clause is section 4: 'You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.'
I think this would be a great time for the Samba team to serve SCO a C&D. I'm sure someone will be willing to step up and handle the legal fees? IBM? Redhat? Anyone else?
That would be a nice trick, since SysV didn't have NUMA.
SCO is so full of shit it's not even funny.
Where values of 'good' are equal to 'torturous' perhaps. ;)
Anyway, vi is in the standard OSX install too, so if you're that much of a masochist feel free.
I've used them, yes, one of my coworkers got one a few months ago. It's working great. Stable as a rock, and reasonably fast. In short, you're trolling and/or you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Actually I do that often. Your point?
Nice.
How many geeks do we have in southern florida? Why are the big operations down there still in business?
The best thing about them is OSX. Most of the advantages of Linux, along with a GUI that beats the crap out of Windows.
They are a little slower for the money than a typical Windows clone, on most benchmarks - much faster on a handful. In practical terms you aren't likely to notice the difference.
Naturally the hardware integration, drivers, and so forth are superb, being a single-source supplier.
$1,000? How do you figure that? E-macs (not to be confused with emacs, although it is included) start at $699 last I checked.
Did you read the article?
I think you're greatly misinterpreting the statement. He made it clear, if asked to recommend a distro, he'd recommend the only one he knew of that was 100% Free software. If there were more than one, then he'd choose between them on pragmatic grounds. That's nothing more or less than just RMS being RMS, and should surprise no one.
He didn't diss Debian. He just sayed he'd always recommend a distro with no unfree software over one that had some. Period.
Perhaps you should drop him a line and point this out?
Where did he say it was not recommended? Come on people, quit trying to manufacture flame wars. He said he ran Debian on his laptop, for christs sake.
He recommends the Extremadura distribution because it has no unfree software at all. He didn't say don't use Debian, he said it was the best commonly used distribution, but as 'Mr Free Software' of course he has to prefer the only distribution with absolutely no unfree software in it, now that it exists.
Your conclusion shows that you don't understand what force means. He forces nothing on anyone. He works to promote what he believes should be. There is a huge difference.
Why do so many people these days worship 'compromise?' Compromise is not always a good thing. From RMS point of view, mixing a little proprietary software into your Free software is like mixing a little poison into your food. You may agree or disagree, but he's not forcing anyone to do anything.