Careful what you wish for. If you had to publish the source and get patent-like protection on the whole source, it would basically be catastrophic. Every program published that way would be equivalent to thousands of patents, never mind the fact that you couldn't use the source anyway. I still prefer it that way. Copyright isn't that bad (at least compared to patents), and if the program is proprietary, I prefer not being exposed to the source anyway (legal protection).
I think the difference is that a 3rd party that has access to the SysV source can compute the hashes and make them public without violating copyright. That way anyone can look for common lines with Linux and see where they came from (legal or not).
That's true in general. However, SCO has explicitly stated that thousands of lines of code have been illegaly copied *verbatim* from System V. This tool could at least prove that they lied (because of the verbatim copy allegation).
Well, when you find a comment segment in the code, you can always look at the Linux code and see where it comes from. This works the same way as the malloc code from the SCO presentation that was eventually traced to BSD code (or at least something which SCO does not own).
Actually, combine this with the "shared source" program from MS and it would be easy to see if MS did (or did not) copy GPL code into Windows as some suggest.
I think the biggest threat for the US is not that much the Indian that will work for less, but the fact that said Indian ends up doing the job better. If you look at the education system in many of these country, it's improving fast, mostly in computer-related fields. Now, I'm not American but what I've seen from the education system (studied there a bit) is that it's going down. Expect the *average* Indian programmer to perform better than the average American soon... if it's not already the case.
Yes and no. It all depends on the actual codec used. If they use G.711, GSM-FR or Speex (and follow the RTP payload draft/RFC), everything's fine. However, if they use a proprietary codec, other VoIP apps will likely not work. Of course, it would be nice to see linphone interoperate with these devices.
Regardless of the reason (on purpose or not), I didn't like the sound of the CD much. The article just made me realise why (never bothered thinking in terms of mastering). Besides, you can make it have a "jam feeling" with lots of overdrive without applying that much limiting/compression. Even in a big jam, you've got drum beats that can be much louder than the rest. With this kind of compression, it's impossible to have anything stand out.
on the good track to go out of the "chapter-11 protection" before the end of the year
Why call it "chapter-11 protection" in an article. Not only is there a generic, non US-centric (yes, I'm Canadian!) term for it, but in this case we're not even talking about a US company. So Mandrake never was under chapter 11 protection.
Not really an issue as long as the US keeps backing out of just about any international treaty these days (i.e. one more won't matter that much). They already backed out of the "strategic weapons" (or something like that) treaty to build the anti-missile shield, so why not scrap the ICBM treaty as well?
I can say, its not ever going to happen. Every single person I've ever talked to about it who believed otherwise hasn't used OSX.
Well, that's the thing. They haven't used OS X because they have a PC. Switching from Windows to Linux only requires a bunch of CD's. Switching from Windows to OS X requires buying a new computer! That's a hell of an advantage for Linux (that and the fact you can dual-boot with Windows).
Nevertheless, one must keep in sight the nature of patent laws: protection of developers.
Actually, patents were originally created as a way to promote publication of knowledge, not as a means of protection. One way of another, when it comes to (software at least) patents, none of them has been reached.
The question to SCO here is quite simple: "do you agree that the Linux distribution you released is placed on the GPL, letting the users modify/copy it at will?". If the answer is yes, then case closed (they just gave up their IP - if indeed SCO IP there was, which I doubt). If the answer is no, then SCO wasn't allowed to distribute Linux in the first place. This puts them in copyright violation over millions of lines of code (not GPL violation - they didn't agree to the GPL, so they're re-distributing under no valid license). Talk about "IP theves"!
I would like to hear of a more successful system anywhere in the world.
You're joking right? The US is probably the *least* democratic of the "western" countries. As a comparison, in Canada (that's where I live so I can compare) there's going to be a law that will forbid donations from companies and limit donations from individuals (something $10k), plus I think there's going to be a cap on the total expenses from a party. That way, it's no longer he who has the most money that wins.
I find it hard to believe that big corporations (MS, Disney) can give money to representants to get their laws passed... and do so openly as if it were notmal!!
adopt a warez-style release with private ftps,.nfo files and p2p
That's exactly what they want: drive the project underground. Same as DeCSS: you know you can't eliminate it entirely but just driving the project underground is enough. For example, that's why Linux distros can't ship with a DVD player by default.
This is a bit different. It's one thing to pass a file using P2P, but it's another thing to patch it and make it evolve. How to you replace the old version with the new one and track changes?
Slashdot Mirror
Careful what you wish for. If you had to publish the source and get patent-like protection on the whole source, it would basically be catastrophic. Every program published that way would be equivalent to thousands of patents, never mind the fact that you couldn't use the source anyway. I still prefer it that way. Copyright isn't that bad (at least compared to patents), and if the program is proprietary, I prefer not being exposed to the source anyway (legal protection).
I think the difference is that a 3rd party that has access to the SysV source can compute the hashes and make them public without violating copyright. That way anyone can look for common lines with Linux and see where they came from (legal or not).
That's true in general. However, SCO has explicitly stated that thousands of lines of code have been illegaly copied *verbatim* from System V. This tool could at least prove that they lied (because of the verbatim copy allegation).
Well, when you find a comment segment in the code, you can always look at the Linux code and see where it comes from. This works the same way as the malloc code from the SCO presentation that was eventually traced to BSD code (or at least something which SCO does not own).
Ths think is that the hashes could be generated my any organisation that has access to the SysV source code. There are many of them (IBM being one).
Actually, combine this with the "shared source" program from MS and it would be easy to see if MS did (or did not) copy GPL code into Windows as some suggest.
And formatting the C:\ drive will prevent the camera from working? How? :)
Is there a Win32 API call to prevent all cameras from working.
I think the biggest threat for the US is not that much the Indian that will work for less, but the fact that said Indian ends up doing the job better. If you look at the education system in many of these country, it's improving fast, mostly in computer-related fields. Now, I'm not American but what I've seen from the education system (studied there a bit) is that it's going down. Expect the *average* Indian programmer to perform better than the average American soon... if it's not already the case.
Clearly, they'll charge you 94,371.84 bytes per megabyte.
No, they want to snoop on those 94 kB.
Great idea! Do you have a degree at the Enron Institute of Business? :)
The problem is because the people don't want to see the movies, therefore it's people that should be illegal.
Q: When SCO dies, who will snatch up the assets it has (including if any valid IP)?
A: IBM and RedHat because when they win their case, SCO will have no money to pay so they'll be forced to transfer all these assets to IBM/RedHat.
Yes and no. It all depends on the actual codec used. If they use G.711, GSM-FR or Speex (and follow the RTP payload draft/RFC), everything's fine. However, if they use a proprietary codec, other VoIP apps will likely not work. Of course, it would be nice to see linphone interoperate with these devices.
Funny how capitalism and communism in their purest forms are basically indistinguishable...
Don't remember where I got that one from: "capitalism is exploitation of man by man, while communism is the exact opposite".
Regardless of the reason (on purpose or not), I didn't like the sound of the CD much. The article just made me realise why (never bothered thinking in terms of mastering). Besides, you can make it have a "jam feeling" with lots of overdrive without applying that much limiting/compression. Even in a big jam, you've got drum beats that can be much louder than the rest. With this kind of compression, it's impossible to have anything stand out.
Assuming what their exploit is legal, I don't think it's really blackmail. It's more about "help us run Linux or we'll just do it ourself".
on the good track to go out of the "chapter-11 protection" before the end of the year
Why call it "chapter-11 protection" in an article. Not only is there a generic, non US-centric (yes, I'm Canadian!) term for it, but in this case we're not even talking about a US company. So Mandrake never was under chapter 11 protection.
Not really an issue as long as the US keeps backing out of just about any international treaty these days (i.e. one more won't matter that much). They already backed out of the "strategic weapons" (or something like that) treaty to build the anti-missile shield, so why not scrap the ICBM treaty as well?
I can say, its not ever going to happen. Every single person I've ever talked to about it who believed otherwise hasn't used OSX.
Well, that's the thing. They haven't used OS X because they have a PC. Switching from Windows to Linux only requires a bunch of CD's. Switching from Windows to OS X requires buying a new computer! That's a hell of an advantage for Linux (that and the fact you can dual-boot with Windows).
Nevertheless, one must keep in sight the nature of patent laws: protection of developers.
Actually, patents were originally created as a way to promote publication of knowledge, not as a means of protection. One way of another, when it comes to (software at least) patents, none of them has been reached.
The question to SCO here is quite simple: "do you agree that the Linux distribution you released is placed on the GPL, letting the users modify/copy it at will?". If the answer is yes, then case closed (they just gave up their IP - if indeed SCO IP there was, which I doubt). If the answer is no, then SCO wasn't allowed to distribute Linux in the first place. This puts them in copyright violation over millions of lines of code (not GPL violation - they didn't agree to the GPL, so they're re-distributing under no valid license). Talk about "IP theves"!
I would like to hear of a more successful system anywhere in the world.
You're joking right? The US is probably the *least* democratic of the "western" countries. As a comparison, in Canada (that's where I live so I can compare) there's going to be a law that will forbid donations from companies and limit donations from individuals (something $10k), plus I think there's going to be a cap on the total expenses from a party. That way, it's no longer he who has the most money that wins.
I find it hard to believe that big corporations (MS, Disney) can give money to representants to get their laws passed... and do so openly as if it were notmal!!
adopt a warez-style release with private ftps, .nfo files and p2p
That's exactly what they want: drive the project underground. Same as DeCSS: you know you can't eliminate it entirely but just driving the project underground is enough. For example, that's why Linux distros can't ship with a DVD player by default.
This is a bit different. It's one thing to pass a file using P2P, but it's another thing to patch it and make it evolve. How to you replace the old version with the new one and track changes?