Professional Web Applications Themes

Not just SCO but look at FSF.... - SCO

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 09:46:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:   Um... yes? -- Tom Felker, <com> <http://vlevel.sourceforge.net> - Stop fiddling with the volume knob. The Congress shall have Power... TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;...

  1. #21

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 09:46:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
     

    Um... yes?

    --
    Tom Felker, <com>
    <http://vlevel.sourceforge.net> - Stop fiddling with the volume knob.

    The Congress shall have Power... TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL
    ARTS, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive
    Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    Tom Guest

  2. #22

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:56:18 -0500, Tom Felker <com>
    wrote:
     [/ref]
     

    License, Warranty, and Wholesale Repudiation of Responsibility.

    Obligations: Reading this contract automatically obligates the
    software licensee to a lifetime of indentured servitude on behalf of
    the software author. Before each use of the program, the licensee is
    obligated to prostrate oneself before the computah keyboard and pray
    for the financial success of the software author.

    Restrictions: The licensee is also required to abstain from consuming
    alcoholic beverages and slobbering pizza while operating the program
    as these may affect performance. Use of the program is limited to
    useless, entertainment, and educational applications. Any attempt to
    use the program for anything useful, profitable, or litigatory will
    result in the immediate revocation of the licensees permission to
    operate the program.

    Warranty: No warranty is supplied. The software author is not
    responsible for any real or imaginary damage precipitated by the
    programs failure to perform as described. The licensee renders the
    author free and harmless of any current, subsequent, or future
    damages.

    Derivitative works: Use of the program or doentation, in any
    manner, and in whole or in part, obligates the licensee to pass title
    of said derivative works to the software author.

    Remedies: Failure to comply with any and all restrictions,
    limitations, un-natural acts, and subtle hints inumerated in this
    software license will result in the immediate revocation of the
    licensees permission to operate the program. The licensee is directed
    to destroy anything and everything that has ever touched the
    application including the computah to insure that the license
    conditions have been met.


    --
    # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
    # 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    # santa-cruz.ca.us
    # 831.421.6491 digital_pager com AE6KS
    Jeff Guest

  3. #23

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    Tom Felker <com> wrote: 
     [/ref]
     

    Um.. maybe.

    While our hope and desire may be that the GPL stands up in court,
    it may not. It might very well be that intended control
    gets lost.

    --
    com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
    Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
    tony@aplawrence.com Guest

  4. #24

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    Brian wrote: 
    >
    >
    > Listen you MORON, the FSF has absolutely no problem identifying what code
    > they claim ownership of AND they are not trying to stick up innocent users.
    >
    > The Lying S at SCO refuse to identify WHAT proprietary IP found it's way
    > into the Linux kernel and they are even dragging their feet in the IBM case
    > where they are the plaintiffs!
    >
    > The SCO Group is behaving very badly, court case aside, and the neverending
    > stream of lies is absolutely bizarre!
    >[/ref]

    I usually don't like entering this kind of discussion but some days ago
    I had the chance to talk about this issue (ie, the fact that SCO has yet
    to publicy demonstrate the code which has supposedly been stolen) with a
    SCO's rep who was able to tell me more about that.

    I don't want to defend/attack SCO; I just want to share what he told me
    about.

    He said (and again, I cannot tell if the following is true or not) that
    the pieces of codes demonstrated during the SCO forum were only examples
    of the kind if code being managed/stolen, not real ones.

    I'm with some of the group here when they say "hey, if you want (or are
    in the position to) offer a proof, then show it; if not, shut up!" (or
    something like that) but I can __understand__ that if SCO has some proof
    that their code has been copied/adopted, it is __NOT__ in their best
    interest to show it to the world UNLESS "the world" stands in front of a
    court.

    Next, I've been told that both Stallman, Torvalds and the guys from FSF
    have been offered the chance to sign up a NDA agreement (which did not
    cost 'em anything) as to go to the SCO's offices and check the code
    theirselves but they refused.

    Also, he told me about the SGI issue: he said that SGI cleaned up the
    code after SCO told about that and he made me think about the following
    example: suppose someone stole your car. Now suppose the police catch
    him up after a couple of days.

    Once "trapped", he says "OK, you got me. Here's the car: I can fill her
    up, take her to the car wash and even return her to the owner. OK, we're
    friends now, aren't we ? Now, let me go."

    Will you be satisfied by this behaviour or you'll try to bring him to
    justice as to have it convicted for stealing your car ?

    Once more, I'm not in the position to say if the above facts are true or
    not but if this is true, I can understand SOME of their (SCO) moves; on
    the other hand, I'm not with them concerning the way they let the world
    know about it and I do think some of their moves are plain wrong.

    Just some info shared with the group.

    Roberto Guest

  5. #25

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:17:37 +0200, Roberto Zini <com> wrote:

     

    I hope you don't consider the rep a friend..... because what he told
    you was a mixture of half-truths and lies.
     

    LIE: At the time, they were presented as examples of stolen code. We
    are not reliant on people reporting what was said by SCO's execs,
    because photographs of of the slides were published on the web by a
    German magazine. What he told you was SCO's attempt to spin the issue
    AFTER getting caught lying.

    In fact, the code showed at SCOForum may have shown SCO using code in
    violation of BSD copyrights: by using BSD code after stripping off
    the copyright notices.
     

    HALF-TRUTH: the NDA that SCO offered is so restrictive that is is
    plainly unacceptable to those people and anyone who would ever want to
    work on OS development again.

    Anyone who is qualified to review the code (not just Stallman, Torvalds
    and the guys from FSF) cannot sign the NDA becuase it would limit their
    future career.
     

    HALF-TRUTH: SGI stated that they did replace some code, but SGI believes
    the original code was either public domain or previously released under
    licenses that allowed use of the code in the kernel. In other words,
    SGI did not admit any wrong-doing.
     
    Joe Guest

  6. #26

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    In article <com> santa-
    cruz.ca.us (Jeff Liebermann) writes:
     

    <snip>

    LOL! I see you managed to dig up the text of Microsoft's Licence 6.

    1/2 :-)

    --
    /~\ invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
    \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
    X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
    / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

    Charlie Guest

  7. #27

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

     
    >
    > HALF-TRUTH: SGI stated that they did replace some code, but SGI believes
    > the original code was either public domain or previously released under
    > licenses that allowed use of the code in the kernel. In other words,
    > SGI did not admit any wrong-doing.
    > [/ref]
    Do you honestly believe that SGI would admit to wrong doing? If you were
    caught
    copying code, and was afraid of being sued, what would you do? This is all
    a
    bunch of he said she said until the courts are done with it.


    Michael Guest

  8. #28

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:08:47 GMT, Michael Suddith <com> wrote: 
    >>
    >> HALF-TRUTH: SGI stated that they did replace some code, but SGI believes
    >> the original code was either public domain or previously released under
    >> licenses that allowed use of the code in the kernel. In other words,
    >> SGI did not admit any wrong-doing.
    >> [/ref]
    >Do you honestly believe that SGI would admit to wrong doing? If you were
    >caught
    >copying code, and was afraid of being sued, what would you do? This is all
    >a
    >bunch of he said she said until the courts are done with it.[/ref]

    The simple fact is that everything SGI did is public. The changes made
    to the kernel are public. You or anyone else can research the origins of
    the code.

    Don't forget that SGI announced SGI's changes to the kernel -- not SCO.
    SGI did not need to do this, silence was another option for them. SCO is
    trying to spin the issue as an admission of guilt or proof of guilt by
    SGI and it is neither.

    It may be all a question of he-said, she-said at the moment, but
    credibility is also an issue and I don't think SCO's management has any
    credibility right now.


     
    Joe Guest

  9. #29

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....


    "Joe Dunning" <invalid> wrote in message
    news:VkUlb.3673$.. 
    wrote: [/ref][/ref]
    following [/ref][/ref]
    believes 
    > >Do you honestly believe that SGI would admit to wrong doing? If you were
    > >caught
    > >copying code, and was afraid of being sued, what would you do? This is[/ref][/ref]
    all 
    >
    > The simple fact is that everything SGI did is public. The changes made
    > to the kernel are public. You or anyone else can research the origins of
    > the code.[/ref]

    I do not have access to SCO's code base to research that end of it. At
    best
    I could track changes back to BSD of IBM or someone else, but without access
    to SCO's code base, there is no way for me to tell if it is in there or not,
    much less who
    the original source is.

     
    I agree with you. SCO's management has 0 credibilty left right now in most
    knowledgeable people's eyes. However when it reaches those 12 people
    sitting in that jury box, Management credibility will play a very small part
    in the proceeding.You could see the same thing happen in the O.J. Simpson
    trial,
    once the technical experts come in, it seemed most of the details went way
    over their
    heads. SCO's current evidence has not been well recieved among technical
    people,
    but if IBM is able to get a single technical person on the jury, I'd be
    impressed.


    Michael Guest

  10. #30

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    com wrote in message news:<bmu62p$ins$std.com>... 
    >
    > I don't know that, and either do you. I can certainly agree
    > that your interpretation is possible, but so are others. You
    > only see one possible truth..
    >[/ref]

    Name the other possible "truths".
    fuzzywzhe Guest

  11. #31

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 19:54:42 GMT, Michael Suddith <com> wrote: 
    >wrote: [/ref]
    >following [/ref]
    >believes [/ref]
    >all 
    >>
    >> The simple fact is that everything SGI did is public. The changes made
    >> to the kernel are public. You or anyone else can research the origins of
    >> the code.[/ref]
    >
    >I do not have access to SCO's code base to research that end of it. At
    >best
    >I could track changes back to BSD of IBM or someone else, but without access
    >to SCO's code base, there is no way for me to tell if it is in there or not,
    >much less who
    >the original source is.[/ref]

    It does not matter if the code is in SCO's codebase IF the code can be
    traced back to some legitimate source. Examples of legitimate sources
    are:
    BSD
    Deliberate Public domain release of older code made by Caldera,
    Releases where no copyright was claimed made before changes to copyright laws,
    etc.

    So, if you want to take the time to research it, you can.

    Note that just because it might be in SCO's codebase does not
    neccessarily mean that SCO owns the copyright!
    Joe Guest

  12. #32

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:16:34 +0000, ton wrote:
     
    > [/ref]

    >
    > Um.. maybe.
    >
    > While our hope and desire may be that the GPL stands up in court, it may
    > not. It might very well be that intended control gets lost.[/ref]

    Notice I didn't respond to anything about the GPL. What I quoted is
    basically a paraphrase of the central idea of copyright, my point being
    that I don't think it's under question.

    The author of a work has the exclusive rights to copy his work and to
    prepare derivative works. As someone with those rights, the author gets
    to choose which rights he gives to whom and wherefore. Which part of that
    control might very well be lost?

    --
    Tom Felker, <com>
    <http://vlevel.sourceforge.net> - Stop fiddling with the volume knob.

    65 != 97, 0x41 != 0x61, 0101 != 0141,
    similarly, 'A' != 'a'

    Tom Guest

  13. #33

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    Joe Dunning wrote: 
    >
    >
    > I hope you don't consider the rep a friend..... because what he told
    > you was a mixture of half-truths and lies.
    >[/ref]

    Well, I said "I had the chance to talk ... with a SCO's rep", not "with
    a friend of mine". I know him and he's the kind of "corporate man" so I
    don't expect him to always say the truth :-)

    [snip]
     
    >
    >
    > HALF-TRUTH: the NDA that SCO offered is so restrictive that is is
    > plainly unacceptable to those people and anyone who would ever want to
    > work on OS development again.
    >
    > Anyone who is qualified to review the code (not just Stallman, Torvalds
    > and the guys from FSF) cannot sign the NDA becuase it would limit their
    > future career.
    >[/ref]

    Your above statement assumes you know that NDA very well: out of
    curiosity (because I'd like to get back to him and talk again about this
    issue), are you in the position to quote (or point me to) the parts of
    the NDA that would limit their furure career ?

    I usually don't like when people try to fool me so if the above if true,
    I'd like to show him (the SCO's rep) some evidences.

    [munch]

    Well, I got 2 "half-truth" and a big lie; not bad, given some threads
    around here ;-)

    Thanks,
    Rob

    Roberto Guest

  14. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    Removed by Administrator
    Brian Guest
    Moderated Post

  15. Moderated Post

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    Removed by Administrator
    Brian Guest
    Moderated Post

  16. Moderated Post

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    Removed by Administrator
    Brian Guest
    Moderated Post

  17. #37

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    Roberto Zini wrote: 

    http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6923

    which also contains an excellent discussion of why the NDA is
    problematic to both developers (and journalists of trade mags).
     

    --
    Med Venlig Hilsen / Regards

    Kim Petersen - Kyborg A/S (Udvikling)
    IT - Innovationshuset
    Havneparken 2
    7100 Vejle
    Tlf. +4576408183 || Fax. +4576408188

    Kim Guest

  18. #38

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    fuzzywzhe <com> wrote: 
    >>
    >> I don't know that, and either do you. I can certainly agree
    >> that your interpretation is possible, but so are others. You
    >> only see one possible truth..
    >>[/ref][/ref]
     

    Oh sheesh, another person walks into thev theatre halfway through the
    movie.

    Go read the thread.

    --
    com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
    Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
    tony@aplawrence.com Guest

  19. Moderated Post

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    Removed by Administrator
    tony@aplawrence.com Guest
    Moderated Post

  20. Moderated Post

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    Removed by Administrator
    tony@aplawrence.com Guest
    Moderated Post

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139