http://lwn.net/Articles/40526/
interesting.
--
Windows not found
(C)heers, (P)arty or (D)ance?
-----------------------------------
Micsk? G?bor
Compaq Accredited Platform Specialist, System Engineer (APS, ASE)
Szint?zis Computer Rendszerh?z Kft.
H-9021 Gyor, Tihanyi ?rp?d ?t. 2.
Tel: +36-96-502-216
Fax: +36-96-318-658
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: http://www.hup.hu
To quote from their press release:
"Hundreds of files of misappropriated UNIX source code and derivative UNIX
code have been contributed to Linux in a variety of areas, including
multi-processing capabilities. The Linux 2.2.x kernel was able to scale to
2-4 processors. With Linux 2.4.x and the 2.5.x development kernel, Linux now
scales to 32 and 64 processors through the addition of advanced Symmetrical
Multi-Processing (SMP) capabilities taken from UNIX System V and derivative
works, in violation of SCO's contract agreements and copyrights."
To my understanding, this hasn't been proven... most of what I have read
says otherwise.
If this is proven false in the IBM lawsuit, wouldn't this statement become
grounds for a libel lawsuit on behalf of the authors of this functionality?
--eric
(speaking in my own capacity, not Maxtor's obviously)
-----Original Message-----
From: Gabor MICSKO [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 11:10 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux
http://lwn.net/Articles/40526/
interesting.
--
Windows not found
(C)heers, (P)arty or (D)ance?
-----------------------------------
Micsk? G?bor
Compaq Accredited Platform Specialist, System Engineer (APS, ASE)
Szint?zis Computer Rendszerh?z Kft.
H-9021 Gyor, Tihanyi ?rp?d ?t. 2.
Tel: +36-96-502-216
Fax: +36-96-318-658
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: http://www.hup.hu
On Monday, July 21, 2003, at 01:10 PM, Gabor MICSKO wrote:
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/40526/
>
> interesting.
>
> --
> Windows not found
> (C)heers, (P)arty or (D)ance?
> -----------------------------------
> Micsk? G?bor
> Compaq Accredited Platform Specialist, System Engineer (APS, ASE)
> Szint?zis Computer Rendszerh?z Kft.
> H-9021 Gyor, Tihanyi ?rp?d ?t. 2.
> Tel: +36-96-502-216
> Fax: +36-96-318-658
> E-mail: [email protected]
> Web: http://www.hup.hu
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
Very interesting. It'd be interesting to see if they are able to do
this and get past the GPL. However, even if they are selling "Sys V"
or "Unixware" licenses, it doesn't mean that they have the right to
sell Linux licenses.
To put it simply, just because they "may," - and I say may here simply
because we have no evidence to prove their claims but cannot flatly
deny them - own the rights to Sys V, does NOT mean they own the right
to the code that was released under GPL and does NOT give them the
right to reassign a license to it.
If I were a lawyer for the FSF, I'd take this opportunity to
investigate how they are selling the licenses, and go smash them up...
Michael Bernstein
michael AT seven-angels DOT net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 21 July 2003 13:10, Gabor MICSKO wrote:
> http://lwn.net/Articles/40526/
>
> interesting.
"SCO has announced its latest move: concerned Linux users will be able to buy
a UnixWare License for a "run-time, binary use of Linux." If you buy into
their protection scheme, they promise not to sue - but only for binary use.
Looking at the source (or modifying it), it seems, will not be allowed. It
will be interesting to see how many companies actually buy these licenses."
Sounds like extortion to me..
Jeff.
- --
The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy
way to factor large prime numbers.
- Bill Gates, The Road Ahead, pg. 265
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/HCiSwFP0+seVj/4RAjDoAJwMe6Otc1q6EZVUIWqvgs4LyeeMagCfQ4U6
kUhdRCF2gMbCP4IiLOZ0BcA=
=Rk7p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
El Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:52:21 -0400 Michael Bernstein <[email protected]> escribi?:
> To put it simply, just because they "may," - and I say may here simply
> because we have no evidence to prove their claims but cannot flatly
> deny them - own the rights to Sys V, does NOT mean they own the right
So they want to sell us something that still hasn't proved....cool.
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Diego Calleja [ISO-8859-15] Garc?a wrote:
> El Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:52:21 -0400 Michael Bernstein <[email protected]> escribi?:
>
> > To put it simply, just because they "may," - and I say may here simply
> > because we have no evidence to prove their claims but cannot flatly
> > deny them - own the rights to Sys V, does NOT mean they own the right
>
> So they want to sell us something that still hasn't proved....cool.
>
No. They want to sell you something you already own. SCO is the
owner of a non-exclusive license to a 30 year-old operating
system. There are many others who have such a license including
the University of California in Berkeley. Much of Linux was designed
to interface with the API that they published, in a method that
minimizes the changes to a 'C' runtime library. This made porting
of various Unix utilities developed by the students at Berkeley,
relatively easy. The actual Unix API used by Berkeley, was published
by AT&T in December 1983. It is Called "Unix System V, Release 2.0,
User Reference Manual Including BTL Computer Center Standard and
Local Commands". I have a copy of that two volume ring-bound book.
A "non-exclusive license" means that you you are not the only
person who has been licensed. It's just that simple. In my opinion
there is no way that SCO will ever convince any court that their version
of "non-exclusive" is any different than all the others including,
but not limited to, BSD, Digital, Interactive, Sun, IBM, Microsoft,
Novell, etc. I have read the complaint and they allege that somebody
must have stolen their secrets because nobody could make a version
of Unix good enough for "the enterprise" without their secrets.
So, they contend that they are the only people smart enough to write
software for "the enterprise", whatever that is. Nice trick.
Note that in the complaint against IBM, SCO seeks a jury trial.
I guess they think it's easier to snow a jury than a judge. We'll
see. I think SCO thinks juries are stupid and will treat them
as David and Goliath. I think a jury will treat them like
thieves, instead.
It is instructive to read the annual reports, filed with the
United States Security and Exchange Commission, by many
of the companies that produce software. These reports are
available on the "Web" and the various company's Web Pages
usually have links to recent filings. A quote from a portion
of Novel's 2002 Annual report goes like this; " The software
industry is characterized by frequent litigation regarding
copyright, patent, and other intellectual property rights."
The fact that somebody sues somebody else in the Software
Industry is kind of like having the sun rise in the East.
You get to expect it. Now, back to writing some software
that somebody may claim I stole.............
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.
The copyright owners own it.
Anyway:
1. SCO cannot redistribute the parts of the kernel that are not theirs
under a binary only license.
2. Linus own's the "Linux" trademark (® or tm, I dunno) so SCO can't
call what they own "Linux" if Linus says no.
3. Even in the unlikely case that SCO wins the © case against IBM, Linux
developers will be hard at work reimplementing the parts of the wheel
that some uninformed troglodyte found was SCO property.
4. Are you actually afraid SCO will have an impact this drastic on
Linux?
5. RedHat should step up and chime in, and the more likely is that SCO
will piss IBM off for a while and interrupt some of RedHat's revenue
stream through FUD.
EVERYONE who has ever contributed to Linux should call SCO on their
bluff and formally object to the blatant violation of all your
collective licenses. That way, at least it's on record.
On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 15:09, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Diego Calleja [ISO-8859-15] García wrote:
>
> > El Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:52:21 -0400 Michael Bernstein <[email protected]> escribió:
> >
> > > To put it simply, just because they "may," - and I say may here simply
> > > because we have no evidence to prove their claims but cannot flatly
> > > deny them - own the rights to Sys V, does NOT mean they own the right
> >
> > So they want to sell us something that still hasn't proved....cool.
> >
>
> No. They want to sell you something you already own. SCO is the
> owner of a non-exclusive license to a 30 year-old operating
> system. There are many others who have such a license including
> the University of California in Berkeley. Much of Linux was designed
> to interface with the API that they published, in a method that
> minimizes the changes to a 'C' runtime library. This made porting
> of various Unix utilities developed by the students at Berkeley,
> relatively easy. The actual Unix API used by Berkeley, was published
> by AT&T in December 1983. It is Called "Unix System V, Release 2.0,
> User Reference Manual Including BTL Computer Center Standard and
> Local Commands". I have a copy of that two volume ring-bound book.
>
> A "non-exclusive license" means that you you are not the only
> person who has been licensed. It's just that simple. In my opinion
> there is no way that SCO will ever convince any court that their version
> of "non-exclusive" is any different than all the others including,
> but not limited to, BSD, Digital, Interactive, Sun, IBM, Microsoft,
> Novell, etc. I have read the complaint and they allege that somebody
> must have stolen their secrets because nobody could make a version
> of Unix good enough for "the enterprise" without their secrets.
> So, they contend that they are the only people smart enough to write
> software for "the enterprise", whatever that is. Nice trick.
>
> Note that in the complaint against IBM, SCO seeks a jury trial.
> I guess they think it's easier to snow a jury than a judge. We'll
> see. I think SCO thinks juries are stupid and will treat them
> as David and Goliath. I think a jury will treat them like
> thieves, instead.
>
> It is instructive to read the annual reports, filed with the
> United States Security and Exchange Commission, by many
> of the companies that produce software. These reports are
> available on the "Web" and the various company's Web Pages
> usually have links to recent filings. A quote from a portion
> of Novel's 2002 Annual report goes like this; " The software
> industry is characterized by frequent litigation regarding
> copyright, patent, and other intellectual property rights."
>
> The fact that somebody sues somebody else in the Software
> Industry is kind of like having the sun rise in the East.
> You get to expect it. Now, back to writing some software
> that somebody may claim I stole.............
>
>
> Cheers,
> Dick Johnson
> Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
> Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 01:53:17PM -0400, Jeff Sipek wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Monday 21 July 2003 13:10, Gabor MICSKO wrote:
> > http://lwn.net/Articles/40526/
> >
> > interesting.
>
> "SCO has announced its latest move: concerned Linux users will be able to buy
> a UnixWare License for a "run-time, binary use of Linux." If you buy into
> their protection scheme, they promise not to sue - but only for binary use.
> Looking at the source (or modifying it), it seems, will not be allowed. It
> will be interesting to see how many companies actually buy these licenses."
I hope not many companies buy the license as a hedge against future
lawsuits...
By buying such a license, a company becomes obligated to the terms of
the license. Even if a party weren't previously at risk, they could
find that they become at risk for future lawsuits based on having
accepted the license.
Quoth Gabor MICSKO:
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/40526/
>
> interesting.
Insofar as extortion is "interesting."
Kurt
--
"I drink to make other people interesting."
-- George Jean Nathan
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 01:53:17PM -0400, Jeff Sipek wrote:
> "SCO has announced its latest move: concerned Linux users will be able to buy
> a UnixWare License for a "run-time, binary use of Linux." If you buy into
> their protection scheme, they promise not to sue - but only for binary use.
> Looking at the source (or modifying it), it seems, will not be allowed. It
> will be interesting to see how many companies actually buy these licenses."
I am no legal expert. My lay person's understanding is that SCO's
offer appears to forfeit SCO's right to distribute Linux under the
GPL, due to the GPL's "no additional restrictions" clause.
Anyone for a countersuit? :)
-- Jamie
(Pardon me if this reiterates information already
posted in this thread. From the few messages I
browsed, it seems like people do not generally
know this.)
SCO only owns the Unixware source code. They do
not own any earlier copyrights on SVR4 unix
(on which SCO's claims of infringement of
intellectual property rights are based)
that were purchased by Novell from AT&T,
because Novell did not include those copyrights
in the terms of their sale of Unixware to SCO.
Novell's statement of position on the case:
<http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/05/pr03033.html>
[Note: my previous claim in private to a couple of posters that the property rights in question were made public domain by AT&T as part of an earlier antitrust settlement were not accurate. When Unix was invented, AT&T was forbidden by a US antitrust settlement in the 1950s from vending anything
other than telco services. So they gave the unix source of the day away for no more than the cost of copying it and sending it to someone that wanted it. This restriction on what markets AT&T could market to was eased by a revision
of the antitrust settlement in the early 1980s, which removed several regional telephone companies from AT&T ownership and gave AT&T the right to sell ancillary products like software. AT&T always held the copyrights on System V unix, because
their employees wrote it, but up until about 20 years ago they couldn't sell them or charge for licensing.]
Still, there is the question of whether any such claims of intellectual property rights on the design (rather than a specific implementation)
of unix are valid. How much did the unix api borrow from earlier user interfaces designed
under the auspices of a variety of different computer software companies (and perhaps even under US government contract, which would probably make the copyrights prior art owned by the American public, given the terms of US
government software development contracts in the '60s and '70s)? This question about the origins
of the unix api has never been examined in court.
["Look and feel" copying is ambiguous in US
legal precedent. The Lotus 1-2-3 case was decided in favor of the original designers, while the Apple-Microsoft case was decided in favor of
the reimplementer-using-different-source-code.]
Anyway, the upshot is that Novell could possibly make the case that SCO is trying to make if they were sufficiently motivated, believed that AT&T had copied nothing in the unix API from earlier prior art not owned by AT&T, and believed that a court would decide that other unix-like
operating systems infringe their copyrights.
But SCO themselves never bought the property rights from Novell that they claim as the basis
for the current campaign of fud.
(Looks to me like nothing more than some lawyers bilking the SCO and IBM stockholders and anyone
else that they can suck into the litigation
on a case with no valid basid in any property
owned by SCO.)
Regards,
Clayton Weaver
<mailto: [email protected]>
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search
http://corp.mail.com/careers
On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 20:59, Diego Calleja Garc?a wrote:
> El Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:52:21 -0400 Michael Bernstein <[email protected]> escribi?:
>
> > To put it simply, just because they "may," - and I say may here simply
> > because we have no evidence to prove their claims but cannot flatly
> > deny them - own the rights to Sys V, does NOT mean they own the right
>
> So they want to sell us something that still hasn't proved....cool.
And can be rewritten from scratch if necessary... They're crazy!
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 04:52:09PM +0200, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 20:59, Diego Calleja Garc?a wrote:
> > El Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:52:21 -0400 Michael Bernstein <[email protected]> escribi?:
> >
> > > To put it simply, just because they "may," - and I say may here simply
> > > because we have no evidence to prove their claims but cannot flatly
> > > deny them - own the rights to Sys V, does NOT mean they own the right
> >
> > So they want to sell us something that still hasn't proved....cool.
>
> And can be rewritten from scratch if necessary... They're crazy!
There seems to be a prevailing opinion that if there is stolen code in
Linux that came from SCO owned code that all that needs to be done is
to remove it and everything is fine. I don't think it works that way.
If code was stolen and the fact that it is in Linux helped destroy
SCO's business then SCO has the right to try and get damages. I.e.,
Linux damaged SCO by using the code.
It's also not a simple case of rewriting. _Assuming_ that there was
something significant in Linux which came from SCO, i.e., they can make
the case that the Linux community wouldn't have thought of it on their
own, then you don't get to rewrite it because now you know how whatever
"it" is works and you didn't before.
The business world takes their IP seriously. If, and it is a big if,
there is code in Linux from SCO, that's going to be a nasty mess to
clean up and we had better all pray that IBM just buys them and puts
Unix into the public domain. Otherwise I think SCO could force Linux
backwards to whereever it was before the tainted code came in. If that
happens, I (and I suspect a lot of you) will work to make sure that
things which couldn't possibly be tainted (like drivers) do make it
forward.
If SCO prevails it won't be the end of the world. A lot of that scalability
stuff is just a waste of time, IMO. 32 processor systems are dinosaurs that
are going away and I'm not the only one who thinks so, Dell and IDC agree:
http://news.com.com/2100-1010_3-1027556.html
Don't get me wrong, there are some cool things in 2.5 that we all want but
if SCO puts a dent in the works Linux will recover and maybe be better.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Hi,
On Thursday 24 July 2003 18:08, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 04:52:09PM +0200, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 20:59, Diego Calleja Garc?a wrote:
> > > El Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:52:21 -0400 Michael Bernstein
<[email protected]> escribi?:
> > > > To put it simply, just because they "may," - and I say may here
> > > > simply because we have no evidence to prove their claims but cannot
> > > > flatly deny them - own the rights to Sys V, does NOT mean they own
> > > > the right
> > >
> > > So they want to sell us something that still hasn't proved....cool.
> >
> > And can be rewritten from scratch if necessary... They're crazy!
>
> There seems to be a prevailing opinion that if there is stolen code in
> Linux that came from SCO owned code that all that needs to be done is
> to remove it and everything is fine. I don't think it works that way.
> If code was stolen and the fact that it is in Linux helped destroy
> SCO's business then SCO has the right to try and get damages. I.e.,
> Linux damaged SCO by using the code.
>
> It's also not a simple case of rewriting. _Assuming_ that there was
> something significant in Linux which came from SCO, i.e., they can make
> the case that the Linux community wouldn't have thought of it on their
> own, then you don't get to rewrite it because now you know how whatever
> "it" is works and you didn't before.
>
> The business world takes their IP seriously. If, and it is a big if,
> there is code in Linux from SCO, that's going to be a nasty mess to
> clean up and we had better all pray that IBM just buys them and puts
> Unix into the public domain. Otherwise I think SCO could force Linux
> backwards to whereever it was before the tainted code came in. If that
> happens, I (and I suspect a lot of you) will work to make sure that
> things which couldn't possibly be tainted (like drivers) do make it
> forward.
>
> If SCO prevails it won't be the end of the world. A lot of that
> scalability stuff is just a waste of time, IMO. 32 processor systems are
> dinosaurs that are going away and I'm not the only one who thinks so, Dell
> and IDC agree:
>
> http://news.com.com/2100-1010_3-1027556.html
>
> Don't get me wrong, there are some cool things in 2.5 that we all want but
> if SCO puts a dent in the works Linux will recover and maybe be better.
I wish to know are we have backup plan any backup plan. Most of Linux users
are gonna worry.
Today I get a e mail from our local mailing lists. Says SCO sued Red Hat for
this. another one asks Can M$ send BSA to check their systems and request
licence money (because of buying SCO Unixware Licences).
Rumors everywhere, people can't track of all sources about SCO vs IBM(Linux)
case and each Rumor hurt us too badly. Every news people are gonna make worst
case scenario and this is preventing people to buy expensive linux server
systems (like rhas etc).
Of course Linux will live. I haven't got any question about it. But I fear
this case between SCO and IBM may hit Red Hat, Suse and others. I believe non
of these distros are disposable (uh oh expect Caldera/SCO).
Is there any way for backup plan?
I believe the backup plan will shut up SCO and burn those plans forever.
Waiting for IBM is not good idea.
Ps: I home my enlish enough to tell what I mean.. :)
Sancar "Delifisek" Saran
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 04:52:09PM +0200, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 20:59, Diego Calleja Garc?a wrote:
> > > El Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:52:21 -0400 Michael Bernstein <[email protected]> escribi?:
> > >
> > > > To put it simply, just because they "may," - and I say may here simply
> > > > because we have no evidence to prove their claims but cannot flatly
> > > > deny them - own the rights to Sys V, does NOT mean they own the right
> > >
> > > So they want to sell us something that still hasn't proved....cool.
> >
> > And can be rewritten from scratch if necessary... They're crazy!
>
> There seems to be a prevailing opinion that if there is stolen code in
> Linux that came from SCO owned code that all that needs to be done is
> to remove it and everything is fine. I don't think it works that way.
> If code was stolen and the fact that it is in Linux helped destroy
> SCO's business then SCO has the right to try and get damages. I.e.,
> Linux damaged SCO by using the code.
>
> It's also not a simple case of rewriting. _Assuming_ that there was
> something significant in Linux which came from SCO, i.e., they can make
> the case that the Linux community wouldn't have thought of it on their
> own, then you don't get to rewrite it because now you know how whatever
> "it" is works and you didn't before.
>
> The business world takes their IP seriously. If, and it is a big if,
> there is code in Linux from SCO, that's going to be a nasty mess to
> clean up and we had better all pray that IBM just buys them and puts
> Unix into the public domain. Otherwise I think SCO could force Linux
> backwards to whereever it was before the tainted code came in. If that
> happens, I (and I suspect a lot of you) will work to make sure that
> things which couldn't possibly be tainted (like drivers) do make it
> forward.
>
> If SCO prevails it won't be the end of the world. A lot of that scalability
> stuff is just a waste of time, IMO. 32 processor systems are dinosaurs that
> are going away and I'm not the only one who thinks so, Dell and IDC agree:
>
> http://news.com.com/2100-1010_3-1027556.html
>
> Don't get me wrong, there are some cool things in 2.5 that we all want but
> if SCO puts a dent in the works Linux will recover and maybe be better.
> --
> ---
> Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
At least in the United States, you are not going to get away with
claiming there is some stolen code that caused damages. The sole
responsibility of a person who discovers stolen property is to
make "good effort" to return it. So the party that claims that
his property was stolen needs first to identify that stolen property.
Then, and only then, the party that has possession of the property
needs to make "good effort" to return it. Good effort means that,
amongst other things, the person who returns the property must not
suffer undue cost.
Child's poem describing this point of law; "Finders keepers, losers
weepers!"
This is a very important concept. If it did not exist, I could
lose my personal property anywhere and then claim that somebody
stole it, causing damages. Instead, to prevent this kind of
"legal theft", the only thing a person found in possession of
"stolen" property needs to do is to return it, unless there is
evidence that the possessor actually stole the property in question.
Of course there's always some lawyer(s) that attempt to make
new case-law. See http://www.overlawyered.com for details.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.
> At least in the United States, you are not going to get away with
> claiming there is some stolen code that caused damages.
...
> Instead, to prevent this kind of "legal theft", the only thing a person
> found in possession of "stolen" property needs to do is to return it,
> unless there is evidence that the possessor actually stole the property
> in question.
Yeah, right.
``I "found" these 3GB of mp3's of music and I had no idea that
they were stolen but now that you mention it, here they are back.
Finders keepers, right?''
What were you thinking? That's obviously incorrect, I know that it is
incorrect from both observation of recent court cases as well as direct
personal experience.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
> [[email protected]]
>
> > Instead, to prevent this kind of "legal theft", the only thing a person
> > found in possession of "stolen" property needs to do is to return it,
> > unless there is evidence that the possessor actually stole the property
> > in question.
>
> Yeah, right.
>
> ``I "found" these 3GB of mp3's of music and I had no idea that
> they were stolen but now that you mention it, here they are back.
> Finders keepers, right?''
>
> What were you thinking? That's obviously incorrect, I know that it is
> incorrect from both observation of recent court cases as well as direct
> personal experience.
You're both right. The thing you may be missing is - intellectual property
ain't the same as material property and the law has to (and does) take this
into account.
--
Tomas Szepe <[email protected]>
Larry McVoy wrote:
>>At least in the United States, you are not going to get away with
>>claiming there is some stolen code that caused damages.
>>
>>
>...
>
>
>>Instead, to prevent this kind of "legal theft", the only thing a person
>>found in possession of "stolen" property needs to do is to return it,
>>unless there is evidence that the possessor actually stole the property
>>in question.
>>
>>
>
>Yeah, right.
>
> ``I "found" these 3GB of mp3's of music and I had no idea that
> they were stolen but now that you mention it, here they are back.
> Finders keepers, right?''
>
>What were you thinking? That's obviously incorrect, I know that it is
>incorrect from both observation of recent court cases as well as direct
>personal experience.
>
>
A more reasonable analogy is that you download a bunch of free programs
while one of them has some copy-righted music in it for sound effects.
Surely you'd have the ability to remove this once you found out without
penalty?
On Thursday 24 Jul 2003 17:01, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > At least in the United States, you are not going to get away with
> > claiming there is some stolen code that caused damages.
>
> ...
>
> > Instead, to prevent this kind of "legal theft", the only thing a person
> > found in possession of "stolen" property needs to do is to return it,
> > unless there is evidence that the possessor actually stole the property
> > in question.
>
> Yeah, right.
>
> ``I "found" these 3GB of mp3's of music and I had no idea that
> they were stolen but now that you mention it, here they are back.
> Finders keepers, right?''
Hardly comparable. There is a difference between getting something knowing it
to be improperly obtained and believing it to be the property of the
supplier. Just to follow your example, you buy a second hand disc or
computer. When you hook it up you find a load of illegal MP3s. If what you
say is correct you'd be guilty of theft, or at the very least copyright
infringement.
Or another example with the second hand computer. You discover that some of
it's software isn't properly licensed, even though you believed that license
to have been legally transferred to you when you bought it. Does that
misjudgement make you guilty?
> What were you thinking? That's obviously incorrect, I know that it is
> incorrect from both observation of recent court cases as well as direct
> personal experience.
OK, if IBM illegally included SCO IP into Linux then they might have done it
knowingly. If Linux Torvalds accepted that code believing it to be legally
supplied then how can he, or any other unwitting Linux user, be guilty? It
seems to me that SCO is more interested in making a quick profit than in
preventing infringement of any rights they may have.
Of course I personally do not believe there is any real basis for SCO's
claims. Then again we are talking about a court case where the "truth" will
be "decided". Any similarity with similarity with reality will be purely
accidental, if the lawyers have their way.
--
Ian.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 11:39:50AM -0500, Yuliy Pisetsky wrote:
> A more reasonable analogy is that you download a bunch of free programs
> while one of them has some copy-righted music in it for sound effects.
> Surely you'd have the ability to remove this once you found out without
> penalty?
It really depends. If you were an end user and the amount that the copyright
holder could hope to get from you is small, probably. If you were a distro
maker and you made $50M/year off of things which included the copyrighted
material, I doubt very much that you'd get away with it.
All this stuff boils down to money: how much the violator has, how much
the copyright holder thinks they can get.
Read up on the law, Google is your friend. It is complex but the prevailing
idea here that you can just rewrite the infringing material and that's the
end of it is not true in my opinion. If you think about it, it makes sense.
If someone damaged your business and all they had to do was say "whoops,
we'll stop", that's not much of a disincentive.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:01:46 -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> Yeah, right.
>
> ``I "found" these 3GB of mp3's of music and I had no idea that
> they were stolen but now that you mention it, here they are back.
> Finders keepers, right?''
>
> What were you thinking? That's obviously incorrect, I know that it is
> incorrect from both observation of recent court cases as well as direct
> personal experience.
>
I think the phrase you're looking for is "receiving stolen property."
I am not a lawyer, so I really can't comment further.
--
David Benfell
[email protected]
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 05:52:44PM +0100, Ian Hastie wrote:
> There is a difference between getting something knowing it
> to be improperly obtained and believing it to be the property of the
> supplier. Just to follow your example, you buy a second hand disc or
> computer. When you hook it up you find a load of illegal MP3s. If what you
> say is correct you'd be guilty of theft, or at the very least copyright
> infringement.
You bet you would. Unless you could make a case that the seller sold you
the system with legal rights to that data, and that case would have to
include some plausible fee for the data, then the judge would say "there
is no free lunch son, if the deal looked too good to be true, it was and
you saying you didn't know isn't an excuse".
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 17:08, Larry McVoy wrote:
> There seems to be a prevailing opinion that if there is stolen code in
> Linux that came from SCO owned code that all that needs to be done is
> to remove it and everything is fine. I don't think it works that way.
> If code was stolen and the fact that it is in Linux helped destroy
> SCO's business then SCO has the right to try and get damages. I.e.,
> Linux damaged SCO by using the code.
I see the point but... Take Linux as a community. Let's say someone
contributes stolen code, but the community doesn't check if the
contributed code violates any IP or copyright law. So, is the Linux
community guilty? Or else should the one that contributed code be
considered guilty?
We can't be liable for the work of others over which we don't have total
control. Or is the law forcing us to check line by line the
contributions made by hundreds of programmers all around the world?
Joe coder cannot reasonably "check" anyway, and therefore cannot be held
liable. Only those with access to someone else's IP can reasonably be
held liable.
I really think that even though this thread is meta-relevant, it should
die now. No one has any relevant input.
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 12:34, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 17:08, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> > There seems to be a prevailing opinion that if there is stolen code in
> > Linux that came from SCO owned code that all that needs to be done is
> > to remove it and everything is fine. I don't think it works that way.
> > If code was stolen and the fact that it is in Linux helped destroy
> > SCO's business then SCO has the right to try and get damages. I.e.,
> > Linux damaged SCO by using the code.
>
> I see the point but... Take Linux as a community. Let's say someone
> contributes stolen code, but the community doesn't check if the
> contributed code violates any IP or copyright law. So, is the Linux
> community guilty? Or else should the one that contributed code be
> considered guilty?
>
> We can't be liable for the work of others over which we don't have total
> control. Or is the law forcing us to check line by line the
> contributions made by hundreds of programmers all around the world?
Ahh, but if you're MS you don't even have to promise not to do it again,
and you get offered additional monopolies (see the "justice" dept's first
settlement offer). Why can't we do the same?
Nick
> end of it is not true in my opinion. If you think about it, it makes sense.
> If someone damaged your business and all they had to do was say "whoops,
> we'll stop", that's not much of a disincentive.
> Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Iau, 2003-07-24 at 16:49, Sancar Saran wrote:
> I wish to know are we have backup plan any backup plan. Most of Linux users
> are gonna worry.
Well if IBM did steal stuff my backup plan is to sue IBM, as I suspect
is everyone elses. There are basically three outcomes
#1 The whole thing is without merit (as it seems to be now)
#2 IBM did it and have to buy SCO (because everyone will sue IBM, every
Linux developer, every business, every user)
#3 SCO gets bankrupted by countersuits (popular US approach to law)
At the moment it seems like the games Intel played against AMD in the
486 days against motherboard vendors, except that Intel had a better
case
> Today I get a e mail from our local mailing lists. Says SCO sued Red Hat for
> this. another one asks Can M$ send BSA to check their systems and request
> licence money (because of buying SCO Unixware Licences).
SCO Unixware licenses don't entitle you to copy Linux. In fact if you
sign one of their "settlements" you probably lose your right to
distribute Linux under the GPL license terms and give them the right to
break into your office by signing one. But I'm not a lawyer
You can still today download Linux kernels from sco.com which claim to
be GPL. Given what I know about estoppel and law I suggest everyone may
wish to download a copy and log the date they did so.
These same issues are true of Windows btw. If you are using any of the
following products you might want to worry about the Intertrust patent
suit against Microsoft...
http://www.intertrust.com/main/ip/accused.html
http://secure.zdnet.com.au/newstech/enterprise/story/0,2000048640,20276337,00.htm
and also Timeline - who have made it clear they are considering
targetting Microsoft customers
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/29419.html
"particularly those Microsoft customers who relied on Microsoft's
assurances, failed to investigate them thoroughly, and knowingly
continued to provide material steps in an Infringing Combination. These
infringers, if any, may face treble damages for the entire three and
one-half years the case was tied up in the courts. Microsoft is not a
law firm. Relying on its advice should not constitute acting in good
faith; which is the required defense to treble damages for failure to
investigate and honor patents once on notice of their existence."
Just the press cover that one mysteriously less often.
Final amusement: http://www.talkleft.com/archives/003727.html
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:08:41 -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> If SCO prevails it won't be the end of the world. A lot of that scalability
> stuff is just a waste of time, IMO. 32 processor systems are dinosaurs that
> are going away and I'm not the only one who thinks so, Dell and IDC agree:
>
> http://news.com.com/2100-1010_3-1027556.html
Oh yes, Dell that mainstay of high-performance
computing... and of clustering BTW! ;-)
The day Dell 4-way 32-bits CISC machine clusters start menacing
32-way 64-bits RISC machines I'll see your point.
Until then, it is simply a case of Dell not managing to make a
dent on a financially attractive, but technically too difficult for
them, market.
> Don't get me wrong, there are some cool things in 2.5 that we all want but
> if SCO puts a dent in the works Linux will recover and maybe be better.
Or perhaps the Hurd will, if damage and confusion are too
widespread here. But I hope not.
--
_ Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra +41 (21) 648 11 34
/ \ http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/ +41 (78) 778 11 34
\ / Answer to the list, not to me directly! +55 (11) 5686 2219
/ \ Rate this if helpful: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=leandro
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:22:25 -0700
Larry McVoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 05:52:44PM +0100, Ian Hastie wrote:
> > There is a difference between getting something knowing it
> > to be improperly obtained and believing it to be the property of the
> > supplier. Just to follow your example, you buy a second hand disc or
> > computer. When you hook it up you find a load of illegal MP3s. If what
> > you say is correct you'd be guilty of theft, or at the very least copyright
> >
> > infringement.
>
> You bet you would. Unless you could make a case that the seller sold you
> the system with legal rights to that data, and that case would have to
> include some plausible fee for the data, then the judge would say "there
> is no free lunch son, if the deal looked too good to be true, it was and
> you saying you didn't know isn't an excuse".
Sorry, Larry, but we live in the post-dot.com age and all have experienced
astonishing business models where virtually everything was handed to the
"customer" for free. I even know a business model where you get a free _car_,
have to pay nothing and it _works_ for the company.
So your argument is indeed one of the "unkowning" type, it would take me about
10 minutes to fundamentally prove such a judge plain silly.
Regards,
Stephan
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 07:34:06PM +0200, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
> I see the point but... Take Linux as a community. Let's say someone
> contributes stolen code, but the community doesn't check if the
> contributed code violates any IP or copyright law. So, is the Linux
Instead of saying "doesn't check", I would rather say "cannot check".
Without access to proprietary source code I'm going to have a hard time
telling whether a patch that someone sends me is IP-tainted or not.
> We can't be liable for the work of others over which we don't have total
> control. Or is the law forcing us to check line by line the
> contributions made by hundreds of programmers all around the world?
A company doesn't check contributions line-by-line either. In fact they
often prefer to hire someone who has several years of experience in the
field, so they are intentionally trying to hire people that have had
access to some other company's IP.
Jan
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:34:06 +0200
Felipe Alfaro Solana <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 17:08, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> > There seems to be a prevailing opinion that if there is stolen code in
> > Linux that came from SCO owned code that all that needs to be done is
> > to remove it and everything is fine. I don't think it works that way.
> > If code was stolen and the fact that it is in Linux helped destroy
> > SCO's business then SCO has the right to try and get damages. I.e.,
> > Linux damaged SCO by using the code.
>
> I see the point but... Take Linux as a community. Let's say someone
> contributes stolen code, but the community doesn't check if the
> contributed code violates any IP or copyright law. So, is the Linux
> community guilty? Or else should the one that contributed code be
> considered guilty?
>
> We can't be liable for the work of others over which we don't have total
> control. Or is the law forcing us to check line by line the
> contributions made by hundreds of programmers all around the world?
... and the winner is: Mr Solana!
Congrats: you just came across the simple fact why "IP" and its patenting is
fundamentally flawed by design.
You, as a second inventor, cannot know your brand new black box violates in
fact some patent buried in tons of paper in some patent office 10.000 miles
from your home. And as you are not rich, you do not even have a chance to ever
find out, up to the day you get sued by the the holder of that patent for
infringement.
If you think longer about it you may notice that _knowledge_ is a fundamental
part of life for human beings. During evolution only the fittest survived, in
case of fish the ones that can swim fast, or cannot be seen on the ground or
whatever made them special. In case of human race it is knowledge, the
individuals with best trained brain survived, this is why the brain of this
species is as big as it is.
And now some idiots invented "IP". So they in fact try to cut you off from the
very basics of your human nature: knowledge. If you cannot pay, you get none.
point.
Have you ever thought if there is a group of hardliner sharks under water that
tries to cut off the rest of the fish from the water to gain royalties
(whatever it may be you can pay a shark)? Would you call that sharks' idea
stupid? Yes, you would. Would you think the vast majority of fish would (and
should) unite to do just about anything to erase these sharks from the water
planet? Sure you would. See? Politics is sometimes just like swimming, if you
don't move, you drown.
Additionally, this is why you have trousers on, because if there were a
fundamental patent on the invention of trousers you can be sure just about 10%
of the worlds people could afford them - why should the patent holder sell
something so cheap everybody can afford it? He wouldn't, he would maximize his
profit - of course.
Regards,
Stephan
On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 07:42 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:
> By your arguments, anything fundamental needs to be free. Let me
> know when
> you get a free house, car, food, health care, etc.
>
> Until then, we live in world with certain rules. You don't have to
> like them
> and you are welcome (in some countries to try and change them) but
> until you
> do, you have to obey them or go to jail (or whatever the repercussion
> is).
Well, certain countries give free health care, and eventually the
United States will probably have to approach that due to the baby boom
and the medicare problems currently. However, a hospital in the United
States cannot deny medical attention to someone in need, regardless if
they can pay for it or not.
I think there is a difference between everyone getting everything free,
and some people in need getting what they need to survive. Government
subsidized housing is nothing new for low income families. The same
goes for food. You can then argue that in Africa, people starve.
However, you would have to look at the relief aid organizations that
are trying to change that.
The problem that arises is that not everyone has the MEANS to be able
to afford the fundamentals that are required to live. Many human
beings feel it is necessary to help those in need since many of us
(myself included) have much more then the average person.
Larry, I may only be 22, but I recommend you travel to some places like
Egypt (and yes, I have been there) or parts of Eastern Europe, or even
Mexico (and not Cancun or any beach front for tourists, I mean Mexico
City). You may disagree that humans should help out other humans in
need, but you would at least realize how fortunate the majority of us
are. I would say that anyone who can afford to own a computer, be
online, and all that jazz that goes along with being a geek, are quite
fortunate indeed. Sure, everyone has their problems, but you never
grew up knitting rugs so that you could afford a menial meal each day.
I think Linux and free software in general have an idea of this, and
that is why many people feel that software should be free. Computers
are becoming a fundamental need in life to survive in an increasingly
competitive world. I would argue that they are becoming more
fundamental to everyday life then a car is. Not only can it be
considered as a method of economic survival, but also a tool for
cultural understanding and communication. Communication is probably
the most fundamental human need (after life sustaining needs), and
computers allow that to happen at a level no one imagined.
This is all a philosophical argument with very real applications to the
everyday life of most people. To get back to the topic of IP, overall
IP creates scenarios where corporations impede on the progress of human
beings. For an extreme scenario, what if someone could patent a new
method for food production that could eliminate starvation worldwide.
Would that be right to not allow it to be utilized for the betterment
of society, or should one corporation, knowing its value, rule over the
world and force its will upon humanity?
Another scenario (totally hypothetical, IBM is only an example with a
huge patents collection!), much less extreme, which in all reality
would hurt your livelihood as well. What if a corporation like IBM
pulled out a patent which gives them the right to all the work you have
done. You as the engineer who designed Bitkeeper are entitled to
certain rights. You developed an implementation of a system
independently of anyone else's source control system. However, one
corporation that really didn't have a great interest in it pulled out a
patent which basically destroys your current method of livelihood,
regardless of the fact that you independently implemented it. How
would you feel? What would this do?
If IBM had no product anywhere close to the functionality of Bitkeeper,
the world would be forced to use inferior source control products
because of the whim of one corporation. Is that right? IBM would be
in fact stifling not only competition in the source control world, but
progress as well.
Think about all of this, travel around, see the world. It will make
you a better person. This isn't about a person's right to sell things,
a person's right to own things, or the dissolution of the capitalistic
state. It's about fundamental humanity.
Michael Bernstein
[email protected]
Hey, Michael, I replied privately because the list is sick of this. How
about you do the list a favor and keep it private?
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Hi,
First, thanks for replaying my mail.
On Thursday 24 July 2003 22:32, you wrote:
> On Iau, 2003-07-24 at 16:49, Sancar Saran wrote:
> > I wish to know are we have backup plan any backup plan. Most of Linux
> > users are gonna worry.
>
> Well if IBM did steal stuff my backup plan is to sue IBM, as I suspect
> is everyone elses. There are basically three outcomes
>
> #1 The whole thing is without merit (as it seems to be now)
> #2 IBM did it and have to buy SCO (because everyone will sue IBM, every
> Linux developer, every business, every user)
> #3 SCO gets bankrupted by countersuits (popular US approach to law)
>
It look like good plan, and my question is not answered. Are distro makers
safe in these time line? What if Red Hat goes bankrupt before the SCO
falldown.
I believe without them we are lost very valuable assets. Losing Red Hat or
SuSe are unacceptable. Because of the whole thing slowes down the sales of
RHAS class expensive Linux contracts may lead economically trouble our very
importand distros.
Of course I can live without them, when everything goes bad, I can do linux
from strach. But what about Joe Sixpack or, Johny WannebeLinux Admin. I think
none of us want to return status of 1997.
I don't mean technological status of 1997, I mean industry acceptance. Last
six monts I see lots of system sales & IT consultant people gonna buy
expensive Linux contracs.
Before the expensive Linux offerings these guys have serious trouble to
understand Linux nature. Now they are very happy to buy RHAS for 2499$
And now SCO looks like gonna destroy our industry acceptance.
Today I see gartner suggestions about status.
http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=116445
(of course this is M$ biased FUD. But to many people listen them. Remember PR
;) )
Its look like our distros gonna hurt badly.
> At the moment it seems like the games Intel played against AMD in the
> 486 days against motherboard vendors, except that Intel had a better
> case
>
> > Today I get a e mail from our local mailing lists. Says SCO sued Red Hat
> > for this. another one asks Can M$ send BSA to check their systems and
> > request licence money (because of buying SCO Unixware Licences).
>
> SCO Unixware licenses don't entitle you to copy Linux. In fact if you
> sign one of their "settlements" you probably lose your right to
> distribute Linux under the GPL license terms and give them the right to
> break into your office by signing one. But I'm not a lawyer
>
> You can still today download Linux kernels from sco.com which claim to
> be GPL. Given what I know about estoppel and law I suggest everyone may
> wish to download a copy and log the date they did so.
>
> These same issues are true of Windows btw. If you are using any of the
> following products you might want to worry about the Intertrust patent
> suit against Microsoft...
>
> http://www.intertrust.com/main/ip/accused.html
> http://secure.zdnet.com.au/newstech/enterprise/story/0,2000048640,20276337,
>00.htm
>
> and also Timeline - who have made it clear they are considering
> targetting Microsoft customers
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/29419.html
>
> "particularly those Microsoft customers who relied on Microsoft's
> assurances, failed to investigate them thoroughly, and knowingly
> continued to provide material steps in an Infringing Combination. These
> infringers, if any, may face treble damages for the entire three and
> one-half years the case was tied up in the courts. Microsoft is not a
> law firm. Relying on its advice should not constitute acting in good
> faith; which is the required defense to treble damages for failure to
> investigate and honor patents once on notice of their existence."
>
> Just the press cover that one mysteriously less often.
>
> Final amusement: http://www.talkleft.com/archives/003727.html
Oh.. I think my broken English leads some misunderstanding. I mean, non
technical (or don't know too much about GNU/Linux communty or even /.) Linux
users are believe these rumors. They just sing-up some local IT sites, also
these sites have very limited knowladge about situation. And thoose (I
believe some M$ biased aproachs) speculations make them nervous.
They have no clue about status, they have not real information sources and
they are chooses which operating systems run their cooperation or they give
Personally I'm living in Turkey, we are very very far away that questions,
problems etc. I have no fears about SCO,his case and others. Neither SCO nor
M$ can distrub me.
Anyway this is Kernel list, a harcore technical list. That much politics may
distrub you or others.
But I'm fear about thoose distros, loosing them not good and I believe if this
mess not finish in A.S.A.P we gonna loose them.
And this is what M$, Sun wants.
Regards
Sancar "Delifisek" Saran
Larry McVoy wrote:
> [...] the list is sick of this. How about you do the list a favor [...]
Who is "the list"?
As a long-time subscriber, I quite enjoyed reading Michael's thoughts.
If you want to say the discussion is off-topic, fine. It is. But
please do not ascribe views to some mythical majority of members, who
have not in fact expressed the view you would like them to.
We have quite enough problems with that sort of thing in the real world.
-- Jamie
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:43:06 +0100
Jamie Lokier <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry McVoy wrote:
> > [...] the list is sick of this. How about you do the list a favor [...]
>
> Who is "the list"?
Me, now stop talking it as Larry suggests.
People who start off-topic discussions are going to get yanked
from vger, and there are no discussions about this.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sancar Saran [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 7:44 AM
> > #1 The whole thing is without merit (as it seems to be now)
> > #2 IBM did it and have to buy SCO (because everyone will
> sue IBM, every
> > Linux developer, every business, every user)
> > #3 SCO gets bankrupted by countersuits (popular US approach to law)
> >
>
> It look like good plan, and my question is not answered. Are
> distro makers
> safe in these time line? What if Red Hat goes bankrupt before the SCO
> falldown.
>
I hope someone does take action, SCO vs. IBM doesn't come to trial
till April 11, 2005. A lot of damage could be done in that time,
assuming some other event (like an acquisition) doesn't obviate
the whole mess.
To date, the only thing I've seen is:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/31910.html
Hi !
On Friday 25 July 2003 17:37, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:43:06 +0100
>
> Jamie Lokier <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > [...] the list is sick of this. How about you do the list a favor
> > > [...]
> >
> > Who is "the list"?
>
> Me, now stop talking it as Larry suggests.
>
> People who start off-topic discussions are going to get yanked
> from vger, and there are no discussions about this.
So, please, point _me_ to ml where people could discuss this and related
topics. Or suggest a way to be included in respective parties' CC list.
"Stop annoying me, and I don't care why you're annoying me" is somewhat
selfish, IMHO.
--
With all the best, yarick at relex dot ru.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:09:03 +0400
Yaroslav Rastrigin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > People who start off-topic discussions are going to get yanked
> > from vger, and there are no discussions about this.
>
> So, please, point _me_ to ml where people could discuss this and related
> topics.
Try "gnu.misc.discuss", people love to talk about these issues there.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 07:09:03PM +0400, Yaroslav Rastrigin wrote:
> Hi !
> On Friday 25 July 2003 17:37, David S. Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:43:06 +0100
> >
> > Jamie Lokier <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > > [...] the list is sick of this. How about you do the list a favor
> > > > [...]
> > >
> > > Who is "the list"?
> >
> > Me, now stop talking it as Larry suggests.
> >
> > People who start off-topic discussions are going to get yanked
> > from vger, and there are no discussions about this.
> So, please, point _me_ to ml where people could discuss this and related
> topics. Or suggest a way to be included in respective parties' CC list.
> "Stop annoying me, and I don't care why you're annoying me" is somewhat
> selfish, IMHO.
gnu.misc.discuss is a good idea.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
>
> We can't be liable for the work of others over which we don't have total
> control. Or is the law forcing us to check line by line the
> contributions made by hundreds of programmers all around the world?
I'm sure someone else has asked this by now, but...
Given that we don't have access to the proprietary source code that
might be contributed, how could we check to make sure that submitted
code wasn't stolen?
On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 07:42 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> By your arguments, anything fundamental needs to be free. Let me
> know when you get a free house, car, food, health care, etc.
An off topic sentence ahead ;-)
Just wondering how house, car, food etc can be compared to software
(code). The latter can be copied.
Anuradha
--
Debian GNU/Linux (kernel 2.4.21-preempt)
Let the machine do the dirty work.
-- "Elements of Programming Style", Kernighan and Ritchie
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 04:21:01 -0400
Anuradha Ratnaweera <[email protected]> wrote:
> > By your arguments, anything fundamental needs to be free. Let me
> > know when you get a free house, car, food, health care, etc.
>
> An off topic sentence ahead ;-)
>
> Just wondering how house, car, food etc can be compared to software
> (code). The latter can be copied.
Now we're really off-topic, but hey. I really think that a house
(or..well..somewhere to live), food and health care should be free. Health
care is free in some places in the world (the places where they don't
think that the bigger your wallet is - the better health care you should
get..)
So yep. I really think they can be compared. Those things are
_fundamental_.
But no one will listen, I'm just another left-wing radical... And this
list probaby isn't the right place to discuss those issues..
--
Henrik Persson [email protected] http://nix.badanka.com