|
|
| SCO Is Merely Mulling, Google is Nonchalant, and MS is Sued |
 |
|
Friday, October 03 2003 @ 02:17 AM EDT
|
SCO's Blake Stowell is claiming that they haven't made up their minds yet about suing SGI:
". . .Stowell said SCO has not made a decision about whether or not to pull SGI's Unix license.
"'It's not something we would consider until October 14th and not something we would do unless SGI refused to fix the violations of the agreement,' he said, referring to requirements that include removal of contributions related to Unix System V by SGI and the Linux community." I think the reporter may have gotten that last part wrong. It seems to be saying that SCO will sue SGI unless the Linux community takes certain actions. That's like holding a gun to a man's head and telling a crowd to back off or you'll shoot him. Surely they can only sue SGI if SGI fails to take certain actions.
She's back: the lovely and tireless Ms. DiDio, faithfully doing her part, as always: "Yankee Group senior analyst Laura DiDio told LinuxInsider that SCO has been aware of 'blatant SGI violations' for a year, and the lack of action thus far indicates SCO may not want to take additional legal action. 'I don't think [SCO] wanted to do this,' she said. 'They wanted to keep it focused on IBM because they didn't want to bite off more than they could chew.'
"By aligning itself with the IBM side of the dispute, SGI might be putting SCO in a bind by forcing it to fight 'a war on all fronts,' according to DiDio." A war on all fronts? Sounds perfect. And that's not even mentioning the problem of going to court and explaining not doing anything for a year about "blatant" violations involving what SGI says are garden variety code snippets already in the public domain and no longer in the kernel. SCO has its work cut out for it on that front, indeed. I can't help but worry about poor Ms. DiDio being sued by SGI herself for stating as a fact that they are guilty of "blatant" violations, when the matter has yet to be adjudicated in court. What happened to the goode olde days, when analysts pretended to be impartial? On a pleasanter note, Google's chief technology officer Craig Silverstein has a bit to say about SCO and the advantages of using Linux: "Q: You reportedly have one of the biggest Linux clusters in the world (more than 10,000 servers) -- what's your opinion of the recent SCO lawsuit and what it could mean for Linux users if it's upheld? Has it made Google nervous of basing its systems around open-source?
" A: The actual lawsuit is very narrow in its claims; we're not nervous about it at all. It's prompted lots of discussion, which has been very interesting to watch.
" Q: You have very cost-effective approach to your internal architecture. Could you expand on Google's general approach to its internal systems?
A: "We're cheap. We use commodity computers -- thousands of them, all hooked together, to get the processing power we need -- and because it's off-the-shelf stuff, each computer is very cheap. We've had to design our software to work well in such an environment: it has to be scalable and tolerant of errors, since when you have thousands of computers at least one is always on the blink, but it's been a very worthwhile investment for us." So what do you think? Does Google sound terrified they might be sued by SCO if it gets out that they use Linux? And is GNU/Linux ready for the enterprise? On the other side, the proprietary side, it seems there is a lawsuit against Microsoft for selling insecure software. A woman in LA is using two of California's consumer protection laws to file the action, and she is trying to get it certified as a class action: "Attorney Dana Taschner of Newport Beach, California, filed the lawsuit on behalf of Marcy Levitas Hamilton, a film editor and 'garden variety' PC user who had her social security number and bank details stolen over the Internet.
"'Something fundamental has to change to protect consumers and businesses,' Taschner said." I have a suggestion. Give Ms. Hamilton a Knoppix CD. Microsoft says it will fight to prevent it from becoming a class action. But, tell the truth, don't you just wish you would sign on? "'This complaint misses the point. The problems caused by viruses are the result of criminal acts by people who write viruses,' said Microsoft spokeswoman Stacy Drake, adding that Microsoft was working with authorities to bring malicious code writers to justice." Misses the point? Ms. Hamilton's point is they can write viruses that work because of the way MS writes its software. Then there is the issue of monocultures not being secure no matter what you do: "Many of the arguments in the lawsuit and some of its language echoed a report issued by computer security experts in late September, which warned that the ubiquitous reach of Microsoft's software on desktops worldwide had made computer networks a national security risk.
"That report distributed by the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a trade group representing Microsoft's rivals, said the complexity of Microsoft's software made it particularly vulnerable to cyber-attack.
"'GLOBAL SECURITY RISK'
"'Microsoft's eclipsing dominance in desktop software has created a global security risk,' the lawsuit said. 'As a result of Microsoft's concerted effort to strengthen and expand its monopolies by tightly integrating applications with its operating system ... the world's computer networks are now susceptible to massive, cascading failure.'" Of course a man could get himself fired for saying things like that. In their "Safe and Sound in the Cyber Age" column for Newscan, Stephen and Chey Cobb, author of "Network Security for Dummies" yesterday wrote about the monoculture issue, comparing it to the devastation caused in Ireland in the 19th century from relying on only one strain of potato: "Reliance by an information system on one application or operating
system, to the exclusion of others, reduces the ability of that system to
survive a vulnerability in that operating system or application. This is the problem of monoculture, which can threaten different
types of systems, not just information systems. . . .The security firm Symantec estimates that this summer's crop of worms may have caused up to $2 billion in damages over just eight days in August. The London-based computer security company, mi2g Ltd., projects global economic damages from malicious software to be in excess of $100 billion this year (the company estimates the total due to SoBig alone to be nearly $30 billion)." The column isn't online yet, but it'll be here eventually. Do yourself a favor. While they fight it out, just switch to GNU/Linux software, or at least a mix of operating systems, and save yourself a lot of security hassles.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 04:33 AM EDT |
you should also consider using NetBSD or FreeBSD. And they are already
lawsuit-free, too.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 05:09 AM EDT |
Microsoft is being sued over its insecure architecture. The
customer wants
Microsoft to be held to a certain standard of care.
Let's suppose the suit
really does go class action, and Microsoft
loses even though their (supposedly
enforceable) shrink-wrap
license disclaims such liability.
Later on, some
other customer's Linux box will get hit by a worm,
DDOS or other attack
(remember "slapper" a little while back?).
That person will want to sue as
well. The Microsoft case will have
established the "standard of care" required
of software. And Alan
Cox, Linus Torvalds et al will find themselves on the
defendant's
side of the courtroom.
I'm just not sure that's a healthy thing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 06:07 AM EDT |
i really wonder about didio ,maybe when this is over we can keep reminding her
about how wrong she was and let people know everytime she opens her mouth
as for sco going after sgi it would be crazy to add someone that has a
reputation for being a tough litigator
since sco is hesitating it may be because they realize that
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 06:14 AM EDT |
| Blake Stowell talks to apprentice sock puppet Matt Whipp about how...
"... Linux users need to respect the
copyrights that SCO has that they are infringing upon. Do we want to be heavy
handed with end users? We absolutely don't want to be. Does SCO need to be
compensated for software code that is currently in use in Linux? Yes. End users
have a choice. They can go back to using Linux based on the 2.2 kernel which
includes no infringing code, or they can continue using SCO's UNIX code as it is
being found in Linux and properly compensate the company for using
it."
and
"... Can the community replace the code in question? They can
certainly try, but programs like NUMA, RCU, JFS, XFS and others have taken
multiple years to develop and would be very difficult to replace overnight.
We're happy to show any individuals under a NDA some of the code in question.
Beyond an NDA which some individuals find too limiting, we've already identified
some of the above programs."
not to mention how...
"UNIX licensees such
as IBM, Sequent and SGI have really kept SCO's hand in Linux by contributing
UNIX System V derivative code into the Linux 2.4 kernel. As long as vendors
continue to contribute our UNIX derivative code into Linux, SCO will have a hand
in Linux for a very long time to come."
Cheery thought. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Blake Stowell's latest PR - Authored by: tleps on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 06:51 AM EDT
- He can't be much of a sock puppet - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 09:07 AM EDT
- Emailed this to bstowell@sco.com - Authored by: stanmuffin on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 10:34 AM EDT
- Blake Stowell's latest PR - Authored by: PJ on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 10:57 AM EDT
- Blake Stowell's latest PR - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 11:49 AM EDT
- Blake Stowell's latest PR - Authored by: pyrite on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 12:13 PM EDT
- Blake Stowell's latest PR - Authored by: Nathan Hand on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 07:01 PM EDT
- Blake Stowell's latest PR - Authored by: Scott_Lazar on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 07:46 PM EDT
- Continue? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 09:28 PM EDT
- good material for Red Hat? - Authored by: rick stockton on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 09:30 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 07:08 AM EDT |
http://tinyurl.com/pkfe
if they print it it must be true
proof that sco is hurting redhat business and IBM
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 07:11 AM EDT |
why there are so many references to the GPL not having been tested in court?
In my antipodean ignorance I would think that most licences and/or contracts are
never tested in a court. They are written usually by competent solicitors who
understand the law. In the case of the GPL the lawyer in question is a
professor of law at a prestigious university, Eben Moglan.
This continual reference to the courts seems a bit rediculous.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 07:19 AM EDT |
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/?http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=48362
warning really
dont read if you are easily upset at sco fud
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tcranbrook on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 08:23 AM EDT |
There seems there are to many and often conflicting definitions of the idea of
"derivative work" in this discussion that we are often talking in
circles. Let
me try to sort some of these out to help clarify our thinking.
LEGAL DEFINITIONS
First are the legal definitions. Perhaps the basic one is that found in the
Copyright law itself:
I ) Copyright definition
"DERIVATIVE WORK - A work based upon one or more preexisting works, such
as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion
picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation,
or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A
work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other
modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a
'derivative work'. 17 U.S.C.."
This is probably the most important definition, since it leads directly back to
one of the three rights of copyright, the right to copy, modify and distribute.
That, of course is the right to modify. The problem is that it is a very
vague definition.
II) Permissions by License definition
The copyrights of to "copy, modify, and distribute" may be
exercised by someone other than the copyright owner only with the permission of
that owner. That permission may be in the form of a License. Such a license
may include more
specific definitions of derivative works. The GPL and LGPL do this with two
explicitly different definitions.
This definition is pretty much up to the copyright owners discretion. They are
giving their permission to do something that otherwise would brake the law, and
they get to set the rules for that permission.
III) Contractual sale of rights definition
This category would apply to the definitions in the trail of documents involved
in the sale and transfer of the copyrights themselves. This follows the
transfer from AT&T through to SCO.
III) Case law refinements of the basic definition
Case law has narrowed and focused the basic definition of copyright law, which
is not surprising given it's ambiguity.
These are: please fill in here. I'm not familiar with these.
STRUCTURAL DEFINITIONS
Then there are several organization and semantic definition is use here as well.
They span a large territory in the degree and nature of the difference between
the original work and the modified, or derived, work.
IV) Alteration
This is simplest example where original work is largely unchanged with minor
modification, such as changing a copyright notice and redistributing under a
different name or changing or altering part of the content.
V) Assembly of copyrighted parts
This is a particularly important definition since it fairly accurately reflects
the organizational state of Open Source software in general, and a Linux
distribution specifically. It also describes the Linux kernel itself. They are
all an assemblage of parts that carry separate and individual copyrights.
The whole becomes a derivative of its parts. This would also need to be the
definition that SCO would need to use in a bid to claim the whole of Linux to be
a derivative of SysV, and thus their property. They would also have to
explain why their particular copyrighted piece should override everybody
else's, but that is a different story.
VI) Compatibility
This example applies to a new work that is designed to achieve compatibility
with a previous work. This may or may not involve the reusage of existing code.
These derivation relations can be see at:
http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html
SCO has presented a modified version of this chart at:
http://www.sco.com/scosource/unixtree/unixhistory01.html
They seem to indicate that a particular chain of links says that Linux is a
derivation of their SYS V, simply because they link to a common ancestor.
VII) Dependency
Derivation by dependency means that one program depends on the second in oder to
operate properly. In software works, this usually refers to both static and
dynamic library calls during compilation and operation. This is the distinction
between GPL and LGPL.
VIII) Association
Derivation by association says that a new work is a derivative of an existing
work if the new work was developed in association with the existing one. This
is the model that SCO is claiming in the IBM case, and probably in the SGI case.
Since a new functionality was developed and build for a particular Operating
System base, that new functionality becomes a derivative of that OS.
IX) Fork
There is another definition that is particular to open source software, the
fork. Software, unlike most other copyrighted works, is a continually changing
thing. It is constantly modified by its copyright owner. If others have
rights to modify and distribute the work, such as they do with the GPL, it
becomes possible that the development splits into two branches. The branch that
leaves the original owners code base becomes a derivative as well.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 08:27 AM EDT |
Google is not the only one that is not concerned.
From Silicon.com's Agenda Setters 2003:
'However,when asked what happened when his company was served with a request to
pay a SCO licence for Linux, panellist Ric Francis, Safeway's CIO, said:
"I told them to stick it. At the end of the day it is never going to fly.
It's the last dying breath of a company that is never going to make
money."'
http://www.silicon.com/as2003/analysis2.html (see 4th paragraph from the
bottom.)
Can we get a copy of the request? I'll try to contact Mr. Francis.
Regards,
Jim[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 08:32 AM EDT |
| Thank god ATMs do not use MS-Exchange. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ChrisB on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 08:36 AM EDT |
This little quote from the above kind of jumped out at me:
Yankee
Group senior analyst Laura DiDio told LinuxInsider that SCO has been aware of
'blatant SGI violations' for a year, and the lack of action thus far indicates
SCO may not want to take additional legal action. 'I don't think [SCO] wanted to
do this,' she said. 'They wanted to keep it focused on IBM because they didn't
want to bite off more than they could chew.'
So what this is
saying is that SCO knew about SGI's alleged violations before the current stock
sales plan was implemented, but didn't do anything about it because they wanted
to stay focused on IBM...which would imply that they knew about IBM's alleged
violations even longer before their current stock sales plan was put in place.
Wouldn't this invalidate the stock sales plan as a protection from insider
trading?
Or am I reading something into this that's not really
there?
Chris [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Dave on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 09:43 AM EDT |
The musings of Ms. DiDio:
"I don't think [SCO] wanted to do
this," she said. "They wanted to keep it focused on IBM because they didn't want
to bite off more than they could chew."
Perhaps, then, they
should have picked a better first target. They don't seem to be doing so well
against "just" IBM.
By aligning itself with the IBM side of the
dispute, SGI might be putting SCO in a bind by forcing it to fight "a war on all
fronts," according to DiDio.
How is SGI "alligning itself"? If
and when SCO files a suit, they will have determined SGI's allignment for
them.
How interesting it would be to see, just for one day, the world
through the eyes of Seniora Analyst...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gumout on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 09:45 AM EDT |
PJ a major work is demanded addressing the state of the "analyst"
community.
As open source software becomes a more dominating force in the marketplace, the
"analyst's" underlying reasoning is rapidly being subjected to
dissection and analysis. The biggest reason is that the underlying code is open
for inspection. The enables an additional option of being able to critique the
actual code. One need not be a Hemingway to criticize his "Old Man and the
Sea" and one need not be a Linus Torvalds to understand programming
techniques. But as you very aptly pointed out Computer Programming 101 and could
have saved a few analysts a lot of embarrassment. (If you can embarrass them
that is.)
A rudimentary exposure to copyright law and commercial law would be very
helpful. Instead we see "analysts" displaying the political spin
doctor syndrome. They simply twist someone else's commercial claims to fit
their purposes without data or method of analysis. With the exposure of
underlying source code non technical people such as many GROKLAW readers from
other professions are learning the simple basics of computing and programming.
You are exposing them to elementary principles of law.
As open source threatens the ad revenue streams of their employers these
"analysts" are going to become more and more biased toward
proprietary software . We need a Magnus Opus on the general qualifications
required to be a "senior analyst". If they can't see the light make
'em feel the heat.
---
THERE IS NO INFRINGING CODE[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Grim Reaper on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 10:12 AM EDT |
After reading this article, my blood boiled:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/?http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=48362
Well, have I got a surprise cooking for SCO. If my theory is correct, it may be
possible to demonstrate that their prized System V is worthless (or at least
close to it).
I am a bit busy; however, if I can round up enough troops, with the help of PJ,
this should be pretty sweet. :-)
---
R.I.P. - SCO Group, 2005/08/29[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Slay on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 10:27 AM EDT |
According to this article over
at vnunet SCO is definitely going to revoke SGI's IRIX licence.
SCO
confirms revoke of SGI Unix licence on 14 October, despite code change
work.
The SCO Group has insisted that changes made by Silicon Graphics (SGI)
to some of its Unix code will not be enough to prevent termination of SGI's Unix
licence.
SCO plans to revoke SGI's Unix licence even though the latter
claims to have removed all potentially offending code from its XFS journalling
file system, now in Linux. But this does not go far enough, SCO has told
vnunet.com.
...
In response, SCO's director of public relations, Blake
Stowell, told vnunet.com: "Making minor amendments to its XFS file system
doesn't cure the breach. SGI must do more as outlined [in the August letter] to
cure all of their breaches."
SCO has yet to decide how to enforce SGI's
licence termination, but Stowell hinted that the company may remove all SGI's
rights under its contract.
Note: I can't figure out if B.S.'s
response is current or dates back to september/august...
---
SCO? Non
serviam!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bob on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 10:31 AM EDT |
The example of the Irish Potato Famine is even better than that author lets
on. While the reality of the Irish Famine -- especially the oppression that led
to the dependence on the potato in the first place -- is both complex and very
sad, it of course remains the prototypical example of the danger of a
monoculture. However, the story can be mined for more lessons than just that
one.
In fact, the Irish had an alternative food source -- fish --
available to them, but for various reasons they did not or could not take
advantage of it. The fishing industry in Ireland had long been neglected, and
deforestation made large-scale shipbuilding impractical even to the extent that
the English would have allowed it to take place. Many fishermen even sold what
boats they had in order to buy food. This failure to develop an alternative food
source persisted despite the full knowledge that the potato was fatally flawed
-- there had been dozens of crop failures in the hundred years preceding the
1845-1851 famine, and the potato crop had failed dramatically in America and
continental Europe in the years prior to the blight making its way to
Ireland.
There were many reasons for this failure in resource management
beyond the lack of vision on the part of those who starved; surely one of these
was the self-serving oppression of the Irish by the English, under which
Catholics (most of the Irish) were not allowed to own land or receive an
education.
There is much to be learned from the Irish Potato Famine, and
many parallels can be drawn to some of the problems we now face (although I'll
let others assign modern-day actors to the various roles in this play :-)
Anyway, here's a few quick links I found, along with a short book I found a
useful introduction:
---
It's not a problem until something bad happens. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 10:59 AM EDT |
I think the reporter may have gotten that last part wrong. It seems
to be saying that SCO will sue SGI unless the Linux community takes certain
actions. That's like holding a gun to a man's head and telling a crowd to back
off or you'll shoot him. Surely they can only sue SGI if SGI fails to take
certain actions.
Mmm
Do you remember when Darl
threatened to sue Linus for patent infringement (what patents?) unless more
companies took licenses from SCO? AFAIK Linus has no control over which
companies take licenses from SCO.
Also do you remember when Darl said
he would use audits on IBM customers to shake things up?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 11:02 AM EDT |
SCO's Blake Stowell is claiming that they haven't made up their
minds yet about suing SGI:
There are several articles
with Stowell quotes that all came out within hours of each other. Links posted
in a previous comments discussion.
Re: Suing - In some, Stowell says as
above about suing. In some, Stowell refuses to comment. In one, Stowell says
they are looking at "enforcement options" - which is hard not to look at as a
threat of litigation.
Re: Terminating IRIX - In the above, Stowell says
they're thinking about. In others, Stowell says SCO will, and SGI will have to
stop selling IRIX and return or destroy all copies.
There are quotes,
with links, for all of the above, previously posted on GROKLAW comments.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shaun on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 11:16 AM EDT |
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=74&e=4&u=/cmp/200310
03/tc_cmp/15201199
--Shaun[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 11:53 AM EDT |
| In case nobody else has posted it.
More Darl and Blake comments on SGI.
They look threatening in
there and we learn the letter to SGI was signed by Darl. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stanmuffin on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 12:01 PM EDT |
I think we can always use a laugh, so here goes...
I couldn't find any good ones for "Darl McBride" or "Ralph
Yarro", so here are a few others:
"Chris Sontag"
Cash or Sting
Hat crossing
Scant ogrish
SOS charting
Hogs 'n' racist
Hat rings SCO
Ah! String SCO
"Blake Stowell"
Wallet blokes (an apt description)
Skeletal blow (what will happen to SCO)
Walk lose belt
Weak slob tell
All wet blokes (another apt description)
Two bleak sell (sounds like their IP license!)
Take well, slob
Seek tall blow (IBM's patent claims unfair!)
Lots weak bell (their PR campaign?)
"Rob Enderle"
Rebel drone
"Laura DiDio"
Lour air raid
Oi! A dud liar
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 12:40 PM EDT |
I love the statement about SGI possibly aligning itself with the "IBM
side" of the lawsuit. Um... hello? When you threaten to take away a
company's revenue stream and drag them into court it makes it very unlikely
they will support you in their actions.
In any case, SGI says it has already done a thorough check and removed any
potentially infringing code. They don't have to remove XFS because it's 100%
SGI-owned.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stanmuffin on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 01:05 PM EDT |
| Here
is a good article referring to SGI's open letter. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lightsail on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 02:43 PM EDT |
This is a scheduled release in the SCO Group “Press is Relevance: Relevance is
Market Value” campaign. Note that this release gives a schedule for the next
release, Oct 14. Any group or individual that would like to make a contribution
to the “Press is Relevance: Relevance is Market Value” campaign should request
scheduling for Oct 7 or Oct 9, otherwise the next available unscheduled date is
Oct 21.
Internal SCO memo: Please give consideration to the stock sale schedule when
requesting a statement schedule.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Clay on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 03:14 PM EDT |
If you want to read draft 5 here it is. Its an amazing document and something to
think about seriously.
Cyberinsecurity:+The+Cost+of+Monopoly
Clay
---
---------------------------
newObjectivity, Inc. supports the
destruction
of all software patents. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
| I wonder if this was just a factual error (easily understandable, given the
ignorance of the popular press when it comes to the whole issue) or a leak of
some interesting
information:
http://www.svbizink.com/headlines/article.asp?aid=5018&iid=320
"If SCO is triumphant in the courtroom, the vendor's call for license fees
will gain muster and a harsh spotlight will be cast upon open-source technology.
In support of its argument, SCO claims that Microsoft has already taken out a
license for Linux."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alex on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 05:42 PM EDT |
After all, anyone who uses MS on the server is employing an OS which is known to
be insecure, and they're putting my data in danger. I think we should sue all
those people for endangering us.
Or maybe we should ask them to indemnify us. After all, it's possible that
someone with an MS server might lose my credit card numbers or something. If
I'm going to be forced to communicate through an MS device, I want to be
indemnified.
Better yet, they should just give us money so we don't sue them. After all,
they're using insecure software. Giving us money will make sure that no matter
what happens to our personal information nothing bad will happen to them.
Right?
So how 'bout we get together and make a list of people who are using MS server
software and send them some invoices.
After all, what's good for the goose...
Alex[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Scott_Lazar on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 12:14 AM EDT |
| Found an interesting article from back in February that I don't recall seeing,
although with the steel sieve mind like mine, it's probably been posted dozens
of times. Pretty specific comments from BS himself:
SCO-Caldera
& the GNU/Linux Community: The SCOsource IP
Matter
Scott ---
LINUX - Visibly superior! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 07:14 AM EDT |
| Well, yes, I read Stowell's comments in the PCPro UK article, and
like JFK
in "The Assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Considered as a Downhill
Motor Race" by J.G. Ballard, I took a turn
for the worst. More than ever
before, I'm convinced this SCO
Group is in reality the Societe Commercial du
On-Dit, the
Commercial Society of Rumourmongers. One thing is for
certain, let any number of half-way decent techies cross-examine
them, and
they'll be meat for the sharks. Let us see one
example: They can
certainly try, but programs like
NUMA, RCU, JFS, XFS and others have taken
multiple years to
develop and would be very difficult to replace
overnight. That's from the PC Pro UK site, which
insisted I
become a member before being allowed to see the
article, which strikes me as
strictly amateurish and gauche. But
let's ask the question - what is the
history of the Unix
Filesystem/s? XFS is a Unix Filesystem, it's true, but
what relation
does it have to the other filesystems, the rest of the Unix
kernel,
etc? evil cackle as ~/self rubs hands gleefully In
my
copy of "The Magic Garden Explained : The Internals of
UNIX System V
Release 4 An Open Systems Design" by
Berny Goodheart & James Cox,
Chapter 2, pg 33, The UNIX File
System subsection, the authors explain that
the default file system
is now the Berkeley Fast File System, now renamed to
the Unix
File System. They also state that the original UNIX file system is
now regarded as legacy, though they don't use those exact
words. En
otras palabras, you can expect to see s5, the
original UNIX file system, on
OSes as cutting-edge as SCO's
OpenServer. And that's so cutting edge it
would take an infinite
number of monkeys sawing away with it for an infinite
length of
time, on just one monkey's throat, to cut just that one monkey's
throat. And even then, it'd be a chancy gamble. (Disclaimer:
No Monkeys
were harmed in the making of this simile) So
now we
have the UNIX
System V Release 4's
default file system, borrowed from 4.1bBSD - "The
Design
and
Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System" by
Marshall Kirk
McKusick, Keith Bostic, Michael J. Karels and John S.
Quarterman,
Chapter 1, pg 16. And there has already been a ruling on the
AT&T vs BSDi case. AT&T's ufs and related "IP" is now
unencumbered,
no matter
where it occurs. The question, though, that I now have is, what
is the development history of SGI's XFS? I'm certain it developed
from
the BSD FFS because of the nature of Unix development - as
McKusick and crew
explain, pg 9 "Most
organizations would purchase a 32V license,
but would order
4BSD from Berkeley." Someone somewhere
else explained that IBM's JFS was developed from the BSD FFS - I
can't
remember where I saw it. So I would say that even the AIX
JFS could be a
legitimate candidate for a Linux journaled file
system, due to the nature of
its parentage and a certain
ill-advised lawsuit. I would say the same thing
would apply to
SGI's XFS. But it would be nice to have some backup on this
-
anyome who knows SGI and IRIX well and isn't gagged by legal
matters,
please speak up! ---
finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific
torturers stretching back through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on
one of these states of view, I duck [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
