|
|
| Eben Moglen Answers Darl at Harvard - Webcast Available Now |
 |
|
Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 11:03 PM EST
|
You can now view Eben Moglen's appearance at Harvard here. His talk is "SCO and after SCO: The Legal Future of Free Software". Enjoy. We'll be working on a transcript, as usual.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 12:24 AM EST |
See this comment on the SCO board on Yahoo:
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&a
mp;tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=97726[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 12:25 AM EST |
Eben's gentle mocking of Darl's remarks on people buying second homes is very
funny!
---
-----
For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at
http://scosource.com/index.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Second homes - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 03:39 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 12:35 AM EST |
| Sorry to start with an OT comment but...
SCO Financial Group, a merchant bank
specializing in the healthcare technology sector,
has the URL http://www.scogroup.com/.
In
addition they have a relation
ship with Baystar.
Thank goodness that a single definite article can
distinguish one SCO from the other. Despite that, SCO Financial Group must be a
remarkably tolerant organisation concidering the amount of bad publicity
generated by our favourite company...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 12:40 AM EST |
I'm about half way through -- he's a very funny speaker.
Interestingly, he met Kevin McB. recently. He doesn't seem to have much respect
for "the McBrides".
---
-----
For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at
http://scosource.com/index.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kai on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 12:52 AM EST |
Yahoo finance says that page (as mentioned in the first post) is n/a for
me...anyone else get the same error ?
---
Another (Western) Australian who is interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 12:59 AM EST |
| I liked his scenario about the defense of the GPL in court. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Hrast on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 02:16 AM EST |
I'm still making my way through Professor Moglen remarks. The most striking
thing so far is how eloquent he is compared to Darl's studdering "uh,
umm" delivery.
Professor Moglen seems so prepared, and Mr. McBride seemed very much like he was
reading from a prepared statement (which make sense, now that I know that in
fact Kevin prepared Darl's remarks).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 02:19 AM EST |
Anyone willing to convert this over to a useable format for those of us
unwilling to download and install the virus known as real media player?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gdt on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 02:28 AM EST |
Sorry about posting this here, but I can't find somewhere more
suitable. I
have in my hands the following book:
Goodheart, Berny and Cox,
James
The magic garden explained. The internals of UNIX(r) System V
Release 4.
Prentice Hall of Australia, 1994.
ISBN 013 098138
9
Linux was announced in 1991. So the following isn't as useful as
an
earlier reference. However it does show that Novell (the owner of
System Vr4 at
the time) consciously approved the release of all
errno.h values in
1994.
The back cover says, in whole:
This is the
first book of its nature to be fully approved by
Novell, Inc, UNIX systems Group
(formerly ATandT System Laboratories,
Inc). In one source, it provides a
detailed, comprehensive technially
oriented description of how the UNIX System V
Release 4 core operating
system functions
It is probably the most
important tool ever to be made available
for UNIX programmers, device driver
writers, administrators support
engineers, advanced application designers and
those involved in
porting the UNIX system. With exercises at the end of each
chapter a a
case study throughout, illustrating general OS principles, the
book
will also appeal to people learning about or simply interested
in
UNIX.
A paragraph in the Acknowlegdements
says:
On behalf of the UNIX system community, we would like
to extend
special gratitude to Novell, Inc and UNIX Susyem Laboratories, Inc
for
upholding the philosophy and allowing this book to be published.
In
particular, we would like to acknowledge: Steven R Breitstein, Elka
Grisham,
Dick Hamilton, George Holober, Bill Klinger, Burt Levine,
Chris Scheottle, and
Sandy Tannenbaum.
I recall from the launch of the book at
an AUUG conference Berny
Goodheart recalling the amount of effort that went into
getting USL
and later Novell to review and approve the book's contents. I have
contemporaneous notes which I can retrieve if needed.
Appendix A "System
call error codes" consists of tables and a few
closing paragraphs. I'm
reproducing the entire appendix, but with
commas rather than in columns for my
typing convenience.
Error constant, Value,
Description
EPERM, 1, Not super-user
ENOENT, 2, No such file or
directory
ESRCH, 3, No such process
EINTR, 4, Interrupted system
call
EIO, 5, I/O error
ENXIO, 6, No such device or address
E2BIG, 7,
Argument list too long
ENOEXEC, 8, Exec format error
EBADF, 9, Bad file
number
ECHILD, 10, No children
EAGAIN, 11, No more processes
ENOMEM,
12, Not enough core
EACCES, 13, Permission denied
EFAULT, 14, Bad
address
ENOTBLK, 15, Block device required
EBUSY, 16, Mount point
busy
EEXIST, 17, File exists
EXDEV, 18, Cross-device link
ENODEV,
19, No such device
ENOTDIR, 20, Not a directory
EISDIR, 21, Is a
directory
EINVAL, 22, Invalid argument
ENFILE, 23, File table
overflow
EMFILE, 24, Too many open files
ENOTTY, 25, Not a
typewriter
ETXTBSY, 26, Text file busy
EFBIG, 27, File too
large
ENOSPC, 28, No space left on device
ESPIPE, 29, Illegal
seek
EROFS, 30, Read only file system
EMLINK, 31, Too many
links
EPIPE, 32, Broken pipe
EDOM, 33, Math arg out of domain of
func
ERANGE, 34, Math result not representable
ENOMSG, 35, No message of
desired type
EIDRM, 36, Identifier removed
ECHRNG, 37, Channel number
out of range
EL2NSYNC, 38, Level 2 not synchronized
EL3HLT, 39, Level 3
halted
EL3RST, 40, Level 3 reset
ELNRNG, 41, Link number out of
range
EUNATCH, 42, Protocol driver not attached
ENOCSI, 43, No CSI
structure available
EL2HLT, 44, Level 2 halted
EDEADLK, 45, Deaklock
condition
ENOLCK, 46, No record locks available
Streams
errors
ENOSTR, 60, Device not a stream
ENODATA, 61, No data (for no
delay I/O)
ETIME, 62, Timer expired
ENOSR, 63, Out of streams
resources
ENONET, 64, Machine is not on the network
ENOPKG, 65, Package
not installed
EREMOTE, 66, The object is remote
ENOLINK, 67, The link
has been severed
EADV, 68, Advertise error
ESRMNT, 69, Srmount
error
ECOMM, 70, Communication error on send
EPROTO, 71, Protocol
error
EMULTIHOP, 74, Multihop attempted
EBADMSG, 77, Trying to read
unreadable message
ENAMETOOLONG, 78, Path name is too long
EOVERFLOW,
79, Value is too large to be stored in data type
ENOTUNIQ, 80, Given log.
name not unique
EBADFD, 81, File descriptor invalid for this
operation
EREMCHG, 82, Remote address changed
Shared libarary
errors
ELIBACC, 83, Can't access a needed shared library
ELIBBAD,
84, Accessing a corrupted shared library
ELIBSCN, 85, .lib section in a.out
corrupted
ELIBMAX, 86, Attempting to link in too many
libraries
ELIBEXEC, 87, Attempting to exec a shared library
EILSEQ, 88,
Illegal byte sequence
ENOSYS, 89, Unsupported file system
operation
ELOOP, 90, Symbolic link loop
ERESTART, 91, Restartable system
call
ESTRPIPE, 92, If pipe/FIFO, don't sleep in stream head
ENOTEMPTY,
93, Directory not empty
EUSERS, 94, Too many users (for UFS)
BSD
Netowrking Software argument errors
ENOTSOCK, 95, Socket operation on
non-socket
EDESTADDRREQ, 96, Destination address required
EMSGSIZE, 97,
Message too long
EPROTOTYPE, 98, Protocol wrong for socket
ENOPROTOOPT,
99, Protocol not available
EPROTONOSUPPORT, 120, Protocol not
supported
ESOCKTNOSUPPORT, 121, Socket type not supported
EOPNOTSUPP,
122, Operation not supported on socket
EPFNOSUPPORT, 123, Protocol family
not supported
EAFNOSUPPORT, 124, Address familty not supported by protocol
family
EADDRINUSE, 125, Address already in use
EADDRNOTAVAIL, 126, Can't
assign requested address
BSD Networking Software operational
errors
ENETDOWN, 127, Network is down
ENETUNREACH, 128, Network is
unreachable
ENETRESET, 129, Network dropped connection because of
reset
ECONNABORTED, 130, Software caused connection abort
ECONNRESET,
131, Connection reset by peer
ENOBUFS, 132, No buffer space
available
EISCONN, 133, Socket is already connected
ENOTCONN, 134,
Socket is not connected
ESHUTDOWN,, 143, Can;t send after socket
shutdown
ETOOMANYREFS, 144, Too many references: can't splice
ETIMEDOUT,
145, Connected timed out
ECONNREFUSED, 146, Connection
refused
EHOSTDOWN, 147, Host is down
EHOSTUNREACH, 148, No route to
host
EALREADY, 149, Operation already in progress
EINPROGRESS, 150,
Operation now in progress
SUN Network File System
ESTALE, 151,
Stale NFS file handle
XENIX error numbers
EUCLEAN, 135,
Structure needs cleaning
ENOTNAM, 137, Not a XENIX named type
file
ENAVAIL, 138, No XENIX semaphores available
EISNAM, 139, Is a named
type file
EREMOTEIO, 140, Remote I/O error
EINIT, 141, Reserved for
future
EREMDEV, 142, Error 142
[Table Caption for
above]
Errno errors defined in <sys/errno.h>
The
following error code values are currently unused in the
standard UNIX System V
Release 4 kernel: 47-59, 72-73, 75-76, 100-119,
and 141-142. For a more detailed
description of these codes see
intro(2) in [ATandT 1990h].
The
codes represent system call error numbers that are set in an
external variable
called errno in user-mode text upon the
occurance of a system call error.
See also perror(3C),
fmtmsg(3C), and strerror(3C) in
[ATandT 1990h].
The Bibliography contains the
entry:
[ATandT 1990h] ATandT UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
UNIX System
V Release 4 Programmer's Reference Manual, Prentice
Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Enjoy,
Glen
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MadMax on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 02:41 AM EST |
Hello :)
So far I've done 15:02 --> 30:02 and sent them off to PJ.
I'm about to do 5 more minutes, but then I have to go to work. If anybody would
like to do the first 15 minutes, and then from 35minutes onwards, you might like
to post here to avoid too much double-up.
Cheers,
Max.
---
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw - Displaced Aussie
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 02:42 AM EST |
The professor who introduced Eben Moglen made one mistake, which should be
pointed out. He called SCO "The Santa Cruz Operations, II." They are
"The SCO Group," with no Santa Cruz involved in their name.
While I appreciate him differentiating between new and old SCO, he still was
technically incorrect.
As has been said before, it's amazing how The SCO Group has done such an amazing
job at confusing their new corporate name with Santa Cruz Operations.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Name correction - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 04:03 AM EST
- Name correction - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 01:19 PM EST
- Name correction - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 07:45 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: gore on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 03:15 AM EST |
I finished watching the webcast of Eben Moglen's
presentation, and I came away feeling better informed from
the experience. I hung on every point and was able to
follow his words without any effort.
Then, I tried watching Darl McBride's speech from the
previous telecast, and I couldn't do it. He bores me to
tears, he's incomprehensible, he's constantly
re-iterating or back-tracking. Most of what he says seems
to be glorified marketing rather than informative. I kinda
felt like he was trying to spoon-feed me his view of
things instead of wanting to inform me. The line "SCO, the
owner of the UNIX operating system" seems to slip out of
his mouth almost on a whim. I quit after about 35 minutes.
The contrast between the two presentations is very
striking. If this entire debate was won solely on the
eloquence of its participants, Darl McBride would find
himself hiding in shame under a rock after his defeat. I
was aware that he had issues with hemming and hawing while
speaking in public, but I had no idea it was this bad.
Maybe SCO should be trying to find a more suitable person
to speak up for their case. Darl McBride is not doing them
(or himself) any favours. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RSC on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 03:27 AM EST |
Hi y'all,
I am about to start transcribing the first 15 minutes.
:)
RSC.
---
----
An Australian who IS interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nvanevski on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 03:33 AM EST |
... it's likely I'm the sole person on this planet defending SCO at this
point. Case in point: Listen carefully and you'll hear a chorus of rejoicing
erupt from the Linux faithful each time a denial-of-service attack hammers the
SCO Web site. Most don't appear distressed in the least about the illegality of
these recurring attacks.
Is this guy illiterate or what? Not only he
is the sole person defending SCO (not counting Darl of course), but he believes
it - or so it sounds. And he is a site editor at TechTarget. A guy who is
supposed to know better. Yuck. Check the story.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 04:30 AM EST |
I was planning to sleep an hour ago but I figured I'd just watch the first 5
minutes of it. An hour later I had force myself to stop. Damn this guy knows
how to speak. I did watch the Darl presentation also. Oh the pain was
unbearable on that one.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 05:28 AM EST |
Has anybody managed to get this video working under Linux ? When I try it,
realplayer gives an error, and mplayer finds an audio but no video stream.
What are you people using to watch this in Linux ?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 07:22 AM EST |
Are the kind folks at Harvard going to post a text version of the speech.
... and is anyone else having problems with the webcast replay (is it too busy)?
I can't seem to get it to work?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 08:23 AM EST |
Has anyone tried to listen to this with RealPlayer 8 for
linux? I tried but I get a 'General Error' message.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 08:44 AM EST |
is available to check out now, according to this.
---
Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 08:57 AM EST |
| Here ---
Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 08:58 AM EST |
I listened to Dr. Moglen's talk, and it was very entertaining and quite
illuminating.
Two related points in particular stuck in my mind:
One was the issue of creators' remuneration, and how a return to an earlier
paradigm might be appropriate (and how it might relate to software programmers).
Part of it being a concrete aspect of what I'll call 'fame' or the
opportunities granted by 'fame' for want of a better term. What I heard was a
wonderful appetizer, and sounds like it could be expounded upon at greater
length.
The other was a question about the 35-year term limitation of initial creator's
grants in the current US copyright law, and how it might affect the GPL. I've
been curious about this issue myself. Eben responded only briefly, that this
was an issue and mentioned that he believed it was manageable. Is there a more
complete discussion of this issue somewhere?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 09:32 AM EST |
20 day late filing. Claimed sale above market high on date of transaction. Very
interesting.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 10:18 AM EST |
| Yup - it's true - the Virtual Desktop has just been invented by Microsoft, I
guess the one I was using in 1993 is just a dream.....
In their application
they are using a GNOME desktop as "prior art", I have not managed to decypher
what they supposed to have invented, but the link is at...
http://appft1.
uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&
u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='20030189597'.PGNR.
&OS=DN/20030189597&RS=DN/20030189597
Patent application number
20030189597
It is also being discussed at S
lashdot. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 10:53 AM EST |
PJ I signed up for an account, and so far, not sure it's working correctly,
since i have tried to log in and it still shows anonymous, plus i can not seem
to find the user fuctions/ that allow for password change?
legal insanity[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 11:08 AM EST |
Sorry about reposting here--perhaps this is old news to most.
According to the 19 November 2002 Product Announcement available at
http://www.mpasystems.com.au/NEWS/sco/Linux40_release.pdf
SCO was prominently involved in putting together SCO Linux Server,
"an enterprise-class operating system". This seems to be at odds with
SCO's contention that Linux could not have become "an enterprise-
class operating system" without IBM's alleged contribution of SCO's IP
to Linux and the resultant injury to SCO.
If, according to SCO, Linux is not enterprise class without SCO's IP, than it
would seem that one of the following should be true:
1. SCO Linux Server was "enterprise-class", included SCO's IP, and
SCO was aware that they were selling a product with their IP. IBM is certainly
not responsible here--SCO's IP was already in Linux.
2. SCO Linux Server was "enterprise-class", included SCO's IP, and
SCO was UNAWARE that they were selling a product with their IP. IBM is not
accountable for SCO's stupidity.
3. SCO Linux Server did not include SCO's IP. This would put SCO in the
position of claiming on one hand that Linux is "enterprise-class"
without SCO's IP (otherwise the announcement is fraudulent), and claiming on the
other hand that Linux is not "enterprise-class" without SCO's IP for
purposes of the IBM suit. SCO cannot have it both ways and the former is in
their own words. Therefore any alleged contribution of SCO's IP to Linux would
have minimal impact--Linux was already "enterprise-class" according to
SCO.
In any event, it seems that SCO's proprietary Unix products were being
devalued by the very "enterprise-class" Linux operating systems SCO
was itself attempting to market. SCO then was inflicting upon itself the very
damage it is alleging to have suffered due to IBM's actions.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gvc on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 11:15 AM EST |
| Moglen's remarks were informed and eloquent, in stark contrast to those of the
McBrides.
On only one point was I unsatisfied - his answer to the question
about the "Republican Public License." My paraphrasal of the question is "why
can't I create a public license with pernicious conditions, such as 'only
republicans are granted permission under this license.'?"
His answer was
that there is a boundary between copyright and contract and this appears to
cross the boundary.
I would have liked to know (and would still like to know) a
more concrete explanation of this boundary and its basis in law. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 11:23 AM EST |
I watched the archived "movie" of his talk.
He's a very good speaker. He didn't appear to use any notes. No 'umm's or
'oh's; he was very smooth.
It seems to me that his arguments for freedom in bandwith runs afoul of the fact
that bandwith is a limited resource. Unlike software, bandwith is a hardware
resource.
I liked his analogy to the highway system. But we have rules about what you
can do with the highway opportunites you are given. Will we allow people to use
the limited resource of bandwidth to play solitaire or view porn?
How is that furthering the "perfectability of humanity"?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: anwaya on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 11:54 AM EST |
| I was very interested to hear Professor Moglen talking. Like him, I got my first
programming gig as a fourteen year old, but I was hacking CP/M, which came with
source code.
What I found most intriguing was his justification of the GPL
in terms of custodianship of a Commons. It made me think that the real forces
that will drive Free Software have only begun to be unleashed: there are a
billion people in China and another billion in India who have access to the
Commons, and are working on it. The Chinese State has
rejected Windows, which leaves them with their local Red Flag Linux distribution.
While we're on the subject, Red Flag and Japan's Miracle Linux (which
is marketed as a platform for Oracle - Miracle/Oracle, and check out the logo)
have
announced joint development of a kernel called Asianux.
This is just the
beginning. There are four times as many eyes in China as in the US, and as many
again in India. Both nations are growing their economies as fast as they can,
and there's a clear incentive to deploy and develop advanced technology without
the handicaps of the Closed Source methodology. They do not need to wait for
Microsoft: both countries have the human resources required to establish
equivalents of the OSDL on campuses the size of Microsoft in Redmond, and become
the cutting edge.
Meanwhile, the US is still struggling with the notion of
Free Software. Bill doesn't like it, and nor does Darl. Hollywood, and the other
people who sell plastic discs, have persuaded legislators to keep us back, too.
Something needs to change.
I agree with Eben about the service: I depend on
it, many of us do, day-to-day, for all sorts of things that some of us dreamed
would be possible, ten years ago. If we are busy maintaining barriers to access,
and barriers to development, we will fall behind those nations which see the
prize.
What I would like to see instead is a National Informatics
Infrastructure built, with something like the NSF managing resources and grants.
Remember, the net grew out of DARPA: we need to see the same kind of investment
again, this time for civil purposes. We can begin with individual States, if
necessary. But it is time to start. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 12:12 PM EST |
| TY PJ :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dmscvc123 on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 12:18 PM EST |
It looks like that SCO Insider is in violation of Sarbanes-Oxley, which allows
two business days to file and a very maximum of five business days to file:
http://www.blackwellsanders.com/newsDetails.aspx?id=d6030a62-461c-4b87-b860-3bde
6913f524
I wonder what Rob Enderle thinks about this violation of Sarbanes Oxley:
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/32885.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 01:00 PM EST |
after watching Eben Moglen, and thinking about his position, and the points he
made. The one that sticks in my mind, is why
the copyright laws will stand, seeing as to how he has been there and done that.
Moglen's talk with kevin mcbride must have been surreal.
legal insanity[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tgf on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 01:41 PM EST |
| In the previous thread, PJ posted the following:
OT: Troll
Patrol
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @
03:03 AM
EST
You made me laugh, for sure. You may be correct!
But I just listened to Moglen's speech, which was
fascinating, and he
clearly seems to think MS
is behind the SCO thing, in which case, if he
is
right, throwing a few astroturfers our way
would be a breeze for them.
[emphasis added]
Well, I don't yet know exactly what
Professor
Moglen said (until the text is posted up), but I
have
mentioned this before.
Now from what I can make out, Sun may have
licenced something genuine (UnixWare drivers?),
but I have yet to work
out what Microsoft should
genuinely pay for.
I certainly know of no
payments made for their
BSD based TCP/IP stack, and I can not see any
real reason why they would need to go beyond
GPL'd or BSD licenced code for
SFU.
Even the ABI/API would be insufficient, as
Microsoft are canny
enough to know that,
even were there a case, Novell would be after
their 100% - 5%.
When one adds in the SEC filing which talks about
the
Microsoft money as some form of loan, and it
appears even less like a
licence payment
supporting "IP" rights, and more like the
hire of
a mercenary.
Now many, including perhaps Moglen, have cited
conspiracy theories about Microsoft being behind
SCOG, and having a motive.
I've also read many comments which try to plumb
the depths of the PIPE
deal back to Microsoft,
but I've not read much about this more direct
'investment'.
Have I been reading this all wrong, or has anyone
else noticed this conundrum?
Tim
---
Oxymoron of the
day:
Microsoft Security [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Clay on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 02:09 PM EST |
Man that was a great lecture. Incredible. I love that Mr. Moglen. He clearly
explains:
1. Why FOSS is like the sentiments of science and knowledge of the 18th century.
Something that the founding fathers like Jefferson held as a primary belief.
2. Why the Eldred v. Ashcroft decision *hurts* SCO's position, not helps.
3. Why the GPL has never been tested, because no one is stupid enough to tell
the judge they don't have a license.
4. Why software patents are troubling.
BIG STREET CRED TO MOGLEN!
Clay
---
---------------------------
newObjectivity, Inc. supports the destruction
of all software patents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Big Street Cred. Big Props - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 02:25 PM EST
- Number 3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 05:47 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Nick_UK on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 02:16 PM EST |
That is pure brilliance.
Nobody laughed though when he cracked a joke:
"Trustworthy computing is really people using a computer they don't
trust".
Pure genius.
And what performance. 51 minutes of non-stop fact - and did you find he held
your attention the whole time?
Great stuff.
Here is the link he mentioned:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/sco/
Nick
Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 02:22 PM EST |
Amusing that Moglen's talk is available only in the proprietary RealMedia
format, while Darl's talk is available in the open-source Speex encoding (which is part of the GNU
project).
I remember one Richard Stallman talk where the hosts had to
change their webcast setup, because Stallman wouldn't talk if users had to use
non-free software to listen online. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 02:36 PM EST |
I think this case was the beginning of Caldera's lawsuit mill business model.
Regardless of whether they had a case, this taught them "sue and win and
the company is saved" mentality.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: john82a on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 05:59 PM EST |
Professor Moglen’s talk was full of fascinating insights, beautifully expressed.
I was particularly struck by his comments about the zero marginal cost paradigm:
software distribution has a zero marginal cost, as does any intellectual pursuit
(creativity, analysis or playing solitaire), but the benefits to the individual
(or society) can be very far from marginal. At a stretch, this could be
considered a kind of intellectual property (i.e. characteristic): thinking is
free, however derivative, and only confined by the desire to treat it as another
type of property (by claiming ownership). Perhaps appreciation is the purest
reward for freedom of expression: as exemplified by Groklaw.
john
(maybe the title should have been "a moron on zero marginal cost)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dex~ on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 07:01 PM EST |
Someone could run the transcript through a Text-to-Speech program that would
write an MP3 file. It of course wouldn't be Eben's voice, and could be
difficult to understand depending of the voice & engine chosen. I have yet
to get gnopernicus to speak, but most of that is for lack of time. I keep going
back to M$ to have Groklaw read to me. I do it at about 2-1/2 times normal
speed, a real time saver if you ask me. It is really time consuming listening
to the Harvard speeches at normal speed - LOL -.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: murry on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 07:27 PM EST |
I listened to the full webcast and felt that Prof. Moglen went way beyond
answering Darl -- and this is good. Moglen is a powerful weapon for the
community. Someday in the not-too-distant-future we'll look back at current
events and realize how trivial SCO was in comparison to the bigger issues of
true freedom that Moglen addressed. He said as much.
When the camera was pulled back, it was easy to see that Harvard delivered less
than a standing room crowd. This often happens when you are preaching to the
choir.
I for one would love to hear Moglen address real civilians. I'd recommend that
he remove the tie, change "voice" to "wizened grandfather"
rather than "learned Professor" and use some slides in support, just
to hammer in the key points.
On an audience question about trust (ethics) in computer code being developed
for open source projects, Moglen talked about the creation of a vetting
mechanism via consortia set up for the purpose. I wonder if others have opinions
on this. I think it's on-topic to discuss ethics for code creation since SCO's
allegations basically sound like they are claiming an ongoing ethical lapse by
corporations and some community members.
Just as we sense that Darl and SCO are wrong (and worse), we can visualize the
possibility that someone's proprietary code might sneak into open source. Or,
code prepared for an open source project might be produced by the moonlighting
employee of a company that holds a blanket employee contract entitling them to
ownership of everything coded by the employee. Ooops!
I'd enjoy some further enlightment on this point. And, thanks Eben for a nice
hour of rebuttal and more.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 08:55 PM EST |
Prof. Moglen's speech at Harvard was the intention for me to watch the stream of
Darl's presentation (which I didn't before because of GROKLAW's fast work -
thanks to P.J. and all the others). GOD! On the one side a well educated man who
actually knows, what he's talking about. On the other side a man, who does not
only seem to have just vague ideas about the issues he deals with (although one
would have to expect the contrary, reading SCO's press filings), but also a
shows a poor conduct in speaking (I made no statistics, but I suppose there were
more "uhmms" and "aahs" as English words like
"the" or "a/an"). Of course it would be unfair to expect a
business man to compete with a professor in terms of rhetorical qualities, but
Darl's appearance gave the impression of someone who just escaped his little
village or farm, got dressed with a suit and received some cribs he had to
learn. The only thing I was missing, was the CEO of a 'leading provider of UNIX
based enterprise solutions' (Don't believe it? Ask SCO!), Mr. McBride, to pick
his nose (maybe he did and I just missed it, because it was hard to follow this
drivel up to the end). Probably he's just a puppet on a string (and Canopy's the
one which actually pulls the strings).
BTW: English is not my mother tongue (these are Dutch and German). So it may be
a bit unfair to accuse Darl & Co. of poor stylistic conduct, while native
speakers will find that my posting does not meet the demands of "good
English". But I'm sure that, without beeing a native speaker, I am able to
distinguish good from bad rhetoric. Darl McBride's was dreadful, let aside his
body language. Is this man really leading a stock corporation or rather a
garage? His language and his behaviour point to the last.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 10:50 PM EST |
A very interesting speaker and I agree with the philosophy of freedom of
information and ideas as expressed in open source software. However, when
asked how it was that programmers who put in a lot of hard work would be
compensated, I don't feel he adequately answered the question. He seemed to
say that “someone” would probably figure that out soon.
Did I miss something?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
