[ Reply to This | # ]

http://biz.yahoo.com/z/a/s/scox.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

They dont see a rosey outlook for scox it would seem.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

A nice little picture of The Enemy there as well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I have a problem determining the validity of SCO's Linux license. Dutch Law (Burgerlijk Wetboek Boek 6, Artikel 228) says (translated):
An agreement that is reached under misapprehension and which wouldn't be closed under a correct view of affairs is nullifyable [...]
(a.o.) in cases of misrepresentation or mutual misapprehension.

So, if SCO suggest that you need a runtime Linux license and an examination of SCO's proof doesn't show the necessity of such a license, one could ask a judge to rollback the transaction. Is such a licence valid and enforcable? Such a license shows significant similarities to Schrödingers cat; it is a kind of unlicense. As a programmer I have difficulties with boolean expressions that can be both true and false at the same time.

SCO must be expecting some trouble from the Linux camp as they say in their license (all shouting is theirs!):

8.0 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL SCO OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES BE LIABLE FOR ANY [...] DAMAGES, [...], ARISING OUT OF [...], BREACH OF CONTRACT, MISREPRESENTATION, NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT OR OTHERWISE [...]

This is the kind of clause that makes me frown; I've frowned the whole weekend and am still not over it. SCO implicitly admits misrepresentation and misrepresentation makes the license voidable, when misrepresentation void the license it also voids the clause. When the licence is enforcable misrepresentation is no defence against the license. Quantum logic help me!

I realy need help from a profesional to enumerate quantum states. I did only 10% of the analysis and am totally lost! I wouldn't be surprised though when the license vanishes in a puff of quantum logic during professional analysis.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It gives gives a very much larger probability that my subatomic components gets inextricably mixed up with thoose of the wall trapping me there forever, not a very nice state to be in.

But the most probable outcome (by very many orders of magitude) is that I simply bash myself to death against the wall.

Some would call that justice.

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://newsfo rge.com/newsforge/03/08/18/160200.shtml?tid=23

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

It is a similar deal with electron tunneling. This occurs with free electrons on a quantum scale and not when bound in the shell of an atom. There is zero percent chance of a macro level object going through any kind of barrier through quantum tunneling.

Most people don't understand quantum physics. Hell, most physicists don't understand quantum physics. As such, by Occam's Razor, it is probably an incorrect model of nature. Other models based on alternate physics (such as aether theory) are gaining popularity again as they do a better job of explaining physical observations in the laboratory than quantum mechanics or special and general relativity.

Now THIS is clearly an example of over-thinking the problem. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Try not to overthink this problem.

Neither of us are lawyers, we both are programmers -- of different generations, for sure. For us trying to read, and understand a contract that is written in legalese is a difficult as it would be for a lawyer to try to read some assembly code and to understand our logic...

Simply stated legalese != standard english. (same words, often way different meanings. Likewise legal logic != maths logic (for the same reason, different model).

Took me a long time to figure out.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here is a company that writes: UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL SCO OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES BE LIABLE FOR ANY [...] DAMAGES, [...], ARISING OUT OF [...], BREACH OF CONTRACT, MISREPRESENTATION, NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT OR OTHERWISE [...]. In other words "By signing this contract you give us permission to screw you in every opening" (Sorry for the verbiage Pamela).

Oh sweet irony, this is from the company that says that software providers should idemnify their customers against infringement. This looks more like "wielding the contracts you have against your customers". And where do the comments say... You shouldn't use the metaphor of Schrödinger's cat for SCO's licenses. I think you're right, SCO is stuffing the boxes with dead cats to start with.

[ Reply to This | # ]

In that idemnicatifacation (sic) agreement, the way I read it is that Caldera was saying "If we goofed -- your'e SOL, tough luck".

(standard disclaimer)/*alas this radio.comments /*breaks well formed C

[ Reply to This | # ]

int main() {

if ( Schrodinger's_cat_is_alive( ) ) run_normally( ) ; else crash_windows( ) ; return 0 ; }

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

I was (am) involved in local politics and started reading some laws and legal commentaries. I am not a lawyer, but I can read and understand laws, verdicts and most of the time contracts. I know that there are gigantic holes in my legal knowledge.

What lawyers try to do is use the fuzzy English (or Dutch :-) ) language to perscribe as exactly as possible what actions should be taken in a certain situation. Most of the law as we know it is "exception handling". The average contract contains three clauses describing the normal case, the other 33 clauses are there for handling exceptions. When the exception handlers in the contract don't catch the exception you automaticly fall back to the clauses in the law.

We have judges for parties that aren't mature enough to handle problems in talks on their own. Or when the contracts are so convoluted that they are lost in the maze of clauses. Keep it simple is also important in the legal department and the law.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Points well made.

I too have played my part in state and local politics, and did some SA work for a public interest law firm. I, too, have learned the benefits of simple clarity in writing contracts and in law.

[ Reply to This | # ]