Source Code?
Posted on 08/09/2005 8:32:02 PM PDT by N3WBI3
You do seem somewhat reasonable when compared to the present fanatics. You should do more to distinguish yourself, though, shouldn't take much if you try.
IF they're violating anything, it's the GPL license written by that commie Richard Stallman. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, other than defend him and his cult.
The GPL is only a license, the code itself was under copyright as was "the book of webmin". If the GPL is not a valid license what right did SCO have to take works written and copyrighted by someone else? According to them and you there is no legitimate license (GPL) for them to use so I ask again..
Do you care that SCO took copyrighted works of others without permission and put it into their product
That's mighty big talk from a known liar.
Once the support options are removed, the only differences between the two are some proprietary software packages that can't be redistributed, such as Adobe Acrobat, some proprietary fonts, the Netscape browser and such.
Functionally, there is no difference.
So take your silly, misinformed opinion and stick it.
GE reminds me ever so much of the Clintonoids who looked the other way at criminal activity provided that they got what they wanted.
Bill Gates personally funds forced abortions and sterlizations, gun-grabbing organizations and socialist candidates.
He has continuously defended Microsoft's unethical business practices, including theft, perjury, contempt of court and extortion.
Why would a little thing like a copyright violation bother him?
Careful, he'll soon be calling you a liar too, and equating you with perverted things such as raping little boys like he just did me. Probably should expect it, actually, since he does such things all the time...
Was kernel source code reused in the UnixWare kernel, as one anonymous source claimed to eWeek's Peter Galli long ago?
While there is no question that SCO shipped the Linux kernel binary, there is also some question as to whether Linux binary code was used in the UnixWare kernel.
And that's not linking, that's an out and out violation of the GPL.
No, I'll only call him a liar after he repeats the same debunked FUD over and over again after having been corrected and pointed to factual links repeatedly.
As for your perversions, well, since you emulate left-wing nutjobs in so many other respects, it's probably safe to assume those aspects of a moonbat are yours too.
Do you care that SCO took copyrighted works of others without permission and put it into their product?
Those "copyrighted works" as you referred to them were given away to the public at large to do with as they wish. If SCO packaged them up and gave them away to others as well I really don't see what your complaint is.
As for moonbat lefties, you're the one who worships Richard Stallman and the ground he walks on, so spare me the lecture. My position is obviously that of a strong capitalist.
http://www.stallman.org
Oh, I know... I was just refering to using GPL'ed code in general. There's no doubt SCO is guilty on this.
Under a license the of the copyright owners choosing. But I guess unless hte IP owners is SCO or MS you dont care about their property rights..
BTW Knight did you see the latest suit under the DCMA (http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,68492,00.html) Thats right thank goodness this useful and well crafted law was put into place...
Than and the latest Software Patent suits (http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,68492,00.html) have to start to open peoples eyes into how bad the government attempt to regulate technology have ended up..
Server 2003 enterprise (25 users) can be purchased for under a grand if you go to Pricegrabber. Five CAL packs are about $200, so that makes the total about $4000. About $40 a seat. The cost of two years of antivirus software.
Double that if you want SQL Server and Exchange.
Source Code?
Of course, it's your lot that invoked Microsoft and Bill Gates as the source of all evil. The "other" side of this discussion hasn't mentioned it on this thread. Not once.
For the record, I use open source where it's right for my customer. I've deployed more Linux as a Windows engineer than the UNIX guys have. I'm hardly part of the devotee crowd though; spooning with each other and whispering sweet nothings about how much Microsoft sucks.
So how about doing all of us a favor and drop the appeal to spite. Dazzle us with a brilliant dissertation of how OSS is good on it's own merits not just because it's not Microsoft - a company, by the way, that employs more Americans than every pay distribution combined.
Clinets running 2000 pro do not need exchange cals..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.