Posted on 03/10/2004 12:14:05 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks for making my points for me. How about East Germany about 20 years ago. How about North Korea right now. Pushing everyone into sharing doesn't work. Some people just don't have anything to share, and over time that number grows. Most Americans are aware of this, thankfully, no matter what is happening with your communist buddies down in Chile.
Yes, I did say that. I didn't think they were dumb enough to commit wire fraud. But there they are... soliciting money over the Internet on the basis that you "need" their license, when that is not something they can prove. They are trying to prove it... but they haven't yet. I'm surprised their lawyers didn't tell them to wait until they could prove their claims before making an unambiguous offer to sell.
You say that with some certainty. Right now the investors in the PIPE deal essentially have the right to shut the company down at will, at any moment, by demanding repayment in cash. There is some period of time (that we are still in) where they can do that. When the window starts to get close on getting their money back out, they'll have to decide whether to fish or cut bait. If you already know how they are going to decide that, good for you. I don't think they will decide until the last possible moment... they might as well collect every piece of information they can to aid in the decision.
I don't love or hate any computer company or group of supporters, but I do carefully watch those that threaten my income. These "free software" fanatics, many from overseas and which congregate at websites such as FSF.ORG (another Stallman production), want to quote "make proprietary software obsolete". Excuse me, but I make a very good living at this and so do tons of other Americans. We don't like seeing American technology handed over to the red chinese on a gold platter like what is happening with "open source". So while I don't hate these people, you can bet I don't trust them.
Your beloved SCO gets knocked down a notch or two every week.
Once again I don't waste my emotions on businesses I have no control over, I leave that to those of you that show more hate for Microsoft than you do for foreign advesaries. Your priorities are way out of whack, man.
Yeah I do and I have some leeway since my predictions haven't sank like the Titanic every time like yours have either. You'll notice I rely more on facts, and history, and don't jump all over the place making wild predictions I only wish would come true. But by all means, please continue yourself, it's quite entertaining.
...for the purpose of derailing a thread which concerns a subject that does not serve the interests of the Microsoft Corporation. You do this frequently, and often with this same lame troll. It usually ends when someone points out that Free Republic itself runs on open source software.
In the article above, Bruce Perens states, "When Novell exited the Unix business, it transferred the Unix API, definition, and trademark to The Open Group."
That would seem to be an easily verifiable claim. If it turns out to be true, what federal crime do you think SCO committed when it sent 1,500 letters through the U.S. mail threatening litigation over copyright infringement, and naming those exact files as things that SCO owns?
I am of course aware of this, and I hope they change (back?) to Unix one day. But there are lots of people running Linux, you can't avoid it anymore. I'm just trying to bring an equal voice to all the propoganda and disinformation that accompanies the Linux advocates, I've never seen a more overhyped and IMO possibly dangerous spread of technology in my life.
That may or may not be true, but for many years most people in the IT business were pretty certain "Novell exited the Unix business" when they sold it to SCO. Go ahead and deny this now too.
This non-Linux user (writing this from a computer running Xp at the moment) recognizes silly hyperbole when he sees it.
Linux is spreading 90% by word of mouth, and the remaining 10% by companies intending to leverage it to sell services that run on it. The whole thing is pretty modest in terms of overall tech trends. Surely Apple trying to lay claim to the GUI interface, or IBM trying to claim to the PC market were both more hyped and more dangerous than even the worst-case assumptions about Linux.
The danger? Well if I was working for a company that was trying to stamp out competing operating systems I'd see a danger. As a consumer, I see great advantage in more choice and competition. You say you're a big free market guy. Why not join us consumers in a big "hurrah!" for competition in the operating system market?! A rising tide lifts all boats.
"Section 2.01 - The last sentence was added to assure licensees that AT&T will claim no ownership in the software that they developed -- only the portion of the software developed by AT&T."
From the original IBM-ATT Agreement:
2.01 AT&T grants to LICENSEE a personal, nontransferable and nonexclusive right to use in the United States each SOFTWARE PRODUCT identified in the one or more Supplements hereto, solely for LICENSEE'S own internal business purposes and solely on or in conjunction with DESIGNATED CPUs for such SOFTWARE PRODUCT. Such right to use includes the right to modify such SOFTWARE PRODUCT and to prepare derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided the resulting materials are treated hereunder as part of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
The Confidentiality section of the original Agreement restricts only the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. That is now clearly (per the clarification in the "Echo") not the same thing and distinguishable from the mod/Derivative which is owned by Licensee. Only the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT is owned by ATT:
7.06 (a) LICENSEE agrees that it shall hold all parts of the SOFTWARE PRODUCTS subject to this Agreement in confidence for AT&T. LICENSEE further agrees that it shall not make any disclosure of any or all of such SOFTWARE PRODUCTS (including methods or concepts utilized therein) to anyone, except to employees of LICENSEE to whom such disclosure is necessary to the use for which rights are granted hereunder. LICENSEE shall appropriately notify each employee to whom any such disclosure is made that such disclosure is made in confidence and shall be kept in confidence by such employee. If information relating to a SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to this Agreement at any time becomes available without restriction to the general public by acts not attributable to LICENSEE or its employees, LICENSEE'S obligations under this section shall not apply to such information after such time.
Likewise, the restriction on "disposing, in whole or in part", which SCO cites again in the Daimler complaint, is also limited to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, not the derivative owned by licensee:
7.10 Except as provided in Section 7.06(b), nothing in this Agreement grants to LICENSEE the right to sell, lease or otherwise transfer or dispose of a SOFTWARE PRODUCT in whole or in part.
Finally, ATT waived its right to terminate the license, period. This is a clarification in the "Echo".
"Section 3.02 - Language deleted which allowed the termination of the agreement by AT&T."
This is why IBM stated, in response to the AIX termination letter, that the AIX license was irrevocable. SCO knew this -- and still tried to revoke, and tried to interfere with IBM's agreements with its licensees, by sending out the SCO letter. That means SCO has tortiously interfered with IBM's contractual relations.
Huh? Superbowl commercials? The front page of every tech journal there is? Where have you been lately, under a rock?
I see great advantage in more choice and competition.
Competition is good for business, but the brains behind open source don't want any businesses at all. Check out the "Free Software Foundation" (FSF.ORG). They wrote the Linux license, and most of the prepackaged Linux utils. Their quote "ultimate goal" is quote "to make proprietary software obsolete". That's not competition, that's socialism.
You seem like a fair minded guy and I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is open your eyes, there are some serious questions worth asking about Linux. Next, I dare you to try to ask a half way decent question and get some honest answers from people instead of all of the hype. You'll find like I do that usually all you get is more emotion and hype, and utlimately excuses for our technology escaping to overseas with little to show for it.
(Climbing out from under my rock... faling to see anything different than I expected... climbing back under)
What is the percentage of advertising spent in IT annually, and what percentage do you suppose goes to Linux? I think the Linux percentage is easily in the low single digits, even in the narrow operating system market.
Not that you'd have inside info or anything, but what do you suppose Microsoft spends by the same criteria?
Competition is good for business, but the brains behind open source don't want any businesses at all.
Considering that I talk to some folks who work on open-source projects on a regular basis, and they make pretty good salaries and would like to make even more, I have to conclude, you're wrong. How many folks working on these projects do you know? (Internet "relationships" don't count, and on a related note, no - I won't be best-man at your wedding.).
What I'm saying is open your eyes, there are some serious questions worth asking about Linux.
Thanks for your concern. It's just that the question askers have yet to formulate questions that are very difficult to answer. Want to ask me the socialism versus free-market one? It's a step up from the "Democrats use Linux" one, in any case.
That's wrong and I bet you know it. Democratic groups all over the world are trying to force governments to select open source, follow my second link in my first post.
Microsoft on Friday signed a pact with the Chinese government to reveal the Windows source code
I've already been over this with you. Microsoft gave "a peek" according to countless journalists covering the exchange, go search for the word peek if you don't believe it. What they did was clearly in response to the Linux threat, but which did not give the Chinese the right to copy, modify, or rename it to "Chinese Windows" like Red Hat Linux does (which is immediately and freely converted in China to Red FLAG Linux for those that may not know).
Concerning your scenario, I'd much rather have my code limited in access but more fully accessed by the US government than any other government. Which is what Unix and Microsoft provide and why the foreigners can't stand it. It's great for America to have an advantage in access and use, and just because non-Americans don't like it doesn't mean we should give it away, just like we wouldn't give any natural resource away so foolishly.
It makes no sense to argue a legal point with a guy who spews vernacular and asserts that "majority rules" is how these things get settled. You're ventilating, and it's obvious. Not worth serious reply.
Let's try this again. What federal crime do you think SCO committed when it sent 1,500 letters through the U.S. mail threatening litigation over copyright infringement, naming files held by numerous industry standards groups as the basis of its claim?
Great wild guess, reminds me of Nick Danger. How about checking into things like I asked, instead of more baseless speculation.
Considering that I talk to some folks who work on open-source projects on a regular basis, and they make pretty good salaries and would like to make even more, I have to conclude, you're wrong.
Well they better hope the visionaries behind Linux don't get their way, or they like the rest of us will be stuck with support jobs whether we like them or not. If anything, their existence is conflicted in nature. Kind of like those Gay Republicans. Nothing personal, just an analogy.
Gold Eagle Out.
Freerepublic.com has been running on Linux for at least 4 years, according to Netcraft:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=freerepublic.com
As far as I know, they have been doing so since the beginning. But, Linux is only part of it: an open source scripting language (Perl) implements the custom part of the website. Other open source software (Apache, Squid) implements critical functions. All would have to be replaced, to satisfy the anti-OSS zealots.
I'm just trying to bring an equal voice to all the propoganda and disinformation that accompanies the Linux advocates, I've never seen a more overhyped and IMO possibly dangerous spread of technology in my life.
Only you could make a complaint about something and turn around and do exactly the same thing in the same sentence.
The FSF is hardly the "brains" behind open source. They are simply taking responsibility for enforcing the GPL -- quite successfully. In 10 years, every violator has subsequently chosen to comply with the GPL, instead of going to court.
The "brains" behind open-source software are the thousands of people that choose to contribute new or derived software and license it under the GPL (or one of the other open source licenses).
Check out the "Free Software Foundation" (FSF.ORG). They wrote the Linux license, and most of the prepackaged Linux utils.
No, the FSF wrote the GPL. Linus Torvalds chose to release his kernel under the GPL, as did a number of other people that wrote and contributed various utilities -- some to the FSF, and some released on their own. All did so under their own free will.
Their quote "ultimate goal" is quote "to make proprietary software obsolete". That's not competition, that's socialism.
If open source software makes proprietary software obsolete, it will be because it offers better functionality, lower cost, or some combination thereof that results in a higher perceived value. And the only way that will be achieved is through competition with comparable proprietary software.
Open source development itself is actually quite competitive: programs rise in popularity, fall out of favor, or never achieve anything at all, based on the perceived quality of the product or code.
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.