Toppling Linux

Forbes ^ | 10.30.06 | Daniel Lyons

[Golden Eagle]

You already said yourself the solaris kernel makes calls to GPL libraries

No I didn't, I clearly indicated it is a seperate product called Nexenta that uses the Solaris kernel, only. LMAO at your desperation.

[Golden Eagle]

The actions in question did not necessarily involve "pillage," as I take it to mean the unlicensed copying and distribution of software.

Amazing, even after already having to admit you purposefully lied, for months, defending criminal Russian hackers, you're still lying to defend them. Their violation is obvious, of breaking the license on the software that requires it be run on a particular piece of hardware. Exactly as expected, your ridiculous argument once again puts you in perfect lockstep with the radical leftist Stallman, who is creating GPL3 just so those types of restrictions couldn't exist in the first place.

But at least Stallman, even being the leftist scumbag he is, respects the law and wants his license changed, whereas you endlessly lie in defense of criminal Russian hackers who broke one just like it. Cue for you to trot out more ridiculous lies in support of your radical leftist philosophy and criminal Russian hackers.

[antiRepublicrat]

Their violation is obvious, of breaking the license on the software that requires it be run on a particular piece of hardware.

And that is criminal how?

[theFIRMbss]

> the leftist Stallman and his radical anti-commercial philosophies

People didn't mind
Stallman's philosophy when
they used his software.

Nothing in the world
stopped anyone from doing
what Stallman and friends

were able to do:
reverse engineer software
and write their own code

that did the same things
but with different code structure.
The issue isn't

philosophy from
Stallman, the issue is scum
lined up against him.

They want to take code
for free, re-package it, then
sell it for income.

It's not an issue
of capitalism and
Marxism, it is

a simple issue
of John Galt and The Looters.
Stallman did the work

and now scummy types
of businessmen are pissed off
they can't just take it!

[Golden Eagle]

They're doing exactly what you lied in post 96 and said they weren't, specifically facilitating the unlicensed copying and distribution of software, in this case Apple's OSX operating system. Apple has a restriction in their license you surely know about that restricts its use to Apple hardware. You, like the leftist radical Stallman, seem to have a problem with this, but since you can't change the license like he can you've resorted to making up bald faced lies, which you have subsequently admitted to doing, in your endless defense of these criminal Russian hackers you so obviously admire. Face it, you've already admitted to lying in their defense, and have now been pegged as doing so in support of Stallman's radical leftist philosophy. You might as well give up lying any more, or trying to attack my credibility for exposing your leftist bent, because your MO has clearly been identified.

[theFIRMbss]

>There's a difference between a lie meant to factually deceive and stringing along an idiot

Congratulations! You win the "Made Steve Jobs Smile" award for this thread!

[antiRepublicrat]

Apple has a restriction in their license you surely know about that restricts its use to Apple hardware.

Again, how is what they did criminal?

[Golden Eagle]

Yes, the businesses that ignored the obvious anti-capitalist motives of the leftist Stallman and went on to base their businesses on his trojan horse software giveaways are now stuck having to face the music of him jerking them and their businesses around. Those of us that knew better, and loudly warned the fools who made their bed with Stallman anyway, rightfully feel no pity.

[Golden Eagle]

AntiRepublic here was actually defending hackers thatwere pirating Apple's software, so I doubt Jobs is smiling over that, although I certainly sensed your sarcasm.

[Golden Eagle]

It's pirating Apple's software, pure and simple. It's obvious you don't consider such things criminal, as you have only been defending them for months including making up lies on their behalf,which you later admitted to doing, but it is clearly illegal, and apparently even Stallman has higher morals than you as he at least is attempting to legally change the license verses your approach of using Russian hackers to crack the software and illegally distribute it.

[ExDemSince92]

I would guess a good deal of GPL3 stuff would die on the vine..

Essentially, Stallman and friends are looking to room with the XFree86 guys.

If 1/10th of the resulting forks were as successful as the XFree86/X11 fork, the benefit to Linux would be huge.

I say, bring it on!

[antiRepublicrat]

It's pirating Apple's software, pure and simple. It's obvious you don't consider such things criminal,

So you say that them violating the terms of Apple's license just to get their copy of OS X working on their non-Apple system is criminal?

[Golden Eagle]

"Their" copy of OSX? Who do you think you're fooling? They cracked Apple's protection and gave it out to every hacker on Earth so that they can all run bootleg on cheaper chinese hardware. I know that sort of thing makes you tingle, the thought of Russian hackers cracking US software products so their hacker budies all over the world can all pirate our code, but the reality is it proves you're just another techno whore without a shred of integrity or patriotism. Your admitted lies nail the coffin shut.

[antiRepublicrat]

They cracked Apple's protection and gave it out to every hacker on Earth so that they can all run bootleg on cheaper chinese hardware.

So you say that them violating the terms of Apple's license just to get their copy of OS X working on their non-Apple system (and showing others how to do it) is criminal? Answer the question.

[Golden Eagle]

Of course it's illegal, which is why these hackers you worship live over in Russia. AntiRepublican, a man who admits he doesn't have a God, but doesn't have a country either.

[dennisw]

bttt

[antiRepublicrat]

Of course it's illegal

You can't answer a simple question, can you? Was it criminal?

AntiRepublican, a man who admits he doesn't have a God, but doesn't have a country either.

I fought for mine in a war. Did you?

[Golden Eagle]

I already said of course. Go defend Russian hackers with your admitted lies somewhere else.

[antiRepublicrat]

I already said of course.

Debating with you is almost no fun anymore since you constantly don't know what you're talking about.

You are wrong of course given the available information. Simply violating a license by not abiding by the terms (if those terms are deemed enforceable by the court) is a civil tort, not a crime, thus, no "criminals." It could be come a crime had they copied OS X itself and widely sold it beyond a certain dollar value amount, but nothing in the article indicated this.

They could also be liable for contributory infringement if the court deemed the main purpose was to install unlicensed ("pirated") copies of OS X on other PCs. Again, it is a civil tort matter.

Aside from the licensing the DMCA, horribly written by the copyright cartel, does rear its ugly head. It forbids the practice of reverse-engineering like this for the most part. So, IF their actions didn't fit into the exceptions (such as interoperability, which is what they were doing) then they are subject again to civil tort. It could become a criminal matter IF they were doing it for profit, but they freely distributed the tool to do it, so no profit.

However, the DMCA has a spotty history in going after people like this anyway. I know of one victory, where the hacker Eric Corley was sued over DeCSS (which cracked DVD encryption). The ruling was IMHO highly questionable since they ignored the Fair Use allowance in the DMCA, dismissed 1st Amendment Free Speech considerations, and the court was really biased against Corley since he was an infamous hacker.

I know of many losses though. One was for reverse-engineering Lexmark's printers that only allowed the them to accept Lexmark ink refills (the competing cartridge maker won). Another was by Chamberlain, maker of garage door openers, against an independent maker of garage door opening remotes who had reverse-engineered Chamberlain's door opening codes (the opponent won). The one against the Russian company Elcomsoft was criminal since Elcomsoft was selling PDF-cracking software for profit (with the FBI among their customers), but they were acquitted. Also, the RIAA threatened Prof. Edward Felten with the DMCA for figuring out how to remove their audio watermarks, but they quickly backed off after he went public about it.

So as usual you are talking about subjects on which you are woefully uneducated.

You are welcome for the primer in copyright law and precedent. Class dismissed.

[Golden Eagle]

You can believe all that BS somehow justifies your lies defending criminal Russian hackers all you want. It only proves who the real fool is.