Copying, content and communism (Bill Gates on Who is a Communist

BBC ^ | Bill Thompson

[KoRn]

" The Internet was invented by the US government ARPA project, and paid for by American tax payers. Open source crazies had nothing to do with."

I was referring to open Standards. Have you ever heard of the OSI model? They teach it in basic computer/networking classes.

[shellshocked]

The only thing to say to the open source commie crowd is "Chinese Red Flag Linux".

They claim Bill will have to go to China to sell his wares as no one in the US will want his software, yet, it is Linux who has fist made that move!

LOL!!!

[KwasiOwusu]

"So you're claiming something is true before it's proved?"

Read this:

"Linux potentially infringes 283 patents, including 27 held by Microsoft but none that have been validated by court judgments, according to a group that sells insurance to protect those using or selling Linux against intellectual-property litigation.

Dan Ravicher, founder and executive director of the Public Patent Foundation, conducted the analysis for Open Source Risk Management. OSRM is like an insurance company, selling legal protection against Linux copyright-infringement claims. It plans to expand the program to patent protections. "


http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5291403.html?tag=yt

Even your own open source advocates have admitted you have serious IP issues in Linux.

"And you call us nuts?"

Open source fanatics ARE nuts.

[KwasiOwusu]

"I was referring to open Standards. Have you ever heard of the OSI model? They teach it in basic computer/networking classes"

You are not going to say the OSI model for Ethernet was invented by open source nuts, are you?

[ShadowAce]

You can't even read your own posts for comprehension. DO you know what the word "potentially" means? It means possibly. It does not mean proven, nor does it mean "admitted."

Tell me this--if you knew of actual problems within Windows, would you start an insurance company to cover those problems, guaranteeing payouts of more than you receive in income? I think even you would not. OTOH, if you had every confidence that there are no problems in Linux, would you found an insurance company to cover "potential" infrigements? I would, if I had thought of it. There's a guarantee of no payout from that scam.

[KwasiOwusu]

"DO you know what the word "potentially" means? It means possibly. It does not mean proven, nor does it mean "admitted."

Listen, this is America.
Of course everything is going to be litigated.
One thing is certain: There is going to be plenty of litigation brought against Linux users from firms who can see their IP and patents in the Linux source code.
This the difference: Microsoft gives full legal immunity for their software, which they wrote themselves.
Red Hat doesn't do that for their Linux.
Why? Because they couldn't swear that they know that all the code in their Linux come from legal sources, nor could they swear that none of their code was pilfered from other firms.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[KwasiOwusu]

"They claim Bill will have to go to China to sell his wares as no one in the US will want his software, yet, it is Linux who has fist made that move!
LOL!!!"

That's typical open source logic for you. :)

[Richard Kimball]

and those who oppose software patents, pose a serious danger to the US economy and Microsoft's profitability.

There's a reason Bill thinks he's a communist. It's the same reason I think Mr. Ed was supposed to be a horse.

[ShadowAce]

There is going to be plenty of litigation brought against Linux users from firms who can see their IP and patents in the Linux source code.

There's your problem, dude. There is none. SCO has had almost two years to come up with even one line of code and they can't do it. No other company, after seeing SCO start this process, has come forward with similar claims. The source code is open for all to see, and has been for 15 years, yet no company has made that claim.

Why do think that is? Meditate on that for a while.

Red Hat doesn't do that for their Linux.

There's no need. They know it and their customers know it.

[KoRn]

You are not going to say the OSI model for Ethernet was invented by open source nuts, are you?

No, not at all. The OSI model was agreed upon standards by the industry at large. This wouldn't occur if every vendor went their own way, like you suggest they should. Imagine if M$, Linux, Mac, Unix, and Ethernet card manufacturers went their own way.

PS: The OSI model has ALLOT more to do with networking than Ethernet. Ethernet is only a layer 2 standard, among other layer 2 standards, out of the 7 layer communications model.

[KwasiOwusu]

"SCO has had almost two years to come up with even one line of code and they can't do it"

SCO has shown thousands of lines of code to experts from the computer industry (like IDc, Gartner etc etc) that they have made sign confidentiality agreements.
They did this long ago.
SCO doesn't have to show any code to open source nuts that post rubbish on the Internet.
All they have to do is show their stolen code in COURT when the trial finally gets under way, just like any trial.


"No other company, after seeing SCO start this process, has come forward with similar claims."

They will.
It took 20 years to catch the Una-bomber


"The source code is open for all to see, and has been for 15 years, yet no company has made that claim."

Linux was irrelevant 15 years ago.
Plus Linux was a typically useless open source piece of junk then, until they stated shoveling stolen code into it en mass, relatively recently.
Then it miraculously acquired capabilities that it never came close to acquiring for the past 10 years before that.

[bvw]

U R NUTZ

[KwasiOwusu]

"The OSI model was agreed upon standards by the industry at large. This wouldn't occur if every vendor went their own way, like you suggest they should. Imagine if M$, Linux, Mac, Unix, and Ethernet card manufacturers went their own way."


I suggested nothing of the sort.
IT firms and consumer electronics firms have have been forming committees and developing standards right from when the electronics industry started.
This was not open source at all.
Electronics firms still developed their own technologies in a very proprietary manner.
They only worked together he necessary to allow their products to work together.
Which is the way it should be.

[ShadowAce]

SCO has shown thousands of lines of code to experts from the computer industry (like IDc, Gartner etc etc) that they have made sign confidentiality agreements.

And some still slipped out into the public. When it was then proven to be a pile of horsehockey.

All they have to do is show their stolen code in COURT when the trial finally gets under way, just like any trial.

Wrong. IBM filed a motion for dismissal (CC10), that SCO could have easily refuted by just showing that code to the court under seal. They couldn't do that, because they don't have it. That motion is going to be heard this month, and most likely will be granted.

Keep up, dude.

Linux was irrelevant 15 years ago.

That statement is irrelevant. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement, no matter how small. It would have been prosecuted then just as it would now.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Odd that someone that likes capitalism so much is a flaming liberal like his Dad.

[KwasiOwusu]

"U R NUTZ"

That is reserved for you open source crazies.
There isn't a more rabid bunch of mad dogs on the Internet than you guys.

[MarkL]

Digital rights enforcement is already with us...

Not long ago, I tried playing a legally made DVD movie backup I have on XP and media player, and it refused to play it, saying it was an unauthorized copy.

I backup my DVDs rather than take the originals on the road with me.

Mark

[KwasiOwusu]

"And some still slipped out into the public. When it was then proven to be a pile of horsehockey"

Apart from the usual mad rantings from the usual open source crazies, nothing was proved by anybody.
Plus most of the code in dispute still remains unknown to the public.
Which is the way it should be.
Its for the courts to decide.

"Wrong. IBM filed a motion for dismissal (CC10), that SCO could have easily refuted by just showing that code to the court under seal. They couldn't do that, because they don't have it. That motion is going to be heard this month, and most likely will be granted"

Dream on.
IBM's motion is just the usual legal maneuvering by a guilty IBM to delay the trail as long as possible, in the hopes that SCO runs out of money.
IBM's motion will be dismissed.
The case is going to a full trial
So sorry. :)

T"hat statement is irrelevant. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement, no matter how small. It would have been prosecuted then just as it would now."

By saying Lunix was irrelevant 15 years ago, I am saying that no one was going to be interested in bringing a lawsuit against some unknown piece of junk operating system 15 years ago.
There was no percentage in it.
Lawsuits are mostly for money.
15 years ago , it didn't make sense to bring a lawsuit against an operating system very few were using.

[MarkL]

Don't forget: FreeRepublic runs on perl - a language that has always been and always will be Open Source.

Perl - The "Swiss Army Chainsaw" of software! Larry Wall is my hero!

Mark