Posted on 08/02/2005 6:22:31 PM PDT by Bush2000
OK. As an FYI (and I'm really not trying to be snitty here), their case is in the process of falling apart. Like you said, courts take time to follow things through. Their case against Daimler Chrysler was laughed out of the court. Their case against AutoZone is being put on hold until the IBM case is decided.
The Novell case(s)(I can't honestly remember who filed that one--it may be two countercases against the other), is failing rapidly as Novell has documentation to prove their side. Novell is also claiming 95% of all the monies MS paid them for the "license" MS bought.
The judge (in the IBM case) is on record as saying he has not seen one shred of proof from SCO regarding any of their claims.
SCO is dead. As a lawsuit, and as a company. It is now just a matter of spending what remaining cash they have before they fold up.
However, I do know some businesses did pay SCO a license agreement so that validates part of the assertion.
Submitting to extortion is not necessarily validating an assertion.
In regards to the other licenses sold, those companies are looking into filing suits of their own regarding fraud against SCO. (I'll have to search for that one, though. I thought EV1 in Texas was looking into it, but now I'm not so sure)
The main problem claims like this have is that OSS is just that--totally Open. If a company believes that their code has made it into Linux or some other FLOSS project, all they have to do is look at it. There is no defense (if it happened), and the lawsuit would be a slam dunk. The fact that it hasn't happened is proof that proprietary code is not in OSS. The media would be all over it.
Yes but they also have memos from 2002 saying that there was nothing there. I can say that you have my code but unless I meet some standard of proof should I be able to drag you through an expensive legal battle?
I haven't followed it completely and I'm not sure if their case has fallen apart.
Its getting there
However, I do know some businesses did pay SCO a license agreement so that validates part of the assertion.
MS and Sun, both of whom have an interest in hurting IBM and Linux. Novell is requiring proof of what SCO sold MS..
Nothing you have given here is proof...
Now prove to me where this hasn't occurred?
So you agree with teh euro lawyers, guilty until proven innocent?
cough cough... BS
Anyone who makes a blanket claim that one OS is always cheaper than another is going down the wrong path. I run my weblogic servers far cheaper on Linux than I would on windows. The enterprise lever servers run me about $1300 a year of OS licensing, updates *AND* 24*7 Support. BEst of all Redhat Exceeded the MS OS lifecycle by at least two years. Now our desktop is a different story, we run windows because we have some old power builder code..
Whoops correction it cose me $450 for the OS supprot
Really so they know what Microsoft's code is for Office? How on earth do they know that? If they don't have the source for MS Office then how do they know I didn't steal it and dump parts of it into Open Office? Oh because I have to show that I created it, well how hard is it to strip out the comments and place mine in it? Shadow may know more about OSS; however, ya'll are either faking ignorant on how one could steal code and dump it in OSS or you're just ignorant on the matter. Of course the same applies for Closed Source (they can and do steal code as well, but at least you have someone to recoup damages from).
Speakign of blanket statements...you may need to re-read your post that I replied to. One blanket deserves another.
The person who wants to submit the code must prove they have the copyright on that code!
If they don't have the source for MS Office then how do they know I didn't steal it and dump parts of it into Open Office?
Because you can not prove you own the copyright to it.
however, ya'll are either faking ignorant on how one could steal code and dump it in OSS or you're just ignorant on the matter.
Or we could be aware that all any company would have to do it *LOOK AT THE OSS CODE* at that point the person who submitted it would be hit for copyright infringement and they could go after the people who are running the code to either remove it or pay up! We don't need a shoot first ask questions later law which will only make lawyers rich (I'm sure John Edwards would love this law). The fact the the only company to come forward and say 'they took our code' is being laughed out of court time and time again.
Come to think of it I can name more times *CLOSED SOURCE* companies have violated the GPL by taking OSS code and hiding it within their own *linksys* than the opposite has happened. So I guess stealing, dumping of code and the like have nothing to do with OSS right?
Of course the same applies for Closed Source (they can and do steal code as well, but at least you have someone to recoup damages from).
Under copyright you can go after people using your code, and I have no issue with that.. All you have to do is show an instance where it happened? a closed source company would have an easy time showing their IP or code in an OSS project because they could basically skip over discovery! the code is there for them to see.. This is a joke of a law and if you cant see that out ignorance is not what you should be worried about, its whatever is blinding you..
What I do bring is lower cost of running the tens of thousands of businesses in this country, money that can be used to expand, meaning job growth. I also bring lower cost of running government, but that's not something they're interested in.
Hmm where did he say the cost of OSS was always cheaper than MS? I see him saying OSS lowers cost for *tens of thousands of businesses* not *all business*.... you're letting your bias show again..
If what you say is true, I have a way M$ could win for years to come (assuming Linux and the OSS crowd ever "win"). Simply release some of your code into OSS. Let it spread like wild fire, then sue all the big companies that used it for a full market price software license. They could get out of the entire business of offereing discounts to people that pay upfront for a bunch of licenses. Just sneak it in then then sue for billions later.
Heck, I may even do that ;-)
Funny you knew which blanket to grab ;-) And then you defend it as if it isn't a blanket statement. Which is it?
Is a blanket statement? May I ask what about it is a blanket statement?
I would not put it past a MS kneepadder to do such a thing..
Why don't you tell me since you replied to my post saying that was the blanket statement I was referring to. You're the one that referenced that sentence directly, not me :-)
I thought Highlighting it would be enough for you but here it is again. You're statement is a generalization which definitely qualifies as the blanket statement:
MS is always cheaper than Linux to run. This was in reply to a statement of fact that for many business Linux lowers their cost..
OK. Please explain how you would do that. Keep in mind that once you release your code into OSS, you are changing the license under which distribution may occur. That license will follow the code. It will be in print. It will be public. Explain how you will be able to sue users for following a license you explicitly approved.
That would be immensely stupid of you if you do. You would either 1) have Microsoft's official blessing to do so, in which case they would have explicitly released the code into "the wild", and would have no standing to file for damages, or 2) be personally liable for all the claimed damages -- the users of the code would have accepted your contribution in good faith, and while would be required to remove the offending code, would not be liable for damages.
in which you asked me what makes that a blanket statement. And then I simply asked you to tell me because you're the one that referred to that quote directly...not me.
What did the opst you were replying to say that was a blanket statement...
naa I got everything I needed form that astoturfer last time.. He has nothing lef to offer me worth my time..
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.