Posted on 08/12/2007 8:55:08 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The 102-page ruling by Judge Dale Kimball refuted many of SCO's claims against Novell, and seemed to remove the basis for its lawsuit against IBM. SCO had previously charged that the Linux operating system was an unauthorised derivative of Unix, which it claimed to have purchased from Novell in 1995.
"The court's ruling has cut out the core of SCO's case and, as a result, eliminates SCO's threat to the Linux community based upon allegations of copyright infringement of Unix," Joe LaSala, Novell's senior vice president and general counsel, told the New York Times.
The Unix operating system was developed by AT&T researchers at Bell Labs from 1969. While it has been a long-time favourite in server and mainframe systems, it never gained a great foothold in the personal computer business until the Linux variant was developed in the early 1990s, and Apple started to base their Mac OS on a version of Unix.
Figures from the open-source industry also see the ruling as a boost to their business.
"This is a meaningful message in terms of people adopting open-source software," James Zemlin, executive director of the Linux Foundation, told the New York Times. "This says that Linux is a safe solution and people can choose it with that in mind."
You’re right. He flames a simple license that gives you freedom, only with the condition that you release your code under the same license as the code it’s based on. Yet he gives a pass on blatantly unconstitutional provisions of proprietary licenses.
GE, it’s not a red herring, it’s showing you to be a hypocrite.
Im sorry is that an answer to: “Go buy MS SQL Server, do a benchmark against Oracle, and publish your results. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do, covered by the 1st Amendment, right?”
Those posts above were for you, trying this on a cellphone while eating lunch.
I don’t know what you’re talking about, I was simply warning someone of the trap set by the copyleftists in GPL software, and instead of admitting several large companies have been duped and having concerns for others being tricked by radical green party moonbats you of course try to change the subject to something completely unrelated and no danger to the poster at all.
One of the more poorly hidden traps in history I guess as the license clearly states it..
several large companies have been duped
Yea Cicso was duped Im sure they don't have contract lawyers on staff. Cisco (through linksys) attempted to steal someone else's work against the license that author released it under and you say *they* got duped? Goes to show your concept of intellectual property is severely limited.
And yet he wasn't even talking about swiping GPL code, so your anti-GPL rant doesn't apply. You only wanted an excuse to troll some more.
change the subject to something completely unrelated and no danger to the poster at all.
Poster used Oracle. Oracle has such unconstitutional provisions in its licenses.
In the case of the GPL, the CDDL (Sun) and the MPL (Mozilla), "free" means terms in the license that guarantee the code will stay free, as opposed to BSD, which can be closed.
BTW, why aren't you also ranting against the CDDL and MPL for having those terms?
No they didn't, they were told it was "free" by the "Free Software Foundation" only to find out the FSF is run by green party moonbats who deceptively use the word "free". It's not free, it could even force you to give your own software you developed away to others if you ever try to sell it, as others have learned the hard way. Of course, instead of being sympathetic to those trapped by the copyleftists, you attack the victims and give the green party whackos a thumbs up for job well done.
You're attempts to pretend cisco did not read or understand the GPL is about the most amusing thing I have seen today, there are down sides to having a troll filter on most days. But lets just pretend that Cicso does not have an army of lawyers, lets say the just read some of the stuff on the fsf page:
"http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html"
"The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is ok if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program (since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to make them."
Oh yea those guys are hiding that *really* well...
Of course, instead of being sympathetic to those trapped by the copyleftists
Again a trap would indicate its not common knowledge among people that the GPL means you have to redistribute changes. Most software developer know that, and I guarantee someone involved in the purchase of Linksys by cicso knew that. Cisco knowingly decided they could ignore the license someone put their license out under, they stole IP but you don't care.
CDDL wasn’t created by radical leftists, nor has anyone ever been threatened with a lawsuit for using it either. GPL was created by radical leftists, and they are proactively looking for others they can threaten of course as well.
Give it time eventually uoull see the CDDL licnse cause some trouble.
“The CDDL clause on forcing an entity to stop using CDDL software in case the company sues for patent infringement is, in my opinion, a gross poison pill, onerous to the small company whose patents are being infringed upon. You and I may not agree that patents on software should even exist, but the reality is that they do, and are an important asset in today’s world. Forcing a company not to use the CDDL in the event such company wants to sue to protect its right is, in my humble opinion, worse of an infringement on freedom than any of the GPL2’s terms.”
In other words if I use the CDDL and suddenly I find SUN infringing on one of my patents I cant sue them unless I stop using the CDDL.
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=23699&tstart=0
And here we prove that your problem isn't with the provision of the license itself, but with the person who wrote it.
GPL was created by radical leftists, and they are proactively looking for others they can threaten of course as well.
A copyright holder who doesn't proactively defend his copyright might as well not have it.
No we clearly see my concern over radical leftists who are alone in threatening others and forcing them to hand over their software, and you clearly supporting them of course as usual.
Last Trade: 0.45 Trade Time: 10:40AM ET Change: Down 1.11 (71.15%) Prev Close: 1.56 Open: 0.45 Bid: 0.45 x 1000 Ask: 0.45 x 1000 1y Target Est: 5.00 Day's Range: 0.35 - 0.57 52wk Range: 0.77 - 3.11 Volume: 1,535,911 Avg Vol (3m): 160,928
I feel so bad for SCO..../s
Most everything else at the link did look quite appealing: performance-oriented, compiler optimization friendly, metaprogramming (templates), and key for pragmatic real-world applications with real customers and real deadlines: Down and dirty programming.
Exactly. You have a personal problem with him, not with the license itself, the critical clause of which essentially exists in the Sun license. Yet you warn people about that license, and not about the Sun license.
who are alone in threatening others
False. Mozilla has enforced its MPL quite often in the past. They say they like to keep it quiet, which makes for a better chance of a peaceful resolution. Now shall we talk about Microsoft's enforcement of its licenses, including denying a man his right to free speech because he wanted to release benchmarks of a Microsoft product?
and you clearly supporting them of course as usual.
I support the rights of copyright owners across the board. You clearly make exceptions as to who should be able to enforce their copyright.
One of the finest resources I have seen on the subject is: The Advanced Bash-Scripting Guide. Contrary to what the name might suggest, the guide also serves as a good beginning.
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.