Posted on 08/26/2003 7:04:02 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
The Web site of embattled software maker The SCO Group Inc. was inaccessible again on Tuesday, fueling reports of another denial of service attack.
SCO's main Web site, www.sco.com, was off-line between 4 a.m. GMT and 2 p.m. GMT, according to the Internet monitoring company Netcraft Ltd.
That site had just recovered from a crippling denial of service (DoS) attack that lasted throughout the weekend (DoS) and for much of the business day on Monday, according to SCO.
The outage prompted Netcraft to declare that SCO was again the target of a DoS attack. However, the outage was actually due to preventative measures taken by SCO and its hosting service to mitigate the effects of future attacks, according to company spokesman Marc Modersitzki.
Those people, if they exist and aren't figments of your imagination, are wrong. The GPL has no power to remove your ownership of your code. Say X writes a program, release it under the GPL, and Y (deliberately or not) incorporates it into a closed source program which you sell. If they can't come to an agreement, X will sue Y not for "violating the GPL" but for copyright violation. The GPL is a nonissue; it would grant Y permission to modify and redistribute my program if he made his own product GPLed, but he didn't, so it doesn't, and we're back to regular copyright law, which you claim to defend.
The coding is not what they're griping about. They want to convince an unwary judge to ignore the code, but look at the abstracts.
Right. Sure.
Next thing you know, some "niece" of somebody, will step forth with a letter (from "Uncle ...") by which she "inherited" all the rights of EOF, and therefore, the running of every program out there, when it gets to the EOF, must pay a royalty.
I hereby claim all ownership and rights to trash compacting. Also, the color orange.
Thanks for clarifying now.
Yes, in that exceptionally unlikely case, Linux would revert to version 2.2 and continue from there. An inconvenience, but hardly a fatal injury.
Well, duh. You certainly are sharp tonight. But don't believe everything you think, because this time you were wrong.
?????
This is in IBM's officially submitted defense to the court!
Actually, that is what IBM is claiming in their counter suit.
SCO is only claiming what is in copyrighted code they previously purchased from ATT, or derivative code created by Sequent etc then put into Linux despite not owning redistribution rights.
Sorry, I wasn't, and reposted a larger portion of the article that showed who was wrong. There are no other excuses posted from any respected journalists claiming the attacks over the weekend were anything but denial of service related. One of your advocates Eric Raymond has already admitted this, but you can continue to deny if you wish, and probably will.
Secondly, there is no independent confirmation that the weekend outage was caused by a DoS. Everybody is just quoting Eric Raymond, and there's reason to believe he was duped.
But you can deny all of this and stick to your talking points and repeat them over and over if you wish. It's a free country.
Yes, we have both obviously chosen our sides, for better or worse.
According to several articles, it will be a jury trial. But perhaps the judge will see that SCO has failed to prove their claims and order a directed verdict before the jury gets to decide.
It's difficult to see how SCO will be able to prove their case to the jury without presenting the source code. And the courtroom will be filled with interested spectators to see the alleged evidence.
In addition to the numerous subpoenas in the case, perhaps IBM will subpoena SCO to produce the "non-infringing" code. There is no reason for that code to be covered with a protective order, and it will be easy to run diff on it to determine the parts that SCO thinks is infringing.
Sooner or later, the disputed code will be known publicly.
Presumably you're referring to this:
“By distributing products under the GPL, SCO agreed, among other things, not to assert — indeed, it is prohibited from asserting — certain proprietary rights (such as the right to collect license fees) over any source code distributed under the terms of the GPL. SCO also agreed not to restrict further distribution of any source code distributed by SCO under the terms of the GPL,” the IBM counterclaims said.Which is correct, if SCO is in fact distributing Linux under the GPL. They could always claim they're not, but that doesn't work out too well for them either. Even if Linux contains loads of infringing code, it also contains loads of noninfringing code which SCO did not create and has no rights to, yet which they have continued to distribute *after* discovering the allegedly infringing code. Only the GPL gives them the right to distribute Linux; if they don't accept it then they are violating the copyrights of every Linux developer.
Your competitors will thank you.
Suppose G.M. had a development project that it funded, to manufacture a new kind of forged aluminum piston.
The aluminum is a new compound, the makeup of which, unknown even to G.M.'s engineers, has potential beyond the project's stated aims; but G.M. "wins" patents for the compound and its stated purpose for reducing the cost of engine manufacturing.
A new model year comes along and G.M. introduces a new line of cars which include engines with the new piston. In general, the public is unaware of the piston's qualities. Yet the automotive marketplace quickly finds other vehicle applications for the engine; G.M. sells it to Toyota and Land Rover.
In the heat of off-road competition, some racer-types who naturally are always looking for improvements, experiment with this light-weight piston and discover two things.
First, because of the compound, this allows some careful re-machining of the inside of the piston, which reduces a vibration problem that has plagued the engines at high RPM's. Second, upon taking this up with XYZ Motorcraft, the whizbangs of aftermarket aluminum motor racing production in Northern Wisconsin, they find that single nitrogen atomic change to the compound, further reduces that vibration and lowers the operating temperature a few degrees.
They begin to produce these new racing pistons.
The makers of other vehicles, not G.M., buy these pistons on a large scale, to be used in their own engine manufacturing. These engines then "clean up" at the track.
The moral of the story is, that despite all of G.M.'s many years of funding development of the original aluminum compound, the new "Single Nitro" pistons are not G.M.'s ... by one nitrogen atom, no matter how clever are G.M.'s lawyers.
In this business of invention, what is uniquely the inventor's, is, his or hers; but again, it must be uniquely his or hers.
The problem of parallel development, even if the parallel developers started with 100 percent of their ideas being generated from exposure to "developer OO," so to speak, the parallel developers are entitled to their own unique developments.
Unique developments should indeed be protected.
But competition demands that those who expect to capitalize on their developments, keep on developing, because as most will tell you, to rest on one's unique developments, is rarely rewarding and almost never a position of security.
There are unfortunately, many bright ideas in filing cabinets, because the developers could not, or would not, bring them to the marketplace.
Later, should one come to light, because in the future, some opportunity affords that re-birth, the unique development is due, finally, its just rewards ... but its supporters must brace themselves for the competition that will almost surely dilute their winnings, as it were.
SCO *seems* to want a judge to say that it ain't so.
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.