Linux creator Linus Torvalds defended the integrity of Linux intellectual property in an interview with CRN Editor Heather Clancy and Editor/News Steven Burke at the CA World conference. Torvalds–who recently left Transmeta to work on Linux full-time at the Open Source Development Lab–talks about Read Copy Update code, copyright protection and SCO during the half-hour interview. Elsewhere, IT-Director has an article titled “Linux To Become A De Facto Standard“.
Torvalds: Integrity Of Linux Intellectual Property Is Well Documented
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Yah I can imagine the documentation looks like this:
Page #5, paragraph 8
“Dear diary, if anyone asks me about the Unix code I will laugh, we all know I am the guru! Why just last week I was on IRC and this guy named ‘mitnick’ said something about holding some disks for him. Perhaps he will prove useful!”
Page #13, paragraph 3
“Dear diary, I hope nobody asks about that *cough* code I got a few weeks back. I found that if I just changed things from *nix to LInUx it looks like it’s all mine. Gee, people sure are lame!”
Can’t tell if you’re trolling or genuinely trying to be funny. Whatever it is, you fail. Better luck next time.
Funny enough for me 😉
Gah, give the man some credit. I’ve always respected Torvalds for staying an engineer (having a Stallman isn’t too shabby, granted, but we don’t need another) and keeping cool. Plus, there’s a lot to be said for him staying the calm center of a bug GPL’ed software project for this long.
i didn’t think it was funny. (telix5000’s comment)
it wasn’t even clever.
hey, i’m for any good/funny/clever digs at any os. equal opportunity i say!
just wasn’t funny. 8(
Linux as a standard? Well…. it runs on my iMac, my coworker’s Pavilion, my Sparc 20, IBM mainframes, the Zaurus…. and in every case, it basically handles pretty much the same. NetBSD is much more portable, but Linux is much more buzzword compliant, and a faster moving target- AND and AND- let’s not forget about the pure joy of doing a Debian net install. Easily the thing that completely sold me on the concept.
The fact that I can run the firebird build installed on my iMac (debian) on my OS X workstation and on my coworker’s x68 linux box is sweet- the application interface exists independant of hardware.
Not that I don’t have my issues with linux (all of them deal strictly with what people are calling the desktop “experience” for some reason), but the fact that I can get the same handling and results out of three vastly different hardware architectures (sun server hardware, apple consumer hardware, HP mid-range office gear) is proof positive that Linux, mainly due to its pace of development and popularity, is definitely the New Standard for many applications.
Linux is the lowest common denominator. You’ll find that System 7 (or whatever the Mac sys is called) runs better on the iMac, SCO Unix or Windows XP runs better on the Pavilion, Solaris runs better on the Sparc, and AIX runs better on the IBM mainframe. It is a shame that Linux is destroying the commercial software sector with its “good-enough” GPL virus mentality. I encourage everyone to buy a piece of commercial software to support this industry. Today I bought a 3rd copy of Windows XP! I might give it to my mother who just got a Lindows PC (and can’t do anything with it, as soon as you open the L menu it crashes)
what!!!! while I don’t dispute that Apple can make a better OS for their hardware than some other company as can SUN for their hardware and SGI for theirs, for x86 you say Windows runs better than Linux!!!!
AHHH you are such a troll!!!!
>> It is a shame that Linux is destroying the commercial software sector with its “good-enough” GPL virus mentality.
Lets try turning that 45 degrees around a bit:
“It is a shame that Microsoft is destroying the commercial ánd open ánd free software sectors with its ‘good-enough’ mentality.”
Commercial companies don’t care about the quality of their code, many OSS people do.
The problem is, Microsoft is helping the economy. Open source certainly is not. Go spend some money you cheapskate!
>>I encourage everyone to buy a piece of commercial software >>to support this industry. Today I bought a 3rd copy of >>Windows XP!
If your idea of saving the commercial software sector is supporting its only convicted monopoly, you really need rework your ideology.
I really feel sorry for anyone who buys three copies of WinXP for the hell of it.
Ugh, lowest common demoninator? I highly disagree. Linux runs just dandy on my iMac, much snappier then Mac OS Classic and most certainly OS X. Define “runs better,” do you mean performance? If thats the case then on what possible grounds? Yes,yes – I’ feeding a troll…but I’m getting sick of references to Linux as little more then a hack, a “good enough” o.s. when in my experiences its far from.
The article effectively revolves around Linus saying “We don’t know, this is what we think they mean.” There’s no new information here that we haven’t seen in a dozen articles before.
The only reason I can think of that it was given “airtime” on OSNews is to engender extra traffic via the knee-jerk response of Linux zealots.
News please, not food for the wolves.
sherbert,
first thing that comes to mind: “oh brother what a drama queen”
and not a very good one at that, i’ve seen better drama on jerry springer.
“Linux is destroying the commercial software sector”
BWAH HA HH HA H HA HAHAH A…rotflmao.
What a maroon!
You make me laugh.
– an nt/2k/freebsd sysadmin (ad specialist) 2000 nodes.
“Microsoft is helping the economy”
dude. you are the biggest moron i’ve seen on these forums in a long time.
Try this on for size.
“Microsoft is helping itself”
You are an obvious troll, but some people may actually believe that using GPL software may in some way harm the economy.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Software is used in the production of goods and services. Therefore lowering the input cost does at least 1 of two things:-
1. Improves the margins corps get on the goods and services they sell (Supplier surplus)
2. Lowers the cost of Goods and services (Consumer surplus).
Consumers who choose a free GPL OS like linux can spend there money on other things which cannot be free. By definition in this situation their is more “STUFF”, thats the technical term, being consumed, even if it is not measured by the imperfect GDP.
In addition GPL makes closed source software earn its keep. They simple have to provide value to earn their $.
haha, that was great.
I bet the people who don’t find it funny actually think that Linux will be affected by some imaginary tainted 80 lines of SCO code.
Oh, and re: Re: solios
It is a shame that Linux is destroying the commercial software sector with its “good-enough” GPL virus mentality.
Yeah, just like Microsoft did before them. Linux is just making sure no other single capitalist corporation can take control ever again. Don’t like it, do ya? I love it when I’m always right.
The problem is, Microsoft is helping the economy. Open source certainly is not. Go spend some money you cheapskate!
No in fact, it means more money goes to hardware, support, employees, etc.
You clearly do not understand market economics. Andrew G is right. MS simply destroys wealth potential, whereas open source is a means to create wealth potential by restoring competition to the market place.
Get a clue.
Ok, lets look at the picture. Microsoft sells software, ok, thats good, HOWEVER, they give back a really piddly dividend, which is crap. So basically what Microsoft is causing it a deflationary effect by hording profits instead of redistributing it to its shareholders.
You are going to talk about a cause of the economic downturn, you COULD blame Microsofts no-dividends policy it had for 20 or so years.
Sure, they could JUSTIFY it for around 5-10 years saying that they’re establishing a war chest, however, 20 years without a dividend? if this was on the NZSE40, it would be valued at around $2.
As for the divident of 8 cents a share, mmm, nice, or on the other hand I could buy some nice Telstra shares and get approximately 11-14 cents per-share dividend.
The economic situation is where it is now because there is a lack of consolidation in the market due to HEAVY government interferance and “bailing out” of companys in direstraights. Just look at United Airlines and how it suddenly “wins” a government contract, Boeing “suddenly” win a defence contract to supply 767 refueling planes even though top brass don’t consider them ideal for the job, or the sudden “win” for WorldCom/MCI of a lucrative $300 million telecommunications contract for the public service.
The list goes on and on. Until the excess capacity is killed off either via a slash ‘n burn policy or consolidation, the economy will continue to stumble along like a drunk old man.
As for Greenspans outlook, it is the old case of the self fufilling profecy. What he doesn’t realise is that the US isn’t the flavour of the month any longer. The new flavour of the month is China and Greenspan will just have to accept that 3.5% growth is the best they can expect. Most countries are happy with that sort of figure, I am sure he can eventually get used to it.
well i dont think it matters where peopel spen thier money.
becus if other peopel are like me they are spending all the money they arent spending on sofware insted. if i would buy all software wellthen i couldnt afford all the hardware.
and in that case it wouldnt matter to the economy becus i dont have an unlimited suply of money but where i put the money would just shift but i wouldnt spend more money than im spending now.
well thats me maybe im alone on this but i dont think so
If everyone simply switched to Windows XP, and migrated to the clearly superior .NET architechture, we wouldn’t have to have silly arguments about the viral “GPL” and “Linux.” Please, do the economy a favor and ditch the terrorist supporting operating systems (GPL based), and upgrade to Windows XP SP1. 95% of desktop users can’t be wrong.
>> The problem is, Microsoft is helping the economy. Open source certainly is not. Go spend some money you cheapskate!
>>
Me, I think Microsoft is too rich. I don’t blame them, I can understand that everybody corporation is out to make money. But what is good for one corporation isn’t necessarily good for the general society.
Apple is okay, even if they don’t have multi-billions. Same with GM. Same with Toyota. Same with Chrysler. I would prefer an IT industry where the money is spread around, than one is which billions are concentrated in one corporation. Even it its desktop share dwindled to 30%, MICROSOFT WOULD STILL BE VERY PROFITABLE. Why would I want them to take it all, and have the capacity to do mischief? Like buy all the senators in Congress??
A world in which Volkswagen was the only car company would suck. It is no different in software.
Win XP + SP1 = screwed up my laptop
I am sick of this shit !
If all these stories can produce is a bunch of pointless trolls and pointless attempts to rebut them.
When Robin Bloors relevent article on Linux as a universal infrastructure gets toally ignored – it indicates that it is getting pontless to follow any thread on OSnews that discusses the spread of Linux.
Well I’ll leave it to the trolls and MS wannabees cos I don’t see the point in making any serious contribution.
>>95% of desktop users can’t be wrong
baaahhhh baahhhh
you’re just a sheep dude, just face it.
and let me get this straight…99% of the U.S.’s x86 software is Microsoft based….Microsoft itself says making Windows opensource would be a national security risk.
Now they plan to give the source code to China and other countries.
and you say that oss supports terrorism?
i thought i ran into the biggest moron on osnews earlier in this thread.
i stand corrected.
YOU are the biggest moron i’ve seen on osnews.
ever.
You make me laugh.
– an nt/2k/freebsd sysadmin (ad specialist) 2000 nodes.
“Please, do the economy a favor and ditch the terrorist supporting operating systems (GPL based)…”
That has to be the most ridiculous statement I have ever had the displeasure of reading. Perhaps you dont understand, there are those of us who want a choice, an alertantive. Apparently you haven’t quite grasped the concept of a little thing called innovation.
Saying that Microsoft is supporting the economy and Open Source is not is about as smart as deciding to reward punks for breaking windows (glass not the os) because it supports the economy by making work for the glazers. Fact is My budget for computers is fixed for all practical purposes. Therefore if I spend $200.00 for XP I must cut spending for other computer accessories or software by the same amount. Even if my computer budget was not fixed I would still not have any more total income so that $200.00 had to come from somewhere else in my overall spending. Therefore we can see that weather you spend money for Microsoft software or down load open source for free – it will make no difference to the total economy but just which player gets the money. Maybe those of you that buying Microsoft will donate your Christmas bonuses so that those of us that do not hold with such non-sense can get the bonus that we would get if our employers use open source.
Maybe its time that some people posting here take a class or two in basic economics and beginning logic.
It is a shame that Linux is destroying the commercial software sector with its “good-enough” GPL virus mentality.
I guess that’s what you call “natural selection”, eh? 🙂
Seriously, you’re confusing “commercial software sector” with “proprietary OSes.” Most Linux users will agree that proprietary (what you call “commercial”) software is alright. However, proprietary OSes are not, because the company that publishes the OS can – if they achieve dominant position – use their access to the source code to gain unfair advantage over the competition in making proprietary apps.
So in fact it is proprietary OS monopolies that destroy the commercial software sector – well, that subjugate it, which amounts to pretty much the same thing if you’re not part of said monopoly.
The problem is, Microsoft is helping the economy.
Actually, it isn’t, really. It’s just aggregating cash. Which is fine if you’re a MS stockholder, I guess…but you can’t say that it’s “helping the economy” – it’s actually detrimental to competition, therefore to cost savings by other enterprises, and job creation in the Tech sector.
In any case, as I’ve said, the problem is not proprietary software, which can peacefully co-exist with OSS, but rather proprietary OSes, which give the monopoly an unfair advantage.
Open source certainly is not. Go spend some money you cheapskate!
Now, I know you’re trolling and all, insulting those whose opinion differ from you (are you a MS stockholder, by any chance). But I’ve actually bought two boxed distros from Mandrake, and I’ve also subscribed to the Mandrake Club (and I’m happy to know that their financial situation has quite improved).
In addition to this, I’ve purchased a Crossover Office license and some Windows apps (Quicken, Photoshop, etc.) to run with it, and I’ve given money to various Open Source projects which I use and like.
As a typical home user, I must have spent about, what, 600$ on software this year (not including console games, of course). So who you calling cheapskate, troll?
Lindows PC (and can’t do anything with it, as soon as you open the L menu it crashes)
Don’t you get tired of all this FUD? I mean, even if what you said was true (which I very much doubt it is), you could have gotten a replacement unit for free. That is, after using the friendly (and surprisingly quick) technical support from Lindows that came with the purchase of the PC.
Another paid MS shill? I think so!
The only reason I can think of that it was given “airtime” on OSNews is to engender extra traffic via the knee-jerk response of Linux zealots.
And the baseless attacks of Windrones? Seriously, look at the virulence of Sherbert’s comments! He’s more anti open-source than Steve Ballmer’s, for crying out loud! (Unless it IS Steve Ballmer…)
Back to school though kiddies!
Lunch is packed.
CRN: How has the SCO-IBM lawsuit affected Linux?
Torvalds: …it hasn’t actually affected [Linux] in any real sense…it hasn’t affected it in any real sense…
CRN: Do you have an explicit IP protection or due diligence process for Linux development?
Torvalds: It is kind of strange because the open-source community is regarded as being fairly laissez faire…But the people who actually do the work take copyrights very seriously.
CRN: What is your advice for solution providers who may be concerned about the suit as they are building business solutions with Linux?
Torvalds: I don’t care about contract disputes between SCO and IBM. I think IBM has the lawyers to take care of that. I also think whatever happens, happens. The good thing about it being a contract dispute is that is purely between IBM and SCO. It has nothing to do with Linux. It has nothing to do with any users…it has nothing to do with Linux at all.
CRN: Are you playing a role to try to resolve this thing?
Torvalds: Not really…maybe I will end up being a witness to one or the other side, most likely it will be IBM. But I am not involved in any way and I don’t really want to be.
CRN: What kind of feedback are you seeing from solution providers?
Torvalds: …nobody cares…
CRN: Are you being called in by vendors such as CA and systems integrators to help win over some of these big Linux deals?
Torvalds: No. I never go to customer meetings. I don’t like customers.
CRN: Is that why you decided to go to Open Source Development Lab and not a commercial vendor?
Torvalds: To me, the most important thing has always been that people be able to trust me.
Sorry dude, I could never trust you after reading that.
“CRN: Are you being called in by vendors such as CA and systems integrators to help win over some of these big Linux deals?
Torvalds: No. I never go to customer meetings. I don’t like customers (laughing).”
Top Speed its obviousy he is joking, and to me not including major parts of those quotes means you’re obviously trolling.
there is no real way to deal with trolls like Sherbert, Top Speed & CroanoN.
Face to face, these guys are (barely) smart enough not to participate in a real debate, as they have NOTHING to backup any of their comments. Zero.
The only thing they are capable of is inflammatory behavior which in the real world would be grounds for a fist fight. As an amateur profiler, I’d entertain a guess that cowardice is the first word in their dictionary.
Fear would be the second.
“Big Bad Ole LINUX is threatening everyone’s well being” is what they would have you believe.
What morons.
His comments are ridiculous, especially the part about being soooo careful before accepting code into the kernel. Which contradicts his previous comments, such as in this email:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl541224082d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=…
He’s obviously under duress right now, already changing jobs and now floating these comments out there trying to recuse himself from any liability. Problem for him is, his English speaking skills are crude, and he’d be better served to just keep his thoughts to himself.
funny that’s what i was just thinking.
not about torvalds mind you.
Face to face, these guys are (barely) smart enough not to participate in a real debate, as they have NOTHING to backup any of their comments. Zero.
[i]The only thing they are capable of is inflammatory behavior which in the real world would be grounds for a fist fight. As an amateur profiler, I’d entertain a guess that cowardice is the first word in their dictionary.
[i]Fear would be the second.
You could NOT be further from the truth. If I was in the same room with you, you wouldn’t even look my way. At least not for long. 6-4 250 and work out every day.
Want to debate? Fine. I have a EE degree and was President of the IEEE chapter at my school.
You should get a better read on people before you go out and insult them. Makes it easier to back up what your are saying, and not have to eat it instead.
You could NOT be further from the truth. If I was in the same room with you, you wouldn’t even look my way. At least not for long. 6-4 250 and work out every day.
Want to debate? Fine. I have a EE degree and was President of the IEEE chapter at my school.
You should get a better read on people before you go out and insult them. Makes it easier to back up what your are saying, and not have to eat it instead.
Not only must they invent imaginary achievements to boost their egos (as imaginary as their arguments, which fall of deaf ears anyway), now the trolls get into the “you can’t see me over the Internet but I’m really strong and I could beat you up” line of discussion.
To the Anonymous poster’s diagnosis I’d venture to add sexual frustration in addition to strong delusions, severe denial and thinly veiled xenophobia (Linus not being able to speak correct english…).
Oh, and be careful that you’re not in the same room as me, because I’m a 7′, 325 lbs. ninja with super psychic powers and cybernetic implants. So there.
You may have an EE degree but obviously you have a problem closing HTML tags…
My comments stand. As for yours? Pathetic.
You may have an EE degree but obviously you have a problem closing HTML tags…
So what? I’m using a remote control keyboard looking at this through the PIP on a big screen TV. Try to make some sort of a point, instead of just insulting people without any credibility of your own.
Hit a nerve, haven’t I? 🙂
Well, your “comments” are pure biased FUD.
First, what Linus has said in no way contradicts what he wrote on the kernel list. In that case – which has of course been completely taken out of context by FUDders like you – he was specifically referring to software patents (being an alleged EE, you must know what patents are, right?). Now, the SCO case is clearly not about patents. In fact, it’s not even about copyright, but about a contractual dispute between IBM and SCO. You’re overreaching (actually, you’re just repeating the SCO line) and coming up with naught.
Second, your evaluation that he’s “clearly under duress” is laughable – on the contrary, he comes out as confident, if a bit annoyed that this whole affaire is taking some energy away from kernel development. The funniest claim you make is that he’s now “switching job”…actually, he took a leave of absence from Transmeta to work full-time on the kernel – only a desperate Microdrone like yourself would interpret this (or try to have other interpret this) as a sign of stress.
Finally, the last comment about his english speaking skills is uncalled for and borderline xenophobic.
And speaking of pathethic: nothing I could ever say or do would be as pathethic as trying to intimidate someone on an Internet forum by saying how physically strong they are. You are a sad, sad person. Sucks to be you.
…and I won’t insult you.
The suit is about theft, of trade secrets, protected by contract. Torvalds cavalier attitude to intellectual property as a whole will not be smiled upon by the court. His prior admissions that he refuses to investigate infringement even after being warned of it happening will not bode well for the defense.
He is clearly under stress, not surprising because he doesn’t seem to handle the glare of the media spotlight very well. I’ve read several of his interviews. He swallows his hitop mesh converse repeatedly, and would be better off pleading the 5th than making these riduculous claims that he is not involved and Linux is not affected. Anybody that believes that is nothing but a disciple of his cult, which these comments are obviously directed at.
His prior admissions that he refuses to investigate infringement even after being warned of it happening will not bode well for the defense.
Except of course that he never said such a thing. He said that programmers should not investigate patents before working on a project. This is a completely different thing. So basically you’re basing your entire argument on a false assumption. Good going.
He is clearly under stress, not surprising because he doesn’t seem to handle the glare of the media spotlight very well.
Well, you may or may not be an engineer, but one thing is certain: you’re not a psychologist! Linus doesn’t handle the media spotlight well because he doesn’t care for it! This is nothing new.
making these riduculous claims that he is not involved and Linux is not affected. Anybody that believes that is nothing but a disciple of his cult,
Uh, buddy, sorry to tell you that but the worst thing that can happen is that some code may need to be cleaned…and even that may not be necessary. You see, SCO continued to distribute SCO Linux a full month after stating that there was offending code in Linux. Better than that, they’re still distributing updates to SCO Linux customers. So they released (and are still releasing) the offending code under the GPL in full knowledge. In other words, that code is now open source and SCO cannot legally have it taken out of the kernel (or whatever it’s supposed to be now, according to the Darl McBride’s latest rambling).
Now, SCO can still sue IBM for breach of contract. But that does not involve Linux development at all. The code may have been SCO’s, but they’ve donated it to the Open Source community now.
Oh, and the “cult” comment? That’s almost as pathetic as the “6’4 250 lbs.” one. Get a life.
the worst thing that can happen is that some code may need to be cleaned…
Dream on, the worst is no where near and Linux already lost 8,000 websites to M$ Windows Server (www.netcraft.com).
You can continue to sling insults instead of accepting what is going on here, but I would suggest you get your info from somewhere besides slashdot. How about the professional market analysts at Business Week instead?
http://search.businessweek.com/search97cgi/s97_cgi?querytext=sco&go…
So 8,000 web sites have gone to MS from Linux. How many have gone the other way? I get my news from a variety of sources, and you know what? Linux is on the rise. I know it scares you silly, but perhaps you should remember this old saying: “if you can’t beat them, join them.” Love the penguin! The penguin is your friend. Let me give you a pamphlet! 🙂
Seriously, now, I’ve challenged every one of your claims and you’ve avoided trying to counter my arguments. In my book that’s an admission of defeat. So you can get all excited about SCO’s doomed lawsuit if you want, I’m going to bed. And believe me, I won’t have a problem sleeping.
(Oh, and before I go, remember this tell-tale fact: SCO has not sued anyone over copyrights or patents. They’re only suing IBM over contractual breach. They’ve released the code under the GPL. End of story for Linux – the code stays, even if it might have come for SCO, which is unlikely in the first place.)
SCO is claiming control of all software attached to it’s kernel by the licensees. Thus since IBM developed JFS for AIX and it’s part of the AIX kernel, JFS is now under SCO’s control and can not be released to 3rd parties with out SCO’s permission.
IBM states that the contact only covers code given to them from SCO and doesn’t apply to code developed in house. Thus they can do anything they want with the JFS code including giving it to the Linux group.
I aggree with IBM; however, that doesn’t matter much because we’ll need to wait for the court case to find out who’s correct.
Linus is correct that it doesn’t matter to the kernel project; worst case they’ll need to back out some of IBM’s code. I’ve been watching the comersial Linux companies and they don’t seem to be stopping because of the law suite. Thus, linux has not stopped for the law suite.
I’ve challenged every one of your claims and you’ve avoided trying to counter my arguments.
I have provided links to direct comments in Linus Torvalds email, links to respected analysts that show a marked decline in Linux use, and links to professional business publications indicating SCO has a very good likelihood of prevailing in the lawsuit.
I have many other sources of pertinent information, but see no need to provide them in response to your completely unsubstantiated arguments which do little other than deny deny deny and lob weak insults back in response.
IBM states that the contact only covers code given to them from SCO and doesn’t apply to code developed in house.
Have you seen the actual contract? It’s on SCO’s site, as an attachment to the complaint. It says all software implemented within AIX retains the same non-disclosure agreement.
Linus is correct that it doesn’t matter to the kernel project; worst case they’ll need to back out some of IBM’s code.
Terribly incorrect. If the questionable code is found to have illegally made it’s way into Linux, every copy of Linux that has any of the code in it is immediately illegal as well. NONE of those users could continue to legally use the code as it would instantly be illegal by the terms of the GPL itself.
SCO unix runs better on the Pavilion
hahaha
Obviously, you never tried sco unix..
Terribly incorrect. If the questionable code is found to have illegally made it’s way into Linux, every copy of Linux that has any of the code in it is immediately illegal as well. NONE of those users could continue to legally use the code as it would instantly be illegal by the terms of the GPL itself.
Could you please describe how can Linus or other Linux kernel programmer’s know that any code submitted/contributed was taken from proprietory sources since they didn’t have access to the proprietory code? To me it only depend on the honesty of the contributor and the propritery owner. If the contributor is honest enough he/she will never do such thing. I the SCO case, if SCO is honest enough, they should have notified the developers team about the illegal contribution of codes since they themselves also involves with Linux, which means they should have know the issue. Linux sources is open to everybody, so it is up to the proprietory owner to notified the developers if there are any illegal copying of their works. I am highly confident Linus and others will never allow anything like this to get into Linux.
The Software and Sublicensing Agreements and related agreements that SCO has with IBM includes clear provisions that deal with the protection of source code, derivative works and methods
I’m not good enough at understanding legal phrasing. Is the above sentence means anything that developed on a System V platform used by IBM is belong to SCO? If it is, everybody should should be careful and must not buy anything from SCO until fully understand they contend tof their licence agreement, or else we will end up DONATING the world to SCO!!!
Do you know anything about the law. The only remedy that SCO can get from IBM is damages. Linus is right. This court case can have no effect on linux, its developers, its copyright holders, nor its users. They are not parties to the action, and never will be, as they are not parties to the contract in question. Ever heard of something called privity of contract?
If IBM has breached its contract and disclosed a trade secret, then it will be required to pay damages. However it has no effect on linux. It does not render the code illegal.
If I tell you a secret, and then you tell someone else without telling them it was a secret in the first place, that third person can use that information as he/she sees fit. Once it’s out there, it’s no longer a secret, and I, as the person who told you the secret can do nothing about that. It’s out there. If I have no proprietary rights in information, other than the fact that I told you that information in confidence, then once it’s out, my only remedy is to sue you for damages. That’s it.
So give it up already.
Guess what – I was on-site today when a formerly Microsoft web site – MS NT 4.0 – was converted to a RedHat Linux 9.0 web site. And it wasn’t me doing the major part of the work – I was just giving some feedback.
I presume Microsoft would like to declare that a win for Win2k3?
>>Dream on, the worst is no where near and Linux already lost 8,000 websites to M$ Windows Server (www.netcraft.com). <<
And 14.000 desktops have just been lost by Microsoft toLinux in the city of munich …
Does anyone think that the IBM legal department thinks there is the slightest chance fo them losing the case to SCO.
Obviously not because if they did, IBM would have gone for an out of court settlement or a buy out. That is the way they work.
If IBM thought there was a chance of losing they would not be increasing there investment in Linux. More IBM programmers are being switched to work on Linux on PPC. This is just the the very area of their Linux work that bears most direcly on the SCO case the long term shift from AIX to Linux.
It would be fair to say that IBM does not have a Linux stategy but that the IBM strategy IS Linux.
It means in the long run IBM will have its revenge on MS.
It also explains why we have to put up with all these hysterical MS shills on this thread and why MS is paying SCO (via so-called license fees) to carry out this legal attack on IBM and an associated FUD attack on Linux.
Do you know anything about the law. The only remedy that SCO can get from IBM is damages. Linus is right. This court case can have no effect on linux, its developers, its copyright holders, nor its users. They are not parties to the action, and never will be, as they are not parties to the contract in question.
Wrong, check this article, or many others out there like it:
This tactic may seem strange to people who aren’t lawyers–how could 1,500 companies infringe property rights they did not know existed when they bought their software? (Because)U.S. copyright and patent laws do not include an absolute protection against “innocent infringement” of such rights, although damages may be reduced for acts performed before you have notice of the rights. Once on notice, however, “innocent” purchasers are liable for damages and subject to an injunction if they continue to use or sell copies of the software.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-1020296.html
http://news.com.com/2010-1071_3-1026988.html?tag=fd_nc_1
The next big Linux controversy
By Charles Cooper
July 18, 2003, 4:00 AM PT
It’s the next big Linux controversy: Who should be liable if customers wind up using software that was created from misappropriated intellectual property?
Linux resellers are not especially eager to tackle the question, but they know it lurks just over the horizon, thanks to the filing of the SCO-IBM lawsuit earlier this year. Ever since then, chief information officers have been reading that they could be vulnerable to future litigation for using open-source software.
None of this has escaped the attention of Microsoft and other like-minded suppliers of proprietary software. They are making sure customers know all about the protection plans they offer in the event that a company winds up in this sort of legal bind.
But when it comes to the indemnification question, the Linux crowd is ducking the issue. Not SuSE Linux, not Red Hat–not even IBM, the biggest Linux reseller of them all–says it plans to extend an indemnification umbrella to its customers.
“It’s one of those things we revisit, but at this juncture, we haven’t seen a need to make changes with regard to that,” said Mark Webbink, Red Hat’s general counsel.
“There’s a cost to that,” he continued. “I asked at a conference of lawyers last fall for a show of hands who’d be willing to pay more if they had indemnification. There was silence and then laughter. It was overwhelming. A lot of customers will act like (indemnification) is a big deal, but is it a big enough deal to pay?”
I suppose that’s the $64,000 question–though you can add a few more zeros if SCO prevails. For the record, this still remains in the realm of the hypothetical. All we’ve heard publicly is one side of the story, because SCO has chosen to try the case in the media while IBM has remained silent.
But the indemnification question touches on a larger issue: Most organizations don’t have the skills or resources to determine whether they are at intellectual property risk when they adopt a software application for their business. Essentially, they’re buying something on faith.
A regular review of the code is going to be part of any software company’s routine. No matter how difficult or expensive, it’s a necessary precondition for a development company to have the confidence to offer indemnification in their license. Otherwise, it’s an open invitation to financial disaster.
Needless to say, neither SuSE nor Red Hat has the financial wherewithal to offset the potential liability expenses that its customers incur. But even IBM isn’t ready to back Linux the same way that it backs home-grown applications such as DB2.
“Linux is open-source code and freely available from many sources,” an IBM executive confided. “With DB2, it’s our software and the terms and conditions of the contract (that) make clear the level of indemnification.”
The implicit message is that IBM will vouch for what it develops from scratch, but that it isn’t willing to make the same claim for what comes out of the open-source community. Can you fault Big Blue? The assumption it’s making is that the open-source community is too large and disorganized. If you didn’t start tracking a piece of code from the beginning, who knows where it’s been?
Larry Singer, the former CIO of the state of Georgia and now an executive at Sun Microsystems, says that information would have been enough to kill any pending deal. “My attorney general would have choked me if I exposed the state to that kind of legal threat,” he recalled.
A lot of other information technology managers are more willing to take that plunge. But as the IBM-SCO spat is headed for the courts, the more immediate uncertainty for CIOs is the kind of support that they can count on in a crunch. In an uncertain environment, with lawsuits now more than a passing possibility, indemnification becomes a lot more than just another selling point for Linux.
This has to be the longest amount of time that a thread has gone unmoderated…
And you expect us to pay for this???
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1192285,00.asp
Linux Rules the Day at CA World (continued)
Responding to a question about the SCO Group’s lawsuit against IBM and its claims that the Linux operating system is an unauthorized derivative of Unix, to which SCO owns the rights, Greenblatt said that while CA does not comment on pending lawsuits, he feels it is “just ambient noise.”
“You have to wonder how serious someone is about the intellectual property he is trying to enforce when he files a lawsuit and then stands up and says he’ll go away if you buy his company for $3 billion,” Greenblatt said in a reference to SCO’s CEO Darl McBride.
CA has not found that any of its customers are “overly concerned. We have not found anybody backing off because of SCO’s actions,” he said.
“There have been very few lawsuits in the United States that have upheld patents because the nature of software,” he said, adding that “in 1994 BSD was sued by AT&T and that matter was never resolved because if you look at code like that, it’s very easy to trace.”
CA itself is putting its money where its mouth is and is running 25 percent of its business on Linux, on Apache and Tomcat, from its Web sites to its Support Connect customer service operation, which was written on Linux.
Hey topsheep,
you seem confused about ‘what the industry thinks’ and what a handful of journalists and people like you think – a slight difference if i may point out. It is clear that you are a Microsoft disciple, and that … well that is your problem, but please don’t Troll around, getting personal and insulting people. Hey – and Micosoft still lost 14.000 desktops to Linux in Munich 😉
I have provided links to direct comments in Linus Torvalds email
And I’ve explained why they are irrelevant to the matter at hand. You have declined to adress my rebuttal – I view this as an admission of defeat.
links to respected analysts that show a marked decline in Linux use
A marked decline? So some Web sites go from Linux to MS – Linux is making great strides in the data center. Unless you can give me stats on the big picture, showing me movement to and from both OSes across the board, then it doesn’t prove anything.
Let’s put it this way: 8,000 web sites moved from Linux to Win2K3, while 14,000 desktops have moved from Windows to Linux in Munich. Following the same narrow view that you seek to present as representative of the situation at large, one can conclude that this is a net gain of 6,000 for Linux!
and links to professional business publications indicating SCO has a very good likelihood of prevailing in the lawsuit.¨
Even if they did – and many professional business analysts think they won’t – that would not mean much for Linux. As I’ve said before, SCO has knowingly distributed the offending code under the GPL. Therefore, there is no need to change anything in the kernel. I’m tired of me repeating this and you ignoring this.
I have many other sources of pertinent information
Which you have consistently (and willfully) misinterpreted.
but see no need to provide them in response to your completely unsubstantiated arguments
In other words, you won’t address my rebuttals because you know you can’t win. Like SCO, I guess…Notice how we haven’t heard from McBride since he went to Japan to talk with the CELF members? Does SCO really think it can take on IBM and Sony, Hitachi, Toshiba, Matsushita, etc.? (Not to mention Novell and Oracle.)
You been had by the MS spinsters, man. Unless you’re one yourself, that is…
Again, you forget the obvious. SCO has released its code under the GPL after saying that it was in Linux. They continue to provide it to their SCO Linux customer. The GPL is based on copyright law. SCO must conform to it. The code is here to stay. Linux will not be affected. Quoting clueless analysts won’t make your wishes come true!
Stop buying into the MS-sponsored FUD (ZDnet is very close to Redmond, moreso in the states than in the UK though. I know someone who works there, and believe me it’s anything but objective journalism!)
” I encourage everyone to buy a piece of commercial software to support this industry. Today I bought a 3rd copy of Windows XP! I might give it to my mother who just got a Lindows PC (and can’t do anything with it, as soon as you open the L menu it crashes)”
Don’t you mean you pirated your 3rd copy of Windows XP?
You have declined to adress my rebuttal – I view this as an admission of defeat.
Hardly. The well known and long established truth which I continue to point out is Tovalds REFUSES to investigate infringement of intellectual property, even when warned he is infringing. That link I gave above is from his own personal email, where he flat out admits this. This is the only exhibit SCO will need to prove Linux kernel development environment is a ripe location for misappropriation of code secrets, although there will certainly be more proof of this provided.
Unless you can give me stats on the big picture, showing me movement to and from both OSes across the board, then it doesn’t prove anything.
It proves the point I was making perfectly, that Linus Torvalds is misrepresenting the truth when he says Linux is not being affected at all. Which it clearly is, not only by reports from industry journalists but from cold hard stats like the ones Netcraft provides.
SCO has knowingly distributed the offending code under the GPL. Therefore, there is no need to change anything in the kernel.
SCO never put the code in Linux, IBM did, so they are not liable for it being there. This is funny if you think IBM is going to go into an IP theft case in US Federal Court and put Richard Stallman on the stand and have him testify “SCO no longer owns the code, because my license stole it from them (insert sinister laugh).” This is not even an issue that IBM has any plans on defending, as it is not their problem, it’s Linus Torvald’s and those running software without a warranty. If IBM has to pay you can bet they will want all other Linux vendors to have to pay as well, you’re dreaming if you fancy them as a white knight for the overall Linux community. Read the C-Net article from today I posted above, the IBM reps openly admit it.
You been had by the MS spinsters, man.
I’ve been had? How hilarious, look at your comments, which boil down to “since it wasn’t patents it doesn’t matter, Germany is willing to pay more for software made in Germany even if it is illegal, and gotta watch that GPL – sneaky bastard will steal your code right out from under you won’t it!” Talk about being a puppet to one’s cause, and having very little understanding of the actual issues…
Seriously, I can’t remember a damned thing posted here that is not trollbait or feeding trolls. I wish the moderators were working today…
Oh man, you must have some real bad experience with Linus(x)!
What did he do to you? Or is he just too unselfish for your worldview and should be punished? Whatever your problem is and whatever the SCO vs IBM outcome will be … Linux is here too stay! Deal with it!
At Websites, Windows Outpaces Linux
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1027188.html?tag=fd_top
Few Customers Switching from Windows
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/6324496.htm
Microsoft Profit Rises 26%
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/6330173.htm
Sorry if news like this is irritating to some, but it is the world in which we live. Linux will continue to have a small percentage of users, but since the fallacies of it’s development model have been exposed the days of it masquerading as “free” are over, which was without question it’s number one attraction to new users.
What did he do to you?
The Linux zombies are threatening to destroy the US commercial software market, straight up pure and simple. Guys like Stallman at the Free Software Foundation want all software to be free, and put all real businesses out of business. Torvalds is a communist at heart and this is his trojan horse device. It’s sad to see so many Americans fall for it, just because they can’t see past the few piddly dollars they apparently don’t have in their own billfold.
ha ha ha you must hate these communist!!!!!!
have fun with your new war agains communism!
i’m out of here!
It seems as though this site is frequented by angry 13 year old zit poppers. Being an Ol School zit popper….i guess nothing changes..
Nothing But Flames…i’m surprised this site has been up this long with all the neagative attitude’s round here.
Have you ever thought about taking the ability to “comment” off?
IMHO of course
dan
The well known and long established truth which I continue to point out is Tovalds REFUSES to investigate infringement of intellectual property, even when warned he is infringing.
You are totally misrepresenting Linus’ approach to intellectual property. You can keep lying about it, it won’t make it true.
That link I gave above is from his own personal email, where he flat out admits this.
He does not. Again you twist the meaning of his words and base all of your argumentation on this. Once again: the only thing he says in this article is that engineers should not bother themselves to research patents before working on a project, because that might stifle their creative process. He does NOT say that IP issues are not important, he does NOT say that he would ignore IP infringement issues if they were pointed out to him. On the contrary, Linus has continually upheld the notion that Linux kernel development is extremely open, and so makes it easier for anyone to find out if improper code is added, as well as who added it. Now, how do we know that improper code isn’t in SCO UnixWare (it seems they have improperly added Ext2 code in the Linux compatibility module…)
SCO pathetically tried to tarnish Linus’ reputation by alluding to this statement he made, but even them have abandoned this “angle.” It’s about time you yourself realized that this argument won’t last five minutes in court when IBM’s scores of IP lawyers get their hands on it.
SCO never put the code in Linux, IBM did, so they are not liable for it being there. This is funny if you think IBM is going to go into an IP theft case in US Federal Court and put Richard Stallman on the stand and have him testify “SCO no longer owns the code, because my license stole it from them (insert sinister laugh).”
Cut the theatrics bullcrap, that doesn’t add any credibility to your argument. Truth is, it doesn’t matter who allegedly put the offending code in Linux. If there is such code – and there’s no proof that there isn’t – then by now it’s GPLed, because SCO distributed it under the GPL after revealing the fact. In other words, even though there allegedly was offending code in the Kernel, SCO chose to distribute it anyway (and is still distributing it to its customers). It wasn’t the GPL that “stole” the license; it was SCO who knowingly distributed the code under the GPL. Ipso facto, the code is GPL’ed.
Oh, and the case isn’t about IP theft, despite McBride’s FUD. There have been no copyright or patent infringement claims made. The suit is about breach of contract and trade secrets. As any good IP lawyer will tell you, if there had been an IP case, then SCO would have made a patent (or, preferably, copyright) infrigement case, where they would have had much better chances at winning. The fact that they didn’t choose to make it an IP infringement suit is telling.
You don’t know much about IP laws, and it shows.
If IBM has to pay you can bet they will want all other Linux vendors
IBM is not a Linux vendor. They distribute Linuxes made by other vendors (Red Hat and SuSE, I believe). Get your facts straight if you want to be taken seriously (though I’m afraid in your case it’s much too late).
Germany is willing to pay more for software made in Germany even if it is illegal
The thing is, it is not illegal. And until you prove to me that it is, it won’t be. So far, SCO has made a lot of noise, but in fact they have shown very little evidence. The little they’ve shown has been judged to be inconclusive (except by Enderle, which is completely biased). Also, since SCO has knowingly and willfully released the alleged code under the GPL, it no longer represents a danger for Linux (even if it does exist, which has yet to be prove). On the other hand, SCO might be liable for GPLed software copied from Linux and into UnixWare.
Germany chose to spend a little more now so that they would spend less in the long run. That was a wise choice. Get over it.
…showing that Linux is in fact making progress.
Linux Helps Rebuilding Afghanistan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3067871.stm
Linux To Become A De Facto Standard
http://www.it-director.com/article.php?articleid=11054
Linux Goes to the Movies
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1186462,00.asp
Japan govt opts for Linux for payroll system
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=30575…
Linux took on Microsoft, and won big in Munich
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030714/5320229s.htm
South Africa, Nigeria move on Linux adoption
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/07/08/HNafrolinux_1.html
Celf gives Linux a boost
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/index.cfm?go=news.view&news=3382
So, some Web sites are moving over to Win2K3…but Microsoft itself is still using Linux to run its own Web servers!!!
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=MSFT-IDC,213.199.144.0…
Goodbye, troll. It was nice shooting down your arguments and watch them crash down in flames, but I’ve got actual work to do.
Neither of the articles you have quoted address the issue of remedies available in a case for breach of contract/disclosure of a trade secret. Both assume (wrongly) that copyright/patent is involved in the case against IBM. This is simply not the case, and the writers of those articles are writing under a misapprehension (as are you).
How can I say this more clearly:
THE SCO CASE IS NOT ABOUT AN INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT, OR PATENTS.
Therefore any argument you raise that relies on there having been an infringement of copyright/patents is invalid, and a waste of bandwidth. GIVE IT UP.
You may have a degree in EE (whatever that may be), but you appear to be suffering from basic comprehension problems.
If your argument refers to intellectual property, then it has no place in a debate about the SCO case.
That’s it. I’ve had enough, you are beyond help.
Join us, jooooin usssss! Mwahahaha!
Small Businesses Like Linux Prices
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,111616,00.asp
Europe picks Penguin to link government IT
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1142411
Optimized software built specifically for one architecture is _always_ going to run better than a more “generic” denominator. However, I think you’re overlooking a few points.
1. Machines these days are more than fast enough for basic things like SSH, Apache, samba, netatalk, dhcp serving, etceteras. I can easily turn a dusty old 7500 into a functional NAT box and shell server, and nobody’s going to notice the underlying hardware.
2. You can’t consider the GUI in this case, honestly. OS 8.5 (the lowest OS that’ll run on the original iMac, or what mine shipped with at any rate) is going to be a hell of a lot more responsive than X11 running on the same hardware. This is largely a difference in priority and management of the gui- with MacOS (1-9), gui responsiveness is priority one. My OS 9 machine never feels “slow” unless I have a massive memory hemmorage from something like IE or Mozilla. Conversely, Linux and MacOS X whup the crap out of it for many, many tasks the OS just does NOT handle well. The same can be said for Be. However, linux in general isn’t optimized for the end user desktop experience, compared to more mature desktop operating systems. (feel free to disagree- personally, I think using a network-oriented windowing system as the desktop is the biggest speed hit for the linux desktop, as well as the lack of a non-derivative window manager or DE- then there’s the I/O task manager, which Torvalds himself has said is undergoing a massive overhaul.)
3. It’s all a matter of getting the most you can out of the hardware you have, in my opinion. Linux runs beautifully on my test iMac at work. OS X slugs, putts, snorts, lives in swap and is slower than a snail on ketamine- applications crash randomly, and the system is completely unuseable for X. Of course, it only has 96 megs of RAM- which is just fine for MacOS and Linux.
“The problem is, Microsoft is helping the economy. Open source certainly is not. Go spend some money you cheapskate!”
I did. I bought QuickScore composition software from versions 3 to 7. Version 7 was terrible, it’s proprietary, and now it’s *ORPHANED*.
YOU PEOPLE HAVE NO ARGUMENT THAT MAKES SENSE.
If, instead, the commercial software industry had produced packages we can IMPROVE and FIX, I’d understand your mindset, but they don’t.
Who is the cheapskate? Someone who produces something that I can work with after he’s gone, or the commercial software producers, who leave me with junk when they get tired of it?
Oh, and BTW, why do I have to keep buying new copies of Windows? Why can’t I keep using the old one, like people kept using their typewriters until they wore out?
You are totally misrepresenting Linus’ approach to intellectual property. You can keep lying about it, it won’t make it true.
I’m not the one lying about it, you are. Here’s another interview with Torvalds where he flat out admits HE DOES NOT CHECK:
“Finding patent infringement has always been a responsibility of the patent holders. I didn’t put it there…It is a fact that I do not encourage engineers to look up patent information, for example. You ask any lawyer about it, and they will tell you that I’m right. It’s not the job of an engineer to try to find out about other peoples patents, since that just taints them, exactly something you do not want to happen. ”
http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-1023765.html
He does NOT say that IP issues are not important, he does NOT say that he would ignore IP infringement issues if they were pointed out to him.
He very well most certainly does ignore them, by choice, as was the entire context of his email exchange which was in response to another programmer warning him he was infringing on someone else’s intellectual property. When warned, his clear response was “I do not look up patents on principle…just hire a hitman to whack the stupid git”.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl541224082d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=…
Truth is, it doesn’t matter who allegedly put the offending code in Linux…
You obviously have no clue as to what you are talking about. SCO did not authorize to IBM to put their code in the Linux kernel which resulted in it being released to GPL, therefore by the terms of the GPL itself it is not free to use or copy. Read the GPL for yourself:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
any good IP lawyer will tell you, if there had been an IP case, then SCO would have made a patent (or, preferably, copyright) infrigement case, where they would have had much better chances at winning…
SCO does own some Unix patents, but consider it a stronger case to actually cite a single simple contract, where violations can be much easier to judge within that exact context.
IBM is not a Linux vendor…
You’re no more believable that Torvalds ever is! Try this statement direct from IBM’s own website:
“IBM is a recognized leader in the Linux community and the premier provider of end-to-end Linux solutions:
Linux-ready hardware, software and support. All in one place.”
http://www.ibm.com/linux
So far, SCO has made a lot of noise, but in fact they have shown very little evidence. The little they’ve shown has been judged to be inconclusive…
Depends on whether you get your information from anonymous posters on slashdot.com or professional analysts at long time respected trade journals like EE Times:
Analysts who saw the samples of the allegedly stolen code said that the evidence is damaging and that SCO Group has a formidable legal case. “If everything SCO showed me today is true, then the Linux community should be very concerned,” said Bill Claybrook, research director for Linux and open-source software at the Aberdeen Group (Boston).
Last week, Claybrook and another analyst who had been given an opportunity to see examples of the alleged theft said the blocks of Unix and Linux were strikingly similar. The two blocks of software, they said, contained as many as 80 lines of identical code, along with identical developers’ comments. “One could argue that developers could write exact or very similar code, but the developers’ comments in the code are basically your DNA, or fingerprints, for a particular piece of source code,” said Laura DiDio, a senior analyst with the Yankee Group (Boston), who viewed the evidence. “It’s very unlikely that code and comments could be identical by pure chance,” Claybrook said.
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20030609S0011
SCO might be liable for GPLed software copied from Linux and into UnixWare…
Further proof your ‘analysis’ is nothing more than unbridled fantasy. This would equate to Microsoft having gone into US Federal Court and said “Your Honor, we did not steal the Stacker code for disk compression, but rather Stacker actually stole it FROM US.” The fantasies you Linux zombies come up and then perpetuate with groupspeak on slashdot is hilarious!
Gee, I hope MS is paying you top dollars for all these posts. I mean, continually lying like this must make difficult for you to look at yourself in the mirror.
He very well most certainly does ignore them, by choice, as was the entire context of his email exchange which was in response to another programmer
I can’t believe how far you’re ready to go to stretch the truth. He said that it is not the engineer’s responsibility to look up patent information…that is a far cry from saying that IP issues are not important, or that he would not remove offending code if it was shown to him. You are being intellectually dishonest here by claiming so.
SCO did not authorize to IBM to put their code in the Linux kernel which resulted in it being released to GPL, therefore by the terms of the GPL itself it is not free to use or copy.
This would be true if, and only if, SCO had immediately stopped distributing their own brand of Linux once they had discovered the offending code. However, since they continued distribution afterwards, then they have knowingly and willfully released the code under the GPL. I’ve been repeating this quite a bit, and still you don’t seem to understand it. Let me state it one last time:
SCO DISTRIBUTED THE CODE UNDER THE GPL AFTER SAYING THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME OF THEIR OWN CODE IN IT.
That is, if there is any offending code, something of which there is still no proof.
Oh, and please reprinting articles that we’ve ALL READ ALREADY, like the DiDio and Claybrook pieces, as if it was proof of your arguments. Claybrook himself said that he could not conclude, from what he was shown, that SCO had a case.
Oh, and about that UnixWare “fantasy”:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1123176,00.asp
So, what proof do you have that SCO didn’t copy Linux code for the LKP (Linux Kernel Personality)?
Oh, I forget. You’re just a propaganda drone. Proof doesn’t matter, only propaganda.
I’ve wasted enough time on you. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see who is proven right by history. Now, excuse me, but I’ve got a Communist Party meeting to attend, where we’ll discuss on the best ways to destroy the commercial software industry (and make you our collective bitch).
In the meantime, keep trying to intimidate people with saying how muscular you are – it completely obliterates any pretenses at credibility in this matter, just like repeating the official SCO propaganda and giving links to articles we’ve all read.
Linux will prevail. Hasta la victoria siempre, comrade!
I see you reprinted almost an entire article by Charles Cooper in this thread. Did you get permission from the copyright holder first? I hope so, because I’ll be contacting them shortly to tell them of your unauthorized integral reprinting of the article. (Hint: you can’t “quote” an entire article, despite the fact that people do it on Slashdot.)
You can keep denying denying denying but what Torvalds said was crystal clear. When he was advised by other programmers they were infringing on other’s IP, he said “I don’t look up patents on principle” along with some other vague references to hiring a hit man etc, solidifying his position previously repeated countless times to the media.
You can also quit foaming at the mouth about SCO still releasing Linux on their website. If you go to their website and try to download Linux, it says clearly at the top of the page:
The sale of this SCO Linux product to new customers is currently suspended due to intellectual property (IP) issues associated with the Linux operating system. Accordingly, SCO has announced the suspension of its own Linux activities until the issues surrounding Linux IP and the attendant risks are better understood and properly resolved.
http://www.sco.com/products/server/
You can also give up the wet dream that SCO actually stole code from Linux. If you think you have proof, good enough to present in US Federal Court without getting yourself thrown in jail, feel free to start your own lawsuit. But before you do that, you might notice not even IBM has been willing to countersue SCO.
All in all your arguments are nothing more than your imagination running wild by all the filth you’ve picked up from your smelly comrades. Off to your commie meeting, have fun figuring out how you’ll keep trading Linux after the court rules.
When he was advised by other programmers they were infringing on other’s IP, he said “I don’t look up patents on principle”
Another false claim. Someone in the list said that some existing patents may cover what they were developing. The person suggested to the list that they should look into it. Linus replied (quite correctly so) that it is the patent holder’s responsibility to figure out if something is infringing or not, and that if invetors and engineers had to sift through the millions of patents held at the USPTO before doing anything, then they’d never get any work done. In other words, this isn’t an issue for engineers, but for lawyers.
Now, this is quite different from the fact that there might be infringing code in Linux – in fact, it is totally irrelevant. Copyrights and patents aren’t the same thing, even though you consciously choose to confuse the two.
So what Linux has said can in no matter be construed as meaning that he doesn’t care about copyrights or IP. No amount of spin on your part will change this – and trying to use the allusion to the “hit man”, which is clearly a joke between close collaborators, as proof of his shady character just proves how ridiculous your whole argument is. Now, I’ve heard that Steve Ballmer once said MS had to “destroy” the competition: this clearly shows their intent to cause bodily harm to their competitors, right? Idiot…
You can also quit foaming at the mouth about SCO still releasing Linux on their website.
Foaming? I’m not foaming, man, I’m laughing! You’ll notice I’ve said before that they are no longer distributing it publicly, however they did continue distributing it for a full month after disclosure. And, they are still distributing updates to existing customers (you’ll notice they say “new customers”), which doesn’t matter as it’s still distribution, and therefore is covered by the GPL. In other words: I’m right, you’re wrong.
But before you do that, you might notice not even IBM has been willing to countersue SCO.
Why would they countersue over Linux code that found its way into UnixWare’s LKP? They’re not the copyrights holder for that code!
All in all your arguments are nothing more than your imagination running wild by all the filth you’ve picked up from your smelly comrades.
Yes, and your mama as well. Goodbye, Troll!
Linus replied (quite correctly so) that it is the patent holder’s responsibility to figure out if something is infringing or not…
No, that is not their responsibility, not unless Torvalds is at least making ANY effort himself.
Your argument equates to “We leave our stolen cars in the front lawn for you cops to find. You should let us get away with it just for doing that.”
This is an old trick argument, that does nothing to investigate and repair the root problem, and one that any US Federal Judge won’t even be approached with.
You have little respect and appreciation for the US Court system, nor does Torvalds, but being a foreign national if he thinks he is going to pull a Bill Clinton or Bill Gates in US Federal Court he will be sadly mistaken.
Copyrights and patents aren’t the same thing, even though you consciously choose to confuse the two.
They are all versions of Intellectual Property (“IP”, of which you have none), and this trail is about unfair business practice as much if not more than anything else. You can’t see the forrest for the trees. SCO will claim “their code” was happened upon by accident when they were begining their Linux product. It sets them up extremely well as ‘the victim’ before the homegrown jury, whether it’s patented or copyright or trade secret won’t matter when they show duplicate TYPOS in the comment areas.
trying to use the allusion to the “hit man”, which is clearly a joke between close collaborators, as proof of his shady character just proves how ridiculous your whole argument is.
You don’t have to make that argument to me. You have to make it before a US Federal Judge, for him to decide. You linux boys are out of your league, and IBM is not going to be there with a net for you, but instead with bill for their services.
however they did continue distributing it for a full month after disclosure
Got proof? You haven’t shown any. And as I already said, SO WHAT. This will not be part of the trial, as IBM doesn’t gain anything by arguing this, in fact it looks incredibly cheesy how often you keep mentioning it.
Why would they countersue over Linux code that found its way into UnixWare’s LKP? They’re not the copyrights holder for that code!
So tell them to sue or quit mentioning it. It’s obviously nothing more than your pipe dream fantasy. Grow up and get a clue, all you do is try to point your fingers at others instead of admitting what is so obviously going on in the trial here.
SCO recently tripled their claimed damages, and asked for an expedited injunction. Hardly sounds like someone who doesn’t have a case. Check Business Week magazine linked above or other financial mags, looks like SCO is is a strong position, their stock has already gone up 1,000%.
You might as well get ready, once testimony in the trial starts, it might get ugly. And don’t say IBM will just buy them out, SCO has said repeatedly they don’t want that and the SEC isn’t about to let it happen in the middle of a lawsuit then. In the end, you will be able to buy your Linux after it’s over, too bad none of you have any money at all, though.
I’m sorry, did you say something? Oh, I see you’re still going on with your misrepresentations and wild allegations. Actually, I’ve stopped reading your posts. I’ve grown bored with repeating myself, seeing as nothing gets through your thick troll skull. I only read the last line, which apparently makes a reference to the amount of money I have.
Well, I work as a game designer, currently on a 3 million+ game for Xbox, PS2 and GameCube. Seeing as I’m working with a major license, I take IP issues very seriously. You haven’t really known anything about IP until you’ve worked with a major Hollywood-based Entertainment company…Needless to say, I make a pretty good living. Oh, btw, in case you didn’t know, Sony – who’s wiping MS’s ass in the console gaming industry – plans on using Linux for the PS3…do you still believe that SCO has a chance against all the forces that have aligned behind Linux?
So, as I said, obviously you’re fanatically hanging on to this notion that the SCO case has any merit. I rightly believe it has none – in the end, history will prove one of us wrong. Until then, all your huffing and puffing is nothing but hot air, and I’ve wasted enough time on you. So you can continue this little monologue of yours. In any case, the more you keep repeating the official SCO propaganda like the sheep you are, the less credibility you have.
So, please, keep wasting your time. If you want, I’ll even pretend to read what you have to say (though I won’t), that way you can keep living in your TechniSCOlor fantasy world until reality kicks in and SCO’s case is thrown out of court. (Or CELF+IBM buy out SCO and open-source Unix altogether…)
Oh, btw, in case you didn’t know, Sony – who’s wiping MS’s ass in the console gaming industry – plans on using Linux for the PS3…
LMAO. They already have it for Playstation 2!
do you still believe that SCO has a chance against all the forces that have aligned behind Linux?
Did I ever predict Linux to fail? No, I simply said you would have to pay for it. Which by the way, I think Sony already charges $299.00 US Dollars for their Linux for this version. If you think that’s a better deal than Windows XP, be my guest.
the more you keep repeating the official SCO propaganda like the sheep you are, the less credibility you have. So, please, keep wasting your time…
Actually, we’re just really starting to get into some of the deeper issues, sorry you are already out of BS and are withdrawing from the discussion. No surprise, really.
“LMAO. They already have it for Playstation 2!”
You misunderstood: they plan on having an embedded Linux OS driving the machine (and the parallel processing engine in it).
“Which by the way, I think Sony already charges $299.00 US Dollars for their Linux for this version.”
For which you get a HD, a keyboard, a mouse and a VGA adapter, IIRC.
“If you think that’s a better deal than Windows XP, be my guest.”
Gee, I wonder how much it would cost to make WinXP run on the PS2? It’s too bad you can’t work out your brain as much as your muscles, boy, perhaps you’d actually be able to make a valid argument instead of repeating all the SCO propaganda you can get your hands on!
(Oh, btw, I’ve notified Mr. Cooper of your unauthorized integral reprinting of his article…)
“sorry you are already out of BS”
Of course I am, you kept it all for yourself!
Bye troll!
I work as a game designer, currently on a 3 million+ game…with a major Hollywood-based Entertainment company…Needless to say, I make a pretty good living.
Funny you say that, because games is where we really need some lower costs for software, in fact probably the number one category.
Game software is very likely the greatest markup product in software, with each independent version for each individual platform costing a licensing fee of ~$50 dollars per.
Why can’t this price point be lowered, especially if I have multiple consoles? Why can’t you guys that work in Hollywood on these games, and who want open source operating systems, instead concentrate your energies on lowering the ridiculous costs of these games, and contributing some of your code back “to the community”!
I don’t mind giving Microsoft $100 bucks for Windows 98 which I still run on some systems, but I despise having to pay $50 bucks for every single sports game I want to play. Football, Baseball, Basketball, Racing Game, they all come out with a new version every year, Madden 2000. Madden 2001, Madden 2002, Madden 2003, do you see some software costs here, especially if I have a PS2, an XBOX and a Dreamcast?
But for the ultimate software costs, you really have to pull out the pocketbook if I want to actually SUBSCRIBE to some monthly fee just to play a game! That’s the only choice for online, can’t you guys build a MMOG for us that requires nothing more than TCP/IP?
So why can’t you Open Source advocates help lower these ridiculous game software costs for us instead? That’s really where we need some relief.
…you should really stick to things you know a little about.
Out of a 50$ game (let’s say a PS2 “license” game, sold at Wal-Mart), this is how the money is split up:
Sony (the manufacturer) gets about 8$
Wal-Mart gets about 14$
The license holder gets about 6$
The developer gets about 4$
The publisher gets about 16$
There are plenty of people involved, who take great financial risks, in order to produce a game. The thing is, with the increasing computing power of game consoles, it actually costs more to make a game now that it used to – more polygons means more detailed textures, models, etc. These take more people to make, and therefore bigger budgets.
BTW, I don’t work in Hollywood (that’s why we’re cheaper), and Open-source OSes are not really “wanted” by people in the game industry (we use Win2K at work).
As I said, learn a little bit more about the subjects you want to adress.
At least you didn’t call me a zombie this time!
You sound like the RIAA!
So do you run Kazaa? Are your games on there? (I wouldn’t know).
more polygons means more detailed textures, models, etc. These take more people to make, and therefore bigger budgets.
You think GAMES are more complicated than operating systems? Is that why you’re hanging out on OSNEWS.COM?
Sony (the manufacturer) gets about 8$
Wal-Mart gets about 14$
The license holder gets about 6$
The developer gets about 4$
The publisher gets about 16$
If you would just open source these games for us, (please talk Sony into a ‘free’ Linux version of Gran Turismo for us!), we wouldn’t have to pay ANY of the costs you list.
You could host the ISO’s for us out there and we could just download and burn. What a great contribution to “the community” it would be! I have a very long list I would be interested in.
But it falls flat. If you had bothered to read some of my other posts you would have known that I am not opposed to proprietary software, but to proprietary operating systems and proprietary file types. The problem with the latter is that they give an unfair advantage to the company that produces them in the event of a monopoly situation – what we currently have with Microsoft – because they have privileged access to the source and therefore can optimize their own apps to work much better. They can also sustain an artificial monopoly in Office suites because of proprietary document file types, locking out the competition.
I’ll put it in term a good capitalist-lover like you can understand: Linux, belonging to every one of its users, is the great equalizer. As a free and open OS, no one can gain an unfair advantage from direct access to the source. That doesn’t mean that all Linux software must be open-source: a variety of license can suit many needs. Now, if an open-source program is better than a closed-source one, that’s only incentive for the proprietary vendor to offer a plus-value (better program, service, etc.). Proprietary software can – and should, to a certain degree – coexist with free software.
Games are a good example. While there is room for open-source and hobbyist video games (after all, the biggest online game ever is a mod for Half-Life called Counter-Strike, and it was mostly made by a single guy in his spare time), most video games cost enormous sums of money to develop, and require very large teams. Also, and this is an important aspect, Video games have relatively short lives, which means companies must keep a steady production. Few people in this industry can afford to take four or five years to produce a game – to have that many people working together on a semi-artistic, semi-technical project, you need money.
The case is completely different for other types of software. Some work-in-progress projects, like OpenOffice, can mobilize hundreds of developers, but the fact is that you can already get a version of the software that works, so it’s a matter of coming up with add-ons, new functionalities and the like. In this case, open-source development works well. In games, you have to practically start over every time, except for the engine (which represents a smaller and smaller portion of the actual game): you can rarely reuse, models, animations, levels, logic inside levels (such as paths, triggered events and so on), textures, dialogue tracks, front-end graphics and the like.
This is why making open-source games is in fact quite harder than open-source productivity apps and utilities, and the reason why you don’t see many of them (though they exist). And, contrary to your baseless insults that Linux users are cheapskatesare, are quite ready to buy Linux games when they are available – though the small home desktop penetration does not yet make it a viable market (no matter, we have WineX in the meantime!).
Me, against proprietary software? It pays my bills! I use MS Office under Linux. But I AM against proprietary OSes and file types, for the reasons mentioned above.
What this tells us is that, despite your alarmist propaganda, no one’s ever forcing you to release your software as open source. It is the developer’s free choice to go proprietary or open, and there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact – again this should appeal to a true believer in the capitalist ideal – it is the market that ultimately decides if a software will survive as open or closed source.
You only want to oppose open source to proprietary, and refuse to understand that you can have commercial Linux apps (in fact, there are more and more of them) because, for some personal reasons I guess, you want MS to keep its unfair proprietary OS advantage – because everybody else but them and their groveling cohorts (that’s Dear Darl and you) has understood that Linux doesn’t signal the end of proprietary software, but rather of Microsoft’s dominance.
Tiens mon esti, mets ça dans ta pipe pis fume!
You sound like the RIAA!
And you sound like an idiot.
So do you run Kazaa? Are your games on there? (I wouldn’t know).
I am strongly opposed to the illegal trading of proprietary software, and in favor of the free distribution of free software. Like most Linux users, actually. There is arguably much more piracy among Windows users than Linux users, both on a proportional and relative scale.
You think GAMES are more complicated than operating systems? Is that why you’re hanging out on OSNEWS.COM?
I’ve explained in my other post why not only do I not believe this, but that in fact games are much less “cost-effective” (you have to start almost from scratch each time) and in some aspects much more expensive (such as voice acting – do you know I much it costs to hire professionnal actors at scale to do voices?) than commercial apps. We’re not necessarily talking about OSes, here, but about open and closed source software in general.
But as I’ve so eloquently stated in my other post, that’s besides the point: the market will decide. If the market decides that it will have an open-source OS instead of a closed one, then that’s what will happen. If the market decides that it will continue to pay 50$ for proprietary console games, that’s what will happen.
Just because you own MS stock, doesn’t give you the right to decide for others. If people want to make open-source apps, that’s their choice. But the OS and file types should remain open-source, so as to keep a level playing field.
Good night!
games are much less “cost-effective” (you have to start almost from scratch each time)
WHile this is the basic argument of both your posts, it only indicates you are much more interested in manipulating the truth about the profits of your profession than you are admitting the truth that games are the most overpriced software in the entire industy.
I just mentioned how there is Madden 2000, Madden 2001, … 2004 now, but you are still caught trying to repeatedly claim “you have to start from scratch each time”???
Your arguments get more self centered and absurd with each post. Again, the most overpriced software on the planet is GAMES (the have entire stores in every mall selling nothing but). If you really want to help lower overall nationwide “software” costs, help us break this video game software cartel by using the unfair competition that open source provides head up against them.
All you have to do is contribute your future game programming capability to our “community”, and you will get the uncomparable joy of knowing you provided something for everyone else! Let me know when you get your FTP site up, I have a real large distro that would be interested. THX.
more polygons means more detailed textures, models, etc. These take more people to make, and therefore bigger budgets.
And more ‘engine reuse’, which is little more than an excuse by game publishers to release the same damn game year-after-year – more visuals and eye candy for games that are about as much fun to play as whale-gutting in the artic.
Sometimes, I wish we could take this hardware away from those writing games these days and replace it all with C64s, so that people would actually remember how to write GAMES instead of technology demos.
I just mentioned how there is Madden 2000, Madden 2001, … 2004 now, but you are still caught trying to repeatedly claim “you have to start from scratch each time”???
While that may be somewhat true of sports game, it is not of other games. Even sequels require significant engine changes.
It’s funny looking at you trying to talk authoritatively about something you so obviously know little about. But that’s okay, because you are a lonely, lonely man who craves for the only kind of attention he can get: online forums. Pathetic.
Oh, by the way, moron, I’M NOT A PROGRAMMER! Why would you assume something like this?
release the same damn game year-after-year
Hey, if you played something else than sports game, you would understand how false this is. But then again, you’re hopeless.
One word: let the market decide. Oh, can’t do that anymore, can you? What are you, a communist?
Sometimes, I wish we could take this hardware away from those writing games
Well, that’s certainly the authoritarian mindset. So you’re a stalinist, then?
I know all you really want is to have the last word. You won’t quit until you do, because in your pathetic little life that’s all you’ve got, winning internet forum debates.
This is really sad. I’m out of here.
(Oh, and try to see how the gaming industry really works one day, mofo.)