Slashdot reports on Linus’ replies to SCO’s allegations that 65 header files were copied from UNIX.
Linus Blasts SCO’s Header Claims
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
All I’m saying is that I reserve judgement on the issue, as in I haven’t decided whether I believe Linus or SCO at this point.
Well, why don’t you actually take a look at the evidence? Look at what SCO has asserted, then at the evidence produced by Linus, and that should be enough to make up your mind.
The 10 files or so named by SCO (they say 65, but many are duplicates for various architectures) are common implementations of POSIX standards. As far as evidence goes, these files are totally unconvincing. Also, Linus’ explanation is corroborated by publicly available sources for the earliest versions of Linux.
Here is a very good summary of why SCO’s newest shenanigan is as likely to misfire as previous ones:
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/12/23/0918213&mode=neste…
I like this part:
Unfortunately for Darl McBride, it is the transparency of the open source process itself (a process he attacks regularly) that reveals the truth. Torvalds’ statements about the code in question can be proven true by simply looking at the code.
The source code doesn’t lie. It speaks in the unemotional language of computers, and it offers binary evidence in the same way that it does binary executables. The code says, “Yes: it is as Torvalds describes.” It also says, “No: it is not as McBride describes.”
I know so far you’ve avoided any discussion about the specifics of the files, even though they can easily be found on the Internet along with the POSIX specifications that were used to make some of them. Perhaps it’s time you acknowledged the arguments being put forth instead of repeating the same thing in every message…
some Linux users need to learn that they don’t gain any points in the court of public opinion by making immature and childish statements
This isn’t the court of public opinion. It’s an OS web sites where flame wars are not uncommon. Even then, anti-Linux and pro-SCO trolls are as common and virulent (if not more) than pro-Linux ones.
The “Linux users are their own worst enemy” argument doesn’t hold water, as the behavior you described is shared by all camps, effectively nullifying any advantage that SCO might somehow derive from it.
“The “Linux users are their own worst enemy” argument doesn’t hold water, as the behavior you described is shared by all camps, effectively nullifying any advantage that SCO might somehow derive from it.”
Not all camps. Some camps. Linux users are especially militant. Now I will grant that there are a lot of respectable people using Linux to do real work. Those people probably don’t show up on this forum (at least not very often).
But there are also a lot of “screw the establishment” people who use Linux soley for the purpose of rebelling against the establishment. Those are the militant ones that seem to be all too common in this forum, and other forums.
I’m sorry, but these kind of people give the impression of being nothing more than rebelious angry teenagers. Whether that’s really what they are or not, I don’t know. But they certainly come across that way.
No. I do not have it backwards. It was widely publicized that Netscape had to remove a lot of nasty comments about Microsoft before they could release the Mozilla source code.
Even if that is the case, that doesn’t change the fact that Microsoft employees did the same thing. I never said Open Source programmers didn’t do it, just that Microsoft is just as bad. At least Netscape had the courtesy to clean up the code when they released it under open source. It seems that they were doing immature things when they were proprietary, if what you say is true. I know they had to clean up sloppy code but you have yet to show any proof of unprofesional comments.
Once again, I don’t believe this unless you document it.
I guess you didn’t spend the time to actually read the link I posted. Besides that, I thought everyone knew about that incident, it was big news at the time. Here is another link just in case you actually read this one:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/341451
And even if it is true, I’d be willing to bet that said employee does not work for Microsoft anymore.
Does that make a difference? I’m sure if someone coded a backdoor into Linux they wouldn’t be allowed to submit code anymore but you would be all over it claiming ALL of Linux is unprofessional.
I suppose starting a lawsuit with one company and then publically bad mouthing a community is professional behavior? SCO has called the linux development community liars, has stated they think GPL is a vehicle for theft and is against the U.S. copyright laws. How are those remarks connected to their IBM case? IBM is accused of putting code into Linux. I do not see how SCO calling people liars is connected to the IBM case.
Do you call this public attack by SCO professional behavior? People weren’t publically attacking back until SCO decided to make their unprofessional comments. SCO is acting like a big bully antagonizing anyone and everyone who will listen to them.
SCO is attacking people who code for the pleasure of creating software. I am sure if you called Picaso a liar and said he stole his ideas that Picaso would have a few colored words to say. People get defensive when someone attacks what they believe in.
SCO had no right attacking Linus, the Linux development community, and the creators of the GPL. SCO’s battle is with IBM.
If you are wanting civilized manners on anonymous message boards then you may be expecting too much. It is interesting that you come onto this message board as anonymous and complain about civilized behavior. Why not give us a name and state your complaints in a civilized way?
A lot of bad behavior comes from people who post anonymously, do you want us to judge your behvior on what previous Anonymous posters have done?
I am a Linux user and consider myself a law abiding citizen. I use Open Source Software not because I am a rebel but because I like the freedom to pursue ideas and if I so wish to make my ideas public I should be able to do so. Calling me a rebel without knowing me is unprofessional behavior.
I think you should apply your criticisms to yourself.
“I am a Linux user and consider myself a law abiding citizen. I use Open Source Software not because I am a rebel but because I like the freedom to pursue ideas and if I so wish to make my ideas public I should be able to do so. Calling me a rebel without knowing me is unprofessional behavior. ”
I didn’t call you a rebel. Maybe you are one of those professional people using Linux for real work. But those kind of people are all to rare on forums like this. It’s far more common to see the people who would rather name call, and in one case (which was deleted), threaten acts of terroism against SCO.
“I suppose starting a lawsuit with one company and then publically bad mouthing a community is professional behavior? SCO has called the linux development community liars, has stated they think GPL is a vehicle for theft and is against the U.S. copyright laws.”
I think there is a difference between stating you think the GPL is a vehicle for thefth, and calling people “potheads, wanksers, losers, etc”. I haven’t seen SCO using any of those kinds of personal attacks.
The point is, you can state your opinion, and even make an attack, and still come across as sound mature. You can’t sound mature when you resort to childish name calling and such.
“SCO is attacking people who code for the pleasure of creating software.”
Incorrect. SCO is attacking a product that has done hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to their company by costing hundreds of millions of dollars in business. Whether that product was coded “by people doing it for the pleasure of creating software” is not relevant. All that is relevant, is that Linux has done hundreds of millions of dollars to SCO’s business.
I don’t see the Linux people going on diatribes about the attitude of Windows people. Maybe that’s because I don’t read the moderated-down comments, but there is a reason they are moderated-down. Anyway, all I see you doing is ignoring clear statements outlining why your arguments are wrong, and instead going off on tangents about the character of the Linux community. Either make a point, or else stop talking.
PS> As for those professionals using Linux for real work: I use Linux for real work and I visit here all the time. Its the only OS on my desktop, which I use for programming and day-to-day desktop tasks. We also use Linux at work on our development and embedded machines. It has saved us a lot of money on proprietory software licenses (embedded software can be obscenely expensive).
“Oh way to go… You topped it off by making yourself sound even more immature.
Wiseman say one not get out of hole by digging deeper. Suggest you stop digging.”
Sorry, but stop trying to pretend to be smart.
What wiseman? Quote me a real philosopher or get off your maturity high horse. I suppose labeling an entire OS as a toy based on your ignorance is mature. Your entire contention that Linux is based on poor quality code because there are some comedic comments in there is ludicrous at best. Linux programmers are real people and not robots. Their code and as well as their comments are a form of their expression. A lot of the code is quite good if you learn to read code and actually read it. So stop your pseudo-intellectual bull and realize that the SCO business model is nothing more than an extortion scheme.
“Their code and as well as their comments are a form of their expression. A lot of the code is quite good if you learn to read code and actually read it.”
I’ve probably been writing code longer than you have been alive .
I’m not denying tha there is good code in the Linux source. But there is also some very poorly written code in Linux.
Now to be fair, there is also some very poorly written code in Windows. Anyone who has ever programmed using the Win32 API can attest to that. Microsoft tried to wrap the API with MFC to make things simpler, and arguably only made things worse. MFC is a good example of “How NOT to write an object oriented library”.
“I suppose labeling an entire OS as a toy based on your ignorance is mature.”
“So stop your pseudo-intellectual bull and realize that the SCO business model is nothing more than an extortion scheme.”
So you say… But so IBM apparently did not think would fly as a legal strategy. If that were true, IBM would have filed counter-suit accusing SCO of extortion. And IBM has some damn smart lawyers. Far smarter than you I would bet.
“Their code and as well as their comments are a form of their expression.”
I consider computer programming to be a science. Not a form of artistic expression. I consider it to be a scientific endeavor undertaken for utilitarian purposes to solve problems that are impractical for human beings to solve without the help of a computer. I do not consider it an endeavor of artistic expression.
Not all camps. Some camps. Linux users are especially militant.
I’m not talking about militancy, but about rude behavior. Being militant isn’t necessarily a bad thing if it’s for a just cause. Would you say that the Salvation Army are unprofessional?
Linux advocates are vocal because their voice is often all they have against Microsoft’s multimillion dollar marketing machine. How many ads for Linux do you see in the main stream media, compared to Microsoft ads?
Now, if you want to talk about bad manners among posters to this site – since that is part of what you were complaining about – then you’ll find that the anti-Linux trolls are as bad as the anti-Windows ones.
Drawing a parallel with developer’s “unprofessional” attitutes because of comments in the source code seems quite a stretch. Have you looked at the comments in the Windows source code? Well, neither have I. It’s closed. So, we can’t really compare, can we?
I think there is a difference between stating you think the GPL is a vehicle for thefth, and calling people “potheads, wanksers, losers, etc”. I haven’t seen SCO using any of those kinds of personal attacks.
Spreading false information through the media, which is SCO has been doing regarding the GPL, is in my view much more reprenhensible from a moral point of view than using bad language in Internet forums.
In any case, you may not have seen SCO using these kinds of “personal attacks”, but I can tell you quite a few pro-SCO posters on this web site have not exhibiting that rude behavior you find so unprofessional.
A question: are you just politically correct and therefore quick to judge people by the way they post on web site forums, or are you just trolling?
I’ve probably been writing code longer than you have been alive .
Somehow I doubt this. If it was true, you’d acknowledge that the files identified by SCO as infringing are actually based on information that is in the public domain, standards, and as such are very likely to appear very similar even if they have been written by different people. Linux didn’t use the Unix files to write a file like errno.h – he used the publish POSIX specifications.
I you had been writing code for as much as you insinuate, you’d be aware of these facts. It’s not as if you didn’t have access to those files – they’re in Linux, so you can check them out for yourself.
I call bull.
So you say… But so IBM apparently did not think would fly as a legal strategy. If that were true, IBM would have filed counter-suit accusing SCO of extortion.
Well, IBM did file a counter-suit, but since extortion is a crime and it’s much easier to attack SCO in civil court (where the original suit is taking place), they relied on their patent portfolio and aimed for the obvious GPL issue. SCO has committed multiple counts of copyright infringement by distributing Linux without abiding by the terms of the the GPL, putting an additional incompatible licensing scheme on top of it.
I’m beginning to think you know as little about law than you do about programming. Are you sure you’re not related to TopSpeed? 😉
consider computer programming to be a science. Not a form of artistic expression.
Well, the original poster didn’t mention “artistic” expression, but expression. While based in mathematics and logic, programming is very much a creative act, certainly a mode of expression as well as a science. In fact, it is as much a craft as a science in the classic sense.
This is more indication, in my view, than the “I’ve programmed longer than you have lived” stuff is pretty much a bluff.
You’ve answered my earlier question: you’re trolling.
“Being militant isn’t necessarily a bad thing if it’s for a just cause.”
This is a semantics problem. Militant (as used in popular US media) tends to refer to someone who takes something to an extreme that is beyond normal. That’s what I am refering to.
“Spreading false information through the media, which is SCO has been doing regarding the GPL, is in my view much more reprenhensible from a moral point of view than using bad language in Internet forums.”
That’s not exactly false information. One can make a reasonable argument that the GPL has encouraged theft. But I’m not going to go there. Either way, opinions and downright lies are not the same thing.
“I’m beginning to think you know as little about law than you do about programming.”
Quite a bold accusation to make considering you have never seen any of my programming work. I suppose next you are going to ell me that SCO’s programmers don’t know anything about programming either, otherwise SCO would not be making the claim they are making?
“Well, the original poster didn’t mention “artistic” expression, but expression. While based in mathematics and logic, programming is very much a creative act, certainly a mode of expression as well as a science. In fact, it is as much a craft as a science in the classic sense.”
The original poster implied artistic expression. The comments and such were a form of expression for the source code authors about who they were.
My position is that if you want that kind of expression, you should write a book. It doesn’t have any place in source code comments.
“This is more indication, in my view, than the “I’ve programmed longer than you have lived” stuff is pretty much a bluff.”
Go ahead and think that. But I can almost gurantee you that you are wrong when it came to the poster in question. Based on his attitude, I would be willing to bet he isn’t even out of high school yet. In which case, yes, I can say that I have been programming longer than he has been alive.
“A question: are you just politically correct and therefore quick to judge people by the way they post on web site forums, or are you just trolling?”
Neither. I’m extremely goal oriented in my programming. I don’t program for the simple joy of programming. I program because I have a problem that I need to solve. (probably a lot of Linux programmers program for the simple joy of programming, and that might be where the differing viewpoints come in).
But in my very goal oriented mindset, and my “programming is means to an end”, mindset, I see no place for that kind of “colorful expression” in source code.
That’s not exactly false information. One can make a reasonable argument that the GPL has encouraged theft.
Really? How would that go?
But I’m not going to go there.
Riiight. Well, excuse me, but I don’t see how a license that is build on top of copyright law can encourage theft. Especially since copyright infringement isn’t theft in the first place.
Either way, opinions and downright lies are not the same thing.
SCO isn’t stating opinions, it’s making accusations. That’s quite different. An accusation is a statement of fact – it’s not saying “I think, in my humble opinion, that you are infringing my copyrights”, it’s saying “you are infringing, I can prove it, and if you keep on infringing I’ll sue you.” Do you see the difference?
Making a false accusation is tantamount to lying.
Oh, and SCO has indeed made false claims – like those “vanishing” MIT mathematicians, or claims that they would show proof of infringing code only to retract themselves later and say that it was just a “theoretical example.”
Go to groklaw.net. They have a SCO quote database – it’s amazing the amount of misrepresentation SCO indulges in. Again, that goes back to my point: using the media to spread misleading information is morally much more reprehensible than using bad language or losing one’s temper on an Internet forum.
Quite a bold accusation to make considering you have never seen any of my programming work.
Perhaps you’d like to give us a link to some of your code?
My position is that if you want that kind of expression, you should write a book. It doesn’t have any place in source code comments.
Well, frankly, the only thing I care about is that the code works well. The programmer can write anything he wants in comments, it doesn’t matter much as the end user will never see it. And in fact it does serve a purpose – it can act as personal signature and identify verbatim copying. Didn’t SCO claim that they had proof of copying based on comments? Of course, they never followed up on that claim, like everything they do, but they did use that at some point. So colorful comments could arguably help to identify verbatim copying…
I don’t program for the simple joy of programming. I program because I have a problem that I need to solve.
Well, some programmers enjoy solving problems through programming, and like put some colorful (but helpful) comments in their code. I work with programmers every day (though I am not one), and I know a couple of them that are like that. You know what? They’re also the best ones.
So, anyway, any links to actual code you’ve written?
No, I have a better idea: why don’t you post your own version of the errno.h file (since you don’t seem to have seen it) based on POSIX specifications, so we can compare how yours would look like next to Linux’s.
“SCO isn’t stating opinions, it’s making accusations. That’s quite different.”
So what? That’s what the legal system is for. They can make accusations all day. And they can sue to prove them.
“Perhaps you’d like to give us a link to some of your code?”
No thanks. I don’t want to lose my job. (I work in the real world, where I have to sign non-disclosure argreements. The kind that live on even if leave my current job.)
“And in fact it does serve a purpose – it can act as personal signature and identify verbatim copying.”
I don’t need to put colorful comments in my code for that. Regular documentation works just as well. The chances of someone writing a class or function and using the same variable names, function names, etc that I used, and documenting that class or function using the exact same words in the same order, is almost non-existant.
And I don’t know too many people who would be that stupid that they were just copy code verbatim. They would at least change the variable names and comments, and probably the function names so it wasn’t quite so obvious. (BTW, that very reason is why I don’t think copyright law is sufficient to protect software, and why I think we need software patents).
“I work with programmers every day (though I am not one), and I know a couple of them that are like that. You know what? They’re also the best ones.”
And what do you base that on? If you are not a programmer, than how can you judge whether their code is the best or not?
“No, I have a better idea: why don’t you post your own version of the errno.h file (since you don’t seem to have seen it) based on POSIX specifications, so we can compare how yours would look like next to Linux’s.”
I will openly admit I am not that familiar with POSIX specifications. And the reason is that almost all of the programming I do is in Windows, is not very POSIX compliant, so it’s not something I deal with very often. Only recently, has Windows started to support some POSIX standards. Most POSIX support in Windows is through third party libraries.
Example: I can download a p-threads implementation for Windows. But that implementation is only partial, and is not all that reliable. So I use native Win32 threads and am not that familiar with p-threads.
So ultiamtely, what this comes down to it seems, is that you are accusing me of bluffing when I say that I am a programmer, and you reason for that is that I am not familiar with the POSIX specifications. Well, that’s about the same as me saying that a UNIX programmer who can’t rattle off the the fields in a PAINTSTRUCT structure of the Win32 API is not a real programmer, and is bluffing.
“Go ahead and think that. But I can almost gurantee you that you are wrong when it came to the poster in question. Based on his attitude, I would be willing to bet he isn’t even out of high school yet. In which case, yes, I can say that I have been programming longer than he has been alive.”
You lose that bet. I’ve been programming for 18 years. And yes I have a BS degree.
“Only recently, has Windows started to support some POSIX standards.”
Windows has had rudimentary POSIX support since Windows NT blah, blah. I don’t remember the date or version, but a web search came up with a page listing 1993. (http://msdn.microsoft.com/archive/default.asp?url=/archive/en-us/dn…) It was the first one to pop out of google.
“I’m not denying tha there is good code in the Linux source. But there is also some very poorly written code in Linux.”
Show me the poor code and explain why it is poor.
“So you say… But so IBM apparently did not think would fly as a legal strategy. If that were true, IBM would have filed counter-suit accusing SCO of extortion. And IBM has some damn smart lawyers. Far smarter than you I would bet.”
And how do you know this? IBM has not played all their cards, yet. There’s still a possibility that once all the evidence is released that SCO will end up being sued in a criminal court. A civil case does not preclude a criminal case. And yes, I agree that IBM has tons of lawyers AND developers (hell, they could even have some idiot savant janitors and custodians for all I know…they’re big enough) that are much smarter than me. That’s irrelevent to this argument, though.
No thanks. I don’t want to lose my job. (I work in the real world, where I have to sign non-disclosure argreements. The kind that live on even if leave my current job.)
So, you’re saying you’ve never written code outside of work? 🙂
Okay, so you say you’re not familiar with POSIX and Unix specifications. Then perhaps it’d be a good idea to listen what those who do know them have to say about this latest case.
And what do you base that on? If you are not a programmer, than how can you judge whether their code is the best or not?
Because they write it for me, then I test it and testers test it, and I get to see the bug databases, and follow up on them. It’s pretty easy to tell once you work together on a software project for two years.
I’m not a programmer, but I was almost one (I know Basic, APL and Pascal, but no C or C++, unfortunately).
BTW, that very reason is why I don’t think copyright law is sufficient to protect software, and why I think we need software patents
Algorithms are derived from mathematical functions and processes and as such should not be patentable.
Yeah, you’re a proprietary guy all the way. No wonder you’re rooting for SCO. Well, sorry, but it ain’t gonna happen.
Okay, so I’ll second what anonymous (IP: —.rev.o1.com) has asked: show us some examples of poor code in Linux. That’ll be all the proof I need.
“You lose that bet. I’ve been programming for 18 years. And yes I have a BS degree.”
I don’t believe you. Because from your posts you demonstrate the maturity level of a teenager. Sorry, but I call them like I see them.
“Windows has had rudimentary POSIX support since Windows NT blah, blah. I don’t remember the date or version, but a web search came up with a page listing 1993.”
I guess if you want to say “Windows implements a POSIX compliant sizeof() operator, therefore it has rudimentary POSIX support.” But Windows still doesn’t have any kind of meaningful POSIX support if you want to do any kind of complex programming. A very good example, as I pointed out earlier, is that Windows does not support p-threads. So if you want to port a threaded application from Linux that uses p-threads, you’ve got a lot of work to do.
“Show me the poor code and explain why it is poor.”
Look at the process scheduler. If you have a BS as you claim, I’m sure you can figure it out. It’s not exactly a model of efficient code. And efficient code is rather important when you might be juggling thousands of processes at the same time, and trying to timeslice all of them, don’t you think? It’s improved in kernel 2.4. But it still could be a lot better.
“There’s still a possibility that once all the evidence is released that SCO will end up being sued in a criminal court.”
Now you really are living a pipe dream. There is no way SCO is going to end up in criminal court.
“Okay, so you say you’re not familiar with POSIX and Unix specifications. Then perhaps it’d be a good idea to listen what those who do know them have to say about this latest case.”
Perhaps it would be a good idea to wait until SCO has placed all their cards on the table before passing judgement. But in the eyes of Linux zealots, Linux can’t possibly do anything wrong, becase it is the epitimy of all that is good. So Linux users have already vilainized SCO.
Because they write it for me, then I test it and testers test it, and I get to see the bug databases, and follow up on them. It’s pretty easy to tell once you work together on a software project for two years.
There are a lot of things in C and C++ that are not obvious through normal testing. Take a look at the UNIX email program Pine. Looks like a funtional piece of software that is easy for people to use, and is a major improvement on elm and such for usability right? And it seems pretty stable right? It doesn’t crash. But what you don’t see there, is that security experts estimate that there may be as many as 7000 undisovered buffer overflows in Pine because it is so poorly programmed from a security perspective.
The point is that just because software works, and does not seem buggy on the surface, does not mean it is well written.
“Algorithms are derived from mathematical functions and processes and as such should not be patentable.”
Intelectual property rights. Can you model the human brain in mathematical language? These things are not trivial and obvious. And modeling the real world using math is often a very complex process that requires enormous amounts of research and money to figure out. If people can’t capitalize on their investment, then they aren’t going to spend the money for research and development because there is no return on their investment. The leeches just sit in the background and then steal the algorithm once the company has spend all of the money to develop it.
“Yeah, you’re a proprietary guy all the way. No wonder you’re rooting for SCO. Well, sorry, but it ain’t gonna happen.”
No, I’m not. I just think people should be able to protect their time and monetary investment in research. And only patents allow them to do that. Copyright law does’t. Change a few variable names, move a few functions around and change their names, and maybe remove a couple of inline functions and make them nested blocks instead, and guess what? You haven’t violated anyone’s copyright. But you have still stolen their intelectual property.
Alot of thee files have to deal with the different processor families, the BSD families did not have native versions for PPC or SPARC at the time of the BSD lawsuit so this code came from somewhere, and unfortunately at the time Motorola, IBM, SGI and SUN were less than forthcoming about the design of their respective processors. The questions are:
Did the authors have access to Unix Source code or were their employers UNIX licensees?
Only time and a courtroom will tell. I do agree with Linus on his one file, it was way to ugly. Where Linus is concerned, he did the port to the Alpha class processor family from Digital Research, how did he complete the port? Is it not conceiveable that Digital did give him tainted documentation and design classifications and methods when they donated the machines to Linus? and is it possible that Linus reimplemented those tainted methods back into the main source tree since Linus still uses those selfsame machines.
Others can sneer and laugh at SCO all they want but i do see SOME, mind you I said SOME validity in their claims here, and the validity i see comes from timing more than actual code, it does not change the fact that I still think SCO will lose but it does show some people in the linux development cycle are less trustworthy than some would care to admit.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to wait until SCO has placed all their cards on the table before passing judgement. But in the eyes of Linux zealots, Linux can’t possibly do anything wrong, becase it is the epitimy of all that is good. So Linux users have already vilainized SCO.
First, “Linux” cannot be said to do right or wrong, because it is an OS.
Second, SCO has made a number of allegations, then behaved as if they didn’t make those allegations, then as if they did, and so on. They have made outlandish claims. They have threatened end users. Their behavior since day one has been despicable – this is the reason SCO has been “villainized” by the OSS community, because it has acted in villainous ways.
Third, in the present case (please try to focus on the matter at hand), SCO has presented its evidence: the 65 files. That’s what they say in their letter. That’s what they warn people about. In this matter, they have effectively placed all of their cards on the table. They have gambled, and lost – in this particular matter.
Looks like a funtional piece of software that is easy for people to use, and is a major improvement on elm and such for usability right? And it seems pretty stable right? It doesn’t crash. But what you don’t see there, is that security experts estimate that there may be as many as 7000 undisovered buffer overflows in Pine because it is so poorly programmed from a security perspective.
That is irrelevent to my case: I design video games for game consoles (including Microsoft’s), and as such we cannot afford to have any major bugs in our products (since we can’t issue patches). Our testers are very, very thorough. So, yeah, I know when there are bugs, I read the databases, and I can tell which programmers are better.
I just think people should be able to protect their time and monetary investment in research. And only patents allow them to do that. Copyright law does’t.
I disagree. Copyright law is sufficient. The problem with patents is that you yourself could infringe on a patent without knowing it in the course of your work, to solve a problem, and then you’d be forced to find another way around that problem, just because some has already patented this algorithm. The patent system is broken and needs a drastic overhaul, but this ain’t happening any time soon.
If two people come to the same way of programming something without knowing about each other’s work, then there has been no wrongdoing, no infringement, and both should be allowed to keep their code.
Anyway, people have been reusing programming methods and concepts since the beginning of computer science – if software patents had been enforced then, chances are that DOS, Windows and all the things that you use today to make a living wouldn’t exist (CP/M or Unix owners could have taken a patent on “duplicating electronic documents using the comman ‘copy’ or ‘cp’ followed by the location of the original document in a directory structure, and optionally the target location in same directory structure.”
Hey, what about a patent on “using a pointing device to launch programs by clicking on iconic representations in a graphical user interface”?
Software patents is a can of worms that would slow down software development to a crawl. Copyright is more than enough protection.
Now, if you’re worried about IP, the real threat comes from closed-source development. Who can say if copyrighted code isn’t illegally included inside of a proprietary program? How can I know for sure that there’s no stolen code in Windows?
By making the source available, Free Software is the best protection against IP infringement, as anyone can audit the code. And, ironically, it is also a good defense against false allegations of infringement, such as is the present case with SCO’s letter (not the SCO/IBM trial, please focus on the subject at hand).
I don’t believe you. Because from your posts you demonstrate the maturity level of a teenager. Sorry, but I call them like I see them.
Well, from your posts you ignore all the arguments we have given you that show that SCO doesn’t have a case with regards to the latest letters it has sent to users. Ignoring the other person’s arguments is in itself quite immature.
Look at the process scheduler. […] It’s improved in kernel 2.4. But it still could be a lot better.
You mean in 2.6. Actually the scheduler has greatly improved, as these benchmarks show:
http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/
Now you really are living a pipe dream. There is no way SCO is going to end up in criminal court.
Why? Can you read the future? If it turns out that this is really a pump’n’dump scheme, SCO executives could very well end up in criminal court.
I’m not saying that this is what will happen – I don’t think it’ll get that far – but I wouldn’t say there’s “no way” this could happen.
SCO is infringing on a large number of copyrights, though, as it is distributing Linux without abiding by the terms of the license the copyright holders are distributing it under. This is not an opinion, but a logical deduction: if the GPL is valid, then SCO is infringing copyrights by putting an additional licensing fee on top of it and violating the GPL. If the GPL isn’t valid, then SCO has no right to distribute Linux at all, since copyright law forbids the redistibution of copyrighted material without the owner’s explicit permission (which, in this case, is the GPL).
So either way SCO is an IP violator. As someone who seems to value property rights, perhaps you should redirect you criticism to the obvious copyright infringer here, instead of letting your anti-Linux bias influence to hypothesize about whether or not Linus may have copied UNIX files (even though the available evidence clearly shows that he didn’t).
Others can sneer and laugh at SCO all they want but i do see SOME, mind you I said SOME validity in their claims here, and the validity i see comes from timing more than actual code, it does not change the fact that I still think SCO will lose but it does show some people in the linux development cycle are less trustworthy than some would care to admit.
Well, of course if SCO is bright they will base their claims on elements that seem to prove them right at first. That’s why, in the SCO case, they have to give all of their evidence during discovery, so that IBM’s lawyers can look at it and try to find holes in it.
It’s an old rethoric trick to start an argument on something true, that everyone can agree on, and then building on it using subtly misleading assumptions in order to come up with a totally erroneous conclusion. I believe this is what SCO is doing here.
As to whether the open-source development method is trustworthy or not compared to the proprietary model, well, the only thing that can be said is that at least it’s transparent, so IP infringement can be identified. With closed-source, such an audit is practically impossible. I see this as a definite advantage for the open-source model as far as IP protection is concerned.
“They have made outlandish claims. They have threatened end users. Their behavior since day one has been despicable”
And if you read my previous posts, you would see that I already said way back in the begining of this thread, that I thought threatening end users was over the top, and that SCO had no legal basis to threaten end users at this point.
“Anyway, people have been reusing programming methods and concepts since the beginning of computer science”
Which you can do without violating someone else’s patent provided that either:
A: That person has chosen to make that code available to you.
B: You have purchased a license to use it.
“Copyright is more than enough protection.”
No it isn’t. Because as I said, change some variable names, move some functions around and change their names, and remove a few inline functions and nest them instead, and guess what? The other person can’t prove copyright violation anymore, even though the software is doing the exact same thing in the exact same way from a binary point of view.
“Now, if you’re worried about IP, the real threat comes from closed-source development. ”
No. Because under your system of “copyright law is enough”, there is no way for me to legally protect my IP. The only way I have to protect my IP is by keeping my source locked in a safe so that no one can steal my source, change variable names, move functions, and then claim they aren’t violating my copyright and they came up with the same idea on their own.
“By making the source available, Free Software is the best protection against IP infringement, as anyone can audit the code.”
No, it isn’t. Because copyright law does not offer any protection against IP infringment.
“Why? Can you read the future? If it turns out that this is really a pump’n’dump scheme, SCO executives could very well end up in criminal court.”
SCO’s lawyers aren’t stupid. They aren’t going to let SCO executives do something that can make them criminally liable.
“SCO is infringing on a large number of copyrights, though, as it is distributing Linux without abiding by the terms of the license the copyright holders are distributing it under.”
Then let the FSF sue SCO. That’s what the legal system exists for.
“This is not an opinion, but a logical deduction: if the GPL is valid, then SCO is infringing copyrights by putting an additional licensing fee on top of it and violating the GPL.”
I’m not an expert on the GPL, but I think what SCO is charging the additional licensing fee for is the value added features. And I don’t think the GPL says they can’t do that. And Caldera was doing SCO aquired them. Caldera’s license only allowed you install the software on one computer. But that was in reference the value added features that Caldera automatically installed along with Linux. Once again, I don’t that violates the GPL given that the value added features do not link against GPL code, or are not built into Linux itself.
“If the GPL isn’t valid, then SCO has no right to distribute Linux at all, since copyright law forbids the redistibution of copyrighted material without the owner’s explicit permission (which, in this case, is the GPL).”
As I said before, it is unlikely that any court would rule the GPL to be invalid across the board. Only that certain clauses are invalid, or that certain clauses are invalid under certain circumstances. So you can’t make a statement like this.
By the way… I’m curious…
To you release the source code for the console games you design to the general public? Do you GPL the source code?
I didn’t think so…
“Look at the process scheduler. If you have a BS as you claim, I’m sure you can figure it out. It’s not exactly a model of efficient code. And efficient code is rather important when you might be juggling thousands of processes at the same time, and trying to timeslice all of them, don’t you think? It’s improved in kernel 2.4. But it still could be a lot better.”
Yup. I thought you would cop out. You’re full of that stuff that comes out the bull’s other end. I doubt you even understand the Linux kernel code since you can’t even pick out ONE SINGLE REAL snippet to analyze and explain.
We’re done.
“Yup. I thought you would cop out. You’re full of that stuff that comes out the bull’s other end.”
So much for your maturity again. You keep proving to me that it is lower and lower. BS in CompSci. Yeah right. You sound more like a high school dropout.
And no, I am not going to post the entire code for the Linux process scheduler here and then point out why code is badly designed and how it could have been written better. I have better things to do with my time.
“Hey, what about a patent on “using a pointing device to launch programs by clicking on iconic representations in a graphical user interface”?
Oh… And this is typical of anti-patent supporters. They will pull out an extreme example of patent abuse and then try to make a general statement that the entire patent system is bad because of that.
I’m also curious… How many patents does the video game company you work for hold? 10? 20? 100? I bet quite a few.
And if you read my previous posts, you would see that I already said way back in the begining of this thread, that I thought threatening end users was over the top
Good. Then we agree that there are valid reasons for treating SCO like the villains they are.
No it isn’t.
Yes it is.
Because as I said, change some variable names, move some functions around and change their names, and remove a few inline functions and nest them instead, and guess what? The other person can’t prove copyright violation anymore
Obviously you’ve never followed a copyright infringement case. Changing names of variables, moving functions around and changing their names is not enough to escape IP infringement. If experts agree in court that copying did take place, then there is a case for IP infringement.
You don’t need to have verbatim copying to be guilty of copyright infringement. In fact, most IP infringement suits involve some kind of cover-up on the part of the infringer.
Because under your system of “copyright law is enough”, there is no way for me to legally protect my IP.
Yes there is. Copyright protection is more sophisticated that you seem to think. But how do you protect your IP if someone has stolen your code and put it into a proprietary program, to which you have no source access? How do you protect your IP then? Well, you can’t. So open-source software does make IP protection easier.
Because copyright law does not offer any protection against IP infringment.
Please. Let’s be serious for a moment. This is a totally ridiculous statement.
Then let the FSF sue SCO. That’s what the legal system exists for.
It’s not up to the FSF to enforce copyright violations, but to the copyright holders. The FSF owns the copyrights to some GPLed code, but the great majority of Linux’s copyrights still belong to the original contributors.
Basically, SCO is setting itself up for a massive class-action lawsuit by the hundreds of Linux contributors.
I’m not an expert on the GPL,
Clearly not.
but I think what SCO is charging the additional licensing fee for is the value added features.
Nope. They require an additional licensing fee for their Linux distribution. 699$ per processor, remember?
And I don’t think the GPL says they can’t do that.
Yes it does. It specifically forbids this kind of licensing on top of it. That doesn’t mean you can’t charge for sold copies (I mean, RedHat and all the others do sell boxed sets of Linux), but that’s quite different from licensing fees, which are forbidden by the GPL, as is any restrictions on redistribution.
SCO is clearly violating the GPL. Before trying to argue otherwise, please read and understand the license.
As I said before, it is unlikely that any court would rule the GPL to be invalid across the board. Only that certain clauses are invalid, or that certain clauses are invalid under certain circumstances.
Such as? Don’t make vague allegations like these if you’re not ready to back them up with facts.
Now, if a clause was invalid under a certain circumstance, that would still mean that redistribution would be forbidden. SCO would still be infringing.
In any case, this is besides the point. SCO is claiming that the GPL is invalid, not that parts of it are or whatever. They say that the GPL is trumped by copyright law, which is absurd as it is built on copyright law.
SCO has embarked on massive copyright violation. You say that copyright law can’t protect against IP infringement? Well, I guess this is a good opportunity to verify this dubious statement…
To you release the source code for the console games you design to the general public? Do you GPL the source code?
I didn’t think so…
Nice try, but I’ve already discussed this on this site before.
First, I am not against proprietary software per se. I do believe that operating systems should be open, and that it is bad to have a proprietary OS as a monopoly. I also believe that SCO’s case is meritless, that it is an opportunistic money grab that will end in a dismal failure. But I do think that there is a place for proprietary software, for now at least. I do use proprietary software on my Linux system, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Our management, like 99% of the game industry, has adopted a closed-source policy towards the game code (though some companies, like id, have open-sourced older game engines).
Second, most of the work we do when we develop games is not so much in programming and integration, but rather on the artistic side: game design, art direction, modeling, animation, textures, sound design, etc. This is of course covered by copyright law. Even if we used an open-source game engine, we could still prevent the artistic material from being “open sourced” – all we’d have to do is provide the source code for the engine and the various levels.
Third, games are a special case of software: they require a large production effort but are very short-lived. Most games have a gameplay life of about 10 to 20 hours. So a game is like a movie or a book: once you’re done with it, you rarely use it again. Productivity software is like a tool, which are used to make other goods. It makes sense to use open-source tools (and, by the way, we do use open-source tools) to produce other goods.
So there is no contradiction at all with me being an open-source advocate and working for a video game company that produces closed-source software, because video games are fundamentally different from productivity software.
For the record, two-thirds of the company uses OpenOffice instead of MS Office, and I’m pretty sure we use gcc.
How many patents does the video game company you work for hold? 10? 20? 100? I bet quite a few.
Actually, we hold no patents at all. What would we need them for? Copyright protection is all we need.
An example: right now, Sega is suing the makers of The Simpsons Road Rage because it is too similar to Crazy Taxi (it’s exactly the same gameplay). Clearly this isn’t a case of verbatim copying, but still Sega has a good chance of prevailing (well, they’ll probably work out a settlement).
Oh… And this is typical of anti-patent supporters. They will pull out an extreme example of patent abuse and then try to make a general statement that the entire patent system is bad because of that.
There are tons of such examples. Remember the one-click shopping patent? Or what about the Hyperlink patent? When there’s so much abuse, it’s usually a pretty good indication that the system is indeed broken. Who gets to decide what is a reasonable patent, and what is an overreaching one?
Now, just answer this question: how do you know that the code you’ve written doesn’t infringe on a someone’s patent? Have you read all of the thousands of software patents at the USPTO? Perhaps you’re an IP infringer without knowing it.
Software patents serve only one purpose, as demonstrated in IBM’s counter-suit: they are weapons used by corporations that sue each other. I don’t agree with software patents, even though in this particular instance they are being used against SCO. Personally, I’m much more in favor of using the GPL angle to launch a massive class-action suit against SCO by the Linux copyright holders. Now that would be something…
And no, I am not going to post the entire code for the Linux process scheduler […]. I have better things to do with my time.
Well then I guess it’s time to move on. The thread’s about to go under the radar anyway, and you have provided no information that would contradict Linus’ artful demolition of SCO’s claim.
Personally, I’d rather not argue about this any more, not today. Merry Christmas to all, and we’ll argue some more in 2004!
“Obviously you’ve never followed a copyright infringement case. Changing names of variables, moving functions around and changing their names is not enough to escape IP infringement. If experts agree in court that copying did take place, then there is a case for IP infringement.”
Except it is not for the experts to decide. It is for the legal system to decide. And most of the people making those decisions would not be programmers.
Simple example:
inline my_function void()
{
if (!= thisThing)
{ do some stuff }
}
int main()
{
while (thingA)
{
my_function();
return 0;
}
Compare that to:
int main()
{
while (foobar)
{
if (!= myfooL)
{ do some stuff }
}
return 0;
}
Would you say that one infringes on the other? Well, from a binary perspective, these two pieces of code could to the exact same thing. It’s justy that one is written in a different way than the other.
This is an overly simplified example, but it demonstrates that one can steal IP without violating copyright.
“It’s not up to the FSF to enforce copyright violations, but to the copyright holders.”
True. But FSF will probably get involved since the individual copyright holders certainly cannot afford a lawsuit with SCO.
“Third, games are a special case of software: they require a large production effort but are very short-lived.”
Well, in my case. The software requires an extremely long R&D period to produce a very specialized piece of software. It’s not like I am writing word processors here or other commodity software.
“There are tons of such examples. Remember the one-click shopping patent? Or what about the Hyperlink patent? When there’s so much abuse, it’s usually a pretty good indication that the system is indeed broken. ”
I remember them. But once again, just because the system has problems does not mean it should be abandoned. The problems need to be fixed, yes. But the system should not be abandoned.
And yes, the number of examples of this are relatively small when you consider there are hundreds of millions patents in the patent database.
“Software patents serve only one purpose, as demonstrated in IBM’s counter-suit: they are weapons used by corporations that sue each other.”
Or to allow the little guy to sue the big corporation that tries to stomp on him. Lets not forget about a relatively unknown small company called Stak Electronics that successfully sued Microsoft over the disk compression technology used in DOS. Why did Stak win? Not because of copyright violations. But because of patent violations. It seems Stak had a patent on the technology that Microsoft used in DoubleSpace for DOS. Without patents Stak Electronics would have probably lost.
“Personally, I’d rather not argue about this any more, not today. Merry Christmas to all, and we’ll argue some more in 2004!”
I don’t do christmas, or any other holiday for that matter.
Oops. Let me fix my coding errors:
inline void my_function()
{
if (! thisThing)
{ do some stuff }
}
int main()
{
while (thingA)
{
my_function();
return 0;
}
Compare that to:
int main()
{
while (foobar)
{
if (! myfooL)
{ do some stuff }
}
return 0;
}
I wish I could format it better, but OSNews doesn’t allow use of the pre tag.
First you say:
I will openly admit I am not that familiar with POSIX specifications.
Then you say:
I’m not denying that there is good code in the Linux source. But there is also some very poorly written code in Linux
I call your bluff. How can you make that statement if you are not familiar with POSIX? I’d like to see you try to explain how an implementation of the POSIX standards in Linux is subpar when you don’t even know what the implementation is supposed to be doing.
On top of that, if the code is so crappy AND it was stolen from UNIX, as you suggest, then Linus didn’t a very good job stealing code.
Look at the process scheduler. If you have a BS as you claim, I’m sure you can figure it out. It’s not exactly a model of efficient code. And efficient code is rather important when you might be juggling thousands of processes at the same time, and trying to timeslice all of them, don’t you think? It’s improved in kernel 2.4. But it still could be a lot better.
Well 2.6 is the current stable release and it has a better scheduler than BSD.
“I call your bluff. How can you make that statement if you are not familiar with POSIX?”
And that has what to do with the price of eggs? I don’t have to be familiar with the POSIX standard to know inefficient code when I see it. All I have to do is know C and know how to code efficiently in C. Do you know anything at all about programming? The POSIX standard has nothing at all to do with inefficient code in the process scheduler.
“On top of that, if the code is so crappy AND it was stolen from UNIX, as you suggest, then Linus didn’t a very good job stealing code. ”
Um… We are talking about header files here… Not kernel process scheduling code.
“Well 2.6 is the current stable release and it has a better scheduler than BSD.”
I disagree. I still find the BSD scheduler to be more reliable and more robust under high loads.
This is an overly simplified example, but it demonstrates that one can steal IP without violating copyright.
No, all it demonstrates is that one can write two pieces of code that do the same thing, but in a different way. It doesn’t demonstrate anything else.
True. But FSF will probably get involved since the individual copyright holders certainly cannot afford a lawsuit with SCO.
Not necessarily. A class-action suit would do it, and since the copyright infringement is blatant, I’ll bet you a lot of lawyers would be ready to do it on contingency.
I disagree. I still find the BSD scheduler to be more reliable and more robust under high loads.
This seems to be a subjective analysis, because scheduler benchmarks between Kernel 2.6 and the BSDs give a clear advantage to Kernel 2.6. Check the link I’ve given earlier.
I don’t do christmas, or any other holiday for that matter.
Jeez, you find colorful comments in code unprofessional, you don’t celebrate holidays…sorry to say this, but you sound like one hell of a Grinch. Perhaps you should loosen up a little.
Personally, I’m leaving it at that because hanging out on Internet forums on Christmas Eve is a little, well, sad.
“No, all it demonstrates is that one can write two pieces of code that do the same thing, but in a different way. It doesn’t demonstrate anything else.”
Which basically means that copyright law cannot protect IP, because you can do the exact same thing in different ways. In otherwords, you can take someone’s code, rewrite it using slightly different methods, and not violate their copyright.
“This seems to be a subjective analysis, because scheduler benchmarks between Kernel 2.6 and the BSDs give a clear advantage to Kernel 2.6. Check the link I’ve given earlier.”
That advantage disappears when FreeBSD is propery tuned though. Do you remember the SysAdmin article where they also gave Linux a clear advantage? They got jumped on big time by the FreeBSD people.
Linux does have an edge in Workstation environments, or low end servers. But on high end servers, I still think BSD’s scheduler is more robust.
“Jeez, you find colorful comments in code unprofessional, you don’t celebrate holidays…sorry to say this, but you sound like one hell of a Grinch. Perhaps you should loosen up a little.”
I’d rather no loosen up. Basically, I have better things to do with my time than celebrate holidays. Like go into the office and work. I will get a lot done tomorrow with no distractions in the office, etc.
Which basically means that copyright law cannot protect IP,
Aaargh! That’s just ridiculous! Stop equating “software” with “IP”! Software is part of IP, but IP isn’t limited to software – in other words, your sentence is a classical sophism. For a code, I’d expect you to understand basic principles of logic!
because you can do the exact same thing in different ways. In otherwords, you can take someone’s code, rewrite it using slightly different methods, and not violate their copyright.
Indeed. If you rewrite it using different methods, it may or may not be considered a copy. If it’s different enough, then it won’t be a copy, if it’s not different enough, then it is acopy. That’s how the system works, and frankly, you seem to be the only one complaining about it.
There is a difference between learning by example and copying. Now, you would have us believe that all the code you’ve ever written was 100% original, that it never resembled other code, that you’ve never adapted methods you’ve seen somewhere else, and so on? BS.
If we were to take your approach, I can bet a good deal of the code you’ve written could be construed as infringing on other people’s IP. Even the sample you’ve given seems similar – hey, maybe I’ll do a search on the Internet and see if you’ve infringed!
This is what happens when greed takes over common sense, when “protecting IP at all costs” becomes more important than using computers to make this world a better place.
Basically, I have better things to do with my time than celebrate holidays.
Well, one day you’ll be old and disabled and then you’ll say to yourself that perhaps you should have taken time to enjoy life once in a while instead of being obsessed with work.
No wonder you’re such a grinch. “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” It’s from a movie, just so you know.
I really, really feel sorry for you.
That’s it, you can keep on the conversation by yourself, since you don’t have time for holidays but obviously have time to argue on Internet Forums. I won’t be coming back. Enjoy the shallow, meaningless victory of having the last word.
Gotta go, got presents to wrap – you know, things to “give” to “loved ones”?
“Now, you would have us believe that all the code you’ve ever written was 100% original, that it never resembled other code, that you’ve never adapted methods you’ve seen somewhere else, and so on? BS.”
This is where the “non-trivial and non-obvious” part of patent law comes in.
But enough on that… I’d rather address the second part of your message…
“Well, one day you’ll be old and disabled and then you’ll say to yourself that perhaps you should have taken time to enjoy life once in a while instead of being obsessed with work.”
No. One day when I am old and disabled, I will say to myself “I made a really important difference because I worked so hard, and the world is a better place because of it.” I enjoy my work. Therefore, I do enjoy life.
But if I was not this obsessed with work, and if I did take time to “enjoy life more”, then when I am old and disabled, I could be saying “If only I had worked harder, I would have been able to make a bigger difference, but instead I was too woried about my own pleasures in life.”
“I really, really feel sorry for you.”
Well, don’t. Because I am happy, and I do enjoy life. And I enjoy my work, and there is nothing else I would rather be doing.
“Gotta go, got presents to wrap – you know, things to “give” to “loved ones”?”
The kind of work I do is all about giving. It’s all about improving life for others. So no, I am not a Grinch. Not in the least. I work as hard as I do because the work I do has the potential to save lives. And that is where my happiness comes from. And that is what I will say when I am old and disabled. “By working so hard, I made a real difference that was important to people.”
That is why earlier in the thread, I stated that I took a completely ulitilitarian view that computer programming is an activity engaged in to solve problems that cannot be solved reasonably by humans without the help of a computer.
All this talk about how you love to work so much, that you won’t take time off, and yet you spend all that time posting on website forums? Excuse me if I’m just a bit skeptical.
Now, you say that your work saves lives, and that this is what makes it worthwhile. If that’s the case, why do you care about software patents? I mean, if your work can save lives, then truly it should be available to as many people as possible, no?
If your software can save lives, then wouldn’t it make sense, from a moral point of view, to release it as open-source? Otherwise, won’t it just serve to save the lives of those who can afford to pay? That doesn’t seem very noble to me.
You may have a totally utilitarian view of programming, but that is extremely narrow-minded. Not everything we do with computers is crucial or essential. People also like to surf the web, play games, send e-mails, do onine dating, and so on. Computing is part of our daily lives.
Finally, you seem to say that having leisurly moments is a waste of time. But scientists have shown that people are more productive when they have free time, vacations, and such. Humans are not machines, like robots, who produce more when they are constantly working. Quite the contrary: taking breaks, letting the pressure drop, entertaining the mind with futile activities for reasonable amounts of time greatly increases efficiency.
In other words, loosen up, and you’ll do even better work. Keep being such a workaholic and you’ll burn out before your time.
And stop saying that you don’t waste your time when you just keep on arguing on Internet forums in a futile attempt to have the last word – even though other posters have given compelling evidence that disproves your position. There is no greater wast of time than this.
“Now, you say that your work saves lives, and that this is what makes it worthwhile. If that’s the case, why do you care about software patents? I mean, if your work can save lives, then truly it should be available to as many people as possible, no?”
My software is available free to all who can use it. I don’t have to open source my software to make it available to those who can use it.
But also, your logic is a fallacy. And it is the same fallacy that prevents prescription drugs that save lives from being available for free. Something has to pay for the research and development.
For example, I don’t have the necessary skills to do my own genetic sequencing of a DNA base pair. But I might need that information for my programming. So that has to be oursourced. And that costs money. Something has to pay for the R&D, the same way something has to pay for prescription drug R&D, and therefore, prescription drugs cannot be free.
I also have to at least make enough money to live off of. In otherwords, if I don’t eat, I don’t develop my software anymore. I have to at least make enough money to live off of.
As it is, because I work in a research environment that is primarily funded by grant money, I make about 1/4 of what the average programmer with my skills would be making in the private sector. But I believe in the work I am doing, and I will glady take belief in what I am doing over a higher salary any day.
“Finally, you seem to say that having leisurly moments is a waste of time. But scientists have shown that people are more productive when they have free time, vacations, and such. ”
Sure. Because the average person doesn’t enjoy their work. Job dis-satisfaction is very common in today’s work envirionment.
And I do take short breaks… And in some of those breaks, I post in this forum.
And it seems you were still here too, despite the fact that you had “family to be with, gifts to wrap”, etc. Apparently, you couldn’t quite let it go.