Re: sco's lastest blathering
On 16 Aug 2003 13:50:55 -0400 burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 13:45, Bill Campbell and others wrote: > > > For some reason I am missing about half of the most recent postings to > this thread. Is it just me? > -- Must be. I don't believe that I have missed anything. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area if you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: sco's lastest blathering
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 16:31, Kurt Wall wrote: > Quoth burns: > > On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 13:45, Bill Campbell and others wrote: > > > > > > For some reason I am missing about half of the most recent postings to > > this thread. Is it just me? > > Not quite sure what you mean. It's OK. The missing posts arrived out of order (after subsequent posts for some reason). -- burns ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: sco's lastest blathering
Quoth burns: > On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 13:45, Bill Campbell and others wrote: > > > For some reason I am missing about half of the most recent postings to > this thread. Is it just me? Not quite sure what you mean. Kurt -- What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: sco's lastest blathering
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 13:45, Bill Campbell and others wrote: For some reason I am missing about half of the most recent postings to this thread. Is it just me? -- burns ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: sco's lastest blathering
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003, burns wrote: >On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 09:49, Tom Marinis wrote: > >Perhaps, but all that shows is that the existing anti-trust legislation >doesn't work and that the current administration has no intention of >making it work. Anti-trust legislation never works, largely because monopolies are impossible without government intervention. There's an excellent article on this by Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve head, in Ayn Rand's book, ``Capitalisim, the Unknown Ideal'' (along with another article by him on why a gold standard is necessary to prevent government abuse -- written long before he became head of the Fed :-). Bill -- INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX:(206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 URL: http://www.celestial.com/ The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. -- Herbert Spencer (1891) ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: sco's lastest blathering
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 09:49, Tom Marinis wrote: http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: sco's lastest blathering
burns wrote:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11031
I know what we should say.
[ snipped, length but kept hint of message :) ]
What is required is for the government to launch an immediate
investigation to see if Microsoft is indeed behind this. If they find
that it is, not only does it raise the most serious instances yet of
antitrust and tampering, it also could/should result in criminal charges
against top MS executives if sufficient evidence was found.
Unfortunately, the current US administration has already demonstrated
that they are not willing to do anything to keep MS in line - and on the
basis of what certainly seems to be a well-orchestrated campaign, it
appears that Bill knows it too.
That's everybodies wish, burns.
But If somebody did file today, it would only be
2011 when the case was finally heard and decided.
{ I'm guessing longer, considering the size of
American Courts don't increase that much }
I know how you feel, but the futility of it would make
me feel used. I'm quite sure if MS lost this case,
they would APPEAL until a sitting US government that
did support their position was elected.
I'm sorry, but I would want IBM to hammer MS
instead, because IBM has the deeper pockets.
It would be worth to see MS get trashed and hammered, even
if it was payback for the flushing they recieved for the
destruction of OS/2.
Linux developers have a hard time as it is just trying
to stay above water, let alone fight MS on MS turf.
What I would love to see instead, is some of the OS/2
code enter the LINUX Kernel.
God, MS and possibly Bill Gates, would put in their
place then :)
___
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: sco's lastest blathering
On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 15:21, Tom Wilson wrote: > LMFAO. Found the link on /. I don't even know what to say about this > one because it is so far fetched. > > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11031 I know what we should say. No reasonable person who knows anything about the industry and/or Linux would ever doubt, given the whole pattern of what SCO is doing, that MS is not behind this at the strategic level. Where there is smoke, there's usually fire and in this case the smoke is billowing. What is required is for the government to launch an immediate investigation to see if Microsoft is indeed behind this. If they find that it is, not only does it raise the most serious instances yet of antitrust and tampering, it also could/should result in criminal charges against top MS executives if sufficient evidence was found. Unfortunately, the current US administration has already demonstrated that they are not willing to do anything to keep MS in line - and on the basis of what certainly seems to be a well-orchestrated campaign, it appears that Bill knows it too. -- burns ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: sco's lastest blathering
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003, Tom Marinis wrote: >Kurt Wall wrote: > >I'm sorry Kurt, I took liberties :) > >I stand corrected. Next time, how about trimming the quotes so you don't post 60 lines of irrelevant quoted text to add two new lines. Bill -- INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX:(206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 URL: http://www.celestial.com/ ``Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists.'' -- Richard Feynman ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: sco's lastest blathering
Kurt Wall wrote: Quoth Tom Marinis: I'm in agreement with you, but this is the test argument that many Linux supporters have feared would occur. This is the really last mountain to climb really, for Linux world wide acceptance. I'm happy to see the GPL tested. I also believe it will stand up. SCO's legal theory is just plain nonsense. If I own the copyright to something, I can do anything I want with it. IANAL, but SCO's argument falls over because the notion that I can only make 1 copy of a piece of software is impenetrably stupid - it simply doesn't apply because, as copyright holder, _I_ am the one who can dispense (or not) authorization to make copies of my copyrighted work. GPL is finally going to challenged in a FEDERAL court, and if it is deemed in any way vague, mis-leading, faulty, or maybe even politically incorrect, SCO's case is made. IBM will have to pay, and all the software at the FSF must be under copyright. It already _is_ copyrighted - GNU project software has copyright assigned to the FSF. You have to file paperwork with the FSF in order to make any substantive contributions to official GNU projects. That costs money, and guess who's got a lot of money in the bank to spend to entice a lot of programmers out there who haven't made almost any money for their software? This is true, as far as it goes, but an awful lot of people write code because they want to, not because they get paid to do it. Kurt's Right; He should have greeted the corporate heads from SCO at the front door at Caldera a few years back with his shotgun. Put some sense into them... No, what I said was that I'd be happy to pay the license fee if Darl McBride showed up at my door to request it and survived the blast from my street howitzer. That's quite a different statement from a threat to show up SCO's front door and start shooting - which is _not_ what I would do, BTW. Kurt I'm sorry Kurt, I took liberties :) I stand corrected. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: sco's lastest blathering
Quoth Tom Marinis: > > I'm in agreement with you, but this is the test argument > that many Linux supporters have feared would occur. This is > the really last mountain to climb really, for Linux world > wide acceptance. I'm happy to see the GPL tested. I also believe it will stand up. SCO's legal theory is just plain nonsense. If I own the copyright to something, I can do anything I want with it. IANAL, but SCO's argument falls over because the notion that I can only make 1 copy of a piece of software is impenetrably stupid - it simply doesn't apply because, as copyright holder, _I_ am the one who can dispense (or not) authorization to make copies of my copyrighted work. > GPL is finally going to challenged in a FEDERAL court, > and if it is deemed in any way vague, mis-leading, > faulty, or maybe even politically incorrect, SCO's > case is made. IBM will have to pay, and all the software > at the FSF must be under copyright. It already _is_ copyrighted - GNU project software has copyright assigned to the FSF. You have to file paperwork with the FSF in order to make any substantive contributions to official GNU projects. > That costs money, and guess who's got a lot of money > in the bank to spend to entice a lot of programmers out > there who haven't made almost any money for their software? This is true, as far as it goes, but an awful lot of people write code because they want to, not because they get paid to do it. > Kurt's Right; He should have greeted the corporate heads > from SCO at the front door at Caldera a few years > back with his shotgun. Put some sense into them... No, what I said was that I'd be happy to pay the license fee if Darl McBride showed up at my door to request it and survived the blast from my street howitzer. That's quite a different statement from a threat to show up SCO's front door and start shooting - which is _not_ what I would do, BTW. Kurt -- To every Ph.D. there is an equal and opposite Ph.D. -- B. Duggan ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: sco's lastest blathering
Tom Wilson wrote: On Thursday 14 August 2003 05:34 pm, Tom Marinis's voice rose above the ones in my head and stated: Tom Wilson wrote: LMFAO. Found the link on /. I don't even know what to say about this one because it is so far fetched. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11031 --Tom Wilson What do you mean, far fetched? Not saying the legal test is far fetched, just this arguement. Copyright law invalidates a form of copyright (or copyleft if you prefer). I'm in agreement with you, but this is the test argument that many Linux supporters have feared would occur. This is the really last mountain to climb really, for Linux world wide acceptance. GPL is finally going to challenged in a FEDERAL court, and if it is deemed in any way vague, mis-leading, faulty, or maybe even politically incorrect, SCO's case is made. IBM will have to pay, and all the software at the FSF must be under copyright. That costs money, and guess who's got a lot of money in the bank to spend to entice a lot of programmers out there who haven't made almost any money for their software? In this battle, its not code, but whoever has the deeper pockets will win; MS, or IBM. If the GPL wins, SCO not only loses, but MS loses in a really really big way. Unix will probably die within 5 years, with LINUX replacing it where ever possible. Sun would be one of the biggest casulties to the UNIX OS, and the LINUX OS. Linux when compared to MS products, MS almost always looses; think of the code that people are writing now for any platform, and think about those writing for XP. I would hate to port to Windows for Whistler, but I could port a C program to almost any Linux or BSD/UNIX platform outthere, eventually. It's happening now. The only difference is that MS programmers are getting paid, and make money doing so :) If Microsoft does lose, it will still be around, but probably in the Game console business, like Sony or Dreamcast or even Intellivision, and you know what happened to them. Kurt's Right; He should have greeted the corporate heads from SCO at the front door at Caldera a few years back with his shotgun. Put some sense into them... ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: sco's lastest blathering
Quoth Tom Marinis: > Province of Ontario, State of New York, Columbia, Maine, > Detroit, Buffalo, all without power... > > No lights, no computer, No traffic lamps, no airports, > no trains, no restaurants, and more importantly, > > NO Air Conditioning :) > > [ Probably a power generator being controlled by > POWER MANAGER, and that computer suffered a > MS windows BSOD fault ] > > I hope KURT survives it :) Power's still on here... Kurt -- I have great faith in fools -- self confidence my friends call it. -- Edgar Allan Poe ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: sco's lastest blathering
On Thursday 14 August 2003 05:34 pm, Tom Marinis's voice rose above the ones in my head and stated: > Tom Wilson wrote: > > LMFAO. Found the link on /. I don't even know what to say about > > this one because it is so far fetched. > > > > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11031 > > > > --Tom Wilson > > What do you mean, far fetched? Not saying the legal test is far fetched, just this arguement. Copyright law invalidates a form of copyright (or copyleft if you prefer). -- Tom Wilson Reg. Linux user# 199331 ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: sco's lastest blathering
Tom Wilson wrote: LMFAO. Found the link on /. I don't even know what to say about this one because it is so far fetched. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11031 --Tom Wilson What do you mean, far fetched? Eric Raymond always stated that a direct attack against the GPL was inevitable. When that legal attack occurred, it would test the GPL in the courts, and make a final determination for LINUX. This article now confirms that this day has finally arrived. IF SCO wins, LINUX will go the way of BEOS, MSDOS, and mainframe; into the halls of non-existance. else IF SCO loses, then LINUX will dominate and eliminate the MICROSOFT OS the desktop in 15 years, and reduce Microsoft to the size of SUN. Damn, Microsoft started this, and just think, Linux will finish it :) === Beside, nothing more will happen today, since the NORTHEAST power outage occured around 2:00pm PST, 5:00pm EST. Province of Ontario, State of New York, Columbia, Maine, Detroit, Buffalo, all without power... No lights, no computer, No traffic lamps, no airports, no trains, no restaurants, and more importantly, NO Air Conditioning :) [ Probably a power generator being controlled by POWER MANAGER, and that computer suffered a MS windows BSOD fault ] I hope KURT survives it :) ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: sco's lastest blathering
When you consider recent Supreme Court decisions, you realize that the law and the US constitution mean only what 5 justices think they mean, at the moment. Maybe Sandra Day will say, because of a compelling state interest, the GPL won't mean what it says it means for 25 more years, to give the rest of the world a chance to adjust to it, etc.. Joel > LMFAO. Found the link on /. I don't even know what to say about this > one because it is so far fetched. > > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11031 > > --Tom Wilson > ___ > Linux-users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
sco's lastest blathering
LMFAO. Found the link on /. I don't even know what to say about this one because it is so far fetched. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11031 --Tom Wilson ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
