Board index » kylix » Re: We are all going to have to license unixware to use linux

Re: We are all going to have to license unixware to use linux


2003-07-23 03:36:19 AM
kylix0
"Dennis Landi" <none[at]none.com>wrote in message
Quote
"Alessandro Federici - RemObjects Software" <alef@[nospam]remobjects.com>
wrote in message news:3f1d3a6c$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>ROTFL You're joking, right?
>If you are found guilty of stealing, you pay. It doesn't matter what you
do
>afterwards.
>You are not not-punished for what you do afterwards. You are punished
for
>what you did.
>
>
I think Alessandro makes a good observation...


I think the way the SCO suit was filed, IBM is the only one accused of
actually "stealing" code, the only thing that the rest of the penguinistas
could be guilty of IMO is inadvertently receiving stolen property, for which
the usual punishment is forfeiture of the property in question, so basically
the rewrite without the offending code.
Back where we started! ;)
So, if it's true, then maybe IBM, (once again), deserves a round of head
thumping, but as far as Linux distro companies and users, removal of the
code should be adequate.
JMHO
Mike
(the H's for Honest, I'm NOT humble ;)
 
 

Re:Re: We are all going to have to license unixware to use linux

"Eduardo A. Salgado" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
Where are the {*word*97} theorists when we need them?

What if SCO had that code in question added to Linux by one of their
minions just so they could do what they are doing now?

Hum,...
Not as far-fetched as you may think...
radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/07/18.html
--
Chris(TeamB);
 

Re:Re: We are all going to have to license unixware to use linux

Quote
I think the way the SCO suit was filed, IBM is the only one accused of
actually "stealing" code
But if you read the latest SCO claims, they have pulled away
from claiming that IBM copied code, and are not now claiming
that the copied code is in IBM modules. The are just
claiming that IBM stole ideas - which probably originated in
IBM mainframes anyway?
--
Lester Caine
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: We are all going to have to license unixware to use linux

"Lester Caine" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
But if you read the latest SCO claims, they have pulled away
from claiming that IBM copied code, and are not now claiming
that the copied code is in IBM modules. The are just
claiming that IBM stole ideas - which probably originated in
IBM mainframes anyway?
But ideas are not copyrightable, and until these damnable software and
process patents came along
they weren't patentable either.
Mike
 

Re:Re: We are all going to have to license unixware to use linux

Quote
>But if you read the latest SCO claims, they have pulled away
>from claiming that IBM copied code, and are not now claiming
>that the copied code is in IBM modules. The are just
>claiming that IBM stole ideas - which probably originated in
>IBM mainframes anyway?

But ideas are not copyrightable, and until these damnable software and
process patents came along
they weren't patentable either.
Having seen some of the current US pattents that have been
granted, one wonders which planet we live on? And if your
copyright is about to expire - just get congress to change
the rules.
(And if you are convicted of breaking the law, just get the
courts to allow YOU to set the punishment ;) )
Is it any wonder that the rest of the world has no
confidence in American Justice?
--
Lester Caine
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services
 

Re:Re: We are all going to have to license unixware to use linux

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 12:41:42 -0400, "Dennis Landi" <none[at]none.com>
wrote:
Quote
I think Alessandro makes a good observation...


"Alessandro Federici - RemObjects Software" <alef@[nospam]remobjects.com>
wrote in message news:3f1d3a6c$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>If you are found guilty of stealing, you pay.
Copyright violation <>theft, by definition, remedy, or obligations of
the owner, in the eyes of the law.
 

Re:Re: We are all going to have to license unixware to use linux

"ckd" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
>>If you are found guilty of stealing, you pay.
Copyright violation <>theft, by definition, remedy, or obligations of
the owner, in the eyes of the law.
Dude. It was just an example.
I could have said "if you pass the speed limit, you have to pay. Doesn't
matter what you do afterwards".
 

Re:Re: We are all going to have to license unixware to use linux

In borland.public.kylix.non-technical, Tony Caduto
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
<3f1c48e3$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >...
Quote
Yes, it may come to that if the opensource community just sits back and does
nothing.
It just amazes me that they can even say this {*word*99} when nothing has been
proven in court, someone with the right resources needs to put a freaking
restraining order against SCO.
Why? How is this significantly different from the Unisys/GIF thing? That was
upheld and Unisys collected $5000 a pop, though the ensuing rush to use JPEG
probably reduced the actual revenue far below what Unisys thought they were
going to get. GIF was more popular than Linux is now.
If the penguinistas have actually been using somebody else's intellectual
property without their permission, then they were stealing, no matter how
many cohorts in crime they have managed to attract. Popularity does not
bestow m{*word*203}rectitude upon an act.
--
***Posted by Jake's Custom Newsgroup Reader***
Posted using Jake's Super Newsreader 0.9.2.953
 

Re:Re: We are all going to have to license unixware to use linux

Alessandro Federici - RemObjects Software wrote:
Quote
"ckd" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>It was a poor example.

It was not a poor exemple at all. It was all I needed to make my point about
law and punishment.
SCO, Linux and {*word*99}lications are totally irrelevant to what I was saying.

That's because you are off-topic..
There was no crime committed.. therefore there is no need for
punishment. Even SCO doesn't claim that Linux developers "stole"
anything from them. SCO just alleged that some of IBM code (On which
SCO claims ownership ) was misappropriated in Linux kernel
development. Furthermore, without stating any credible facts or
providing any prove, following some sort of delusional logic, SCO
claim control over Linux users. ;-) In my opinion SCO has real
difficulties of formulating any business plan, they cannot really
decided who they are going to sue today.. and for what.. it seems
that the recent mission statement they come up with is "Buy, our
license protection or we will sue you.." ;-)
But who owns the code in question will be decided in court.. not by
SCO.. As soon the court establish the ownership of the code then SCO
will be (or perhaps not) in the position to ask Linux developers to
remove the code from the Linux kernel.. (and since they distributed
Linux for profit long after they make these claims and allegations
and because of the the GPL License wording they will not be able to
ask for such removal.. ) until that, they just look funny and may as
wall get in trouble with FTC and face criminal charges...
--
InstallMade - Kylix-specific installer/builder
www.superobject.com/installmade/
Packages: tar.gz, self-installable, RPM, LCR,
and creates standalone executables.
 

Re:Re: We are all going to have to license unixware to use linux

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 22:01:00 -0500, "Alessandro Federici - RemObjects
Software" <alef@[nospam]remobjects.com>wrote:
Quote
"ckd" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>>>If you are found guilty of stealing, you pay.
>Copyright violation <>theft, by definition, remedy, or obligations of
>the owner, in the eyes of the law.

Dude. It was just an example.
It was a poor example.
Quote
I could have said "if you pass the speed limit, you have to pay. Doesn't
matter what you do afterwards".

And this is equally poor. With regard to copyright violation, the
copyright owner has obligations, and it *does* matter what the
infringer does afterward. Ender was right on - if SCO points out the
copyright violations (their *obligation*) they can be removed and
rewritten. SCO may be entitled to damages if they can prove there are
any (not likely in this case). In fact, the longer they wait to point
out the copyright infringement, the less likely they will get any
damages awarded. If you knowingly let your copyrighted material be
abused you begin losing rights as the copyright holder. Unlike the
cops who can ignore speeders for a while then crack down.
Despite what the RIAA spews, copyright violation is NOT theft.
 

Re:Re: We are all going to have to license unixware to use linux

Alessandro Federici - RemObjects Software wrote:
Quote

SO %^&&^#&^ WHAT???
THAT DOESN'T CHANGE A THING.
That's because you are off-topic.. ;-)
--
InstallMade - Kylix-specific installer/builder
www.superobject.com/installmade/
Packages: tar.gz, self-installable, RPM, LCR,
and creates standalone executables.
 

Re:Re: We are all going to have to license unixware to use linux

In borland.public.kylix.non-technical, XXXX@XXXXX.COM wrote in
message < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >...
Quote
Copyrighted 'property' and physical property are two different
animals, follow two sets of rules legally, and any analogies or
examples equating the two are poor ones.
Where'd you get the idea that I was only talking about physical property?
--
***Posted by Jake's Custom Newsgroup Reader***
Posted using Jake's Super Newsreader 0.9.2.953
 

Re:Re: We are all going to have to license unixware to use linux

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:58:06 -0500, "Captain Jake"
<johnjac76[nospam]@comcast.net>wrote:
Quote
In borland.public.kylix.non-technical, XXXX@XXXXX.COM wrote in
message < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >...
>Copyrighted 'property' and physical property are two different
>animals, follow two sets of rules legally, and any analogies or
>examples equating the two are poor ones.

Where'd you get the idea that I was only talking about physical property?

If you're talking about my entire reply, if you mention theft I infer
physical property. If you're talking about the 'analogies or
examples' comment, I'm still addressing AF's examples.
I have no idea what you're trying to get at. The bottom line is that
although copyright violation may be morally reprehensible, wrong, or
any other adjective you ascribe to it it is not *theft* in the *legal*
sense of the word (in the USA, anyway).
 

Re:Re: We are all going to have to license unixware to use linux

In borland.public.kylix.non-technical, XXXX@XXXXX.COM wrote in
message < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >...
Quote
The bottom line is that
although copyright violation may be morally reprehensible, wrong, or
any other adjective you ascribe to it it is not *theft* in the *legal*
sense of the word (in the USA, anyway).
Neither is grand larceny.
--
***Posted by Jake's Custom Newsgroup Reader***
Posted using Jake's Super Newsreader 0.9.2.953
 

Re:Re: We are all going to have to license unixware to use linux

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:19:05 -0500, "Captain Jake"
<johnjac76[nospam]@comcast.net>wrote:
Quote
In borland.public.kylix.non-technical, XXXX@XXXXX.COM wrote in
message < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >...
>The bottom line is that
>although copyright violation may be morally reprehensible, wrong, or
>any other adjective you ascribe to it it is not *theft* in the *legal*
>sense of the word (in the USA, anyway).

Neither is grand larceny.

Sorry, it is. The words 'theft' and 'stealing' are used in the legal
definition of grand larceny. They are not used to define copyright
violation.
I think now you're just being stubborn because the distinction is not
that difficult to grasp.