|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 04 2003 @ 07:11 PM EDT |
Totally off topic but did you intentionally choose a title that are song
lyrics?
Or perhaps your title and the song lyrics originate from a common source?
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Alan
Pinkerton[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 04 2003 @ 07:23 PM EDT |
| On balance I thought the new article was good.
The Mad Max thing has good resonances for open source for most people.
I didn't quite catch the 'dissing' aspect of the "declare you're not a bank
robber".
That seemed to me a good analogy to reify a legal concept so more people would
get it.
Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 04 2003 @ 07:23 PM EDT |
| Sorry, should have been more specific - On balance I thought the new Forbes
article was good.
The Mad Max thing has good resonances for open source for most people.
I didn't quite catch the 'dissing' aspect of the "declare you're not a bank
robber".
That seemed to me a good analogy to reify a legal concept so more people would
get it.
Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 04 2003 @ 07:28 PM EDT |
| So, if Boies is the lawyer representing SCO/Caldera in this, and it turns out
that the whole thing is shown in court to be a complete fabrication, and SCO
loses out the a** like they should, does that mean the Boies will face some
sanctions?
I really would like to see him get his share of the heat for this debacle.
Paul
Krause[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 04 2003 @ 07:36 PM EDT |
| Let me amend myself again, the "whatever they do when they're not writing device
drivers ... mother's basement ..."
was clearly inflamatory and insulting.
Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 04 2003 @ 07:37 PM EDT |
| Sanjeev, read the first article in Forbes also, to get the flavor.
Alan, yes deliberate. Just having fun
Paul, I don't see it in the Red Hat matter because they are bringing the
action.
In the IBM matter, IBM could bring that issue up. Let's see what their legal
docs say later this week, they say.
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 04 2003 @ 07:42 PM EDT |
Unless you have information other than what is contained in the complaint, it
appears that Red Hat is seeking a permanent injunction as well as
declaratory relief, but not a preliminary injunction. This matters
because the burden is much higher on the moving party for a preliminary
injunction; they have to prove several things which are not required for a
permanent injunction. It strikes me that you are talking more about the
declaratory judgment aspects (forum shopping, etc..)
Adam Kessel[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 04 2003 @ 07:47 PM EDT |
Lord, I wish the opensouce community would start discussing the ways open source
code and the opensource community in general represents the purest embodiment of
a 'public good' to have come along in a very, very long time.
PhilTR[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 04 2003 @ 07:51 PM EDT |
The "declare you're not a bank robber" analogy is off. A more accurate analogy
would be Daniel Lyons asking a judge to stop Red Hat from telling everyone that
you've
he molests dead goats but Red Hat won't provide any evidence of it. Red Hat
has
more or less said provide evidence or shut up. Sounds very similiar to what
happened in Germany where SCO decided to shut up.
Alan Pinkerton[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 04 2003 @ 07:54 PM EDT |
| Boy, that got whacked. Let me try again.
The "declare you're not a bank robber" analogy is off. A more accurate analogy
would be Daniel Lyons asking a judge to stop Red Hat from telling everyone that
he molests dead goats but Red Hat won't provide any evidence of it. Red Hat has
more or less said provide evidence or shut up. Sounds very similiar to
what happened in Germany where SCO decided to shut up.
Alan Pinkerton[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 04 2003 @ 07:54 PM EDT |
| Boy, that got whacked. Let me try again.
The "declare you're not a bank robber" analogy is off. A more accurate analogy
would be Daniel Lyons asking a judge to stop Red Hat from telling everyone that
he molests dead goats but Red Hat won't provide any evidence of it. Red Hat has
more or less said provide evidence or shut up. Sounds very similiar to
what happened in Germany where SCO decided to shut up.
Alan Pinkerton[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 04 2003 @ 07:57 PM EDT |
Help! I'm posting and can't stop! Sorry - browser went beserk or something.
I'll stop now.
Alan Pinkerton[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 04 2003 @ 07:59 PM EDT |
Excellent move by Red Hat to flush out the "evidence" and should speed things up
by a factor of ten. If SCO's evidence is even remotely complelling as to the
core claim that IBM stole/transferred proprietary code to Linux, Red Hat may
also have a claim against IBM. Side benefit is that the community is no longer
dependent upon Big Blue to defend their interests.
sn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 04 2003 @ 09:01 PM EDT |
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1
104_2-5059547.html
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 04 2003 @ 09:55 PM EDT |
| Alan, don't worry about the posts. Radio has issues. It doesn't really like
browsers that you probably do, so what you write doesn't show up sometimes for a
while, etc.
Please note, everyone, that I have put up a correction article, now that I have
read the complaint itself carefully. The media reported a preliminary
injunction, so I wrote from that. Adam's comment is accurate. They are asking
for a declaratory judgment, actually several, and a permanent injunction. If I
change the article, all your comments may disappear again, so I'm instead
highlighting the correction in the new article and here. At least until I
figure out how to make changes without comments going poof.
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 09:08 AM EDT |
| >> Excellent move by Red Hat to flush out the "evidence"
UNLESS (very small probability I hope) SCO actually has 2 pieces of evidence,
shows the judge one (under seal).
Then am I right in understanding neither piece can be removed from Linux and
SCO's hand is strengthened?
Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 10:31 AM EDT |
| Sanjeev, I don't think so. If you think back to the BSD case, although the
evidence was sealed the settlement still involved a few changes to the BSD code
base. So anyone with a copy of diff could find out what files in BSD
infringed.
Similarly, although SCO's evidence might be sealed, it cannot deny Red Hat the
opportunity to remove infringing code, even though this indirectly would reveal
SysV code (if such infringing code existed.) This is because copyright is
completely unrelated to trade secrets; copyright does not give you any right to
privacy, in fact it is intended to *help* you to openly publish something.
Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 07:46 PM EDT |
| "It may still be available via SCO, but it gives me the creeps to visit their
web site"
Does not bother me to try www.sco.com,
my host file:
127.0.0.1 sco.com
<G>
nm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
