Unix/Linux IP?
to...@pcunix.com
I've written this up in more detail at
http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B832.html
but basically the question is why was a blatant knock-off
of Unix ignored by whoever thought they owned the IP rights?
Why wasn't SCO or Novell squawking about Linux in 1995?
--
to...@pcunix.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
karel adams
<to...@pcunix.com> schreef in bericht news:c75r73$khk$1...@pcls4.std.com...
>
> I've written this up in more detail at
>
> http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B832.html
>
> but basically the question is why was a blatant knock-off
> of Unix ignored by whoever thought they owned the IP rights?
>
> Why wasn't SCO or Novell squawking about Linux in 1995?
not to mention BSD, I suppose...
Maybe the reason is: at that time Linux and other free Unixen
did not seem like a real threat to commercial software
(which they certainly are doing today)
whether Microsoft's or the 'official' Unix implementations?
My 2 eurocents,
KA
Joe Dunning
>
>I've written this up in more detail at
>
>http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B832.html
>
>but basically the question is why was a blatant knock-off
>of Unix ignored by whoever thought they owned the IP rights?
>
>Why wasn't SCO or Novell squawking about Linux in 1995?
Maybe because writing a clone is entirely legal and because SCO's claims
are bogus? In other words, there were no IP violations in Linux in 1995
when Novell sold the Unix business to Tarantella and there are none now.
The assertion that creating a UNIX-like OS is theft is simply wrong. And
even if it were theft, then presumably SCO's Linux Kernel Personality
would represent the theft of Linux Kernel IP.
As for why did Tarantella pay $100M for the Unix business: compare that
with how much Sun has paid for Unix licenses over the years! >$80M. So
it's not inconceivable to say that Tarentalla merely bought a license to
re-sell the products. There is another possible explanation, and it's
one you have used often: dont ascribe to malice, that which can be
explained by stupidity.
The article you reference misses a few points that I believe are
important. It's important to note that Amendment 1 of the APA removed
Tarentalla's right to sell SVR4 licenses -- they could only sell
licenses to the new products. I think this is very important, since
Amendment 2 only transferred copyrights that were necessary to the
business -- if the business only allowed licenses to the new products,
then it's very hard to see how the copyrights to the older SVr4 code
were needed by Tarentella.
With regards to Novell making similar claims against Linux:
1. No-one has shown that there is any infringing code.
2. Novell is distributing the code under the GPL (via SuSE), so Novell
has given everyone a license to use and re-distribute the code, as long
as they comply with the GPL.
>
Bill Campbell
>
>I've written this up in more detail at
>
>http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B832.html
>
>but basically the question is why was a blatant knock-off
>of Unix ignored by whoever thought they owned the IP rights?
One could ask ``what is Unix''? Is it the kernel? Is it the multitude of
programs that are commonly found on *nix systems (e.g. those specified by
POSIX)? Is it all the things that Microsoft started adding to DOS with its
second release (e.g. the hierarchical file system, and many ``postix''
commands)?
I think you go a bit far to say that Linus wanted to ``steal'' Unix. If
that's the case this type of ``theft'' had been going on at least since
1984 when Richard Stallman started on the GNU project (GNU's Not Unix).
The majority of the POSIX tools had been cloned for the better part of a
decade before Linux first started working with the Minix kernel in 1991.
>Why wasn't SCO or Novell squawking about Linux in 1995?
SCO had to realize something was going on back then since Caldera went
after many existing SCO Authorized Resellers when it started its VAR
program (at least I assume that's why they approached Celestial, and we
became Caldera VARs when they first started the program :-).
SCO released OpenServer in mid 1995, then spent the rest of the decade
attempting to merge OpenServer with the UnixWare AT&T flavor of Unix they
acquired (more or less) from Novell. Every SCO Forum in Santa Cruz during
this period featured a new attempt in this direction.
I think the main benefit SCO realized from the Novell purchase was the
expertise of the New Jersey operations that were formerly Bell Labs. SCO
did pick up a fair amount of business doing Unix development and support
for various hardware vendors who had major AT&T Unix platforms (e.g. NCR
and others who, unlike Sun, didn't want to maintain their own Unix
development staff).
SCO certainly was aware of Linux during this period, and spent quite a bit
of effort attempting to make money in the Linux market, even before Caldera
purchased them. I would guess that the top people in old SCO were happy to
unload the Unix side of the business to Caldera, keeping Tarantella which
had far more promise. Caldera on their side seemed to want SCO's reseller
and educational channels along with the installed base of large Unix/Xenix
customers and support contracts.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM 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/
Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are
men who want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean
without the roar of its many waters.
-- Frederick Douglass
to...@pcunix.com
>On Mon, 3 May 2004 16:15:31 +0000 (UTC), to...@pcunix.com
><to...@pcunix.com> wrote:
>>
>>I've written this up in more detail at
>>
>>http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B832.html
>>
>>but basically the question is why was a blatant knock-off
>>of Unix ignored by whoever thought they owned the IP rights?
>>
>>Why wasn't SCO or Novell squawking about Linux in 1995?
>Maybe because writing a clone is entirely legal and because SCO's claims
No, that's not necessarily true.
Anyway, as usual, you assumed that this was an anti-Linux piece.
It wasn't.
to...@pcunix.com
>I think you go a bit far to say that Linus wanted to ``steal'' Unix. If
I don't think so, but that is why I put it in quotes. He wanted
Unix, couldn't afford it, so wanted to build a free version.
What, if any, IP was violated by that remains to be seen. It's
also possible that SCO is only complaining about more recent
additions to the code, but some of the more recent noises
make me wonder.
In any case, I still wonder why they weren't fussing about Linux
back then. If I thought I owned Unix IP, I sure would have
been looking at it. Possibly IP lawyers would have said
"forget it, nothing to be done", but it sure as heck would have
been a concern.
to...@pcunix.com
>The assertion that creating a UNIX-like OS is theft is simply wrong. And
>even if it were theft, then presumably SCO's Linux Kernel Personality
>would represent the theft of Linux Kernel IP.
Well, no, it's not necessarily wrong at all, but that is why
I put it in quotes and said "in that sense".
>As for why did Tarantella pay $100M for the Unix business: compare that
>with how much Sun has paid for Unix licenses over the years! >$80M. So
>it's not inconceivable to say that Tarentalla merely bought a license to
>re-sell the products. There is another possible explanation, and it's
>one you have used often: dont ascribe to malice, that which can be
>explained by stupidity.
Again, you assume the wrong intent here. I'm saying that
if SCO really thought it was buying IP rights, why wouldn't
the subject of Linux come up then?
>With regards to Novell making similar claims against Linux:
>1. No-one has shown that there is any infringing code.
Not yet..
>2. Novell is distributing the code under the GPL (via SuSE), so Novell
>has given everyone a license to use and re-distribute the code, as long
>as they comply with the GPL.
Are they? Are they in fact redistributing Unix code? They could
turn around and make the same argument that SCO has: we didn't
realize what we were accidentally giving away there. That argument
should be quite a bit harder to swallow given their involvement
with the SCO mess, but getting around things like that is what
lawyers get paid for, isn't it?
Understand, I'm not suggesting they'd have any better luck than
we expect SCO to have, just that they could try the same game.
Joe Dunning
>Joe Dunning <j...@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>
>>The assertion that creating a UNIX-like OS is theft is simply wrong. And
>>even if it were theft, then presumably SCO's Linux Kernel Personality
>>would represent the theft of Linux Kernel IP.
>
>Well, no, it's not necessarily wrong at all, but that is why
>I put it in quotes and said "in that sense".
I challenge you to show citations (even one from a relaible source) that
shows that producing a clone of some software is "theft".
Now, it it possible that in creating a clone you may run into some IP
issues, such as patent infringments. Nevertheless, these do not
consititute "theft".
One might look at interfaces and think of these violating someone's
copyrights, however, in the case on Linux, with the specification of
Unix held by the Open Group and apparently available for use, its hard
to see how any clone could do more than violate patents.
>
>>As for why did Tarantella pay $100M for the Unix business: compare that
>>with how much Sun has paid for Unix licenses over the years! >$80M. So
>>it's not inconceivable to say that Tarentalla merely bought a license to
>>re-sell the products. There is another possible explanation, and it's
>>one you have used often: dont ascribe to malice, that which can be
>>explained by stupidity.
>
>Again, you assume the wrong intent here. I'm saying that
>if SCO really thought it was buying IP rights, why wouldn't
>the subject of Linux come up then?
As I mentioned before: stupidity? Perhaps back then, the management at
Tarentella (is that spelled correctly?) could not envisage Linux as more
than a "hobby OS"?
>
>>With regards to Novell making similar claims against Linux:
>>1. No-one has shown that there is any infringing code.
>
>Not yet..
SCO has been ordered to show any code in Linux that SCO claims ownership
of. Apparently they have not shown anything. I see little reason to
believe that SCO will ever show such code. Perhaps the SCO faithfull may
believe it will happen in the future, but I have little concern that
this will ever happen.
>
>>2. Novell is distributing the code under the GPL (via SuSE), so Novell
>>has given everyone a license to use and re-distribute the code, as long
>>as they comply with the GPL.
>
>Are they? Are they in fact redistributing Unix code?
I did not mean to say that Novell is re-distributing Unix code. You
mis-represent my posting by suggesting this.
> They could
>turn around and make the same argument that SCO has: we didn't
>realize what we were accidentally giving away there.
And be laughed out of court. Given the SCO lawsuit, to suggest that
Novell "did not know" would be unbelievable.
> That argument
>should be quite a bit harder to swallow given their involvement
>with the SCO mess, but getting around things like that is what
>lawyers get paid for, isn't it?
>
>Understand, I'm not suggesting they'd have any better luck than
>we expect SCO to have, just that they could try the same game.
>
I expect that the next challenges to Linux will come from patents. On
the other hand, the open source/free software community (if such a
community exists) has shown itself capable of quite remarkable research.
I strongly suspect that prior art would be found quite quickly for most
patents if there were thousands of skilled people looking for it.
Joe Dunning
<to...@pcunix.com> wrote:
>Joe Dunning <j...@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>>On Mon, 3 May 2004 16:15:31 +0000 (UTC), to...@pcunix.com
>><to...@pcunix.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I've written this up in more detail at
>>>
>>>http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B832.html
>>>
>>>but basically the question is why was a blatant knock-off
>>>of Unix ignored by whoever thought they owned the IP rights?
>>>
>>>Why wasn't SCO or Novell squawking about Linux in 1995?
>
>>Maybe because writing a clone is entirely legal and because SCO's claims
>
>No, that's not necessarily true.
>
>Anyway, as usual, you assumed that this was an anti-Linux piece.
>
>It wasn't.
>
What, you accuse Linus of theft when he created Linux and then have the
gall to claim this is not an anti-Linux piece?
Bill Campbell
>
>>I think you go a bit far to say that Linus wanted to ``steal'' Unix. If
>
>I don't think so, but that is why I put it in quotes. He wanted
>Unix, couldn't afford it, so wanted to build a free version.
>
>What, if any, IP was violated by that remains to be seen. It's
>also possible that SCO is only complaining about more recent
>additions to the code, but some of the more recent noises
>make me wonder.
>
>In any case, I still wonder why they weren't fussing about Linux
>back then. If I thought I owned Unix IP, I sure would have
>been looking at it. Possibly IP lawyers would have said
>"forget it, nothing to be done", but it sure as heck would have
>been a concern.
In that time frame SCO was still led by Doug and Larry Michels. The bean
counters were beginning to make themselves heard by cutting off usenet
access to engineering and such, but Doug, Steph, Dion, and similar folks
were still handling the technical direction of SCO. Doug Michels has made
a public statement that he considers the actions of the current SCO
management is misguided (to say the least). If I remember that statement
correctly, Doug said that he thought of Unix as a collaborative effort with
contributions from many in what is now known as the open source community.
I don't think that many people in 1995 thought that Linux would develop as
rapidly as it did, far more rapidly than Moore's law on the hardware side.
I know that I personally told Doug and others in SCO that Linux would be a
force to be reckoned with at least as early as the 1997 SCO Forum which was
about the time we installed our first mission-critical Caldera Linux
system.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM 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/
``People from East Germany have found the West so confusing. It's so much
easier when you have only one party.'' -- Linus Torvalde, Linux Expo Canada
when asked about confusion over many Linux distributions.
Stuart J. Browne
"Bill Campbell" <bi...@celestial.com> wrote in message
news:20040503232...@alexis.mi.celestial.com...
One of the ISP's I do odd-jobs for has been using Linux on all servers
since it's inception in '96. Started using Debian, and have now migrated
(a few times) to RHES.
It was pretty darn stable then, and is even more stable now for the roles
it was used for (mail/web/ftp servers, dial-in and authentication, and
firewalling).
much fun.
Robert Steinmetz
> Bill Campbell <bi...@celestial.com> wrote:
>
>>I think you go a bit far to say that Linus wanted to ``steal'' Unix. If
I would agree that "steal" is too harsh. There is a long history
of 'cloning' software. The original PCDOS was a clone of CP/m,
DRDOS was a clone of MS-DOS. The original Mac operating system
was a clone of a Xerox development, the original MS Windows was
a clone of the Mac operating system. When Apple sued over it
they won, sort of, but with little result.
The high priest (or mad monk) of free software RMS has long
publicly advocated a 'free' kernel and just never got around to
building hurd.
Many of the tools used for Linux are pre-existing GNU clones of
Unix tools, which run on several operating systems ( Mac, MSDOS
and Windows and probably others.
> I don't think so, but that is why I put it in quotes. He wanted
> Unix, couldn't afford it, so wanted to build a free version.
There is also a question of whether the cost of Unix represented
an appropriate value. Remember that when Unix was developed AT&T
was bared for the computer industry and so couldn't
commercialize Unix directly. They in essence gave it to
universities to work on for a number of self interested reasons.
They didn't guard the property very well, because they couldn't
sell it.
> What, if any, IP was violated by that remains to be seen. It's
> also possible that SCO is only complaining about more recent
> additions to the code, but some of the more recent noises
> make me wonder.
Even SCO seems to grant that much of Linux is not a violation of
their copyright.
> In any case, I still wonder why they weren't fussing about Linux
> back then. If I thought I owned Unix IP, I sure would have
> been looking at it. Possibly IP lawyers would have said
> "forget it, nothing to be done", but it sure as heck would have
> been a concern.
There's always the BSD settlement which hints a problem with
protecting any of Unix IP. That's sealed but may come out in the
current litigation. The distributed nature of the original Unix
development scattered rights all over the place. Lots of grad
students had a hand in developing the Unix, lots of corporation
and even the US government contributed through DARPA and other
projects.
--
Rob
"Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained
by stupidity."
Timothy A. Seufert
Robert Steinmetz <not-rst...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> The original Mac operating system
> was a clone of a Xerox development [...]
As it turns out, no, it wasn't. I've been reading some of the
historical details recently, and a safer phrase would be "inspired by".
If for no reason other than Apple's lack of a copy of the Xerox system
to observe and dissect -- hard to produce a clone without access to the
original. There's little doubt that the famous visit to Xerox gave some
inspiration, but there also seems little doubt that Macintosh was an
original effort, not a copy. There's evidence that Lisa and Macintosh
UI ideas evolved through original experimentation over the course of
several years, rather than being successively refined approximations of
another system as you'd expect from a clone.
Another thing not often discussed is that MacOS was simultaneously less
and more sophisticated than Xerox Star. Xerox's system was written
entirely in Smalltalk, and therefore had a much better architecture for
forward evolution than MacOS, which was a combination of Pascal and 68K
assembly. The Macintosh simply did not have enough hardware resources
to allow a system coded entirely in a high level OO language like
Smalltalk. But MacOS had some major advances in GUI capabilities over
Xerox Star. For example, QuickDraw "regions" allowed arbitrary clipping
of drawing operations on the Mac; the Star had nothing similar and
therefore could not refresh partially obscured windows. You actually
had to click on a window to bring it to the foreground before the
application could draw in it. In this and several other regards, MacOS
was a more evolved and complete GUI than Star.
There's a bunch of fascinating stuff on early Mac history at
www.folklore.org. I recommend the "Busy Being Born" story for relevance
to this topic.
--
Tim
Bill Vermillion
>Bill Campbell <bi...@celestial.com> wrote:
>>I think you go a bit far to say that Linus wanted to ``steal''
>>Unix. If
>I don't think so, but that is why I put it in quotes. He wanted
>Unix, couldn't afford it, so wanted to build a free version.
He has always been one who championed free software. All you have
to do is look at some of the FSF things from the mid-80s. I first
saw their presence at a Usenix event in 1986.
And Stallman was not the first to attempt to make a free Unix like
OS, and Tannenbaum with Minix doesn't fit either.
Anyone here remember XINU - Xinu Is Not Unix. That was from Doug
Comer when he was at Perdue and if my memory is right he predated
Stallman by about a year.
He was more successful with his compilers later one
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Bill Vermillion
And with that approach I think it was Doug who eliminated the $100
'ancient license' fee. And he made it possible for the reprinted
of the legendary Lyons book on Unix. I bought that when it came
out for about $30, and I see used copies of it going for $100-$120
when someone decides to part with them. One of my few computer
related purchases that actually got worth more as time went along.
It's currently lost in my maze of books :-(
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>Anyone here remember XINU - Xinu Is Not Unix. That was from Doug
>Comer when he was at Perdue and if my memory is right he predated
>Stallman by about a year.
Looks like the first Xinu book was in 1984.
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/dec/osbooks.html
Richard Stallman apparently also started GNU in 1984.
http://gnu.essentkabel.com/doc/Stallmanawards.html
Xinu
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/dec/xsoft.html
The software license is 2 only paragraphs small. Amazing.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D 831-336-2558
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS
Rob
> On Mon, 3 May 2004 16:15:31 +0000 (UTC), to...@pcunix.com
> <to...@pcunix.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I've written this up in more detail at
>>
>>http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B832.html
>>
>>but basically the question is why was a blatant knock-off
>>of Unix ignored by whoever thought they owned the IP rights?
>>
>>Why wasn't SCO or Novell squawking about Linux in 1995?
>
>
> Maybe because writing a clone is entirely legal and because SCO's claims
> are bogus? In other words, there were no IP violations in Linux in 1995
> when Novell sold the Unix business to Tarantella and there are none now.
>
> The assertion that creating a UNIX-like OS is theft is simply wrong. And
> even if it were theft, then presumably SCO's Linux Kernel Personality
> would represent the theft of Linux Kernel IP.
>
As far as I know, the Linux Kernel Personality is __NOT__ a "transplant"
of the Linux kernel under UnixWare7; it's a kernel layer whose role is
to translate Linux syscalls into UW7 syscalls so the only kernel being
in operation under LKP/UW7 is the Unixware one.
Best,
Rob
to...@pcunix.com
>I challenge you to show citations (even one from a relaible source) that
>shows that producing a clone of some software is "theft".
>Now, it it possible that in creating a clone you may run into some IP
>issues, such as patent infringments. Nevertheless, these do not
>consititute "theft".
Yes, they do. Again, that's why I put it in quotes.
>One might look at interfaces and think of these violating someone's
>copyrights, however, in the case on Linux, with the specification of
>Unix held by the Open Group and apparently available for use, its hard
>to see how any clone could do more than violate patents.
And that would be "theft". In quotes. It's "like theft", it's
equivalent to theft, etc. etc. and if you don't understand that,
forget it.
>>Again, you assume the wrong intent here. I'm saying that
>>if SCO really thought it was buying IP rights, why wouldn't
>>the subject of Linux come up then?
>As I mentioned before: stupidity? Perhaps back then, the management at
>Tarentella (is that spelled correctly?) could not envisage Linux as more
>than a "hobby OS"?
Perhaps. But even in 1995, it was much more than that, and it
is hard to imagine they thought of it that way.
>SCO has been ordered to show any code in Linux that SCO claims ownership
>of. Apparently they have not shown anything. I see little reason to
>believe that SCO will ever show such code. Perhaps the SCO faithfull may
>believe it will happen in the future, but I have little concern that
>this will ever happen.
Again, you are missing the point. I'm talking
about what Novell could theoretically do, not what SCO hasn't
done.
>>Are they? Are they in fact redistributing Unix code?
>I did not mean to say that Novell is re-distributing Unix code. You
>mis-represent my posting by suggesting this.
So if they are NOT distributing Unix code, they could still
use copyrights on that code against Linux if they
chose to do so. Again, tough to do considering the SCO
case, but theoretically possible.
All I'm getting at here is that if Novell holds the IP
rights as they claim, and aren't releasing that IP for
anyone's use, they COULD use it as the basis for a SCO-like
lawsuit.
>I expect that the next challenges to Linux will come from patents. On
>the other hand, the open source/free software community (if such a
>community exists) has shown itself capable of quite remarkable research.
>I strongly suspect that prior art would be found quite quickly for most
>patents if there were thousands of skilled people looking for it.
And again, it would be Linuxes buddys, Novell and IBM, that
would hold a lot of those patents. As long as they see Linux as
their best weapon against MSFT, they love Linux. If that changes..
to...@pcunix.com
>On Mon, 3 May 2004 22:12:25 +0000 (UTC), to...@pcunix.com
>>>>
..
>>Anyway, as usual, you assumed that this was an anti-Linux piece.
>>
>>It wasn't.
>>
>What, you accuse Linus of theft when he created Linux and then have the
>gall to claim this is not an anti-Linux piece?
I'm not responsible for the limitations of your intelligence, Joe.
to...@pcunix.com
>I've written this up in more detail at
>http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B832.html
Some people have objected loudly to my use of "theft" in the above piece,
apparently thinking this is an anti-Linux piece and that I am calling
Linus and everyone else involved with Linux rotten thieving scoundrels.
That's not the case, and I deliberately put the word in quotes and said
"in that sense" to avoid that interpretation.
If anything, this is more of an anti-SCO piece than anti-Linux: if Linux
was "stealing" IP, why wasn't anyone squawking about it back then?
Apparently SCO and everyone else felt that Linux was a legitimate
"clone" and that there were no IP issues.
SCO can argue now that *present* Linux violates their IP (if it is
theirs at all, of course), but some of their more recent noise seems to
go beyond that to imply that the whole durn thing (or large parts of it)
is an illegal knock-off. That's what triggered these thoughts for me.
Joe Dunning
>Joe Dunning <j...@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I challenge you to show citations (even one from a relaible source) that
>>shows that producing a clone of some software is "theft".
>
>>Now, it it possible that in creating a clone you may run into some IP
>>issues, such as patent infringments. Nevertheless, these do not
>>consititute "theft".
>
>Yes, they do. Again, that's why I put it in quotes.
What is it you don't understand about the word "theft"? Putting quotes
about it does not change its meaning. The word theft means to take and
permanently deny the owner. This does not apply to any IP violations.
Just because the RIAA and MPAA may want to call copyright infringement
"theft" does not make it so. In another posting, you accuse me of having
limited intelligence, yet all you are doing is repeating your earlier,
wrong, assertions. How good an argument is that?
Tony, I thought you were smarter than that. I will have to re-evaluate.
>
>>One might look at interfaces and think of these violating someone's
>>copyrights, however, in the case on Linux, with the specification of
>>Unix held by the Open Group and apparently available for use, its hard
>>to see how any clone could do more than violate patents.
>
>And that would be "theft". In quotes. It's "like theft", it's
>equivalent to theft, etc. etc. and if you don't understand that,
>forget it.
No. It's not theft, "theft", "like theft", "equivalent to theft" or any
other term including the word "theft". I understand perfectly -- it's
you that does not understand that IP violations != theft.
>
>
>>>Are they? Are they in fact redistributing Unix code?
>
>>I did not mean to say that Novell is re-distributing Unix code. You
>>mis-represent my posting by suggesting this.
>
>So if they are NOT distributing Unix code, they could still
>use copyrights on that code against Linux if they
>chose to do so. Again, tough to do considering the SCO
>case, but theoretically possible.
>
>All I'm getting at here is that if Novell holds the IP
>rights as they claim, and aren't releasing that IP for
>anyone's use, they COULD use it as the basis for a SCO-like
>lawsuit.
But not against use of any code that exists in any distribution of Linux
that is or was made by Novell/SuSE. If that happens to include
encumbered UNIX code (which I doubt), then Novell could still not sue
because NOVELL has released all code that exists in the Linux kernel
(whatever its origins) under the GPL.
>
>>I expect that the next challenges to Linux will come from patents. On
>>the other hand, the open source/free software community (if such a
>>community exists) has shown itself capable of quite remarkable research.
>>I strongly suspect that prior art would be found quite quickly for most
>>patents if there were thousands of skilled people looking for it.
>
>And again, it would be Linuxes buddys, Novell and IBM, that
>would hold a lot of those patents. As long as they see Linux as
>their best weapon against MSFT, they love Linux. If that changes..
Yes, there is certainly a danger here.
>
to...@pcunix.com
>On Tue, 4 May 2004 12:27:06 +0000 (UTC), to...@pcunix.com
><to...@pcunix.com> wrote:
>>Joe Dunning <j...@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>I challenge you to show citations (even one from a relaible source) that
>>>shows that producing a clone of some software is "theft".
>>
>>>Now, it it possible that in creating a clone you may run into some IP
>>>issues, such as patent infringments. Nevertheless, these do not
>>>consititute "theft".
>>
>>Yes, they do. Again, that's why I put it in quotes.
>What is it you don't understand about the word "theft"? Putting quotes
>about it does not change its meaning. The word theft means to take and
>permanently deny the owner. This does not apply to any IP violations.
No, it doesn't mean that anymore. And again, using "in that sense"
and putting quotes around the word should be sufficient for
any person of normal intelligence. It wasn't enough for you,
obviously. Get over it.
Ian Wilson
> http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B832.html
Which says:
"Linus wasn't inventing a new operating system; he was deliberately
trying to create a Unix-like OS. In that sense at least, this is 'theft'."
I don't see how it is "theft" to write, from scratch, a piece of
software that implements standard published interfaces such as the Unix
standards (POSIX).
"The Open Group would like to make it clear that SCO holds the rights
only to the operating system source code originally licensed by AT&T and
does not own the UNIX trademark itself or definition of what a UNIX
system is." http://www.opengroup.org
AIUI unless someone can point to copyright, trademark or patent
infringements then there is no "theft".
Just my GBP 0.02 worth.
Brian
<clipped for brevity>
Listen Joe, you are going to have to learn to ignore Tony - he is a silly
fool.
Whenever you argue with Tony, you are on a Fools Errand!
Tony just descends to mindless nit-picking, absurd declarations and personal
attacks. Tony has too much time on his hands - IGNORE HIM!
There are other more intelligent people in this forum who are worthy of a
dialogue, but not Tony.
Best regards,
Brian
Joe Dunning
<to...@pcunix.com> wrote:
>Joe Dunning <j...@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>
>>What is it you don't understand about the word "theft"? Putting quotes
>>about it does not change its meaning. The word theft means to take and
>>permanently deny the owner. This does not apply to any IP violations.
>
>No, it doesn't mean that anymore.
Doesn't it:
Source: Mirriam-Webster Dictionary of law
1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious
taking and removing of personal property, with an intent
to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the
owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious;
every part of the property stolen must be removed,
however slightly, from its former position; and it must
be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of
the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.
2. The thing stolen. R.
If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, .
. . he shall restore double. --Ex. xxii. 4.
Did you notice that: "in the complete possession"?
OK, Tony, You are wrong, you know you are wrong, yet you won't admit it.
You wrote an anti-Linux article and then try to spin it as not being
anti-linux. Once again, you show your true colors than try to deny them.
Oops, you fell off the fence!
However, you have worn me down on this one. There is no arguing with
pure unadulterated stupidity such as you are displaying now, so i am
going to drop this thread.
to...@pcunix.com
>to...@pcunix.com wrote:
>> http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B832.html
>Which says:
>"Linus wasn't inventing a new operating system; he was deliberately
>trying to create a Unix-like OS. In that sense at least, this is 'theft'."
>I don't see how it is "theft" to write, from scratch, a piece of
>software that implements standard published interfaces such as the Unix
It isn't, necessarily. That's why I said "in that sense", and put
"theft" in quotes. THe implication is that I don't consider
that to be theft, although it certainly could be. For example,
when Phoenix cloned the IBM bios, that could have been "theft"
(again, note the quotes denoting non-standard use of a word),
but wasn't because of the "clean-room" procedure used (another
use of quotes to indicate that this wasn't literally a clean-room
such as might be used for chip assembly).
This could have been "theft" if Linux, for example, were an
employee of SCO or Sun and had access to source code. That
wasn't the case, though because of the way Linux was created,
with contributions from people all over the world, SCO or
Novell or AT&T could have argued that some of those contribs
might have been from people with access to proprietary source.
Yet no one did. That no objection was lodged may go back
to considerations about BSD as some have mentioned, or
it may be that Linux was seen as an unimportant "hobby"
OS, and in SCO's specific case it may be that the previous
management was more friendly to open source. Those are
all good points.
Or it may be that, as you suggest, implementing publically
available interfaces was seen for what it is: legitimate
black box reverse engineeering. And that was the point
of what I wrote at http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B832.html :
that Linux was more than popular enough in 1995 that
if there were any cloud of its origins, it should have
been looked at then by SCO, but it was not.
Now, SCO's position may well be that there was no problem then but there
is now. I'm not sure about that from reading recent interviews with
the miscreants. I got the impression that their claims were more all
encompassing, so that triggered these thoughts.
Bill Campbell
...
>This could have been "theft" if Linux, for example, were an
>employee of SCO or Sun and had access to source code. That
>wasn't the case, though because of the way Linux was created,
>with contributions from people all over the world, SCO or
>Novell or AT&T could have argued that some of those contribs
>might have been from people with access to proprietary source.
People who probably had access to proprietary source did work closely on
the Linux kernel. They were Caldera/SCO employees who were doing so with
the full knowledge and support of management up to and including then
President, Ransom Love.
SCO actively supported Linux development so long as SCO was trying to make
money selling Linux.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM 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/
Instead of giving money to found colleges to promote learning, why don't
they pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting anybody from learning
anything? If it works as good as the Prohibition one did, why, in five
years we would have the smartest race of people on earth.
-- The Best of Will Rogers
FyRE
>
>I've written this up in more detail at
>
>http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B832.html
>
>but basically the question is why was a blatant knock-off
>of Unix ignored by whoever thought they owned the IP rights?
>
>Why wasn't SCO or Novell squawking about Linux in 1995?
Tony Lawrence: A poor man's Bob Enderle...
--
FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >
to...@pcunix.com
>On Wed, May 05, 2004, to...@pcunix.com wrote:
>...
>>This could have been "theft" if Linux, for example, were an
>>employee of SCO or Sun and had access to source code. That
>>wasn't the case, though because of the way Linux was created,
>>with contributions from people all over the world, SCO or
>>Novell or AT&T could have argued that some of those contribs
>>might have been from people with access to proprietary source.
>People who probably had access to proprietary source did work closely on
>the Linux kernel. They were Caldera/SCO employees who were doing so with
>the full knowledge and support of management up to and including then
>President, Ransom Love.
Well, that was later, but it does add to the pile. And you can't
very well complain that you have been robbed if you helped the
"theif" carry the swag to their car.
Tony Lawrence
> On Mon, 3 May 2004 16:15:31 +0000 (UTC), to...@pcunix.com wrote:
>
> >
> >I've written this up in more detail at
> >
> >http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B832.html
> >
> >but basically the question is why was a blatant knock-off
> >of Unix ignored by whoever thought they owned the IP rights?
> >
> >Why wasn't SCO or Novell squawking about Linux in 1995?
>
> Tony Lawrence: A poor man's Bob Enderle...
Ah, FyRE. You too? Yet another Lindroid who doesn't understand that
I was actually complaining about SCO, not Linux?
Too precious, truly. You are all so *special* :-)
Seriously, boopy, y'all need to pay just a little better attention.
--
Tony Lawrence
Bill Campbell
>Bill Campbell <bi...@celestial.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, May 05, 2004, to...@pcunix.com wrote:
>>...
>>>This could have been "theft" if Linux, for example, were an
>>>employee of SCO or Sun and had access to source code. That
>>>wasn't the case, though because of the way Linux was created,
>>>with contributions from people all over the world, SCO or
>>>Novell or AT&T could have argued that some of those contribs
>>>might have been from people with access to proprietary source.
>
>>People who probably had access to proprietary source did work closely on
>>the Linux kernel. They were Caldera/SCO employees who were doing so with
>>the full knowledge and support of management up to and including then
>>President, Ransom Love.
>
>Well, that was later, but it does add to the pile. And you can't
>very well complain that you have been robbed if you helped the
>"theif" carry the swag to their car.
In the U.S. ``Legal'' system you probably can although it's close to the
classic definition of ``chutzpah'' -- the guy on trial for murdering his
parents pleading for clemency because he's an orphan.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM 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/
``If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace.
We seek not your consul, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that
feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget
ye were our countrymen.'' -- Samuel Adams (American Patriot)
Tux Wonder-Dog
>
> I've written this up in more detail at
>
> http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B832.html
>
> but basically the question is why was a blatant knock-off
> of Unix ignored by whoever thought they owned the IP rights?
>
> Why wasn't SCO or Novell squawking about Linux in 1995?
>
I think that the BSD saga had deflated a lot of the worst of AT&T's
posturing about "IP". And Novell wasn't interested in competing in the
courts - they've always preferred the marketplace. The Santa Cruz
Operation were as usual back then, busy hawking their own brand of Unix and
trying to get people to switch from Linux to it.
Plus the "IP" - the system calls, whathaveyou, had already achieved a large
currency through Minix, Coherent, Idris, etc. They couldn't exactly jump
on one for doing exactly the same as the rest, even if it came without a
price tag.
Just my 0.02x10^-15c! (See what stagflation does to one's feelings of
worth! ;)
Wesley Parish
--
"Good, late in to more rewarding well." "Well, you tonight. And I was
lookintelligent woman of Ming home. I trust you with a tender silence." I
get a word into my hands, a different and unbelike, probably - 'she
fortunate fat woman', wrong word. I think to me, I justupid.
Let not emacs meta-X dissociate-press write your romantic dialogs...!!!
Bill Campbell
>to...@pcunix.com wrote:
>
>>
>> I've written this up in more detail at
>>
>> http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B832.html
>>
>> but basically the question is why was a blatant knock-off
>> of Unix ignored by whoever thought they owned the IP rights?
>>
>> Why wasn't SCO or Novell squawking about Linux in 1995?
>>
>I think that the BSD saga had deflated a lot of the worst of AT&T's
>posturing about "IP". And Novell wasn't interested in competing in the
>courts - they've always preferred the marketplace. The Santa Cruz
>Operation were as usual back then, busy hawking their own brand of Unix and
>trying to get people to switch from Linux to it.
Switching from Linux to SCO in 1995? Not likely. Linux use wasn't all that
common in 1995, and SCO first released OpenServer in the 2nd quarter of
1995 after three years of OpenDesktop (3.2v4.x) which came out early in
1992. I haven't saved the SCO Forum materials from the many that I
attended between 1988 and the last one in Santa Cruz, but if I remember
correctly, SCO started pushing ``Gemini'', the project to unify OpenServer
and UnixWare, in 1997 or so.
IMHO, Caldera Linux was probably the most stable Linux for commercial use,
with the slogan ``Linux for Business'', aiming to produce a stable, if
boring, Linux (the same thing I was looking for in 1987 when we went with
SCO Xenix for business applications :-). Red Hat and others had a nasty
habit of producing releases with major library inconsistencies, and thing
that plainly didn't work.
SCO was really trying to build business in the '90s by producing products,
by selling services, and through their reseller and educational channels.
Personally I think that after the original SCO IPO, they lost their way
chasing the large ``Enterprise'' customers at the expense of the small-to-
medium business market that had been their bread and butter.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM 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/
``It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!''
-- Emiliano Zapata.
Bill Vermillion
Timothy A. Seufert <t...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <4096FB56...@mindspring.com>,
> Robert Steinmetz <not-rst...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> The original Mac operating system
>> was a clone of a Xerox development [...]
>As it turns out, no, it wasn't. I've been reading some of
>the historical details recently, and a safer phrase would be
>"inspired by". If for no reason other than Apple's lack of a copy
>of the Xerox system to observe and dissect -- hard to produce a
>clone without access to the original. There's little doubt that
>the famous visit to Xerox gave some inspiration, but there also
>seems little doubt that Macintosh was an original effort, not a
>copy. There's evidence that Lisa and Macintosh UI ideas evolved
>through original experimentation over the course of several
>years, rather than being successively refined approximations of
>another system as you'd expect from a clone.
>Another thing not often discussed is that MacOS was
>simultaneously less and more sophisticated than Xerox Star.
>Xerox's system was written entirely in Smalltalk, and therefore
>had a much better architecture for forward evolution than MacOS,
>which was a combination of Pascal and 68K assembly.
Back in the days when computer clubs got into the guts of things
Xerox gave a presentation on their new concept of wiring things
together instead of serial and they called it 'ethernet' and showed
how you could run cables up and down elevator shaft and down
hallways to connect all machines off of one big cable [that had to
be 10base5]. They also came a bit later and showed us a machine
that had a mouse [I'd never seen one of those before] and you could
move files around and to delete files you moved them into a garbage
can.
A year or so later Apple came by and showed machine they called
the Lisa. It was $10,000 and had a hard drive [either 5 or 10MB]
and the first thing I thought of was the Star. That had to be
about a year before the MacIntosh came out.
>The Macintosh simply did not have enough hardware resources
>to allow a system coded entirely in a high level OO language like
>Smalltalk.
I remember sitting down at one of the first Macs - a few weeks
after the SuperBowl intro. It really was limited, and anyone who
wanted to develop SW for the Mac had to use a Lisa as there was
just not enough horsepower or memory in the Mac. It was basically
a user only environment.
Just thought I'd add this in , as your comments made it seem
like the Mac came first, but it was really the Lisa and that
machine was out about a year before the Mac if my memory serves me
correctly. The one Lisa I was able to diddle with for awhile
struck me as just a Xenix system with graphics. I do not know if
it may have had Xenix loaded on it, as SCO did make Xenix for the
Lisa when it first came out.
Bill
Bill Vermillion
Tux Wonder-Dog <wes.p...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>to...@pcunix.com wrote:
>
>>
>> I've written this up in more detail at
>>
>> http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B832.html
>> but basically the question is why was a blatant knock-off
>> of Unix ignored by whoever thought they owned the IP rights?
>> Why wasn't SCO or Novell squawking about Linux in 1995?
>I think that the BSD saga had deflated a lot of the worst of
>AT&T's posturing about "IP". And Novell wasn't interested
>in competing in the courts - they've always preferred the
>marketplace. The Santa Cruz Operation were as usual back then,
>busy hawking their own brand of Unix and trying to get people to
>switch from Linux to it.
As I recall before SCO bought the current versions of Unix from
Novell - they were pretty much in the SysV.2 world.
The competition for SCO at that was not Linux but from other Unix
vendors on the Intel platforms. One big push was by Dell.
The old timers on this group will remember the Dellevangelist Larry
- who was about as rabid as many of the pro-Linux people are today.
The SCO Unix was had a 2.3 in the end of it, and while it was Sys
VR2 Larry was accusing them of false marketing trying to make
others think it was a SysVR3 release. He moved to Dell Unix from
another platform, which I can't remember. Other players at that
time were Esix, which James River later bought.
Just before this time Kodak bowed out of the Unix business - and I
don't recall if that went to Interactive or not, but Interactive
Unix wound up being bought by Sun. [This is from memory and there
were a LOT of Unix vendors in that era]. Linux was the least of
the worries then as there were many commercial Unix sysems on Intel
at that time. One reason Unix was being touted was because it was
pretty much HW independant while the MS products only ran on Intel
processors.
So NT was being promoted as a cross-platform OS from MS. SGI did
the first port of NT onto the MIPS platform for JVC's NT machine.
There were also ports for the PowerPC ?? and a chip that Moto was
working on, and the Alpha chip from DEC.
It's only now that Unix is pretty much an Intel OS and only now
that SCO is about the only [if not the only] proprietary SW only
Unix vendor.
In 1995 there were a lot more important things to worry about than
Linux. It sort of snuck in under the radar screens.
I hope I've gotten the time frames correct. After 20 years of
these *n*x systems they all seem to sort of run together at times.
Jeffrey D Angus
Bill Vermillion wrote:
> Just before this time Kodak bowed out of the Unix business - and I
> don't recall if that went to Interactive or not, but Interactive
> Unix wound up being bought by Sun. [This is from memory and there
> were a LOT of Unix vendors in that era].
Yes, the big yellow mother bought Interactive Systems. I had a
friend working at IS when it happened.
Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom"
Bill Campbell
....
>A year or so later Apple came by and showed machine they called
>the Lisa. It was $10,000 and had a hard drive [either 5 or 10MB]
>and the first thing I thought of was the Star. That had to be
>about a year before the MacIntosh came out.
>
>Just thought I'd add this in , as your comments made it seem
>like the Mac came first, but it was really the Lisa and that
>machine was out about a year before the Mac if my memory serves me
>correctly. The one Lisa I was able to diddle with for awhile
>struck me as just a Xenix system with graphics. I do not know if
>it may have had Xenix loaded on it, as SCO did make Xenix for the
>Lisa when it first came out.
When the Lisa came out, I was managing a Radio Shack Computer Center in
Rockville, Md, selling a lot of Model 16s running Xenix. My first reaction
to the Lisa was ``how're they going to run Xenix an a machine with only 5MB
of hard drive space, and do anything else''.
When I first went to work for RS in late 1980, I think Apple's big machine
was the Apple III. The first person I sold a Model II to thanked me years
later for persuading him to buy that and not an Apple III. The only people
I knew who used the Apple III bought them to run Visicalc with large spread
sheets.
Apple and *nix have come a long way since that time -- too bad we can't say
as much for SCO and its versions of *nix.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM 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/
``Never blame a legislative body for not doing something. When they do
nothing, that don't hurt anybody. When they do something is when they
become dangerous.''
Will Rogers
Tony Lawrence
> by selling services, and through their reseller and educational channels.
> Personally I think that after the original SCO IPO, they lost their way
> chasing the large ``Enterprise'' customers at the expense of the small-to-
> medium business market that had been their bread and butter.
It has long been my opinion that this "hunting for mastodons" is what
caused much of their problems, both by pissing off all the small
resellers and by ignoring product needs that the McDonalds/Ground
Round/etc. customers didn't care about.
And then there was the problem of no home use exemption until well
after Linux arrived.. and now this stupid lawsuit.
--
Tony Lawrence
http://aplawrence.com/SCOFAQ
Brian K. White
> What is it you don't understand about the word "theft"? Putting quotes
> about it does not change its meaning. The word theft means to take and
> permanently deny the owner. This does not apply to any IP violations.
Of course it does, dolt.
Copying IP amounts to stealing it's uniqueness & proprietary nature.
The original owner is denied the payback for his investment.
It's really a shame how easy it is to use the internet now. BBS's had such a
better s/n ratio.
--
Brian K. White -- br...@aljex.com -- http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro BBx Linux SCO Prosper/FACTS AutoCAD #callahans Satriani
Tony Lawrence
> Joe Dunning wrote:
>
> > What is it you don't understand about the word "theft"? Putting quotes
> > about it does not change its meaning. The word theft means to take and
> > permanently deny the owner. This does not apply to any IP violations.
>
> Of course it does, dolt.
> Copying IP amounts to stealing it's uniqueness & proprietary nature.
> The original owner is denied the payback for his investment.
Words do take on new meaning as technology changes. Doing a Google
search for "IP theft" shows quite plainly that this is acceptable
usage today. Joe is babbling nonsense when he says that "theft"
cannot be used in the context of IP.
>
> It's really a shame how easy it is to use the internet now. BBS's had such a
> better s/n ratio.
True enough, yet I think an even greater problem is the "sound bite"
mentality: the inability to actually read and comprehend anything
longer than a sentence. That's exactly what happened here. My
article was actually pointing out that Linux DID NOT steal any IP, but
the inability of Joe, FyRE and Brian to read caused them to lock on to
one sentence and go off half-cocked.
It's sad: it is increasingly difficult to convey any thought that
isn't simplistic enough to express in one monosyllabic sentence.
--
Tony Lawrence
FyRE
wrote:
>"Brian K. White" <br...@aljex.com> wrote in message news:<OqydnbkR74x...@comcast.com>...
>> Joe Dunning wrote:
>>
>> > What is it you don't understand about the word "theft"? Putting quotes
>> > about it does not change its meaning. The word theft means to take and
>> > permanently deny the owner. This does not apply to any IP violations.
>>
>> Of course it does, dolt.
>> Copying IP amounts to stealing it's uniqueness & proprietary nature.
>> The original owner is denied the payback for his investment.
Typical Brain rant there... If the world were run according to Brain,
we'd have one car maker (anyone attempting to create their own
automobile would be dragged through court), one TV channel, a single
brand of breakfast cerial and only one ISP on Earth. I'm sure that if
that were the case, then all these things would be lovely and cheap,
and we're doubtless benefit from this monopoly culture with great
inovations! Take a look at Microsoft's IE browser for instance; since
it was illegally forced upon users, and attained 90%+ market share,
it's... well... stagnated. Apparently MS will add popup blocking in a
few years though...
All the best innovations over the course of history have succeeded due
to the LACK of patents, copyrights, IP and other fetters. You think
the internet would be anywhere near as useful and popular if it were
based upon a closed proprietory protocol that one company controlled?
No, didn't think so. Go back to pushing your overpriced, outdated
software at dumb "rubes", Brain...
>Words do take on new meaning as technology changes. Doing a Google
>search for "IP theft" shows quite plainly that this is acceptable
>usage today.
So is "Information Super-highway", although it's meaningless. So, for
that matter is "Litigious Bastards", which describes a certain former
software company from Utah. So, if you consider something to be
acceptable so long as enough people are doing it, I'm glad you weren't
brought up in the deep south, around the ku klux klan...
>Joe is babbling nonsense when he says that "theft"
>cannot be used in the context of IP.
You cannot steal "intellectual property" (I find the whole idea of IP
abhorent myself, since it's essentially a tool used to control what
you are allowed to think). You can implement the same ideas, but that
does not constitute theft - the original party still has their IP, you
didn't "steal" anything from them.
>> It's really a shame how easy it is to use the internet now. BBS's had such a
>> better s/n ratio.
I agree, Brain; why don't you switch back?
>True enough, yet I think an even greater problem is the "sound bite"
>mentality: the inability to actually read and comprehend anything
>longer than a
I'm bored...
> sentence. That's exactly what happened here. My
>article was actually pointing out that Linux DID NOT steal any IP, but
>the inability of Joe, FyRE and Brian to read caused them to lock on to
>one sentence and go off half-cocked.
>
>It's sad: it is increasingly difficult to convey any thought that
>isn't simplistic enough to express in one monosyllabic sentence.
Tony, you set out to create controversy with your little article. Why
else would you have written it? Congratulations, it worked! Calling
Linux Torvalds a thief, when his intention was to implement the posix
standard in his own operating system, for his own amusement
(initially) is pretty unfair.
If as you say, Torvalds is a thief, then you're infringing on Bob
(idiot) Enderle's electronic clown act. After all, he's been writing
deliberately provocative, misleading and inacurate twaddle for some
time now. The only difference between you and he is that Enderle
writes his twaddle to order, whereas you seem to feel the need to do
so for your own perverse pleasure.
Brian
> Joe Dunning wrote:
>
>> What is it you don't understand about the word "theft"? Putting quotes
>> about it does not change its meaning. The word theft means to take and
>> permanently deny the owner. This does not apply to any IP violations.
> Of course it does, dolt.
No it doesn't, dipshit!
> Copying IP amounts to stealing it's uniqueness & proprietary nature.
And you know this, how?
> The original owner is denied the payback for his investment.
You and Tony suffer from an identical case of loser-speak! Perhaps you are
related - same shallow gene pool.
I will publically bet you $100US that copying software code is not theft!
I will cite US case law in support!
So put up or shut up, nutsy.
(I didn't think so)
Brian
Tony Lawrence
> On 9 May 2004 09:32:25 -0700, to...@aplawrence.com (Tony Lawrence)
> Typical Brain rant there... If the world were run according to Brain,
> we'd have one car maker (anyone attempting to create their own
> automobile would be dragged through court), one TV channel, a single
> brand of breakfast cerial and only one ISP on Earth.
If the world were run as the inventors of these things would have
liked, yes that would be true. We'd have one type of car, just like
we have one Mickey Mouse. An interesting example:
http://www.bpmlegal.com/wselden.html
Airplanes had similar activities:
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Wright_Bros/Patent_Battles/WR12.htm
>
> So is "Information Super-highway", although it's meaningless. So, for
> that matter is "Litigious Bastards", which describes a certain former
> software company from Utah. So, if you consider something to be
> acceptable so long as enough people are doing it, I'm glad you weren't
> brought up in the deep south, around the ku klux klan...
Acceptable? Once again, I must remind you that I am OPPOSED to IP
law,
the length of patents and copyrights, and the general abuse of such
things by greedy corporations. I merely cited Google references to
show that Joe was talking through his hat - "IP theft" is a commonly
used and easily understood phrase.
> You cannot steal "intellectual property" (I find the whole idea of IP
> abhorent myself, since it's essentially a tool used to control what
> you are allowed to think). You can implement the same ideas, but that
> does not constitute theft - the original party still has their IP, you
> didn't "steal" anything from them.
Nonsense. I agree with you that the world SHOULD work this way, but
in fact it does not - as a simple Google search for "IP theft"
conclusively demonstrates.
> >True enough, yet I think an even greater problem is the "sound bite"
> >mentality: the inability to actually read and comprehend anything
> >longer than a
>
> I'm bored...
Perhaps a short attention span at work?
> Tony, you set out to create controversy with your little article. Why
> else would you have written it? Congratulations, it worked! Calling
> Linux Torvalds a thief, when his intention was to implement the posix
> standard in his own operating system, for his own amusement
> (initially) is pretty unfair.
>
> If as you say, Torvalds is a thief, then you're infringing on Bob
> (idiot) Enderle's electronic clown act. After all, he's been writing
> deliberately provocative, misleading and inacurate twaddle for some
> time now. The only difference between you and he is that Enderle
> writes his twaddle to order, whereas you seem to feel the need to do
> so for your own perverse pleasure.
Actually, I write as part of my perverse plan to generate income,
greedy sob that I am. My activities also inadvertently benefit the
IRS to a degree I find objectionable, but that's a different subject.
But you still fail at reading comprehension: the entire point of what
I wrote was that THERE WAS NO THEFT, as evidenced by the fact that no
one paid the slightest bit of attention to Linux even when SCO was
buying whatever the heck they bought or thought they were buying. So
if it was indeed "controversial", then you and I are on the same side
of the controversy here. No doubt you will remain unable to
comprehend this and go on prattling nonsense. I certainly hope so: it
is highly amusing to observe you folks twisting yourselves into ever
more silly positions.
--
Tony Lawrence
http://aplawrence.com
Tony Lawrence
>
> I will publically bet you $100US that copying software code is not theft!
>
Better tell Cisco : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/01/24/cisco_sues_huawei_over_ip/
and Taiwan:
http://www.wordspy.com/words/IPtheft.asp
and CIO magazine:
http://comment.cio.com/comments/15230.html
and lawyers.com
http://www.prairielaw.com/messageboards/message.asp?channelId=20&subId=&mId=479512&mbId=103
But never mind that. As usual you are off in left field somewhere and
the rest of us are playing football. The contention by the less
intelligent contributors here was that the se of the word theft in any
context of misappropriating IP was incorrect. As the references above
show (and there are many thousands of others), the phrase "IP theft"
is in common use and is easily understood by most people of ordinary
intelligence.
--
TonyLawrence
Bill Vermillion
Bill Campbell <bi...@celestial.com> wrote:
>On Sat, May 08, 2004, Bill Vermillion wrote:
>....
>>A year or so later Apple came by and showed machine they called
>>the Lisa. It was $10,000 and had a hard drive [either 5 or 10MB]
>>and the first thing I thought of was the Star. That had to be
>>about a year before the MacIntosh came out.
>>
>...
>>Just thought I'd add this in , as your comments made it seem
>>like the Mac came first, but it was really the Lisa and that
>>machine was out about a year before the Mac if my memory serves me
>>correctly. The one Lisa I was able to diddle with for awhile
>>struck me as just a Xenix system with graphics. I do not know if
>>it may have had Xenix loaded on it, as SCO did make Xenix for the
>>Lisa when it first came out.
>When the Lisa came out, I was managing a Radio Shack Computer
>Center in Rockville, Md, selling a lot of Model 16s running
>Xenix. My first reaction to the Lisa was ``how're they going to
>run Xenix an a machine with only 5MB of hard drive space, and do
>anything else''.
I had Xenix on a 16 with an 8MB disk. But the kernel was only
about 78K and the OS was on three 8" floppies.
>When I first went to work for RS in late 1980, I think Apple's
>big machine was the Apple III. The first person I sold a Model
>II to thanked me years later for persuading him to buy that and
>not an Apple III. The only people I knew who used the Apple III
>bought them to run Visicalc with large spread sheets.
I wound up writing some interface programs for an RF modem, that
ran off batteries re-charged by sunlight miles from nowhere. That
company also had more Apple III's than I knew existed.
The program for the RF Modem was being installed on IBM'x Xenix 2.0
on a '286. Buggiest *ix I ever had the displeasure to work with.
>Apple and *nix have come a long way since that time -- too bad we
>can't say as much for SCO and its versions of *nix.
I'd still like to see improvement in Apple. And even MS has some
true *n*x utilities. SFU 3.5 [Services for Unix] runs on XP
and is free. 250MB install file that has gcc, perl, and the system
looks/acts like Unix when you are the ksh implementation. Full
case dependancy, and supposedly *n*x scripts will work on it.
Best $0.00 I ever spent at MS.
Jeffrey D Angus
Bill Vermillion wrote:
> I'd still like to see improvement in Apple. And even MS has some
> true *n*x utilities. SFU 3.5 [Services for Unix] runs on XP
> and is free. 250MB install file that has gcc, perl, and the system
> looks/acts like Unix when you are the ksh implementation. Full
> case dependancy, and supposedly *n*x scripts will work on it.
>
> Best $0.00 I ever spent at MS.
And cheap at twice the price. ;-)
Thanks for the pointer Bill.
Ahhh, the joys of cable modems.
Jeff
(The other other one.)
Bill Campbell
>In article <20040508181...@alexis.mi.celestial.com>,
>Bill Campbell <bi...@celestial.com> wrote:
>>Apple and *nix have come a long way since that time -- too bad we
>>can't say as much for SCO and its versions of *nix.
>
>I'd still like to see improvement in Apple. And even MS has some
>true *n*x utilities. SFU 3.5 [Services for Unix] runs on XP
>and is free. 250MB install file that has gcc, perl, and the system
>looks/acts like Unix when you are the ksh implementation. Full
>case dependancy, and supposedly *n*x scripts will work on it.
I hope it's version of ``ksh'' is better than it was a few years
ago. It seems that a Microsoftie was touting their great Unix
compatibility as a Usenix LISA conference when somebody in the
audience commented that there were serious problems with their
version of ``ksh''. The Microsoftie vehemently argued the point
until somebody else in the audience pointed out to him that the
person he was arguing with was David Korn, author of ``ksh''.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM 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 only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good
in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs,
or impede their efforts to obtain it.'' -- John Stuart Mill, 1859
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>The only people
>I knew who used the Apple III bought them to run Visicalc with large spread
>sheets.
Visicalc still lives.
http://www.bricklin.com/history/vcexecutable.htm
Only 27.5KBytes.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D 831-336-2558
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS
Bill Vermillion
Bill Campbell <bi...@celestial.com> wrote:
>On Tue, May 18, 2004, Bill Vermillion wrote:
>>In article <20040508181...@alexis.mi.celestial.com>,
>>Bill Campbell <bi...@celestial.com> wrote:
>...
>>>Apple and *nix have come a long way since that time -- too bad we
>>>can't say as much for SCO and its versions of *nix.
>>
>>I'd still like to see improvement in Apple. And even MS has some
>>true *n*x utilities. SFU 3.5 [Services for Unix] runs on XP
>>and is free. 250MB install file that has gcc, perl, and the system
>>looks/acts like Unix when you are the ksh implementation. Full
>>case dependancy, and supposedly *n*x scripts will work on it.
>I hope it's version of ``ksh'' is better than it was a few years
>ago.
The old MS 'unix compatibility' stuff was from Mortis Kern - MKS.
They went with someone else, and there are many pure open-source
implementations in the package too. gcc, perl, etc.
> It seems that a Microsoftie was touting their great Unix
>compatibility as a Usenix LISA conference when somebody in the
>audience commented that there were serious problems with their
>version of ``ksh''. The Microsoftie vehemently argued the point
>until somebody else in the audience pointed out to him that the
>person he was arguing with was David Korn, author of ``ksh''.
That was a classic event.