Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
xmission!nnrp.xmission!xenau.zenez.com!gerberb
From: Boyd Gerber <ger...@xenau.zenez.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Not just SCO but look at FSF....
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 06:08:02 +0000
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0310170600330.13922@xenau.zenez.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: zenez.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: terabinaries.xmission.com 1066424618 15774 166.70.62.2
(17 Oct 2003 21:03:38 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@xmission.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:03:38 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:571
For all those claiming SCO is the only bad guy please look at....
http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html
I will not quote the whole article, but this except should be enough.
Software
Linux's Hit Men
Daniel Lyons, 10.14.03, 7:00 AM ET
...
"But the spread of Linux could be hurt by another group--and ironically,
it's the free-software proponents themselves.
For months, in secret, the Free Software Foundation, a Boston-based
group that controls the licensing process for Linux and other "free"
programs, has been making threats to Cisco Systems (nasdaq: CSCO - news
- people ) and Broadcom (nasdaq: BRCM - news - people ) over a
networking router that runs the Linux operating system.
The router is made by Linksys, a company Cisco acquired in June. It
lets you hook computers together on a wireless Wi-Fi network, employing
a high-speed standard called 802.11g. Aimed at home users, the $129
device has been a smash hit, selling 400,000 units in the first quarter
of this year alone.
"
...
Read the whole article to be better informed.
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
news-out1.nntp.be!propagator2-sterling!In.nntp.be!
pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!
pd7tw1no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0310170600330.13922@xenau.zenez.com>
Lines: 20
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <nuZjb.115689$6C4.103406@pd7tw1no>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:50:11 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw1no 1066427411 24.69.255.232
(Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:50:11 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:50:11 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:578
Boyd Gerber wrote:
> For all those claiming SCO is the only bad guy please look at....
> http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html
> I will not quote the whole article, but this except should be enough.
<clipped for brevity>
You must be kidding Boyd!
Are you serious? Really?
Tell me Boyd, how does the article make Open Source the bad guy?
8^)
Brian
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
newsfeed.mathworks.com!enigma.xenitec.on.ca!not-for-mail
From: Bill Campbell <bi...@celestial.com>
Subject: Re: just SCO but look at FSF....
Resent-From: mm...@xenitec.on.ca
id A991B11F19D; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
Submit-To: sco...@xenitec.on.ca
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Reply-To: bi...@celestial.com
Organization: [resent by] The SCOMSC gateway and Propagation Society
Content-Disposition: inline
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:51:30 GMT
Message-ID: <20031017215130.GC52632@alexis.mi.celestial.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
To: Sco Mailing List <sco...@xenitec.on.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0310170600330.13922@xenau.zenez.com>
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: enigma.xenitec.on.ca
Originator: ne...@enigma.xenitec.on.ca (News subsystem owner)
References: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0310170600330.13922@xenau.zenez.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Sco Mailing List <sco...@xenitec.on.ca>
Sender: ne...@enigma.xenitec.ca (News subsystem owner)
Precedence: list
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:579
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003, Boyd Gerber wrote:
>For all those claiming SCO is the only bad guy please look at....
>
>http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html
>
>I will not quote the whole article, but this except should be enough.
So? The FSF has been actively going after people who take GPL'ed software,
and try to make it their own in direct violation of the terms of the GPL?
Imagine that! If the GPL is to mean anything, the FSF needs to do this.
If you use GPL'ed code, expect to adhere to the GPL. If you don't want to
abide by the terms, develop the code yourself, or perhaps find something
under the BSD or LGPL licenses.
...
>"
>...
>
>Read the whole article to be better informed.
And understand the bias of Forbes, and the technical knowledge of the
author. That would be like trying to find a favorable article on Clarence
Thomas or Ward Connerly in a NAACP publication or the New York Times
(bastion of accurate journalism).
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's not what you pay a man but what he costs you that counts.''
Will Rogers
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: jlsels...@my-deja.com (J. L. Schilling)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: just SCO but look at FSF....
Date: 19 Oct 2003 07:55:19 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <ff3c0649.0310190655.466de840@posting.google.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0310170600330.13922@xenau.zenez.com>
<20031017215130.GC52632@alexis.mi.celestial.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.124.204.226
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1066575319 8060 127.0.0.1
(19 Oct 2003 14:55:19 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:55:19 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:648
Bill Campbell <bi...@celestial.com> wrote in message news:
<20031017215...@alexis.mi.celestial.com>...
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2003, Boyd Gerber wrote:
> >For all those claiming SCO is the only bad guy please look at....
> >
> >http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html
> > [...]
> >Read the whole article to be better informed.
>
> And understand the bias of Forbes, and the technical knowledge of the
> author.
Technical knowledge of authors is indeed always a problem in the
general interest press. But what exactly do you claim Forbes' bias
to be? They proclaim themselves "The capitalist tool", so are you saying
that open source and/or the GPL is anti-capitalist, and because of that
Forbes is biased against it?
As I'm sure you know, there are a wide range of opinions about the
relationship of open source and capitalism, including views that the
two are compatible, incompatible, and orthogonal. The article and
responses at http://slashdot.org/articles/980824/0854256.shtml
quickly summarize many of these different viewpoints.
> That would be like trying to find a favorable article on Clarence
> Thomas or Ward Connerly in a NAACP publication or the New York Times
> (bastion of accurate journalism).
Actually I think the NYT coverage of these IP and licensing issues
has been pretty good, again allowing for it being a general interest
publication. As for how Thomas and Scalia would vote if the GPL
issue ever made it to the Supreme Court, I have no idea! Do you
hazard a guess?
Jonathan Schilling
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
news.he.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!129.250.175.17!pln-w!spln!dex!
extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews4
From: Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: just SCO but look at FSF....
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 09:46:34 -0700
Organization: Committee to Maintain an Independent Xenix
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <95e5pvs33tnjdujksk0kjv7renupedjsr1@4ax.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0310170600330.13922@xenau.zenez.com>
<20031017215130.GC52632@alexis.mi.celestial.com>
<ff3c0649.0310190655.466de840@posting.google.com>
Reply-To: je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-503.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:651
On 19 Oct 2003 07:55:19 -0700, jlsels...@my-deja.com (J. L.
Schilling) wrote:
>As I'm sure you know, there are a wide range of opinions about the
>relationship of open source and capitalism, including views that the
>two are compatible, incompatible, and orthogonal. The article and
>responses at http://slashdot.org/articles/980824/0854256.shtml
>quickly summarize many of these different viewpoints.
I read it and generally agree in principle. Open Source would not
function without the ability of the individual author to impose their
own software license and possibly enforce it in court. However, in
practice, methinks it's all wishful thinking. The entire article and
all of the subsequent comments assume that everyone involved will act
in a rational manner and within the confines of ethics and law. I
suspect that this is a false assumption. Money will make the
decisions and the rules of the game. IBM will probably follow the
example of Disney protecting their Micky Mouse copyright and do
whatever is necessary to protect against furthur repetitions of such
suits. No matter what the outcome of the litigation or negotiation,
IBM has far too much IP at risk to consider Open Source to be a good
thing. It will need to decide if they want to continue supporting
Open Source, or to protect their intellectual property. Actually,
they don't need to decide and are big enough to do both at the same
time. While playing defender of Open Source in the press, they can
also play politics in congress to protect their IP investments. When
faced with loss of profit, companies and individuals do some rather
disgusting things. I seriously expect to see that happen in this
case.
>As for how Thomas and Scalia would vote if the GPL
>issue ever made it to the Supreme Court, I have no idea! Do you
>hazard a guess?
What case, or rather which case? The SCO vs IBM action will probably
never make it to court. SCO doesn't have the resources to persue it,
does not have a clear cut case, and does not have the political clout
to make it a compelling issue. My guess(tm) is that it will be
settled out of court before the 2005 court date, or in the unlikely
event that SCO gets even more additional funding from legal
speculators, it might be dragged out indefinately.
The GNU license issue is probably something that the supremes may want
to deal with. Duz an individual have the right to specify their own
license for their IP and therefore retain control over derivative
work? That will require a court test of the GPL, which the SCO vs IBM
case will only muddle. Therefore, the GPL will need to be tested in a
clear cut license infringement case, and not a muddled mess of
marginal claims. My guess(tm) is that congress, in its infinite
wisdom, as protector of the IP bottom line, will scribble some kind of
"Uniform Software License Law" that imposes limits on software
licenses similar to what it did for warranties. Probably in the name
of "consumer protection" or some such fabrication. Never mind SCO vs
IBM. That's the real threat to Open Source.
--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us je...@cruzio.com
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
xmission!nnrp.xmission!xenau.zenez.com!gerberb
From: Boyd Gerber <ger...@xenau.zenez.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:17:40 +0000
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0310201411250.12020@xenau.zenez.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0310170600330.13922@xenau.zenez.com>
<bms39g$d0l$4@pcls4.std.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: zenez.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: terabinaries.xmission.com 1066713187 13036 166.70.62.2
(21 Oct 2003 05:13:07 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@xmission.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:13:07 +0000 (UTC)
To: to...@aplawrence.com
In-Reply-To: <bms39g$d0l$4@pcls4.std.com>
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:705
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
> Boyd Gerber <ger...@xenau.zenez.com> wrote:
> >For all those claiming SCO is the only bad guy please look at....
>
> >http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html
>
> >I will not quote the whole article, but this except should be enough.
>
> I don't see how that makes FSF "bad guys"..
What I was trying to say is just because you protect your rights your not
a bad guy. But Some here seem to think that just because you sue you are
the bad guy. Sco may have a case, but from what they have shown
publically it is doubtfull. I guess I was just fed up with because SCO
sued they were the bad guys. Using the Same logic then the FSF would be
bad guys for sueing or protecting their rights. I believe FSF was truely
right in what they did. I just hate all the generalizing and stuff stated
to be facts that really are the opinions of the poster. The facts at this
time are not known.
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!
residential.shaw.ca!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw3no.POSTED!53ab2750!
not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0310170600330.13922@xenau.zenez.com>
<bms39g$d0l$4@pcls4.std.com>
<Pine.LNX.4.53.0310201411250.12020@xenau.zenez.com>
Lines: 20
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <pa4lb.138287$pl3.34763@pd7tw3no>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:15:49 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw3no 1066716949 24.69.255.232 (Tue, 21 Oct 2003 00:15:49 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 00:15:49 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:707
Boyd Gerber wrote:
> What I was trying to say is just because you protect your rights your
> not a bad guy.
Listen you MORON, the FSF has absolutely no problem identifying what code
they claim ownership of AND they are not trying to stick up innocent users.
The Lying Scum at SCO refuse to identify WHAT proprietary IP found it's way
into the Linux kernel and they are even dragging their feet in the IBM case
where they are the plaintiffs!
The SCO Group is behaving very badly, court case aside, and the neverending
stream of lies is absolutely bizarre!
I am selling SCO short!
8^)
Brian
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!
stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!
newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
From: bv@wjv.comREMOVE (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....
Reply-To: b...@wjv.com
Organization: W.J.Vermillion - Orlando / Winter Park
Message-ID: <Hn48L3.G5A@wjv.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0310170600330.13922@xenau.zenez.com>
<bms39g$d0l$4@pcls4.std.com>
<Pine.LNX.4.53.0310201411250.12020@xenau.zenez.com>
<pa4lb.138287$pl3.34763@pd7tw3no>
Lines: 13
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:35:17 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.40.24.38
X-Complaints-To: ab...@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1066754117 65.40.24.38
(Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:35:17 PDT) bilv...@earthlink.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:35:17 PDT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:712
In article <pa4lb.138287$pl3.34763@pd7tw3no>,
Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>I am selling SCO short!
Never let your emotions guide you stock purchases. Timing is
everything. If you had sold short at the opening you'd have been
ahead - but if you sold short 20 minutes later you'd be behind
right now. If you went short at the opening, closed that
position, and then went long you'd be ever further ahead.
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
news-out1.nntp.be!propagator2-sterling!In.nntp.be!
pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!
pd7tw2no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0310170600330.13922@xenau.zenez.com>
<bms39g$d0l$4@pcls4.std.com>
<Pine.LNX.4.53.0310201411250.12020@xenau.zenez.com>
<pa4lb.138287$pl3.34763@pd7tw3no> <Hn48L3.G5A@wjv.com>
Lines: 31
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <IHflb.139497$9l5.45398@pd7tw2no>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:22:16 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw2no 1066764136 24.69.255.232 (Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:22:16 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:22:16 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:719
Bill Vermillion wrote:
> Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>>I am selling SCO short!
> Never let your emotions guide you stock purchases. Timing is
> everything. If you had sold short at the opening you'd have been
> ahead - but if you sold short 20 minutes later you'd be behind
> right now. If you went short at the opening, closed that
> position, and then went long you'd be ever further ahead.
Bill, I happen to know SCO is totally full of shit.
I also know that if a judge rules SCO can't dismiss the RedHat case, the
stock is going to freefall.
I also know SCO is running out of time and excuses for not delivering up
evidence in the IBM lawsuit.
I also know that IBM is going to gut SCO with it's countersuit.
As for SCOX - my investment is going to yield about $1600+ in todays trading
so far - not too shabby for a Linux Zealot.
I am going to let it ride for the duration - damn banks don't pay anything
anyway.
Best regards,
Brian
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!
stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!
newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
From: bv@wjv.comREMOVE (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....
Reply-To: b...@wjv.com
Organization: W.J.Vermillion - Orlando / Winter Park
Message-ID: <Hn4Hzs.Mo6@wjv.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0310170600330.13922@xenau.zenez.com>
<pa4lb.138287$pl3.34763@pd7tw3no> <Hn48L3.G5A@wjv.com>
<IHflb.139497$9l5.45398@pd7tw2no>
Lines: 52
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:05:22 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.40.24.38
X-Complaints-To: ab...@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net 1066766722 65.40.24.38
(Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:05:22 EDT) bilv...@earthlink.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:05:22 EDT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:722
In article <IHflb.139497$9l5.45398@pd7tw2no>,
Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>Bill Vermillion wrote:
>> Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>
>>>I am selling SCO short!
>
>> Never let your emotions guide you stock purchases. Timing is
>> everything. If you had sold short at the opening you'd have been
>> ahead - but if you sold short 20 minutes later you'd be behind
>> right now. If you went short at the opening, closed that
>> position, and then went long you'd be ever further ahead.
>Bill, I happen to know SCO is totally full of shit.
That has nothing to do with my comment - it was just letting
emotions pick stocks - which is what you appeared to be saying.
>I also know that if a judge rules SCO can't dismiss the RedHat
>case, the stock is going to freefall.
Could be - but tnat's not today - and the stock will go up and
down in the meantime.
Daytrading can be dangerous - but I used to trade commodities at
one time and that makes day trading look as safe as mothers milk.
>I also know SCO is running out of time and excuses for not
>delivering up evidence in the IBM lawsuit.
Has nothing to do with stock.
>I also know that IBM is going to gut SCO with it's countersuit.
>As for SCOX - my investment is going to yield about $1600+ in
>todays trading so far - not too shabby for a Linux Zealot.
Just so you move in and out as the market dictates. Sales/trades
made with good business judgment are just fine - but you appeared
to making judgements based on emotions as all you said was that you
were going to sell SCO short. Volative stocks aren't something you
want to buy or sell and just sit on.
>I am going to let it ride for the duration - damn banks don't
>pay anything anyway.
You've noticed that too.
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
cyclone.bc.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!
pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!pd7cy2so!pd7cy1no!
shaw.ca!pd7tw3no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0310170600330.13922@xenau.zenez.com>
<pa4lb.138287$pl3.34763@pd7tw3no> <Hn48L3.G5A@wjv.com>
<IHflb.139497$9l5.45398@pd7tw2no> <Hn4Hzs.Mo6@wjv.com>
Lines: 21
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <v0hlb.141779$pl3.130700@pd7tw3no>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:52:43 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw3no 1066769563 24.69.255.232
(Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:52:43 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:52:43 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:723
Bill Vermillion wrote:
> Just so you move in and out as the market dictates. Sales/trades
> made with good business judgment are just fine - but you appeared
> to making judgements based on emotions as all you said was that you
> were going to sell SCO short. Volative stocks aren't something you
> want to buy or sell and just sit on.
I sold 2000 shares short at ~21 last week.
We are now at 17.18 and falling.
I'll buy back in when it hits 5.
I expect by March, 2004.
I am not a day trader but one of my clients is.
8^)
Brian
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!
207.179.224.250!not-for-mail
From: Tom Felker <tcfe...@mtco.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: just SCO but look at FSF....
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:56:18 -0500
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <pan.2003.10.23.00.56.15.793847@mtco.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0310170600330.13922@xenau.zenez.com>
<20031017215130.GC52632@alexis.mi.celestial.com>
<ff3c0649.0310190655.466de840@posting.google.com>
<95e5pvs33tnjdujksk0kjv7renupedjsr1@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.179.224.250
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1066870555 30145437 207.179.224.250 (16 [200774])
User-Agent: Pan/0.14.0 (I'm Being Nibbled to Death by Cats!)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:783
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 09:46:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Duz an individual have the right to specify their own
> license for their IP and therefore retain control over derivative
> work?
Um... yes?
--
Tom Felker, <tcfe...@mtco.com>
<http://vlevel.sourceforge.net> - Stop fiddling with the volume knob.
The Congress shall have Power... TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL
ARTS, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive
Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
newsfeed.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: to...@aplawrence.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: just SCO but look at FSF....
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:16:34 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://www.aplawrence.com
Lines: 18
Sender: Tony Lawrence <a...@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Message-ID: <bn89q2$gku$1@pcls4.std.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0310170600330.13922@xenau.zenez.com>
<20031017215130.GC52632@alexis.mi.celestial.com>
<ff3c0649.0310190655.466de840@posting.google.com>
<95e5pvs33tnjdujksk0kjv7renupedjsr1@4ax.com>
<pan.2003.10.23.00.56.15.793847@mtco.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pip1-5.std.com
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1066904194 17054 192.74.137.185
(23 Oct 2003 10:16:34 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:16:34 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.4.5-20010409 ("One More Nightmare") (UNIX)
(IRIX64/6.5 (IP27))
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:794
Tom Felker <tcfe...@mtco.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 09:46:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> Duz an individual have the right to specify their own
>> license for their IP and therefore retain control over derivative
>> work?
>Um... yes?
Um.. maybe.
While our hope and desire may be that the GPL stands up in court,
it may not. It might very well be that intended control
gets lost.
--
to...@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.albacom.net!newsread.albacom.net!
not-for-mail
From: Roberto Zini <r...@robnothere.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:17:37 +0200
Organization: Strhold Evolution Division - Italy
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <3F97C6E1.6020105@robnothere.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0310170600330.13922@xenau.zenez.com>
<bms39g$d0l$4@pcls4.std.com>
<Pine.LNX.4.53.0310201411250.12020@xenau.zenez.com>
<pa4lb.138287$pl3.34763@pd7tw3no>
Reply-To: r...@robnothere.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: host130-53.pool81113.interbusiness.it
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: newsread.albacom.net 1066911459 1948 81.113.53.130
(23 Oct 2003 12:17:39 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@albacom.net
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1)
Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, it
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:796
Brian wrote:
> Boyd Gerber wrote:
>
>>What I was trying to say is just because you protect your rights your
>>not a bad guy.
>
>
> Listen you MORON, the FSF has absolutely no problem identifying what code
> they claim ownership of AND they are not trying to stick up innocent users.
>
> The Lying Scum at SCO refuse to identify WHAT proprietary IP found it's way
> into the Linux kernel and they are even dragging their feet in the IBM case
> where they are the plaintiffs!
>
> The SCO Group is behaving very badly, court case aside, and the neverending
> stream of lies is absolutely bizarre!
>
I usually don't like entering this kind of discussion but some days ago
I had the chance to talk about this issue (ie, the fact that SCO has yet
to publicy demonstrate the code which has supposedly been stolen) with a
SCO's rep who was able to tell me more about that.
I don't want to defend/attack SCO; I just want to share what he told me
about.
He said (and again, I cannot tell if the following is true or not) that
the pieces of codes demonstrated during the SCO forum were only examples
of the kind if code being managed/stolen, not real ones.
I'm with some of the group here when they say "hey, if you want (or are
in the position to) offer a proof, then show it; if not, shut up!" (or
something like that) but I can __understand__ that if SCO has some proof
that their code has been copied/adopted, it is __NOT__ in their best
interest to show it to the world UNLESS "the world" stands in front of a
court.
Next, I've been told that both Stallman, Torvalds and the guys from FSF
have been offered the chance to sign up a NDA agreement (which did not
cost 'em anything) as to go to the SCO's offices and check the code
theirselves but they refused.
Also, he told me about the SGI issue: he said that SGI cleaned up the
code after SCO told about that and he made me think about the following
example: suppose someone stole your car. Now suppose the police catch
him up after a couple of days.
Once "trapped", he says "OK, you got me. Here's the car: I can fill her
up, take her to the car wash and even return her to the owner. OK, we're
friends now, aren't we ? Now, let me go."
Will you be satisfied by this behaviour or you'll try to bring him to
justice as to have it convicted for stealing your car ?
Once more, I'm not in the position to say if the above facts are true or
not but if this is true, I can understand SOME of their (SCO) moves; on
the other hand, I'm not with them concerning the way they let the world
know about it and I do think some of their moves are plain wrong.
Just some info shared with the group.
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
newspeer1.nwr.nac.net!quark.scn.rain.com!sea-feed.news.verio.net!
pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!
pd7tw2no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0310170600330.13922@xenau.zenez.com>
<bms39g$d0l$4@pcls4.std.com>
<Pine.LNX.4.53.0310201411250.12020@xenau.zenez.com>
<pa4lb.138287$pl3.34763@pd7tw3no> <3F97C6E1.6020105@robnothere.com>
Lines: 49
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <Uw4mb.163119$9l5.11512@pd7tw2no>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:28:52 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw2no 1066980532 24.69.255.232 (Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:28:52 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:28:52 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:839
Roberto Zini wrote:
> Also, he told me about the SGI issue: he said that SGI cleaned up the
> code after SCO told about that and he made me think about the following
> example: suppose someone stole your car. Now suppose the police catch
> him up after a couple of days.
>
> Once "trapped", he says "OK, you got me. Here's the car: I can fill her
> up, take her to the car wash and even return her to the owner. OK, we're
> friends now, aren't we ? Now, let me go."
>
> Will you be satisfied by this behavior or you'll try to bring him to
> justice as to have it convicted for stealing your car ?
This is one of the common tactics of the SCO Scum Sucking Liars at SCO.
If I steal your car, you can no longer drive that car - it is removed from
your care and control.
If I steal your car, you certainly can't sell that car or use it to produce
income.
If I steal your car, you may never get it back and as such you have lost a
possession permanently.
If I infringe your copyright, in other words, I have included code you have
exclusive rights to in my own software project, I have not removed the code
from your care and control - you still own it - it is still yours.
If I infringe your copyright, you are still able to use that code, you are
still able to sell copies of that code, you can still deploy and support
that code for payment and profit.
If I infringe your copyright, You still have the code - it can't suffer
damage and be irreparably damaged so it can no longer be used.
The stolen car analogy is total bullshit - the SCO rep is full of shit -
Tell him to his face!
Or better still, give me his email address and I will happily tell him he is
full of shit.
I will also cite legal decisions that support my analogy.
SCO are a pack of lying scum sucking bastards!
Best regards,
Brian
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!
sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!pd7cy2so!shaw.ca!
pd7tw1no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: just SCO but look at FSF....
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0310170600330.13922@xenau.zenez.com>
<20031017215130.GC52632@alexis.mi.celestial.com>
<ff3c0649.0310190655.466de840@posting.google.com>
<95e5pvs33tnjdujksk0kjv7renupedjsr1@4ax.com>
<pan.2003.10.23.00.56.15.793847@mtco.com> <bn89q2$gku$1@pcls4.std.com>
Lines: 38
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <RJ4mb.164221$6C4.105197@pd7tw1no>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:42:41 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw1no 1066981361 24.69.255.232 (Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:42:41 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:42:41 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:841
to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
>>> Duz an individual have the right to specify their own
>>> license for their IP and therefore retain control over derivative
>>> work?
>>Um... yes?
> Um.. maybe.
What The Fuck is the matter with you Anthony?
Are you retarded or something?
Of course it is up to the writer what license he chooses for his original
material.
You really are a fucking moron Tony.
Let me ask you this; Will you back your bullshit suppositions with some cold
hard cash?
I am willing to make a cash bet that SCO crashes and burns and that all your
suppositions are total crap.
What do you say Tony, how about $1000 US? We post the bet in Las Vegas no
later than November 14th, 2003, to be determined by April 1st, 2004.
Put up or keep your uninformed ignorant bullshit opinions to yourself.
You see, I think you are just talking trash BUT I am willing to back my
opinion with some cold hard cash.
Wanna make some money?
8^)
Brian