1 Nov 2003 01:57
Re: fwd: [SLL] Fighting evil with evil
Dan Wilder <dan <at> ssc.com>
2003-11-01 00:57:31 GMT
2003-11-01 00:57:31 GMT
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 05:06:56PM -0500, Tanner Lovelace wrote: > Dan Wilder wrote: > >If we were to all line up, all bazillion of us, and one at a time serve > >their provider notice and have their bandwidth dropped until such time as > >they correct their error, we could have them down for years! Or at least > >until such time as the clue-by-four connected with Darl McBride's temple, > >or > >the SEC gets wise to this whole stock scheme and puts them out of business > >for good.... > > > >But anyway. Any Linux kernel contributor has the right to terminate SCO's > >right to distribute same by citing non-compliance with the GPL, and serve > >DMCA notice that they must cease and desist from providing > >therefore-unlicensed software for download. > > Ok, the main flaw I see in this is that you have to specify which > files on their site are infriging. A quick look at ftp.sco.com > failed to find actual kernel source files. The only thing I found > was something called "kernel-addon[...].src.rpm". Does anyone > have a specific url for kernel source files? I forwarded the message > to my local LUG list and at least one kernel contributor is asking how > one goes about submitting a DMCA takedown notice. It would seem that if they distribute a copy of the kernel itself, a reasonable person might conclude that what they distribute contains the intellectual property of a kernel contributor, in binary form, provided that the kernel in question appeared to contain the system having that contributor's work. In other words, that the takedown order would apply to the binary copy of the kernel they distribute.(Continue reading)
I was not directly involved in the contract negotiations (one degree of
separation), and it was six months ago, but it was price increases and
some politics that ended the deal. The UW System had a contract for two
years which provided MS Office, Windows, and various other software to
campus very inexpensively ($20 for Office, etc.). At the time the
alternatives were not what they are today. It was a good deal, even for
people who dislike MS, and hard to pass up. There was a lot of criticism
that we were selling out: "Oh, they'll get you on the hook, and then
you're stuck." Yup -- all companies try that, though. I also seem to
recall that there was some animosity between MS and some key people here
during the negotiation process. While we're a state institution and cannot
make completely arbitrary decisions as a corporation could, a company
probably should not make their customers start thinking of alternatives,
especially during negotiations.
I am not familiar with the deal that the rest of the UW System achieved.
Madison departments can still get Microsoft products under their Select
licensing programs, just at a higher cost to us ($590 or so for Windows
Server 2003 and three years of software assurance/support). This is closer
to the rest of our OSes -- for example, we've begun to use Red Hat
Enterprise Linux, rather than the free Red Hat Linux/Fedora. With the
pricing closer to each other people stop being blinded by "free" and ask
good questions about security, reliability, and cost of their servers over
time. Ironically, AIX and Solaris are free for our use (gotta have the
special hardware, of course)[1]. And Apple Mac OS X use is growing, too
(especially with Panther and Samba 3).
RSS Feed