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

2003-07-26 12:19:49 AM
kylix1
"juliusz" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
If he did he wouldn't have said what he said so I commented on that.
The discussion you guys were having was compromised by that statement so any
comments on it actually are on-topic.
off-topic), discussions can have small floatations during their course. This
is natural, right and human. How many times did you see something
transforming itself into something else?
THIS, for instance, is an example of that as well. I just diverged on
something different but it's a natural part of the conversation.
 

"juliusz" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
punished?
it.
 

"Ender" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
 

{smallsort}

In article <3f2148ea$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Martin.Waldenburg@T-
Online.de says...
"derivative work" they can get their fingers in.
As to the famous '80 lines' they've been showing people in carefully
controlled labs, the Doctrine of Fair Use likely comes into play:
www.bitlaw.com/copyright/fair_use.html
Of course, I'm sure they'd have you believe those lines are the most
important part of AT&T SysV and negatively impacts on their business.
-- Ritchie Annand
Senior Software Architect
Malibu Software & Engineering Ltd.
Business: www.malibugroup.com
Personal: nimble.nimblebrain.net
Wiki: wiki.nimblebrain.net
 

Tom wrote:
(I think).
source (at least SYSV) is owned by Novell (or SCO). AT&T has
not owned it since 1994.
after the LZW patent for many years.
Please do everyone a favour and check your facts first and stop
spreading FUD.
B
--
www.mailtrap.org.uk/
www.ibrox.demon.co.uk/
 

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:19:49 -0500, "Alessandro Federici - RemObjects
Software" <alef@[nospam]remobjects.com>wrote:
Ender said:
ROTFL You're joking, right?
If you are found guilty of stealing, you pay. It doesn't matter what
you do afterwards. You are not not-punished for what you do
afterwards. You are punished for what you did.
I said that's a poor example. Ender is clearly speaking of SCO and
linux source. You were replying to that exact comment. I have no
idea when you decided you were talking about crime and punishment in
general.
AF said:
"So you think that if you do something good the day after, you won't
get punished?"
The answer is in some cases YES. IP example:
Day 1: I start selling my widget RemObjects.
Day 2: AF sends me a letter saying he's used that name for the past
two years and the product already exists.
Day 3: I rename my product and am not punished. I violated your IP,
you informed me, I fixed my end, and that's the end of it. If I
caused any damages to your company you may be entitled to something
more.
 

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:00:38 +0600, "Ender"
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
borland.public.kylix.non-technical:
Peter Miller
PK Solutions
 

Ritchie Annand wrote:
techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2914364,00.html
*****************************************************************************
Fact: SCO's contract with IBM excludes from confidentiality requirements
derivitive work that is "independently created" by IBM.
Proof: www.caldera.com/scosource/ExhibitD.qxd.pdf see 3.04(v) on
page 12.
*****************************************************************************
Martin
 

Bob,
Please don't use the word "{*word*99}" in your comments. That word
suggest of having no respect for the person you comment.
First this is nu FUD at all. I only want to share my thought
and I surely not FUDDING against Linux. I only want to tell that
I'm against SCO.
Tom
 

Bob Goddard wrote:
--
.. Phoenix
 

"ckd" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
[..]
quickly rewrite these places ") for a possible legal episode ("If they show
what places of code is "stolen").
He's the one that used those terms. My comments were perfectly legit.
If I'd be greedy like SCO is being and I find any legal way to have you pay
for that, you can be sure I will enforce that.
In the moment law is enforced you have to pay. If you don't is because we
settle that before hand. And in the event SCO proves its point, you can be
sure it won't happen.
 

In borland.public.kylix.non-technical, XXXX@XXXXX.COM wrote in
message < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >...
Copyright infringement is definitely stealing.
--
***Posted by Jake's Custom Newsgroup Reader***
Posted using Jake's Super Newsreader 0.9.2.953
 

Captain Jake wrote:
www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32004.html
--
.. Phoenix
 

the autor of the book), you are not stealing, you can not be punished, only
the publisher-autor that copies the copyrighted material. Can you imagine a
million book readers paying money to the plagied author, just because they
purchase a book?. This is about copyright , not licenses. That is when a
software company have introduced copyrighted code from anyother company
without permission, the company is punished not every software user.
Note I already have a license from SCO to use Linux (downloaded from the SCO
ftp site), I will use that license (GPL and others licenses) I have no need
to purchase another one, the license provided by SCO have no expiration
date.
 

infringed copyright and must pay for it, after SCO probes the infringement
anybody can remove the infringements and replace it with GPL copyrighted
code.
Also if SCO proves the copyright infringement then my ethic says to me to
replace my Linux instalations with other Linux installations with no
copyright infringement.