Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

1994 BSD/Unix Settlement Released On Groklaw

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the windfall dept.

The Courts 336

davidwr writes "Groklaw has the newly-released-previously-secret 1994 Berkeley/UNIX Systems Laboratories settlement which gave rise to BSD4.4(Lite) (as pdf and text with commentary). This may have an impact on the SCO vs. Linux war."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

ft (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10938960)

first troll

*BSD IS DYING (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10938961)

(see subject)

No, that's "Slashdot is dying" (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939022)

See yesterday's Groklaw post - today!

War? (4, Funny)

gatorflux (759239) | more than 9 years ago | (#10938963)

Is it really a war if one side never wins a battle?

War is easy when one side is DEAD (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939001)

See subject.

Re:War? (3, Insightful)

John Allsup (987) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939075)

It is quite possible to win the war having never won a battle. One side may win every battle, but be forced to concede defeat due to unforseen circumstances (vacuously, this may happen in the case where no overt battles are actually fought, as in the cold war.) [For more details, see Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War']

Many overt battles were fought. (2, Insightful)

hummassa (157160) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939134)

Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Spain, Brasil, Argentina, even in the US during the McArthism days. Lots of people died. Lots of people were deprived of their rights. These were overt battles to me. Ah, you meant overt like "Bam! I am attacking you because you are a communist" and not just "Bam!". Ok.

Sure, why not (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939085)

The U.S. has for the last 30 years been consistently waging wars against inanimate and/or nonexistent concepts (cancer, drugs, terrorism). If there's no requirement in a war that both sides actually exist, then why is it necessary for both sides to win battles?

Re:War? (5, Funny)

DJTodd242 (560481) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939098)

I dunno. How is that war on Drugs, and the war on terrah going for you guys? :)

Re:War? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939137)

that's Terror

Learn to spell you beatnik piece of trailer trash.

USofA lost both. (3, Insightful)

hummassa (157160) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939154)

Drugs exist. They won't cease existing. Lost this one.

Terror is something that exists. It won't cease existing. Oops, lost that one too.

You can fight a war against some people; you cannot fight a war against all the people.

Re:USofA lost both. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939189)

So all people are drug-abusing terrorists? Thanks..

Re:USofA lost both. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939216)

Drugs seem to be inanimate, unless you're doing the right ones. And, at the very least, terror is abstract (if not inanimate).

The grandparent misspoke.

Re:USofA lost both. (-1, Offtopic)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939230)

actually the war on terror isn't a loosing battle. There won't always be terror at least on the scale it is today.

The object of the war on terror isn't to make everyone agree and get along. It is to force the terrorist to make changes by piecful means. A group of people that don't reflect the population killing civilians is not a noble thing to do no matter how you try to justify it. There are alway other options like full blown war were you go after troops and military instead of average joe trying to make a living. Once an organization creates a situation were the entire country is willing to goto war, it is likley that thier grevences would have already been addresses because of the public setiment behind it.

Even today, we see terrorism in areas by those claiming to represent more people than they doo. You have muslim extreamist that turned to terrorism claiming to represent a good portion of muslims wich is false. you have palistinians with thier suicide bombing claiming to represent more people then they do. You even have countries like spain that cave in and give terrorist legitamicy. Even now there is a push to clean up the U.N. because of it's support for different terrorist or the countries that support it.

Speaking of terror and terrorist. Knobody is saying they cannot have a differing opinion then others. No one is remotley saying they cannot try to act on that opinion. What is being said is that they cannot use terror as a weapon to express those differences or try to force policy changes.

Because it is happening doesn't mean it is loosing. What it means is that those willing to fight it will put it in a place were civilians aren't going to get hit with it. You may say what about iraq. well eventually thier government will make it the same way as elswere. This war on terror isn';t and never will be a snap your fingers and it is done situation. It is a constantly ongoing situation were the goal is to either halt terrorist activity or take the terrorist actions to a place were less inocent civilians are likley to get hurt.

The war on terror also is fought several different ways. Some ways might include military action while others might make sure those disgressed have a voice in the politics surounding the issue. One thing is certain, once they decide to use terror as a bargaining chip, they won't get the second treatment.

Re:USofA lost both. (3, Funny)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939242)

You lost the war on spelling I see... ;)

Re:USofA lost both. (1)

bstadil (7110) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939318)

Not to mention the war on "make people understand that sometimes deliberate misspellings convey a subtle and often amusing message"

Re:USofA lost both. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939387)

i never put up a fight. ;)

Re:USofA lost both. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939320)

What is being said is that they cannot use terror as a weapon to express those differences or try to force policy changes.

You fucking rube. The US sponsors terrorism worldwide in places like Israel, Turkey, Colombia, etc. for its own purposes. The war on terror is a convienent tool to manipulate the public to bend to the will of the leaders, e.g., the war in Iraq, USA PATRIOT Act, just like the war on drugs, the Cold War, and most if not all of the real wars in American history have been.

Re:USofA lost both. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939368)

You fucking wannabe propagandist. Blow that smoke out you ass. Before you spew garbage like that, you might want to actually know what the hell you are talking about. Any nut like yourself can spew this kind of FUD without having to back it up. Just go back to your Al-Jazeera watching and militia pamphlet reading bubble and stop bringing the world down from your defective DNA.

Wait, I have one for you:

Nutjobs who use the word "rube" suck terrorist cocks for jollies.

Re:USofA lost both. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939405)

Politics is much more complex than a sound bite can convey, this may be news to you-at least it seems as if it would by the manner in which you have commented. Both ideology and manipulation of information to support that ideology or oppose opponent ideologies are central to all political parties and individuals.

Re:USofA lost both. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939347)

Please save your stupid arguments for some place where it is on topic, mr. dumass.

Re:USofA lost both. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939348)

Amazingly convenient, your shallow perception. The populous of Spain never supported a "war on terror," the former major party of government did. That party lost as the populous disagreed with its policies, and elected a party that acted as the populous desired. You can not say this as an insult or that Spain "caved in" and at the same time decry zealous minority acting in the supposed name of a populous. That was the former government of Spain as much as you make it the image of "terrorists," however you choose to define it by selective interpretation of history.

USofA cited (financed) both. (2, Insightful)

asac (643533) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939412)

You remember?

...
Sir, my need is sore.
Spirits that I've cited
My commands ignore
...
The Sorcerer's Apprentice - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Re:War? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939177)

You mean the War on Terra, right?

Terrorism - going just fine, thanks for asking. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939322)

How many terrorist incidents have there been in the US since 9/11? The Macy's Parade looked pretty calm to me.

Once we started paying attention to that war, things started going pretty well - including Iraq for those that care to look into things.

I know you meant it as a joke but you are just fostering an illusion promoted by those that have much to gain from terrorism succeeding on some level.

Ask the Dutch [muslimwakeup.com] how well ignoring terrorism is working out for them.

Scowling anti-war Moderators - this post has a POWERFUL HEX placed upon it! Bad things will happen to you if you moderate it down!! Oohh!! Scary! Dare you Mod?! Jim Smith from Ohio moderated this post down and the turkey carcass from Thanksgiving arose from the dead and keyed his car! Don't say you were not warned!

Re:Terrorism - going just fine, thanks for asking. (0, Offtopic)

LilMikey (615759) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939398)

How many terrorist incidents have there been in the US since 9/11? The Macy's Parade looked pretty calm to me.

eh? Acts of terrorism are stable if not on the rise. So, we haven't been bombed on American soil in 4 years? That's not something to brag about.

Story 1 -- global terrorism rose in 2002 [cbsnews.com]
Story 2 -- global terrorism sucks. US may be as safe as we were since 9/11 but reelection may prompt new acts [timesonline.co.uk]
Story 3 -- Rise in terrorism in 2003 over 2002. (Note in the first article 2002's numbers were understated though. [state.gov]
Story 4 -- Lebanese, people who actually know something about terrorim, see 100% rise due to foreign policy. [worldpress.org]
...

It's all google-able. And if we count those 'insurgents' as terrorist, which we're fond of doing when it serves our purposes, terrorism is astronomical.

To paraphrase the simpsons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939416)

I've got a rock that repels tigers. How does it work? Well...do you see any tigers around?

There has never been a single terrorist attack on any Macy's Parade in history. The actual war on terror is goin' pretty shitty. The mexican border is still wide open, with an estimated 1/3 of illegal immigrants being of non-mexican origin. The INS (now called something different..i'm not sure what it is) actually captured and deported a woman from the middle east who was on a terrorist watch list. One out of millions that could have gotten by. Why? Because Bush is doing favors for Vincente Fox. We have great relations with Mexico, despite the fact that they are one of the least democratic, and one of the largest nations in the western hemisphere. Why aren't we holding them up to a higher standard?

A war on terror is, in practice and in theory, an un-winnable war. But hey, keep deluding yourself - it makes life easier, doesn't it?!

Re:War? (2, Interesting)

bergeron76 (176351) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939340)

Interestingly, we're losing them both.

Perhaps it's because neither of them are 'conventional' wars, and we're not used to winning wars with anything other than bombs.

Re:War? (4, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939444)

How is that war on Drugs, and the war on terrah going for you guys?

I thought that was the "War on Terra".

You know, a shorthand description of Bush's environmental policies.

Re:War? (0, Troll)

Deadstick (535032) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939127)

Two words. One of them is Viet.

rj

Re:War? (1)

Piaskal (659973) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939263)

Of course it is, and you know who's winning :)

First (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10938968)

First?

Great to read (2, Interesting)

ShawnX (260531) | more than 9 years ago | (#10938969)

It's pretty interesting to read. A lot of files are mentioned in the settlement.

Re:Great to read (2, Funny)

zaktheduck (753102) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939052)

The person I feel sorry for is the poor so and so who had to list all the entries in the 17 pages comprising Exhibit C. That guy/gal should get a medal.

GNAA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10938970)

GNAA Ported to XBOX

By GNAA staff

New York, NY - GNAA (Gay Nigger Association of America) this afternoon announced completion of a project started almost 6 months ago,
porting of Windows CE.NET environment to Microsoft's XBOX gaming platform.

In a shocking announcement this afternoon, GNAA representative lysol demonstrated the XBOX running Microsoft's own Windows CE.NET 4.2 operating system.

"This is quite an important achievement," lysol began. "By porting Windows CE to XBOX, GNAA will be able to create a beowulf cluster of all XBOXes and use them
to recruit more gay niggers. Next step will naturally be porting our GNAAOS framework to the new system, which will allow us to highly increase our gay
nigger membership.

Unlike the Microsoft's custom OS, based on Windows 2000 kernel currently running on the XBOX, with a custom (and somewhat limited API), Windows CE.NET
will allow running a whole range of Win32 applications on the XBOX by simply recompiling them. Because the differences between Windows CE.NET Win32 API are minimal,
any type of gay nigger software can be easily ported to run on the new platform. GNAA is expecting to begin work on porting GNAAOS framework "real soon now",
according to GNAA representative goat-see.

For more details, please visit GNAA official website at http://pepper.idge.net/gnaa/ [idge.net] .

About GNAA

GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which

gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?

Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org] ?

Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
) might be exactly what you've been looking for!

Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.

GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members
all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it.

Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website

Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on EFNet, and apply for membership.

Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet,
and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.isprime.com as one of the EFNet servers.

If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here [nero-online.org] .

About Xbox

Xbox (http://www.xbox.com/) is Microsoft's future-generation video game system that delivers the most powerful games experiences ever. Xbox empowers game artists by giving them the technology to fulfill their creative visions as never before, creating games that blur the lines between fantasy and reality. Xbox is now available in the continents of North America, Europe, Asia and Australia.

About Microsoft

Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq "MSFT") is the worldwide leader in software, services and Internet technologies for personal and business computing. The company offers a wide range of products and services designed to empower people through great software -- any time, any place and on any device.

Microsoft and Xbox are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corp. in the United States and/or other countries.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

By moderating this post as "Underrated", you cannot be Meta-Moderated! Please consider this.

first (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10938972)

first post :-)

Right, but... (4, Interesting)

adun (127187) | more than 9 years ago | (#10938973)

...does any of this in any way impact the slew of child BSD's out there? I would think Open/Net/Free have more to lose from some "revelation" due to this document than Linux.

No (5, Insightful)

ColourlessGreenIdeas (711076) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939095)

The current BSDs are all forks of the version of BSD that was released to comply with this ruling. Which doesn't include the restricted files (those in Exhibit A) We've always known they were clean. We just hadn't previously known what it was about them that made them clean.

no (5, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939116)

You ask:

does any of this in any way impact the slew of child BSD's out there?

The answer is no. Nobody but SCO has anything to worry about. As Grocklaw astutely notes:

Now we know why SCO keeps telling us the case is "just a contract" case, why it has a penchant for suing only those who are, or were, their licensees, and why it sued IBM instead of Red Hat. USL preserves its rights against licensees under the license agreements. I see no expanded rights against third parties who are not licensees, just the preexisting right to try to sue them, with the same likely outcome that USL experienced when it tried to sue the University and BSDi, using the same lame copyright claims that the judge back then found so unconvincing.

SCO owns nothing useful and never has. They have yet to show any infringement by IBM nor will they ever. The whole thing is FUD, funded by your friends at M$ and a pump and dump scheme, in short fraud and anti-competitive fraud. I hope someone goes to jail for it.

Re:no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939199)

If you're so sure, write an amicus brief to all judges involved in this case.

Re:Right, but... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939214)

The "impact" is that Free/Net/Open exist in the first place. The bigwigs at the various BSDs have always been privy to this agreement, so no suprises.

There's been a lot of paranoid speculation about this agreement over the years, but it's seems like it's exactly how it was reported in the first place -- Berkeley and others had to rewrite certain files and then could continue to develop BSD.

also no: look at the family tree (4, Interesting)

pikine (771084) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939226)

If you look at the BSD family tree here [tribug.org] , you'd see that at one point in time, all Free/Net/Open BSD changed to use the codebase from 4.4BSD Lite, the unencumbered version.

history (5, Informative)

northcat (827059) | more than 9 years ago | (#10938977)

a little history [wikipedia.org]

Yay! Time to watch this wiki page get defaced! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939007)

I love checking page histories for defacements! Bring on the trolls!

Re:history (5, Funny)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939018)

additional history [wikipedia.org]

just in case (1)

codergeek42 (792304) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939072)

Dang, even Wikipedia seems to be slashdotted. =( Google Cache of Wikipedia Site [66.102.7.104]

Re:just in case (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939081)

Well, that's a pretty poor attempt at karma whoring you've got there.

History: Linus on beginning Linux: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939384)

Linus wrote Linux FROM SCRATCH. By which I mean the following:

A quote from:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~awb/linux.history. html ...
To: Linux-Activists@BLOOM-PICAYUNE.MIT.EDU
From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)

Subject: Re: Writing an OS - questions !!
Date: 5 May 92 07:58:17 GMT ...
1) How would you typically debug the kernel during the development phase?

Depends on both the machine and how far you have gotten on the kernel:
on more simple systems it's generally easier to set up. Here's what I
had to do on a 386 in protected mode.

The worst part is starting off: after you have even a minimal system you
can use printf etc, but moving to protected mode on a 386 isn't fun,
especially if you at first don't know the architecture very well. It's
distressingly easy to reboot the system at this stage: if the 386
notices something is wrong, it shuts down and reboots - you don't even
get a chance to see what's wrong.

Printf() isn't very useful - a reboot also clears the screen, and
anyway, you have to have access to video-mem, which might fail if your
segments are incorrect etc. Don't even think about debuggers: no
debugger I know of can follow a 386 into protected mode. A 386 emulator
might do the job, or some heavy hardware, but that isn't usually
feasible.

What I used was a simple killing-loop: I put in statements like

die:
jmp die

at strategic places. If it locked up, you were ok, if it rebooted, you
knew at least it happened before the die-loop. Alternatively, you might
use the sound io ports for some sound-clues, but as I had no experience
with PC hardware, I didn't even use that. I'm not saying this is the
only way: I didn't start off to write a kernel, I just wanted to explore
the 386 task-switching primitives etc, and that's how I started off (in
about April-91).

Relative sizes (1)

KZigurs (638781) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939437)

Nobody finds it funny that the amount of text differs so dramatically between those two entries in wikipedia?

Especially considering which one of those cases was the serious one.

First Prime Factorization Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10938978)

1994 = 2 * 997

neger (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10938980)

neger

Lets not clobber groklaw please: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10938981)

Link broken, fixed link: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939020)

working link [google.com]

Re:Link broken, fixed link: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939043)

Parent is goatse troll, don't click it.

Re:Link broken, fixed link: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939096)

spoilsport *spit*

pay the cost to be the boss (5, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#10938984)

These corporations take their feuds into the courts, where we pay taxes for them to produce justice. Then they settle, because the actual trial completion costs too much and is too risky for their own investment in justice. So we get no return on our investment in justice, but the corporations do, without the full cost or risk. They should have to at least register their settlement terms, especially since they'll next expect our courts to enforce them. The judge should decide whether they can keep the settlement secret, and for how long, so we can at least get some contribution to the justice we're funding. Otherwise, we're just funding expensive corporate negotiations.

Re:pay the cost to be the boss (4, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939064)

Depends upon the relative size and heft of the combatants. Between a Microsoft and a one-man garage software shop the law is a blunt instrument used to beat someone to a bloody pulp. But that doesn't usually cost much court time (Burst not withstanding.) Between two more evenly-matched players ... you're pretty much dead on.

Carrying it a step further, I'm leaning towards the idea that, once you've filed a lawsuit, an out-of-court settlement should no longer be possible. Why should it? If two companies can't agree before going to court, why should the courts be used to pressure one side or the other to give in? You're right, that's not justice and it is an abuse of the court system. Either you drop the case (and take your lumps) or pursue it to the bitter end and accept what the justice system hands you. If that's not worth the risk, then make a deal before going in.

Re:pay the cost to be the boss (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939133)

Even a one-man garage SW shop, with the facts on their side, can offer a very expensive challenge to Microsoft. And they sometimes win - which is a reason they can sometimes raise the money as investment in their victory. But I'm talking about the costs *to taxpayers* like us. If MS and other companies want to fight, and it's expensive, that's their problem. But these corporations are wasting so much of our government budgets on their negotiations that it's a DoS attack on our system, without much cost or risk to them.

Civil suits are ways to remedy damages between citizens, so litigants should be able to "cut their losses" when Justice is going against them. Their active participation is required for our adversarial process of justice to work, but either side might not be in position to continue the process past a certain point, compared with settling. But, as we apparently agree, the public shouldn't be cheated of everything in that case. Their settlements are the only product available, and that should be used for the public benefit as much as is just, as decided by the judge in the case.

Re:pay the cost to be the boss (1)

vsprintf (579676) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939162)

Carrying it a step further, I'm leaning towards the idea that, once you've filed a lawsuit, an out-of-court settlement should no longer be possible. Why should it? If two companies can't agree before going to court, why should the courts be used to pressure one side or the other to give in?

The court often directs the opposing parties to reach a settlement. If one party doesn't try or negotiate in good faith, then they are in trouble.

That legitimizes corporate black-mail though! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939158)

That legitimizes corporate black-mail though!

And the us is not england. In england the rich lawyers win, in the USA no one wins.

Its more "fair"

Say no to black-mail tactics (threaten stock value, threaten merger potential, threaten customer base, threaten creditor and cash flow).

Secret is secret for a reason.

Re:That legitimizes corporate black-mail though! (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939433)

How does my scenario "legitimize corporate blackmail"?

Re:pay the cost to be the boss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939190)

where we pay taxes for them to produce justice


i though corporations paid taxes.

Re:pay the cost to be the boss (1)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939317)

People pay taxes, corporations recieve "justice".

Re:pay the cost to be the boss (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939446)

This year a study showed that over 50% of corporations hadn't paid taxes since 1995. Capital gains, the profit on equity that is the corporate reason for being, is taxed as little as 10% most of the time, and less than that some of the time. Bush is trying to get capital gains to be taxfree.

Re:pay the cost to be the boss (4, Insightful)

bstone (145356) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939252)

Worse than that, with sealed settlements and sealed documents filed in the court cases, the rest of the people who are affected by the proceedings have no way of knowing how they were affected. Rulings on the ownership of code and agreements between the various parties to lawsuits leave the rest of the world unable to know how to react.

Can I contribute to BSD code, or does someone else own it who can sue me for derivitive works? Can I legally use various open source software, or has it been decided that the company who allowed me that option has conceded that they really didn't own it in a sealed agreement? Do I owe SCO extortion fees because of something AT&T and BSD decided in a sealed settlement (SCO seems to think so, and somehow they seem to have the documents)? Has SCO, as they have claimed, given the courts proof of their ownership of Linux code in sealed documents? Can I be held liable for not knowing the contents of those documents?

As soon as something affects third parties, whether it's a settlement agreement, a court decision, or documents filed with the courts, it should not be allowed to be sealed and hidden from the other parties who are affected.

Re:pay the cost to be the boss (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939430)

You're an idiot.

1. Court costs are only incurred when in court. Out of court settlements do not invoke "taxes for them to produce justice"

2. Trial costs a lot because of lawyers, experts, exhibits, etc...not judges. Court fees are one of the smallest expenses in a trial.

3. Out of court settlements are not judicial decisions and not subject to appeal or review. They do not become "enforceable", nor can a settlement overturn "settled" law.

4. Court fees cover the operational cost of the court system. Courts neither make, nor lose money. In fact, many courts make money - e.g. traffic court.

It's not the judges that are draining your wallet, it's the legislators elected by fools like yourself. Please stop speaking out/voting until you understand how the system works.

Wow! Earthshatering evidence. (5, Funny)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939004)

Exhibit G is a death certificate for BSD!

EarthSHATNERing Evidence. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939014)

Exhibit..... G... IS! a death certificate....for BSD!

Re:Wow! Earthshatering evidence. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939037)

For the convenience of the moderators, please note that there is no exhibit G in the article, and that the poster is a troll.

Re:Wow! Earthshatering evidence. (2, Funny)

gimpboy (34912) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939047)

I think he was joking. The whole BSD is dead thing.

Re:Wow! Earthshatering evidence. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939126)

Which just goes to prove: BSD is utterly dead. Not even its death certificate has survived.

Re:Wow! Earthshatering evidence. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939185)

For the convenience of the moderators, please note that there is no exhibit G in the article, and that the poster is a troll.

For the convenience of the moderators, please note that the parent AC has no user ID or sense of humor. If any other information is required for proper moderation, I (the real AC) will notify you. Please return to moderating now.

Re:Wow! Earthshatering evidence. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939041)

stupid troll. stupid mods for not link checking.

stupid troll (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939058)

stupid troll for not checking to see if the original parent post even had a link!

Re:Wow! Earthshatering evidence. (1)

entrigant (233266) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939103)

Whoa you're right. I knew BSD was dying...

Big Difference (4, Interesting)

miyako (632510) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939034)

It seems to me that there is a pretty big difference between this case and SCO's case against IBM. It looks like in this case, it was admitted that BSD contained some code that both parties admitted to, but the debate was over whether or not that code was ok to have in there. SCO on the other hand seems to be claiming ownership of code that may not even be there in the first place, or maybe I just missed something.

Re:Big Difference (1)

mslinux (570958) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939119)

You are missing something. SCO hasn't said this explicitly, but here's what they are implying:

"SCO owns the concept of Unix. Linux is a successful Unix-like operating system. SCO sales are down. Linux has stolen the Unix concepts that we own. Look how similar each OS is implemented. Let's try to sue someone."

Re:Big Difference - is your reading comprehension (4, Informative)

Herschel Cohen (568) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939145)

The University of California did not agree with the USL contention of ownership of certain files. Indeed, they were quite obviously dubious of the claim. Instead they said if USL wished to pursue other parties it would play no role in their defense until it came to searching U.C. records.

That's not the difference (4, Interesting)

ColourlessGreenIdeas (711076) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939146)

SCO may or may not be claiming this is a contract case, not a copyright case. It's a bit hard to follow as their arguments are a bit incoherent. (Read a lot of Groklaw to understand this point, especialy stuff relating to IBM's request for a partial summary judgement on their 10th counterclaim) If it is about copyright, SCO appear to be claiming copyright on IBM's extensions to AIX, some of which probably are in Linux, but everybody except SCO seems to think that SCO has no rights over that code so it's OK. Which is much the same as your summary of the BSD/USL case.

What I didn't see: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939053)

Any mention of the appelate jurisdictional issues re Whit vs Proffman, a well known precedent in the Delaware courts.

Any sound jursit understands that it is the a priori confidence writs that express the popular notion of the capital assessment with regards to extracontractual redactments. In these settlements I see none of this, and it makes me wonder if Whit vs Proffman, State of Alabama vs Saginaw Machinery Inc, or the Ninth Court rulings in 1973 were read by any of the lawyers involved.

Re:What I didn't see: (TROLL!) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939087)

Don't be fooled by this legalease, all this AC lawyer (probably working for SCO) is saying is that she can't understand the document, and doesn't have the full proceedings which would reveal her "insights" to be completely moot.

Re:What I didn't see: (TROLL!) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939121)

you got me, i was wondering if i put some entirely false mumbo jumbo into a post would get mod points. i'll try again with a more subtle approach another day

Re:What I didn't see: (TROLL!) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939200)

plz send me a link to it then

BEHOLD: SLASHDOT SLASHDOTS ITSELF (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939105)

So, what is the significance of this? Does this document say what it was speculated to say, and will IBM or Redhat lawyers have either reason or legal ability to introduce the text of this settlement into the SCO case at this late stage? I have no idea! And neither do you! But that isn't going to stop us from discussing this!

Expect this document to be the single biggest source of disinformation on Slashdot for the next three weeks as we all misunderstand minor parts of it and then excitedly repeat our misunderstandings to each other. Then about three weeks from now, about the fourth time PJ from groklaw posts an analysis explaining what this document actually says, it will become publically clear what this all means and we'll just shift to six months of people repeating misunderstandings from the three weeks after today so that people can respond to them with the correct version of events and get voted up to Score: 5

Linux Popularity a Result of BSD/Unix Suit? (5, Interesting)

waldoj (8229) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939213)

A little history lesson.

For those of us accustomed to Unix and looking to run it on our desktops in the early 1990s, we found that there were very few options at the time. The popular choice was BSD, but those of us who read Boardwatch and kept up with the choice few Usenet groups knew only that there was some kind of a BSD lawsuit that made it bad to use. The details were fuzzy, but we thought that BSD would be a dead end.

Instead, we used Linux. It was much less popular, and way underpowered (compared to BSD), but it was unencumbered by lawsuits and would let us run all of those /<-rad commands like gopher wiretap.spies.com and zmodem phrack_15.tgz, which is what I and my fellow teenaged geeks were really looking to do. Some of my friends with whom I chose to use Linux, rather than BSD, have gone onto greatness, notably Nat Friedman of Ximian/Novell. (I, however, am an utter fucking nobody, which is fine. :)

I'll wager that, if not for the FUD that came of this lawsuit, BSD would be the OS of choice for geeks today. Instead, Linux is far more popular -- I continue to use it a decade later, with the vague guilt that I would be cooler if I were running BSD. I wonder to what degree the SCO FUD is similarly affecting the choice of Linux today?

-Waldo Jaquith

One wonders (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939279)

What with Solaris's recent still-mysterious "open sourcing", the large amount of cash infused into SCO by Sun Microsystems, the increasingly common yet always vague claims by Sun executives that "intellectual property issues" will become of increasing importance in software development in the near future, and the strange repeated claims by Sun executives that Linux "wouldn't have happened" if Solaris had been "open sourced" five years ago...

One wonders if Sun Microsystems might be hoping that the SCO suit will drive people from Linux to Solaris the same way that the USL suit drove people from BSD to Linux.

Re:Linux Popularity a Result of BSD/Unix Suit? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939288)

The difference is that the USL/BSD "FUD" was a lot more substantial than SCO's fantasyland FUD. Had this case gone forward, there was the real likelyhood that BSD Unix would be removed from the market (or require ridiclous licence fees).

Basically, the BSD case was settled because USL was sold to Novell and Ray Noorda was feeling charitable. At that time BSD4.4 was considered to be ridiclously obsolete ("dying") when compared to SVR4 UnixWare.

The real tragedy in all this is that that Novell didn't sell you a $300 UNIX for your PC and instead basically buried UnixWare.

FUD in the Literal Sense (4, Interesting)

waldoj (8229) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939301)

The difference is that the USL/BSD "FUD" was a lot more substantial than SCO's fantasyland FUD.

I'm sure that's true, but I use the term "FUD" not in the pejorative sense, but instead in the literal one: there was fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the wisdom of using BSD, at least in the mind of this then-15-year-old.

-Waldo Jaquith

Re:FUD in the Literal Sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939356)

Thank you for reminding me that FUD isn't always untrue. I've been hanging around /. too much I guess.

Re:Linux Popularity a Result of BSD/Unix Suit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939289)

OS X, being part of the BSD family, is not that much less popular than Linux (on the desktop)

Re:Linux Popularity a Result of BSD/Unix Suit? (1)

adam mcmaster (697132) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939381)

I'm not sure what point you were making, but OS X's popularity comes from the old user base of OS 9 combined with the recent popularity of Apple's other products (i.e. the iPod). It's popularity has little to do with the inclusion of BSD code in the system.

Re:Linux Popularity a Result of BSD/Unix Suit? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939436)

it seems the existing MacOS couldn't be stretched enough to be a modern 21st operating sytem, so the functionality and usefulness of OS X, which makes it popular, is very much due to BSD.

Re:Linux Popularity a Result of BSD/Unix Suit? (1)

n0tv3ry3lite (833715) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939316)

I doubt that SCO is affecting the popularity of Linux, because you said that with BSD you really had no idea what was going on, you just knew they were being sued, but with Linux people know what's going on more, because 1.) Info is more easily available on the Net now, and 2.) Everybody knows it's frivilous, even SCO

You tell me. (3, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939385)

those of us who read Boardwatch and kept up with the choice few Usenet groups knew only that there was some kind of a BSD lawsuit that made it bad to use. The details were fuzzy, but we thought that BSD would be a dead end. ... Instead, we used Linux. It was much less popular, and way underpowered (compared to BSD), but it was unencumbered by lawsuits ... I'll wager that, if not for the FUD that came of this lawsuit, BSD would be the OS of choice for geeks today.

By what you say, that would be a bad wager. According to you, more people were using BSD despite the lawsuit. Moreover, you do not consider the very real philosophical difference between the BSD and GNU people. Many, such as myself, would rather GPL software than hand their work over to the likes of M$, Sun and SCO for commercial exploitation. They have all shown animosity towards those who have helped them. I'm grateful for all the GPL work that's out there and willingly make my small contribution, such is the nature of all science. I'll wager that many of your peers made the choice based on the philisophical grounds. But you were the man on the spot, you tell me, was it impending abuse and the desire to not aid the abusers as obvious then as it is now?

I wonder to what degree the SCO FUD is similarly affecting the choice of Linux today?

I can answer that as a relatively new Linux user and someone who teaches newbie classes. Zero. SCO is full of shit and anyone with one or two brain cells more than Laura Diddio knows it. More importantly, if M$ can use SCO to steal Linux, it can steal anything, especially BSD. If Linux is somehow hexed by US law, all free software will fall, in the US at least. High school kids could care less. They want the most and coolest features and they find it in Linux. They are out there compiling on any equipment they can get their hands on and nothing has really changed.

Thankfully, you the technology represented by Unix has made information more widely available today. Thanks to the modern web with great and obvious sites like Slashdot and Groklaw we know all the details, so the dorks can't hide behind a cloud of fog to make their FUD work. Thanks to Google, which is universally used, the correct information is the first thing that comes up. All this talk about "echo boxes" is just bullshit. Today information is much easier to find and you can get it from a much greater number of sources. Echo box is something that more describes a world dominated by one news agency, API, and three broadcast networks, because they all said the same thing and there were no alternate sources, much less first hand accounts, to be had.

Perhaps I Was Unclear (5, Interesting)

waldoj (8229) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939426)

According to you, more people were using BSD despite the lawsuit.

More people were using BSD because Linux barely existed. The Linux kernel hadn't even gone 1.0. It was under 1MB. It wasn't a matter of the lawsuit -- it was that Linux was unknown.

Moreover, you do not consider the very real philosophical difference between the BSD and GNU people.

What you mean is that I did not (past tense) consider the philosophical differences. And you're right -- I was totally uninterested. We didn't have "open source" -- the phrase didn't exist. We had free software. Both BSD and Linux were free. Both had source to edit. What teenager cared about some contract?

I'll wager that many of your peers made the choice based on the philisophical grounds.

My older friends surely chose based on philosophical grounds -- those old enough to be in any way interested in IP and related freedoms. I was writing for 2600 and decompiling and modifying MS-DOS for fun -- wasn't no contract going to stop me from doing whatever I wanted with an OS, or so I figured.

But you were the man on the spot, you tell me, was it impending abuse and the desire to not aid the abusers as obvious then as it is now?

I'm afraid that I'm not sure that I understand your question. But perhaps it would answer your question to restate my premise: we had no idea what the deal was with the lawsuit. Abuse schmabuse -- we figured that BSD might go away (whatever that would constitute), so why bet on a losing horse?

-Waldo Jaquith

Re:Linux Popularity a Result of BSD/Unix Suit? (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939428)

I continue to use it a decade later, with the vague guilt that I would be cooler if I were running BSD.

You would be, my friend, you would be.

Let it go. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939224)

Seriously. You people are worse than the Muslims.

SCO vs. Linux War? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10939281)

More like the SCO vs. Linux joke. Around work, SCO is more of a punchline rather than a threat to a large network that powers financial transactions worth millions each day. :)

Finially? (2, Insightful)

MrLint (519792) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939439)

(bear with me here please)

"Finially, we have legally obtained the settlement agreement [PDF] between USL and The Regents of the University of California....."

A finial is "2 : a crowning ornament or detail (as a decorative knob)"

The reason I bring this up is most of the time I hear the word finial is that thing at the bottom of a bannister on a staircase on on a fence, and what happens when a burglar impales themselves on one (or more).

So if SCO is the burglar and the settlement papers are a finial.. well let the impaling begin!

Apple & OS X (2, Interesting)

xirtam_work (560625) | more than 9 years ago | (#10939445)

Sorry to sound like an idiot, but would all this have any affect on Apple with their BSD based OS X?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?