This time, word has leaked out that they are planning to include the ability to - gasp! - include the ability to produce pdf documents in their upcoming Office 12 product.  Yes, following close on the trail of rivals like OpenOffice which already has this capability (and has forever?), Microsoft is once again breaking new ground in meeting the needs of office app users.

And Stephen J. Marshall says:

The absence of design leadership in the OSS development process and a motivation for OSS developers to create free versions of their favourite proprietary software may also explain why there would appear to be a distinct lack of imagination in OSS projects. The open source community has so far tended to create facsimiles of proprietary packages rather than the next killer application.

Lawrence Solum highly recommends a new paper by Jason Mazzone, Brooklyn Law School, entitled “Copyfraud”:

Abstract:

[...]Copyfraud refers to falsely claiming a copyright to a public domain work. Copyfraud is everywhere. False copyright notices appear on modern reprints of Shakespeare's plays, Beethoven piano scores, greeting card versions of Monet's water lilies, and even the U.S. Constitution. Archives claim blanket copyright to everything in their collections. Vendors of microfilmed versions of historical newspapers assert copyright ownership. These false copyright claims, which are often accompanied by threatened litigation for reproducing a work without the "owner's" permission, result in users seeking licenses and paying fees to reproduce works that are free for everyone to use. Copyfraud also refers to interference with fair uses of copyrighted works. By leveraging the vague fair use standards contained in the Copyright Act and attendant case law, and by threatening litigation, publishers deter legitimate reproduction of copyrighted works, improperly insisting on licenses and payment of fees. Publishers wrongly contend that nobody may reproduce for any reason any portion of a copyrighted work, without the publisher's prior approval. These circumstances have produced fraud on an untold scale, with millions of works in the public domain deemed copyrighted, and countless dollars paid out every year in licensing fees to make copies that could be made for free. Copyfraud stifles valid forms of reproduction and undermines free speech. Copyfraud also weakens legitimate intellectual property rights.

[...]

Professor Solum says that he's still reading this “controversial” paper and he may post some reactions later. I haven't started to read it yet, but it sure looks worth reading.

A surprise announcement on the Linux Kernel Mailing List, (LKML), yesterday 31 August.  Merkey wants to donate some code.  Part of it is GPL, but it includes proprietary binaries that would taint the kernel.  It has an interesting interpretation of the GPL.

But I publish this thread so that people can see Merkey's view of the law, and discuss this.

He believes that if you get GPL code, and use it for a while, then Copyright is transfered.

From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@soleranetworks.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: [ANNOUNCE] DSFS Network Forensic File System for Linux Patches
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:00:15 +0200

The Solera Networks DS File System kernel patches have been posted at
ftp.soleranetworks.com
and can be downloaded via anonymous ftp access.

These patches are for the 2.4.29, and 2.6.9 kernels.  These patches
includes all kernel changes
made to the Linux kernel and GPL code that allows multiple gigabit
capture and stream to disk capability
These patches are being provided as required by the terms of the GNU
Public License.  Also included
with this announcement are white papers which can be located at
www.soleranetworks.com describing the
appliance features and characteristics of the DSFS file system.

The Core File System code is a separate proprietary module and is not
released under the GPL and is
shipped on the Solera Networks DS 1U, 2U, and 3U appliances.  DS
Appliances support gigabit ethernet
and 10Ge Ethernet via the Intel e1000/ixgb adapter drivers.

Current Capture rates sustained with a 2U appliance with DSFS on Linux
2.6.X and 2.4.X kernels are:

975,000 pps @ 72     byte packets x 2 interfaces  = 120 MB/S stream to disk
445,000 pps @ 256   byte packets x 2 interfaces  = 226 MB/S stream to disk
208,000 pps @ 576   byte packets x 2 interfaces  = 240 MB/S stream to disk
119,000 pps @ 1024 byte packets x 2 interfaces  = 245 MB/S stream to disk
82,000   pps @ 1500 byte packets x 2 interfaces  = 247 MB/S stream to disk

Current Capture rates sustained with a 1U appliance with DSFS on Linux
2.6.X and 2.4.X kernels are:

975,000 pps @ 72     byte packets x 1 interfaces  = 60 MB/S stream to disk
445,000 pps @ 256   byte packets x 1 interfaces  = 113 MB/S stream to disk
208,000 pps @ 576   byte packets x 1 interfaces  = 119 MB/S stream to disk
119,000 pps @ 1024 byte packets x 1 interfaces  = 122 MB/S stream to disk
82,000   pps @ 1500 byte packets x 1 interfaces  = 123 MB/S stream to disk

Current Capture rates sustained with a 3U appliance with dual disk
controllers with DSFS on Linux 2.6.X and 2.4.X kernels are:

975,000 pps @ 72     byte packets x 3 interfaces  = 180 MB/S stream to disk
445,000 pps @ 256   byte packets x 3 interfaces  = 339 MB/S stream to disk
208,000 pps @ 576   byte packets x 3 interfaces  = 360 MB/S stream to disk
119,000 pps @ 1024 byte packets x 3 interfaces  = 365 MB/S stream to disk
82,000   pps @ 1500 byte packets x 3 interfaces  = 370 MB/S stream to disk

The DSFS file system supports over 300 open source applications with
high peformance stream to disk network forensic
storage capability and also supports SPAN,  Optical Splitter, and
Asymmetric Routed configurations.  DSFS performs
stream merging and also exposes the captured data as native LIBPCAP
files and virtual network interfaces which
allow seamless integration with Snort, tEthereal, and hundreds of open
source Network Forsensic and Network Management
tools on Linux and Windows.    DSFS is the culmination of 2 years of
intense development efforts by Solera Networks to create a
powerful platform infrastructure for the development of high performance
network forensic open source applications on the Linux
Operating System.

DSFS is fully SMP enabled and supports Hyperthreaded architectures as
well as native SMP.  

Jeff V. Merkey
Solera Networks
www.soleranetworks.com

An interesting question follows.

From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] DSFS Network Forensic File System for Linux Patches
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:40:07 +0200

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

> The Core File System code is a separate proprietary module and is not
> released under the GPL

Are you going to post an analysis on the legality of this
on merkeylaw.com ? ;)

Merkey does not understand the GPL.

From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@soleranetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] DSFS Network Forensic File System for Linux Patches
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:50:09 +0200

Rik van Riel wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
>  
>
>>The Core File System code is a separate proprietary module and is not
>>released under the GPL
>>    
>>
>
>Are you going to post an analysis on the legality of this
>on merkeylaw.com ? ;)
>
>  
>
I am very open to discussions of this. Please go ahead and argue the
merits of GPL vs. proprietary code. DSFS is platform
neutral and will also run on Windows XP/2000/2003/Longhorn and Free BSD.
It uses no kernel headers or kernel
files.

I have always taken the position that the GPL does not convert IP
ownership. Since DSFS is hardware specific to
our platforms, I do not believe it entails any issues with the GPL, and
it uses published exports from the Linux kernel.
The GPL also confers right to copy == copyright under US copyright laws.
I don't believe that app vendors infringe
the GPL on Linux. This is just another app, and I have disclosed and
published all GPL code affected.

The GPL terms that require GPL conversion of any code that runs on Linux
is not supported by US Law. Many would
disagree, but that's OK. In short, it's just like any other proprietary
app running on Linux. If it uses no Linux code (which
it does not), then the GPL does not apply to it .

Jeff

Since Merkey wants to include stuff into the GPL kernel, he should release the code as GPL.

From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] DSFS Network Forensic File System for Linux Patches
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:00:26 +0200

> The GPL terms that require GPL conversion of any code that runs on Linux
> is not supported by US Law. Many would
> disagree, but that's OK. In short, it's just like any other proprietary
> app running on Linux. If it uses no Linux code (which
> it does not), then the GPL does not apply to it .

except for section 2 which states that if parts are related (or at least
not independent, for example when they are designed to exclusively work
togethern), and one part is GPL, then both parts need to be, or you
should not distribute the GPL part. This is not "your other code becomes
gpl", it is "you can't distribute the GPL parts".

We now seem to be getting into land grab mode.  If you get GPL code and use it for a while, then it is yours.  

From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@soleranetworks.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] DSFS Network Forensic File System for Linux Patches
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:20:17 +0200

Arjan van de Ven wrote:

>>The GPL terms that require GPL conversion of any code that runs on Linux
>>is not supported by US Law. Many would
>>disagree, but that's OK. In short, it's just like any other proprietary
>>app running on Linux. If it uses no Linux code (which
>>it does not), then the GPL does not apply to it .
>>    
>>
>
>except for section 2 which states that if parts are related (or at least
>not independent, for example when they are designed to exclusively work
>togethern), and one part is GPL, then both parts need to be, or you
>should not distribute the GPL part. This is not "your other code becomes
>gpl", it is "you can't distribute the GPL parts".
>  
>

The key word here is "designed to EXCLUSIVELY work together" as opposed to
"INCLUSIVE".  DSFS is not exclusive to Linux nor is it designed to run
exclusively
on Linux.

 There's also a more fundamental problem with the GPL language.  The GPL
stated it
confers "RIGHT TO COPY".  This is not the same as "RIGHT TO GRANT
LICENSES TO DISTRIBUTE."  Under US copyright law, if you confer to any
person
the "right to copy" in a license which states the software is FREE, you
have in essense
affected a copyright transfer to each and every person who receives the
code.
This is esspecially true since the GPL says that the software if "FREE".

One could argue that the GPL requires reciprocal consdieration by requiring
conversion of ownsership of protected IP into a GPL licensing scheme,
but this
violates several acts of Congress regarding anit-trust legislation.  
There is also
the argument of the doctrine of esstoppel.  This doctrine bascially says
if you've
been using it for some period of time, and no one brings a claim, then
it's become yours.
Linux and GPL has also become an "essential facility" of the US
Internet.  Under the Doctrine
of essential facility anything that by it's nature has become such an
integrated part
of a class of activities affecting commerce, then the general public has
a right to use it
without claims of IP infingement or licensing restrictions.

So, in short, the GPL language was and remains defective in this area.  
If someone takes
and uses GPL code which is claimed to be FREE, and runs proprietary
applications on Linux,
particularly given Linus statements publically and those of others that
Linux applications
are not affected, then those appplications, provided they use published
interfaces, and
do not incorporate GPL code, are not subject to the GPL and it's terms.  
The modified
portions of Linux, are however, subject to the GPL, and they have been
disclosed as required.

I do agree that the GPL has this language, but the balancing test in a
Court of law would be whether
or not the program was designed to be "exclusively work together" based
upon the plain language
of the license.

This is not the case here.  Folks may try to argue that the VFS
interface in Linux is "exclusive", however,
it ais a public interface, just like an ethernet adapter is a public
interface.  The real solution is to remove
the "right to copy" language from the GPL, and substitute, "right to
grant sub-licenses to distribute", then
your arguments would be more solid in US District Court.

Jeff

From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] DSFS Network Forensic File System for Linux Patches
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:40:13 +0200

Bullshit.

17 USC 106(3) talks about transfer of ownership of the item, not of the
copyright itself (see 17 USC 202, which clarifies this).  So you can sell a
book - but that isn't transferring the copyright of the book.  There isn't any
actual transfer without a document that actually SAYS "transfer of copyright" -
see 17 USC 204 (a) (Note that there's whole companies in Utah, with actual
large legal teams, that seem unclear on the concept in 17 USC 204(a), so I'm
not surprised that you're confused on this as well).

From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@soleranetworks.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] DSFS Network Forensic File System for Linux Patches
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:40:11 +0200

>Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:00:45 MDT, "Jeff V. Merkey" said:
>
>  
>
>> There's also a more fundamental problem with the GPL language.  The GPL stated it
>>confers "RIGHT TO COPY".  This is not the same as "RIGHT TO GRANT
>>LICENSES TO DISTRIBUTE."  Under US copyright law, if you confer to any person
>>the "right to copy" in a license which states the software is FREE, you have in essense
>>affected a copyright transfer to each and every person who receives the
>>code.
>>    
>>
>
>Bullshit.
>
>17 USC 106(3) talks about transfer of ownership of the item, not of the
>copyright itself (see 17 USC 202, which clarifies this).  So you can sell a
>book - but that isn't transferring the copyright of the book.  There isn't any
>actual transfer without a document that actually SAYS "transfer of copyright" -
>see 17 USC 204 (a) (Note that there's whole companies in Utah, with actual
>large legal teams, that seem unclear on the concept in 17 USC 204(a), so I'm
>not surprised that you're confused on this as well).
>
>  
>
I have responded all I am going to on this topic.  Further discussion
will not be helpful.  The patches are provided
IAW the GPL.  Our proprietary application is just like the thousands of
others provided on Linux, and it
does use or incorporate any GPL or Linux code.

I will not respond to any further discussion on this thread.  Thanks for
the input.  Please feel free to read Linus
statements on kernel.org regarding the statements that applications that
run on Linux and that use published
interfaces are unaffected by the GPL.

Thanks for your input.

Jeff

And now Merkey quotes Linux

From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@soleranetworks.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] DSFS Network Forensic File System for Linux Patches
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:50:08 +0200

NOTE! This copyright does not cover user programs that use kernel
 services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
 of the kernel, and does not fall under the heading of "derived work".
 Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
 Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the linux
 kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

            Linus Torvalds

From: Diego Calleja <diegocg@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] DSFS Network Forensic File System for Linux Patches
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 01:30:11 +0200

>  
> NOTE! This copyright does not cover user programs that use kernel
>  services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
>  of the kernel, and does not fall under the heading of "derived work".
>  Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
>  Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the linux
>  kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

So, that means that DSFS runs on userspace? (We can't see the source
so it'd be nice to know how DSFS works)

Also, I'm curious about this piece of code on your patch:
ftp://ftp.soleranetworks.com/pub/dsfs/datascout-only-2.6.9-06-28-05.patch

-        printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: module license '%s' taints kernel.n",
-               mod->name, license);
+/        printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: module license '%s' taints kernel.n",
+               mod->name, license);

I mean, nvidia people also use propietary code in the kernel (probably
violating the GPL anyway) and don't do such things.

From: jmerkey <jmerkey@utah-nac.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] DSFS Network Forensic File System for Linux Patches
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:10:13 +0200

Diego Calleja wrote:

>El Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:27:47 -0600,
>
>  
>
>>
>>NOTE! This copyright does not cover user programs that use kernel
>> services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
>> of the kernel, and does not fall under the heading of "derived work".
>> Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
>> Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the linux
>> kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
>>    
>>
>
>So, that means that DSFS runs on userspace? (We can't see the source
>so it'd be nice to know how DSFS works)
>
>Also, I'm curious about this piece of code on your patch:
>ftp://ftp.soleranetworks.com/pub/dsfs/datascout-only-2.6.9-06-28-05.patch
>
>-        printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: module license '%s' taints kernel.n",
>-               mod->name, license);
>+        printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: module license '%s' taints kernel.n",
>+/               mod->name, license);
>
>I mean, nvidia people also use propietary code in the kernel (probably
>violating the GPL anyway) and don't do such things.
>

I disagree with the language and the characterization that our
proprietary user application code is "tainted."

Jeff
-

From: Bernd Eckenfels <ecki@lina.inka.de>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] DSFS Network Forensic File System for Linux Patches
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:40:11 +0200

In article <43163430.7010107@utah-nac.org> you wrote:
> I disagree with the language and the characterization that our
> proprietary user application code is "tainted."

The kernel is tainted if you install non-open source modules. You are not
allowed to circumvent this mechanism if you want to ship binary only
modules.

Gruss
Bernd
-

Sometimes the reporters were so far out ahead of the story that they found themselves ignoring official statements, instead filing reports of what they were seeing themselves.

That single-sentence paragraph leaps out of the middle of The Story of the Hurricane by Sheelah Kolhatkar and Rebecca Dana (forthcoming in the September 12th, 2005 edition of The New York Observer). The words casually follow another damning indictment:

In some cases, the unusual reporting environment allowed journalists in both print and television to exercise muscles that had long grown stiff.

Businesses fail to unite against USA Patriot Act

I haven't been following the Patriot Act stuff much, but this was a pretty chilling passage in the article

The act imposes a gag order on anyone who receives an FBI demand for records authorized by a secret court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Of course, you have the whole left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing effect of the Federal government.  On the one hand, the Patriot Act is attacking the privacy of medical records as alleged in the article.  Meanwhile, businesses and everyone else in the healthcare industry are spending untold amounts of money trying to get HIPAA implemented, which is supposed to increase privacy of medical records.

There is a feature reduced Open Source version released under the SugarCRM Public License, which is identical to the Mozilla Public License with the Red-Hat like addition that the logo and name are trademarked by SugarCRM and are not licensed.

All of that is very nice and it appears to be a nice product.  They also release a professional version with more features, which they sell.    They are featured in an EWeek article (top of first internal article page) on page 9 of the 8 Aug 2005 dead tree edition.  I cannot find it on EWeek's website at this time.  The EWeek article made me go looking at it more closely because we are not happy with our current consultant created CRM.

However, in looking at their professional version so that we might get some of the features, I glanced at their commercial license and was shocked by a clause in section "1.2 Restrictions":

1.2 Restrictions.

During any term of this Agreement, Company shall not, directly or indirectly:

.
.
.

(iv) use or run on any of Company's hardware, or have deployed for use, any copy or version of the SugarCRM open source version of the Software;

.
.
.

I will note that even the commercial version allows you access to source code (though there are encrypted portions mentioned) and allows you to modify it for internal use.

The commercial version is licensed on a per seat basis.  So, presumably, they don't want you paying just for seats that need the commercial features.

http://www.fcw.com/article89770-08-03-05-Web

Thought it was interesting that among the agencies that will be affected will be the USPTO.  Ironic?

I have already posted an article about Halliburton versus Smith International

Here Halliburton fought Smith in Texas and won $41 million damages; but when they fought in London, Halliburton lost. It reached the highest court; there are links to the case in this ffii report

The European Union have recently tried to create a universal patent law, to standardise patent law throughout all members. This mentioned software and computers, and the lobbying reached record pitch.  The law was thrown out by Parliament, at the second reading.

In the UK the Patent Office has tried to introduce a similar law.  Due to objections they held a technical road show where people could object.  But the defeat of Halliburton has caused the above  change

The significance is that those huge portfolios of software patents that have built up in the USA, are useless here in Europe.  The law here is based on "common law", where previous rulings can cause a new law to be invalid.  So whilst your industry is litigating itself out of production, it will have no effect here, except to increase our market.

The recently published Exhibit B [PDF] in The SCO Group's “Unsealed Exhibits to the Declaration in Support of SCO's Opposition to IBM's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment”, the MULTIPROCESSOR SOFTWARE COOPERATION AGREEMENT executed between UNIX System Laboraties (USL) and Sequent Computer Systems (SEQUENT) in September of 1990, needs to be examined closely.

Particularly examine the section marked LICENSES TO AT&T (on pp.3-4 / pp.5-6 in PDF):

LICENSE TO AT&T

A. Subject to paragraph B of this Section, SEQUENT grants to USL a fee-free, non-transferable right to use, reproduce and modify EXISTING SEQUENT TECHNOLOGY and to sublicense and distribute (and to authorize its customers to further sublicense and distribute) such software, and modifications thereof, in source and binary form in accordance with standard USL licensing provisions. Such right shall be exclusive to USL, except that SEQUENT shall retain the right to grant licenses (including sublicenses down the chain of distribution) in the ordinary course of its business. [...]

Standing by itself, this agreement injects some doubt about The SCO Group's belief regarding its contractual relationship with IBM.

But especially in light of Brian Kernighan's Declaration, and Mike Tarsala's CBS Marketwatch story, and the entirety of the surrounding circumstances, this unsealed exhibit does not necessarily create a reasonable doubt in my mind about The SCO Group's methods in pursuit of their goal.

Stats gave them to me to host and they inspired me to put together a more detailed timeline of the Vista.com deal.

The only really new and interesting thing is that there was what appeared to be a late REGDEX filing by Communit IQ.com (That's Vista) on the rather interesting date of 16 October 2003.  For those that don't remember, that is the day the PIPE deal finalized.

The REGDEX filing appears to be related to Vista shares that SCO bought in December 2002, so it was rather late.

I suspect that either the SEC or RBC/BS asked that it be cleared up before the deal went through.  This also implies that they may have planned the deal for earlier and then hit that stumbling block.

It would be interesting to re-examine the share price and posting history around that time-period in light of this new info.

Details in my usual mind-numbing fashion at the new Vista timeline page on my site.

Against a backdrop of very serious insult and injury, just one more tiny, comparatively almost inconsequential, little insult...

FEMA's stunning display extends to Online Registration at its “Individual Assistance Center”, which requires Internet Explorer 6.0:

Technical Requirements:
The Online registration requires Microsoft's Internet Explorer 6.0 or above.

Via BoingBoing:

FEMA to Mac, Linux users: drop dead
A stupid usability flaw in the FEMA website is causing frustration for some of the Hurricane Katrina survivors fortunate enough to have computer and internet access. Bottom line: if you're not using Windows + IE, it appears that you won't be able to file a disaster assistance claim on Fema.gov.

I've finally released for voting the text of the Multiprocessor Software Cooperation Agreement (Exhibit B to SCO's unsealed exhibits to the declaration in support of SCO's opposition to IBM's cross-motion for summary judgement). Sorry my proof-reading took so long. Can't guarantee there still aren't some typos :-(. All I can say is that I've cleaned up all the ones I've spotted so far.

"Victory for free speech on the internet - for Americans

By OUT-LAW.com
Published Friday 7th October 2005 18:56 GMT
Get breaking Internet news straight to your desktop - click here to find out how

In a victory for free speech on the internet, the Delaware Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed a lower court ruling that a council official, suing over remarks posted online by an unknown blogger, could force the blogger’s ISP to reveal his identity.

The official first had to prove that the remarks were capable of a defamatory meaning – and he had not, said the Court..."

Gonzalez also prohibited Lee from disclosing trade secrets or proprietary information learned while he was employed at Microsoft and it forbade Google from "attempting to induce" Microsoft employees to work for Google.

I suppose it is a legit concern of M$ that Lee may disclose proprietary information.  I can't help but keep thinking to myself, what the h*** does M$ think they know that Google hasn't already "been there, done that" when it comes to search technology?  Maybe they're just worried Lee will reveal to Google just how far behind M$ really is.

No announcement on the Silver Lake Partners site.  IBM has already removed his bio.  For those not familiar, Silver Lake has been involved in the periphery of the whole SCOscam (ask br3n for more info!).

This is not a done deal yet. Two companies previously mentioned as being involved with the project, Mandriva, (formerly Mandrakesoft) and Turbolinux Inc., appear to not be participating at this time. Progeny Linux Systems Inc. continues to leading the way."

Indianapolis-based Progeny was co-founded by Ian Murdock (the ian in Debian), who is currently the chairman. A notable Progeny board member is Caldera founder and former CEO Ransom Love, who joined in Nov 2003. Love was also a driving force behind UnitedLinux, which had similar goals to the DCC.

It's interesting that Murdock and Love are working together because, as SJVN says, "Many members of the Linux community see Love as the leader of the commercialization of Linux and Murdock as his polar opposite: a champion of the community-based approach to Linux."

Bruce Perens was formerly chairman of the board of Progeny, and hired Murdock, but Perens left when he joined HP because the companies did business together. Perens provided millions of dollars of capital to Progeny through his Linux Capital Group, which he founded, was president of, and apparently is still a major stockholder. He was also a project leader and continues to be involved in development for Debian.

Murdock is quoted as saying, "There are two separate but potentially related things" going on. "One, we are talking with Debian companies and nonprofits about adopting a common core to make Debian more viable in the enterprise; and two, Progeny will be announcing the next version of Componentized Linux at LinuxWorld" which is next week in San Francisco.

Current customers of Progeny include HP and EV1.

sources:
http://ianmurdock.com
http://www.progeny.com/about/management.htm
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1379282,00.asp
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1836184,00.asp
http://politics.yahoo.com/s/zd/20050707/tc_zd/155441
http://perens.com/Articles/Bio.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-243206.html?legacy=cnet
http://www.thechannelinsider.com/article2/0,1895,1728725,00.asp

A link that doesn't have much to do with with Progeny:

http://www.proscam.net (which is registered to Perens)

"ProSCAM: Helping Thieves Make a Good Living

The Grumpy Editor's guide to personal finance managers (Part I)

Jeff

For opinion wonks only... the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion today in Kourtis v Cameron, reversing a district court's dismissal of a copyright case on the grounds of collateral estoppel.

We must decide whether the creators of the yet-unproduced film The Minotaur are collaterally estopped from pursuing a copyright infringement claim against the producers of Terminator II.

[...]

The doctrine of collateral estoppel (or issue preclusion) "prevents relitigation of issues actually litigated and necessarily decided, after a full and fair opportunity for litigation, in a prior proceeding." A federal court decision has preclusive effect where

(1) the issue necessarily decided at the previous proceeding is identical to the one which is sought to be relitigated; (2) the first proceeding ended with a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party at the first proceeding.

(Via Howard Bashman.)

Anyway, based on some reviews, it sounds like OpenSuSE 10 may be yet another step up.  So, do I upgrade again before even getting my feet wet with 9.3?  What a problem to have. :-)

In the Supreme Court of Victoria at Melbourne, Common Law Division, in the case of Gunns Limited v Marr [2005] VSC 251 (18 July 2005), Judge Bongiorno delivers an opinion regarding ‘embarassment’ “within the meaning of RSC r.23.02”:

56 The criticisms made of the amended statement of claim in this ruling are by no means all those that could have been made. As the pleading will not be permitted to be placed on or remain on the record, it would be a singularly unprofitable exercise to attempt to describe every defect in it which needs correction. Some parts of it may not be able to be corrected. Others may be able to be repeated in a new pleading with little modification.

57 It is not the function of the Court to draw or settle a party's pleading. The Court is confined to the function of ensuring that pleadings are within the rules and fulfil the functions for which they exist. In particular, it must ensure that one party is not placed at a disadvantage by the failure of another to provide a proper, coherent, and intelligible statement of its case. In this case, it would be unfair to the defendants to require them to plead to this amended statement of claim. It is embarrassing within the meaning of RSC r.23.02. Not only must the pleading inform the defendants of the case they must meet now, but it must clearly set out the facts which the plaintiffs must assert to make good their claim with sufficient particularity to enable any eventual trial to be conducted fairly to all parties. Vague allegations on very significant matters may conceal claims which are merely speculative. If this be not the case, the plaintiffs must put their allegations clearly. Finally, the trial judge must, in due course, have some firm basis for making rulings on relevance. This is a very substantial set of claims and any trial will be a very complex one. The Court must ensure that the only claims which go to trial are those which the plaintiffs are able to set out in a coherent and detailed form.

(Via Metafilter “corporate choking of dissent”.)

Why Bill Gates Wants 3,000 Patents

Thought it was a pretty good article summarizing the problems of software patents.

I got a big kick out of M$'es "keeping up with the Joneses" excuse.  But then again, it does sound like the way that M$ makes business decisions.

17 U.S.C. § 204(a) requires a writing for a valid copyright transfer. The interpretation of this section is at issue in the SCO v Novell case, in the context of the 1995 APA executed by Novell and The Santa Cruz Operation, as amended.

Earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit interpreted § 204(a) in the context of another case, Lyrick Studios v Big Idea Productions:

Lyrick alternatively argues that the parties acted as if they had a deal for several years, making it unfair for Big Idea to rely on a "hyper-technical" § 204(a) argument. The Ninth Circuit rejected a similar argument in Konigsberg when it required a writing even in the face of ample evidence of an agreement, including that Rice had written the bible and had been paid for it. Konigsberg, 16 F.3d at 356. Section 204(a) requires a writing. Although Lyrick argues that enforcing this requirement would be unjust, we will not add an exception to the statute.

(pp.15-16)

(Via ContractsProfBlog.)

http://www.fcw.com/article89779-08-04-05-Web

Wonder how this jibes with mi2g's study?

btw, the Coverity home page is here.

What is wrong with the following:

UPDATE `comments` SET

`subject` = 'Deleted spambot post',

`comment` = 'Stupid spambot - you've been deleted.
Jeff',

WHERE `comment` = 'free-mp3-downloads'

I'm trying to get rid of some of the latest spam and for some reason MySQL keeps throwing me an error on the WHERE statement.  I'm actually trying to find all the comments that include the target text.  I've tried putting a LIKE in place of the equal, using %..% surrounding the text, without and without the single quotes, escaping some characters in the search string, but nothing seems to work.  I can do a query and find all the comments containing the target text using a WHERE .. LIKE %...% statement, but it is not working in this UPDATE command.

Any help would be most appreciated.

JULY 18, 2005 (COMPUTERWORLD)

Open Software Development Lab (OSDL) business recently took me to India, a country of 1 billion people with a highly skilled IT professional class that is doing some amazing work with Linux. This trip, as well as many others I have taken on behalf of OSDL, provided me with another opportunity to see firsthand the phenomenon of Linux and open-source software spreading across the globe.

SEC civil fraud complaint [PDF] against former Kmart Chairman/CEO Charles Conaway and former Kmart Treasurer/CFO John McDonald, Jr.

While I won't try to pretend that this is really on-topic, Kmart's alleged scheme to hide their financial shenanigans (project SID) by blaming late payments on their IT people (project eLMO) may strike a chord with IPW readers!

(Via Paper Chase.)

http://www.ip-wars.net/user/qfiie/comments

Link to all comments...

http://www.ip-wars.net/user/qfiie/comments

Zero if you can.

I've got a thread going over on the nVidia forums describing the problems.  Thought I'd post a link here in case anyone wants to check it out and give me some ideas.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=717488#post717488

TIA,

Trademark Arrogance

I don't have any real solid view on Tennant one way or the other (other than sometimes his editorial column puts me to sleep on occassion), but I'm very surprised to see an editor in chief publish something so scathing of M$.

Kudos, Don!

SCO is meanwhile promoting Sandeep Gupta, chief architect of both OpenServer 6 and UnixWare 7.1.4, to the position of chief technology officer.

17 august 2005, The Mambo Development Team :

    Andrew Eddie
    Emir Sakic
    Andy Miller
    Rey Gigataras
    Mitch Pirtle
    Tim Broeker
    Alex Kempkens
    Arno Zijlstra
    Jean-Marie Simonet
    Levis Bisson
    Andy Stewart
    Peter Russell
    Brad Baker
    Brian Teeman
    Michelle Bisson
    Trijnie Wanders
    Rey Gigataras
    Shayne Bartlett
    Nick Annies
    Johan Janssens

In cultural news yesterday, over at ContractsProf Blog, Frank Snyder drove forty years down a remembered highway and revisited August 30th, 1965:

. . .

You raise up your head and you ask is this where it is
And somebody points to you and says it's his
And you say what's mine and somebody else says where what is
And you say oh my God am I here all alone
Because something is happening here but you don't know what it is
Do you Mr Jones

You hand in your ticket and you go watch the geek
Who immediately walks up to you when he hears you speak
And says how does it feel to be such a freak
And you say impossible as he hands you a bone
And something is happening here but you don't know what it is
Do you Mr Jones

You have many contacts among the lumberjacks
To get you facts when someone attacks your imagination
But nobody has any respect anyway they already expect you
To all give a check to tax-deductible charity organizations

Oh you've been with the professors and they've all liked your looks
With great lawyers you have discussed lepers and crooks
You've been through all of F Scott Fitzgerald's books
You're very well read it's well known
Well something is happening here but you don't know what it is
Do you Mr Jones

. . .

(Lyrics at LP Discography.)