On Friday 03 November 2006 03:22, Darryl Gregorash wrote:

Well, if you believe any of this, particularly the crap about "use MS-licenced or approved Linux, all else is illegal", then perhaps *you* will be interested in the farmland east of Sydney (Australia). Darryl, you are gravely deceived....

The article hits at the very heart and soul of this issue. Novell is selling out... and everyone better watch out. Its time for a fork and run folks... Actually, its time to make sure that Ubuntu has a cool graphical installer very soon... -- Kind regards, M Harris <><

On Friday 03 November 2006 14:30, Anders Johansson wrote:

"YaST2 Online Update is gone, suse is dead, let's all move to Ubuntu before it's too late"

Honestly, why don't people look at things and think them through before they start screaming. Who is screaming?

THIS IS SCREAMING.... This is talking..... (this is whispering) (... get a clue) -- Kind regards, M Harris <><

On Friday 03 November 2006 14:38, Anders Johansson wrote:

Given that my response was to a mail from you where you talked expertely about things about which you know less than nothing ... look puppy,

I was arguing against the evils of software patent law before you were a gleam in your pappy's eye... so you don't think I know what I'm talking about... fine... print out the thread(s) save them for, oh 1.5 years, and then reread them... after the dust settles we'll just see who knew what they were talking about. In the mean time... take a look at history... when has cross-licensing ever been a good thing for anyone except the patent shark? *NEVER* -- Kind regards, M Harris <><

On Friday 03 November 2006 16:19, Anders Johansson wrote:

...

     In the mean time... take a look at history... when has cross-licensing ever been a good thing for anyone except the patent shark?

     *NEVER*

So it's probably good then that this deal wasn't a cross licensing agreement Who are you trying to kid?

That's all this deal is... and its been made as public as it gets... upfront money will be exchanged to eliminate patent infringement (and law suit) from either side... that's called cross licensing... and it spells very bad tidings for a large share of Novell's user base, as well as the open source movement in general. This is not a good thing. (quietly speaking) -- Kind regards, M Harris <><

Anders Johansson wrote:

It does not mean the infringing code won't have to be removed, it just means Novell customers and partners won't suffer any legal consequences

And vice versa, of course. Novell has patents too, the deal cuts both ways

So, for clarification, you are saying that M$ can force the removal of infringing code found in open source software, and the open source community can force the removal of infringing code found in M$ software, which is not easily examined, because it is not open source? -- ED --

Anders Johansson wrote:

On Saturday 04 November 2006 00:05, Ed McCanless wrote:

...

So, for clarification, you are saying that M$ can force the removal of infringing code found in open source software, and the open source community can force the removal of infringing code found in M$ software, which is not easily examined, because it is not open source?

There is a difference between copyright and patent. It's much easier to find infringements of patents, because patents cover an idea, a way of doing something, while a copyright covers an exact particular implementation

IF (and it's a big if) something is infringing, then it will have to be removed. But this has always been true (it's the reason why mad and other mp3 packages were dropped. RealPlayer can stay because Real has a patent license)

What this deal means is if there is an infringement, or a suspected infringement, the discussion is taken with Novell and/or Microsoft, not the customers, so customers won't face enormous legal bills (witness Autozone, DaimlerChrysler etc. Customers worry about that, not because they think the legal claims are true but because the lawyers' bills are true)

Still sounds a little one sided to me. But, there's not really much we can do about it anyway, except complain if things don't go well.

(6 SPAM droppings in one subject line? That has to be a record.) On 2006-11-03 18:42, jfweber@gilweber.com wrote:

into electronic streams flowing thru the cosmos On Friday 03 November 2006 6:14 pm, Anders Johansson wrote:

...

On Saturday 04 November 2006 00:05, Ed McCanless wrote:

...

Anders Johansson wrote:

<snip> There is a difference between copyright and patent. It's much easier to find infringements of patents, because patents cover an idea, a way of doing something, while a copyright covers an exact particular implementation

<snip> There is also the little overlooked item. patents are published documents.. so you know what is covered.. IIRC you can get your own patent for markedly improving a patented item.. at least it used to be that way.. haven't consulted a lawyer on patent law in a while.. So it could have changed

Yeah, and I just came across a patent, issued in the USA in 1998, covering the obviously non-obvious idea of a GPS receiver on a PCI card.. like, duh. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the US patent office has issued a patent on air.

On Saturday 04 November 2006 01:11, M Harris wrote:

On Friday 03 November 2006 16:48, Anders Johansson wrote:

...

If at some point in the future, there should be a patent claim against code in the distribution, this deal means Novell customers and partners can be safe in the knowledge there won't be any patent lawyers knocking on the door

yeah... cross licensing...

... semantics, dude...

A rose is a rose by ever other name or phrase... but I guarantee you that the legal language of the "promise not to sue" will be a standard cross licensing agreement... guaranteed.

And you would be wrong. There is no licensing going on.

On 2006-11-03 18:53, John Andersen wrote:

On Friday 03 November 2006 13:48, Anders Johansson wrote:

...

If at some point in the future, there should be a patent claim against code in the distribution, this deal means Novell customers and partners can be safe in the knowledge there won't be any patent lawyers knocking on the door

Really? What about the other Distros? If you should happen to find an infringement in SuSE, would it not also likely appear in Slack, TurboLinux and Debian?

That certainly depends on who put in the infringing code. If the kernel boffins, in all good faith, accept a kernel mod from Novell, only to find themselves and all non-Novell distros suddenly being sued by Microsoft, only a judge in the USA would be insane enough to believe the kernel boffins are at fault. At worst, the offending code would be removed in less than a day (just re-issue the most stable kernel tree prior to Novell's tinkering); at best, the offending code would stay, and Novell and/or Microsoft would lose all right to cry foul -- after all, you can't claim to be the victim of an offence if you are the one who committed it.

On Friday 03 November 2006 20:52, John Andersen wrote:

The only reason you seek protection is because you know you infringed or you intend to infringe.  I just wish I knew where the impetus came from.

What good is a technology license from Microsoft in a GPL distro? Bingo!

When the fox makes an agreement with the chickens... something is seriously wrong, or is going to be seriously wrong, in the hen house. -- Kind regards, M Harris <><

On Friday 03 November 2006 16:14, Darryl Gregorash wrote:

...

That certainly depends on who put in the infringing code. If the kernel boffins, in all good faith, accept a kernel mod from Novell, only to find themselves and all non-Novell distros suddenly being sued by Microsoft,

I'm not worried about code put in by Novell NOW, because such code will already be looked upon with great suspicion. And also any time in the future. Regardless, if Novell does put in any infringing code, theirs or Microsoft's, they cannot then turn around and sue for that infringement, just as you cannot borrow my axe to chop up your furniture, then sue me for your loss, nor can your brother sue me if you were borrowing his furniture. It is quite possible, perhaps

On 2006-11-03 20:52, John Andersen wrote: probable, that the kernel developers will now demand that Novell give them full indemnification from any such event, whether intentional or inadvertent. I certainly hope so.

into electronic streams flowing thru the cosmos On Friday 03 November 2006 4:35 pm, M Harris wrote:

On Friday 03 November 2006 14:30, Anders Johansson wrote:

...

"YaST2 Online Update is gone, suse is dead, let's all move to Ubuntu before it's too late"

Honestly, why don't people look at things and think them through before they start screaming.

Who is screaming?

THIS IS SCREAMING....

This is talking.....

(this is whispering)

(... get a clue)

HEY! Do *Not* pick on Anders , he actually *DOES* have to listen to people who may be actually screaming at him. Dunno how long you've been around this list but he actually is correct in the information he gave you.. people have been screaming about abandoning Suse ever since Novell began to woo them. No, I take that back.. ever since they began to change to a pretty complete all gui install.. and killed off YAST for YAST2.... OTH, It does also go back to the idea that there is too long between releases and most of us have stable networks and perhaps too much free time? :) -- j This current flows between us that will not be denied You draw me in towards you like the moon pulls at the tide May no shadow ever fall that will make me have to call you someone I used to love

On Friday 03 November 2006 18:58, jfweber@gilweber.com wrote:

HEY! Do *Not* pick on Anders , he actually *DOES* have to listen to people who may be actually screaming at him.  

Dunno how long you've been around this list but he actually is correct in the information he gave you.. people have been screaming about abandoning Suse ever since Novell began to woo them ... point taken...

... but common ... wooing is one thing... climbing into bed with M$... now that's just plain adulterous... or least-ways some very serious cheating. I'm really disappointed. -- Kind regards, M Harris <><

On 2006-11-03 15:16, Kai Ponte wrote:

On Friday 03 November 2006 12:30, Anders Johansson wrote:

...

"YaST2 Online Update is gone, suse is dead, let's all move to Ubuntu before it's too late"

Honestly, why don't people look at things and think them through before they start screaming.

...because it is much more cathartic to rant and rave.

"I didn't get a Lizard Sticker with SUSE 10.0 boxed. SUSE is dead!" :)

Lizard Sticker with 10.0? Hell, I didn't get the -penguin- in the -7.3- box.... SuSE is dead!!!@!

On Friday 03 November 2006 12:18, Hans du Plooy wrote:

On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 15:20 -0600, M Harris wrote:

...

Actually, its time to make sure that Ubuntu has a cool graphical installer very soon...

Debian Etch already has.

Hans

How is Etch different than prior versions in this regard? Ubuntu has had graphical installers since its first release. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

On Friday 03 November 2006 15:49, Darryl Gregorash wrote:

So, please enlighten me in case I have made any error here: Ok..

At this point in time M$ has not one word to say ... and that I believe is the entire point of your entire previous post... and you're missing the issue. The issue is the *future* of Novell-Mickey-Office-Linux... and the impact the *cross licensing* in the *future* will have upon Suse, the Linux community, and the open source movement in general. If Novell teams up with M$ then Suse in the *future* will no longer have the trust of the open community. Do you honestly believe that Suse will honor the GPL with M$ in their pocket? Well, if I were you (cause it won't be me) when you load Suse 10.2 I would recommend that you read the license agreement *very* carefully... cause I'm willing to bet that it changes dramatically... and I am also willing to bet that M$ lawyers are going to help write it. Bye bye Suse. On the other hand... Ubuntu is safe... for the moment. I thought I could trust Novell. I was apparently quite mistaken about that... otherwise, I think I know what I'm talking about here. -- Kind regards, M Harris <><

On 2006-11-03 18:39, John Andersen wrote:

Will the products that Novel ships to microsoft for network management be GPL?

Not ever intending to buy anything from Microsoft, I for one don't care :-)

Will Microsoft use any linux code in their products and risk GPL infection?

More to the point, since we know they already do use Linux code in their products: Will they be able to risk leaving it there, and risk a lawsuit by the FFS, with a possible end result that their entire kernel source becomes subject to the GPL?

I know FSF - Free Software Foundation.

So pretend you're Microsoft and sue me. Sheesh, it's a bloody typo.

On 11/4/06, John Andersen wrote:

On Friday 03 November 2006 20:14, Amit Joshi wrote:

...

FFS? Whats FFS?

Many people are talking about FFS here..lol..whats that?? :P

I know FSF - Free Software Foundation.

Regards, Amit.

Wasamatta Amit, never seen lisdexia before?

--

Yeah..but it was repeated more than a couple of times..so I thought its some really authentic acronym... _____________________________________

John Andersen

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

-- http://mckagan.googlepages.com

On Saturday 04 November 2006 00:36, Darryl Gregorash wrote:

Search teh message bodies of all my messages for the number of times I have spelled "the" as "teh" -- and the times I haven't are as likely to have been corrected as not

Kmail can handle that for you. Since I gut Kmail I niver make a spellink mistak any mour. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

On 11/4/06, Darryl Gregorash wrote:

On 2006-11-04 03:30, Amit Joshi wrote:

...

On 11/4/06, John Andersen wrote:

...

Wasamatta Amit, never seen lisdexia before?

--

Yeah..but it was repeated more than a couple of times..so I thought its some really authentic acronym... Search teh message bodies of all my messages for the number of times I have spelled "the" as "teh" -- and the times I haven't are as likely to have been corrected as not.

I think I need to take up the Dvorak keyboard, just so I will slow myself down a bit, at least for awhile. :-)

Dvorak keyboard?? Seeing the average word-count of your mails, you wanna keep typing the whole day or what? ;-) Yeah..get a spell-checker anyways... :P --

Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

-- http://mckagan.googlepages.com

On 2006-11-03 17:59, M Harris wrote:

On Friday 03 November 2006 15:49, Darryl Gregorash wrote:

...

So, please enlighten me in case I have made any error here:

Ok..

At this point in time M$ has not one word to say ... and that I believe is the entire point of your entire previous post... and you're missing the issue.

I am not missing any issue. I don't care if it is present tense or future tense, there is no way that Novell is going to be able to tinker with the kernel as claimed in the web-dropping Fred cited, without facing a huge legal challenge from the entire open-source community, beginning with Torvalds and the FFS, and probably extending all the way to IBM. There is no way that Linus Torvalds will allow Novell to place *anyone's* patented material into the kernel, then claim an infringement against the non-Novell Linux community. That would terminate Novell's licence to the kernel source, the patented material would be removed within a day (just go back to the newest CVS tree before Novell began tinkering), and within a week, Novell and anyone associated with the little scheme would be faced with a multi-billion dollar countersuit.

The issue is the *future* of Novell-Mickey-Office-Linux... and the impact the *cross licensing* in the *future* will have upon Suse, the Linux community, and the open source movement in general.

It will have none -- the GPL is very clear on one thing: you cannot insert proprietary code into a GPL source and produce a proprietary package. Novell is free to put whatever complete packages it wants of its own into its own distributions, Microsoft is free to pick up SuSE and add some more of its own material to the distribution (would such a distro be called MicroSUSE?). The end result is not something that is subject to any patent or copyright claims, beyond the rather few individual proprietary packages added by either party, which no other distro in its right mind would pick up anyway. It certainly will *not* mean you or I will be sued if we choose to use OO.org instead of some possible future Linux rendering of MSWord.

If Novell teams up with M$ then Suse in the *future* will no longer have the trust of the open community. Do you honestly believe that Suse will honor the GPL with M$ in their pocket?

Once more, I ask you to state, clearly and without any additional buts/ands/wherefore or whereas, just how is Microsoft going to sue any open-source user who decides he is going to use OpenOffice.org instead of some as-yet unheard of Linux rendition of MSWord (or whatever other office suite Microsoft deems is "worthy" of its approval)? At this point, I am also going to suggest you go back and re-read the entire article (or read it a first time, in case you haven't already, which I am beginning to wonder about), because:

On the other hand... Ubuntu is safe... for the moment. I thought I could trust Novell. I was apparently quite mistaken about that... otherwise, I think I know what I'm talking about here.

You certainly do *not* know what you are talking about here, because the article clearly states that MS is now in a position to sue anyone who uses open source software *other* than what is on its "approved" list -- and that "anyone" means just that, regardless of distribution. The article clearly states anyone, using SuSE or otherwise, is open to lawsuit if MS decides they are using the "wrong" open source package -- and implies that any Linux user not using SuSe will likewise be sued.

At 09:26 AM 11/4/2006 +0800, Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:

Darryl Gregorash wrote:

...

That would terminate Novell's licence to the kernel source, the patented material would be removed within a day (just go back to the newest CVS tree before Novell began tinkering), and within a week, Novell and anyone associated with the little scheme would be faced with a multi-billion dollar countersuit. But who has the resources to litigate the the M$ army of lawyers.

-- Joe Morris Registered Linux user 231871

Finally, someone has hit the ball. All of the responses I've read have assumed that there would be great lawsuits. By whom? I'm sure that Linus doesn't have the money to do that. Perhaps Oracle would try and clear the air, or perhaps IBM--but I doubt that IBM has the interest--after all, they let their own OS/2 die. No, if Microsoft decides to put Linux out of business, then I think we will all be forced to FreeBSD, or to buy Macs. Back up your XP system--when Vista comes out, most of what you have now will probably stop working. By deliberate design! Well, I'm a pessimist. Wouldn't it be nice if I'm wrong, but who has ever trusted M/S? --doug

Darryl Gregorash wrote:

On 2006-11-03 19:54, Doug McGarrett wrote:

...

Finally, someone has hit the ball. All of the responses I've read have assumed that there would be great lawsuits. By whom? I'm sure that Linus doesn't have the money to do that. Perhaps Oracle would

I already wrote this in at least 2 messages -- Torvalds, backed by the FFS, as principal complainant. IBM, attached as an interested party, funding whatever the FFS can't pick up. Oracle can stay at home, *them* I really do not trust, though their bankroll is deep. Every other Linux distro should be able to toss in at least a single lia*.... errrr, lawyer... each.

Who else? I am sure you can think of other ways the legal team in such a venture could be funded -- there is, after all, no law against donating a few dimes or dollars to someone like the FFS, in order to assist with the legal costs.

I'm afraid the division between donors and non-donors would be similar to the division in this discussion. -- ED --

...

On Friday 03 November 2006 21:46, Darryl Gregorash wrote:

On 2006-11-03 21:15, Ed McCanless wrote:

...

Darryl Gregorash wrote:

...

<snip> Who else? I am sure you can think of other ways the legal team in such a venture could be funded -- there is, after all, no law against donating a few dimes or dollars to someone like the FFS, in order to assist with the legal costs.

I'm afraid the division between donors and non-donors would be similar to the division in this discussion.

With those crying "wolf" the loudest being the ones to contribute the least.

You ass...people who've been *BUYING* SuSE have been contributing. Not every person with a computer can be a developer etc, but many do what they can, it may be writing a part of a FAQ, translating, whatever. All you did with your above statement is show what a bore and close-minded jerk you are. -- Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented worker', is like calling a home intruder an 'unwanted houseguest'.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug McGarrett" To: Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 8:54 PM Subject: SPAM: Re: [SLE] Novell-Microsoft: What They Aren't Telling You

At 09:26 AM 11/4/2006 +0800, Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:

...

Darryl Gregorash wrote:

...

That would terminate Novell's licence to the kernel source, the patented material would be removed within a day (just go back to the newest CVS tree before Novell began tinkering), and within a week, Novell and anyone associated with the little scheme would be faced with a multi-billion dollar countersuit. But who has the resources to litigate the the M$ army of lawyers.

-- Joe Morris Registered Linux user 231871

Finally, someone has hit the ball. All of the responses I've read have assumed that there would be great lawsuits. By whom? I'm sure that Linus doesn't have the money to do that. Perhaps Oracle would try and clear the air, or perhaps IBM--but I doubt that IBM has the interest--after all, they let their own OS/2 die. No, if Microsoft

The outcome will be no different if IBM decided to sue Microsoft over OS/2. At the end of day, it's marketing that matters and as some people pointed out in this thread, Microsoft had been doing brilliantly in marketing. The user interface of Windows Vista as seem in the default installation, is second to none. 99% of people buys that, never mind if the technology underneath is inferior or not. Microsoft is also winning in the front of making it easier to develop for Windows. Visual Studio 6 is crappy. VS 2003 is better and Visual Studio 2005 leap frogged all competitors. If you can't beat it, joint it.

decides to put Linux out of business, then I think we will all be forced to FreeBSD, or to buy Macs. Back up your XP system--when Vista comes out, most of what you have now will probably stop working. By deliberate design! Well, I'm a pessimist. Wouldn't it be nice if I'm wrong, but who has ever trusted M/S?

--doug

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On Saturday 04 November 2006 13:22, Darryl Gregorash wrote:

OS/2 is irrelevant in the present discussion. IBM's decision to dump OS/2 was made by the marketing division, who apparently still believe that the mainframe is the last word in computer resources (after all, IBM did dump its PC division).

All the proof, as if we needed any that you can't trust proprietary software companies to care about their customers....

Moreover, OS/2 was originally jointly developed by IBM and Microsoft -- OS/2 is what IBM thought it should be, while Windows 3.1 and its successors are what Microsoft wanted it to be.

Slight correction....I think you should say Windows 95 here. OS/2 was written to be and was compatible with Win 3.1 and 3.11. Bob. -- Robert Smits, Ladysmith BC Email bob@rsmits.ca

On Saturday 04 November 2006 08:54, Doug McGarrett wrote:

At 09:26 AM 11/4/2006 +0800, Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:

...

Darryl Gregorash wrote:

...

That would terminate Novell's licence to the kernel source, the patented material would be removed within a day (just go back to the newest CVS tree before Novell began tinkering), and within a week, Novell and anyone associated with the little scheme would be faced with a multi-billion dollar countersuit.

But who has the resources to litigate the the M$ army of lawyers.

-- Joe Morris Registered Linux user 231871

Finally, someone has hit the ball. All of the responses I've read have assumed that there would be great lawsuits. By whom? I'm sure that Linus doesn't have the money to do that. Perhaps Oracle would try and clear the air, or perhaps IBM--but I doubt that IBM has the interest--after all, they let their own OS/2 die. No, if Microsoft decides to put Linux out of business, then I think we will all be forced to FreeBSD, or to buy Macs. Back up your XP system--when Vista comes out, most of what you have now will probably stop working. By deliberate design! Well, I'm a pessimist. Wouldn't it be nice if I'm wrong, but who has ever trusted M/S?

Hmmm, I guess, Red Flag Linux will survive, with millions of unbothered installations, in a continent and countries where the MS lawyers get nothing but some smiles. Also I guess Europe will give them (the MS paid liars) a real hard time. But I agree, they will try.

I am not missing any issue. I don't care if it is present tense or future tense, there is no way that Novell is going to be able to tinker with the kernel as claimed in the web-dropping Fred cited <snip> You are missing the entire point of the article... too focused on the

On Friday 03 November 2006 19:04, Darryl Gregorash wrote: trees to see the forest... and this little pissing contest misses the thrust of the danger involved... its not about would-be, could-be, should-be, might-be... its about the realities of the evils of software patents--- to innovation, to computer science, to the linux community and to the freedom of open source in general. You obviously are ignorant of the very real problem. <clip from the article...> This entire agreement hinges around software patenting - monopolies on ideas that are burying the software industry in litigation - rather than innovation. If we've learned one thing from the rapid rise of Open Source, it's that intellectual property protection - the thing that Open Source dispenses with - actually impedes innovation. And the Novell-Microsoft agremeent stands as an additional impediment. Press: Cleared for Publication. It's OK to quote, excerpt, or reproduce the entire article in your publication. And if you want to speak to me, try in the morning, California time, at 510-526-1165. Piss all you want... but there is clear and present danger... if you want to defend it, or deny it, or support it, then you'll probably get what you deserve. Hey, give the guy a call... his number is listed above, and he wants to talk to you. Maybe you can convince him that there is no problem and that his article is bogus. -- Kind regards, M Harris <><

into electronic streams flowing thru the cosmos On Friday 03 November 2006 10:17 pm, Darryl Gregorash wrote:

On 2006-11-03 21:54, M Harris wrote:

...

<snip> You obviously are ignorant of the very real problem.

Hardly. I know the nature of the real problem -- it is the idiotic US patent system, not necessarily patents in general. Innovation does not cease the moment you bring it in-house to a single corporate lab. You do not need a bunch of independent researchers spread all over the planet in order to make progress, in software or in anything else.

What *is* a real impediment to innovation and progress is the idiotic system which allows a patent to be issued for nothing more than the *idea* of putting a GPS unit onto a PCI card.

You are wrong, it's not *just* the idea, someone must actually have a working or workable way to do it.. they have to produce diagrams AND a working model. That the idea might be unwieldy until electronics get smaller, or cheaper or there is an actual use ( a whole helluva lot of stuff is developed by people before , say satellite gps tech was released into the general population. ) Specialized knowledge they probably wouldn't have unless they worked at a company that had something like a room sized version of one in the works.. Before that happened Military and Policing types were the only ones who had access and they had access to grunts to haul equipment around. And someone at a place that build those systems probably showed an idea to a boss one day, who built the object most engineers in big companies have clauses in their contracts which says anything they invent , even on their own time belongs to the company on the assumption that the stuff you use everyday probably gave you a knowledge you wouldn't have access to otherwise. They get first refusal. If it turns out not to impinge on their stuff in any way.. ( It's an electronic juice bar and Margarita mixer ) they say no thanks and you patent it on your own. Don't feel sorry for the poor engineer, they get their name on a plaque ( unless they work at the Skunk Works, then I dunno) if issued. And a pay out by the company even before any patent is sought. The pay out is a buy out of the idea and any materials developed by you on your own, and is usually commiserate w/ what the company thinks it can make, less the costs of patent search, and bringing the thing thru the patent process. A not inconsiderable sum. <snip>

The sky is *not* falling.

sez you.. It most likely is . ;-P -- j This current flows between us that will not be denied You draw me in towards you like the moon pulls at the tide May no shadow ever fall that will make me have to call you someone I used to love

into electronic streams flowing thru the cosmos On Saturday 04 November 2006 12:59 am, Darryl Gregorash wrote:

On 2006-11-03 23:02, jfweber@gilweber.com wrote:

...

into electronic streams flowing thru the cosmos On Friday 03 November 2006

10:17 pm, Darryl Gregorash wrote:

...

What *is* a real impediment to innovation and progress is the idiotic system which allows a patent to be issued for nothing more than the *idea* of putting a GPS unit onto a PCI card.

You are wrong, it's not *just* the idea, someone must actually have a working or workable way to do it.. they have to produce diagrams AND a working model.

Well, Meinberg in Germany has had such cards for years, but they are not the ones who hold the patent. Guess they aren't a US company or US owned, or operated then. Do they have a German or Euro patent, if there even is such a thing? ( I know Germany had an active patent system for a looong time. ) Does your attempt to blame the US for the company named above apparently being somehow cheated depend on their having a valid patent prior to the US one depend on any real knowledge of the situation?

Personally I abhor all forms of government, just haven't figured out how to deal w/ SOBs in the world w/o em. Would be nice to deal person to person, but it's not exactly practical .

...

...

The sky is *not* falling.

sez you.. It most likely is . ;-P

sez you..

well, we already know I'm the one in the right here, I asked the Chinese and they oughta know they are closest to it in a land far far away and very very high up.. They are using rocks tossed into the air by little kids to knock satellites outta the sky. -- j This current flows between us that will not be denied You draw me in towards you like the moon pulls at the tide May no shadow ever fall that will make me have to call you someone I used to love

On Friday 03 November 2006 21:02, jfweber@gilweber.com wrote:

10:17 pm, Darryl Gregorash wrote: ...

...

What *is* a real impediment to innovation and progress is the idiotic system which allows a patent to be issued for nothing more than the *idea* of putting a GPS unit onto a PCI card.

You are wrong, it's not *just* the idea, someone must actually have a working or workable way to do it.. they have to produce diagrams AND a working model.

Untrue. The term of art in patent law is "reduction to practice." It is not required for a valid patent filing in the U.S. However, their is a "non-obviousness" requirement, and the example of combining GPS with a PCI card is clearly obvious and this (hypothetical?) example should be rejected by the PTO (Patent and Trademark Office). However, in our inestimable wisdom (specifically, that government is bad), we've decided to starve those agencies that might serve to impede the accumulation of wealth and power within the hands of a few people, dynastic families or large corporate institutions. The PTO has nowhere near enough staff to properly examine all the submitted applications, so many are just rubber-stamped. Especially those from "reputable" corporations such as Microsoft and Amazon.com. The EPA and FDA are similarly famished.

... -- j

RRS

On Friday 03 November 2006 21:04, Randall R Schulz wrote:

However, their is a "non-obviousness" requirement, and the example of combining GPS with a PCI card is clearly obvious and this (hypothetical?) example should be rejected by the PTO (Patent and Trademark Office).

I submit that what is claimed to be obvious in hind-sight is usually a a stroke of genius beforehand, and often met with derision. Putting a PCIMCIA slot on a hedge trimmer might be such an idea. When they hit the market three years hence, someone is sure to say it was obvious. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

On Saturday 04 November 2006 00:04, Randall R Schulz wrote:

On Friday 03 November 2006 21:02, jfweber@gilweber.com wrote:

...

10:17 pm, Darryl Gregorash wrote: ...

...

What *is* a real impediment to innovation and progress is the idiotic system which allows a patent to be issued for nothing more than the *idea* of putting a GPS unit onto a PCI card.

You are wrong, it's not *just* the idea, someone must actually have a working or workable way to do it.. they have to produce diagrams AND a working model.

Untrue.

The term of art in patent law is "reduction to practice." It is not required for a valid patent filing in the U.S.

My mom came up with something about a year ago, and when she got a patent attorney to help her get it patented, she *did* have to have drawings and such to show how it worked, what went where, why, and she had to have an example of the object (product?) etc. (sorry if this is what you just said....most stuff 'legal' makes absolutely no sense to me, heh) -- Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented worker', is like calling a home intruder an 'unwanted houseguest'.

On Friday 03 November 2006 15:59, M Harris wrote:

On Friday 03 November 2006 15:49, Darryl Gregorash wrote:

...

So, please enlighten me in case I have made any error here:

<snip>

If Novell teams up with M$ then Suse in the *future* will no longer have the trust of the open community. Do you honestly believe that Suse will honor the GPL with M$ in their pocket? Well, if I were you (cause it won't be me) when you load Suse 10.2 I would recommend that you read the license agreement *very* carefully... cause I'm willing to bet that it changes dramatically... and I am also willing to bet that M$ lawyers are going to help write it. Bye bye Suse.

On the other hand... Ubuntu is safe... for the moment. I thought I could trust Novell. I was apparently quite mistaken about that... otherwise, I think I know what I'm talking about here.

I've been thinking about this - among other things. What if SUSE is "safe" from the predatory tactics of the William H. Gates Sr. and his cadre of lawyers trying to keep his son's company afloat? Okay that doesn't include Ubuntu or Red Hat (my guess for the target of this deal) or any other GPL-based distro who might or might not be using patented code. So, immediately, MS goes after Oracle Linux (and subsequently Red Hat) for some perceived violation of either the DCMA or patent law in the US. (They probably will do similar items in other countries.) While Oracle is embroiled in discovery (which I'm doing right now for some sleezeball lawyer trying to sue my company on bogus grounds) and spending countless hours not updating code, MS goes on happily. Eventually, coming out with Xinux based on SUSE and in cooperation with SUSE. Meanwhile, all the other "not protected" distros either go underground or stop supporting enterprise clients because of the fear of litigation. I wouldn't even be surprised if even Mr. Shuttlesworth decides to pull up stakes. I don't know - this seems like a bad idea. -- kai ponte www.perfectreign.com

On Friday 03 November 2006 22:57, Basil Chupin wrote:

I discovered yesterday that ubuntu/kubuntu is rubbish: it cannot handle my 6-month old nVidia card (a 6600)

Kubuntu was released more than 6 month ago. It does take a little while to get the latest hardware in, and with anything Debian, it takes quite a little longer. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

On Saturday 04 November 2006 07:37, Geoffrey wrote:

My last foray into *ubuntu scared me away when I found you could:

sudo passwd root

As any user and set the root password.  

Yes, Ubuntu's odd submerging of the root account takes a bit of getting used to. I always have to set root password so that there is access to the root account because otherwise its just SO WRONG... But, you misunderstand part of the process. Its only the first account that has the ability to sudo things unless that account (or root) adds the other people to the admin group. Example: kjh@kubuntu:~$ sudo passwd root kjh is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported. Since kjh was not the first user created at install, that account was not added to the group admin, and therefore cant' do squat. So you see its somewhat better thought out than it first seems. Its designed so that Ma (but not Pa) Polyester can do the routine maintenance tasks without having to log out and log in as someone else. Personally, I'm not convinced its that great of a scheme, but it does seem to work for day to day tasks. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

On Saturday 04 November 2006 12:56, Geoffrey wrote:

John Andersen wrote:

...

...

My last foray into *ubuntu scared me away when I found you could:

sudo passwd root

As any user and set the root password. ... But, you misunderstand part of the process. Its only the first account

On Saturday 04 November 2006 07:37, Geoffrey wrote: that has the ability to sudo things unless that account (or root) adds the other people to the admin group.

Okay, so you're saying it's not as bad as Windows XP which sets up every user as a super user. Still, I see it as a huge security screwup.

No, its not. Its a recognized and valid approach. It can hardly be called huge. And its certainly not a security screwup. The installer is forced to create an account at setup and that account gets root permissions via sudo. How is that ANY different than the installer being forced to set the root password and root getting full permissions? Every time user#1 does something requiring root permissions they are forced to give a password. It prevents the new (12 year old) "SysOP" from running as root as most of them love to do. And it presents no hindrance to the competent admin. Its well thought out, not to my liking, but certainly acceptable. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 11:37 -0500, Geoffrey wrote:

John Andersen wrote:

...

On Friday 03 November 2006 22:57, Basil Chupin wrote:

...

I discovered yesterday that ubuntu/kubuntu is rubbish: it cannot handle my 6-month old nVidia card (a 6600)

Kubuntu was released more than 6 month ago. It does take a little while to get the latest hardware in, and with anything Debian, it takes quite a little longer.

My last foray into *ubuntu scared me away when I found you could:

sudo passwd root

As any user and set the root password. Now, knowing this is a good thing, but having a default installation setup this way is a huge security issue.

I think that this is also standard for Knoppix as well. No doubt those folks interested in getting involved with Ubuntu, will find out how to do a lock down on their systems. OTOH, for the next laptop that I install SuSE on, I'm going to want they user to be able to sudo some of the YaST setup tools, such as printers, and networking, and not be able to install applications without my permission.

On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 19:57 -0900, John Andersen wrote:

On Saturday 04 November 2006 19:53, Mike McMullin wrote:

...

No doubt those folks interested in getting involved with Ubuntu, will find out how to do a lock down on their systems.

It doesn't need a lock down.

Its just a secure as SuSE's way.

I'm not too sure about that.

There is a school of thought that maintains the Ubuntu way is the PROPER way to handle root access.

And I'm not arguing that.

Again, don't spread FUD about something just because it's different than what you are used to.

What I'm used to? Well, on the laptop behind me, I'm used to wide open administrator's rights, it's XP-Pro, at work where I have XP-Pro, I cannot even defrag the hd, on my Linux systems, I'm used to being forced to actively take on the role of administrator. Of the three, I do actually prefer the last way, it makes sense to me. I'm looking at platforming a laptop for use by someone other than myself, I'm not even going to have an account on it, Ubuntu's method of giving the first account sudo privileges won't work in this situation, as i) I don't want the extra account, and more importantly ii) I want to make sure the user (a teenager) doesn't load it down with unneeded programs.

On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 01:50 -0900, John Andersen wrote:

On Sunday 05 November 2006 01:15, Mike McMullin wrote:

...

Ubuntu's method of giving the first account sudo privileges won't work in this situation, as i) I don't want the extra account, and more importantly ii) I want to make sure the user (a teenager) doesn't load it down with unneeded programs.

Don't want the extra account? Like that's going to hurt having that around!

I didn't say it was going to hurt. I said I didn't want it.

Would You also want to get rid of the root account if you set it up the SuSE way?

I don't recall ever logging into the root account in Ubuntu.

Who is going to keep the machine up to date by running updates? You need sudo authority for that.

Its all submerged into the auto-update thingie in ubuntu just like it is the rug updater in SuSE, but in ubuntu you don't have to give them root passwords.

Actually this is one thing that I want to work just this way. Have certain root privileges available to the normal user.

Then, they just get to run that subset of commands that /etc/sudoers says they can do. Mostly these commands are submerged under the gui.

Even a teen ager can be trusted to click an icon to apply security patches.

AAMOF not this one, he's hosed his XP setup and then hosed mine, all by not bothering to to do those updates.

If you can't trust them to do that, then create their account SECOND rather than first.

You can delete the first one (after setting a root password) if it really bothers you to have a spare account around.

Possibly, it is an option.

On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 13:42 -0900, John Andersen wrote:

On Sunday 05 November 2006 13:31, Mike McMullin wrote:

...

...

Even a teen ager can be trusted to click an icon to apply security patches.

AAMOF not this one, he's hosed his XP setup and then hosed mine, all by not bothering to to do those updates.

It hardly seems fair to blame HIM for XP being hosed. ;-)

<chuckle> That he then hosed mine, I certainly do blame him for, and this is why I want him to have limited root access. There are details to be worked out about what he needs to be able to do, at the moment I'm thinking, join a network, and set up a printer ought to be enough, and of course, the updates which I doubt he'd do.

On 2006-11-03 19:41, JB wrote:

<snip>

<snicker>...it's okay, "dude", when at the end I get to laugh at you because you fell for this 'fantastic partnership', don't get all pissy about it.

I haven't fallen for anything, Ms Little, but I do know the sky is not falling.

Darryl Gregorash wrote:

... I won't even comment on the drivel that suggests Novell *can* dump patented code into the kernel, then assert patent rights over the kernel,

OK, then I will. You don't seem to understand that a patent gives the holder a right to sue anyone who, in the eyes of the holder, violates the patent. And a patent is _supposed_ to be novel, but who verifies that it really is novel? Certainly not the patent bureaucrats, who haven't had a clue for over a hundred years, and have allowed people to patent basically anything the applicant claimed was new and different, with basically no external verification required, or even requested. The RTLinux people patented a technique that had been in use for decades, and no one even challenged them, because it's simply too expensive. I've read that there has been a torrent of software patents granted in the past couple of years, mainly to Microsoft and IBM, but also to others. Do you really think tens of thousands of brand-new software ideas came up in a couple of years? Don't be surprised when Microsoft, with Novell's full support, starts suing distributions over obscure kernel code violating some recent patent, and don't think it'll be easy to get it dismissed simply because the code was there long before the "new" patent was granted. Our brave new court system doesn't work that way, and Microsoft has nearly infinite lawyer resources. If they can hold off the Department of Justice for nearly a decade until a friendly administration comes in and kills the case, do you really think Torvalds and Moglen will be able to hold them off -- even if they're obviously in the right? I don't. I hope for Novell's integrity, without feeling very confident. I'm dead certain that even if Novell is playing it straight, Microsoft is not, and there's big trouble ahead. -- John Perry

Totally Agree, Linux is bigger then the US, much bigger if the US wants to make it's bed with M$ then fine but don't think that the rest of the world is going to follow, to many companies, goverments and municipalities has put to much time and effort getting a Linux solution working that they will allow M$ to come in with their weird US rules and try to push it on them. M$ has been trying their stunts for years, and this latest actually tells me that their in more trouble then what they really want to admit, comeon it's not excatly for free to develop and release M$ vista or 2003, nor IE7 for that matter so I have a good suspicion that their bank account must be starting to feel the pressure. Regards Per On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 00:22 -0600, Darryl Gregorash wrote: -- Kind regards Per Qvindesland Web: www.qvtech.cc Shop: http://store.qvtech.cc E-mail: per@qvtech.cc Tel: 039 682695453 Fax: 0866730128 Cell: 084 8721444

On Saturday 04 November 2006 12:50, Kai Ponte wrote:

Last I checked, MS had around $30b in cash hanging around. Enough to buy a small duplex in westide Los Angeles

Correction: A small Duplex AND the the West Side of Los Angeles. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

On 2006-11-04 15:50, Kai Ponte wrote:

<snip> They simply need to restart the FUD campain to scare others away from Open Source. Again I was at a friend's house this morning fixing their infected XP SP2 system and discussing how I never get viruses and my software "Just works." The response back was, "can I open Outlook Express emails in linux?"

Sigh...

But that is a very valid question, is it not? In the past, even users of MS software have had a chance to ask it, eg "can I open MSWord<n> documents in MSWord? So it is only natural some of them should wonder if OE emails are different from other emails. (I'm not sure if I want to put a "laugh" emoticon here, or a "cry".)

On Saturday 04 November 2006 19:15, John Andersen wrote:

On Saturday 04 November 2006 17:46, Darryl Gregorash wrote:

...

On 2006-11-04 15:50, Kai Ponte wrote:

...

<snip> They simply need to restart the FUD campain to scare others away from Open Source. Again I was at a friend's house this morning fixing their infected XP SP2 system and discussing how I never get viruses and my software "Just works." The response back was, "can I open Outlook Express emails in linux?"

Sigh...

But that is a very valid question, is it not? In the past, even users of MS software have had a chance to ask it, eg "can I open MSWord<n> documents in MSWord?

Valid? Not so sure. Typical? You bet. I've seen it myself.

Yeah, it is typical.

Typically the hardest users to pry away from windows are those that use it only for email and web surfing. (Well there are gamers too, but that's a different issue).

I know professional people who LIVE in Outlook. They know nothing else! Its their home page in life. The run everything from there.

That's me! Seriously, I believe that pretty much 2/3 of my day is spent in Outlook at work. You can see in the following screenshot, however, that even I have my weakness... http://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/outlook_save.jpg This is an older screenshot, and I don't even remember which version of SUSE was being displayed. In any case, I have outlook XP loaded on my laptop and one on a SUSE desktop at home for connecting to the office through VPN. I would use Evolution, but we (along with many other companies) are still on Exchange 5.5 and can't connect using that product.

I know home users who really liked linux but couldn't part with outlook express. I showed them the Kmail outlook importer and that finally did the trick. Kmail running inside of Kontact will usually bring them around, usually after the second or third viral infection.

I took the first step today for that friend. I moved her and her husband over to Thunderbird and Firefox... ...baby steps... -- kai ponte www.perfectreign.com

Darryl Gregorash wrote:

On 2006-11-03 22:58, John E. Perry wrote:

...

Darryl Gregorash wrote:

...

... I won't even comment on the drivel that suggests Novell *can* dump patented code into the kernel, then assert patent rights over the kernel,

OK, then I will.

You don't seem to understand that a patent gives the holder a right to sue anyone who, in the eyes of the holder, violates the patent. And a patent is _supposed_ to be novel, but who verifies that it really is novel? Certainly not the patent bureaucrats, who haven't had a clue for

"Your Honour, here is the record showing that Novell introduced the alleged infringing code into the kernel source on <date>."

Who said anything about code introduced by Novell? It doesn't matter who put it in, if there's a patent on it. That's my point. They have recent patents (more than likely) on standard techniques in use for decades, and whether Novell's pros or Joe Redneck in his bedroom wrote the code, it's in violation until the lawyers work it out. That's like

me borrowing your axe to chop down my front door, then having you charged with break and enter.

Not particularly farfetched in our court system :-/. And while ours is probably the worst, I've heard of similar corruption in other countries.

...

Don't be surprised when Microsoft, with Novell's full support, starts suing distributions over obscure kernel code violating some recent patent, and don't think it'll be easy to get it dismissed simply because the code was there long before the "new" patent was granted. Our brave new court system doesn't work that way, and Microsoft has nearly

Well, you guys are all certain and sure of all this -- but you are completely ignoring other very large players. Torvalds and Moglen are not the only players with a vested interest in seeing open source survive intact, and some of them are at least as big as Microsoft. Those of you who are so certain that Novell and Microsoft are going to cook up some big conspiracy to litigate open source software out of existence seem to be unable to grasp the fact that those very people with those vested interests are going to be *very* interested in seeing that that does not happen.

You seem to have a very Pollyanna-ish view of such as IBM, HP, Intel, etc. They're wallowing in the thick of the software patent filth. Do you really believe they'll fight Microsoft against their own patent interests?

And my bottom line is, if it comes down to it, I quite frankly don't care one iota what does happen in the great USofA, because fortunately, most of your idiotic patents are not enforceable in Canada or elsewhere -- Linux will survive , even if no American can legally use it.

Haven't you heard of the big push to get software patents in the EU? Sure, there are developers outside the US and Europe, but if Europe caves in, that blocks most of the Linux world, possibly making it non-viable in the future. ...And what makes those who've pushed BSD in this thread think it'll be immune to a patent attack? jp

On 2006-11-04 01:43, John E. Perry wrote:

Darryl Gregorash wrote:

...

"Your Honour, here is the record showing that Novell introduced the alleged infringing code into the kernel source on <date>."

Who said anything about code introduced by Novell? It doesn't matter who put it in, if there's a patent on it. That's my point. They have

But it does matter -- how can Novell sue for any patent infringement, if it is Novell who puts the code into the software? If the kernel developers are aware at the time that the code is patented, and that Novell knows it is patented, then they can require it be removed, or else require Novell to indemnify them against liability. If they are wise, they will require blanket indemnification immediately, for any future infringement arising from Novell's actions. It does matter who puts in the code. If Novell introduces code it knows to be patented, either by Novell or by someone else, the kernel developers are innocent parties, unless they are aware the patent exists and allow the situation to continue. Novell is responsible for creating the infringement, and bears responsibility for it.

You seem to have a very Pollyanna-ish view of such as IBM, HP, Intel, etc. They're wallowing in the thick of the software patent filth. Do you really believe they'll fight Microsoft against their own patent interests?

No, they will be fighting Microsoft to -protect- their own patent interests.

...

And my bottom line is, if it comes down to it, I quite frankly don't care one iota what does happen in the great USofA....

Haven't you heard of the big push to get software patents in the EU?

Yes, and so far, it looks like it ain't gonna happen. The Euro Parliament keeps tossing it out.

...And what makes those who've pushed BSD in this thread think it'll be immune to a patent attack?

Wasn't me.