Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com) [LWN.net]

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 28, 2003 15:37 UTC (Mon) by dbhost (guest, #3461)
In reply to: Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com) by dwalters
Parent article: Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

I agree. Section 6 of the GPL is very clear about this:

"Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."

IANAL either, but this wording seems very compelling, clear an unambiguous to me, and probably a judge as well.

Good point, however I would like to quote higher law of the land (United States that is).

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "
(quoted verbatim from http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html).

To this blatant thou shalt not aimed at the government we shall of course add the following article... http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/brady.htm
A distinct infringement upon my rights as laid forth by the second ammendment of the Constitution of The United States of America.

Of course IANAL either, (thank GOD for that!). The frightening facts of American Jurist Prudence are as follows.
We live in a day and age when a good liar, uh Laywer can get O.J. Simpson off the hook using Jury Nullification, the former President of The United States is let off the hook along party lines while dancing around the truth by debating what the meaning of "is" is. Runaway juries award elderly women millions of dollars for being surprised when they clumsily burn themselves with hot coffee from a well known fast food chain. (and here all this time I thought coffee was supposed to be hot. Silly me.). And every cause that cannot seem to get its agenda through the legislative process is going through a pervesion of the legal system. (I dare ANYBODY to show me in the text of the Constitution of the United States where the alleged Separation of Church and State eixists, and just how is it that abortion is constitutionally protected freedom from unreasonable search and seizure but growing a basement full of dope isn't.). With the state of insanity that embarrases the United States as the Judiciary, it would not surprise me if SCO won this thing. It would utterly disgust me, but not surprise me...

Hmmm. Awfully early in the week for me to get ticked off. I guess my weekend was too short.

(Log in to post comments)

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 28, 2003 15:47 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]

<offtopic>IANAL, but I believe the standard reply to your challenge about the church/state separation issue would be that the subsequent court decisions "interpret" the Constitution by creating legal precedent, and thereby sort of change its current meaning. Not exactly the way the people who wrote it probably intended, but that's the state of the union... :-( In addition, it may not be explicit in the Constitution, but the leaders of the Revolution very plainly indicated in their other writings that they did not want a state church...they'd had too much experience with such a situation back in the countries they came from. Their point, however, was not to make a churchless state--where discouraging religion entirely was the rule--but to make the playing field level so no one particular group was persecuted as happened all the time to minority groups in countries with the aforementioned state churches.</offtopic>

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 28, 2003 18:50 UTC (Mon) by dbhost (guest, #3461) [Link]

I couldn't agree to a greater extent. The issue isn't really OT though. It is the interperatation of the intent of the framers and legislators that has so horribly steered our legal system into the current state of perversion that we suffer through. My point was not that I advocate or oppose a church / state union, but rather that the intent and word of the framers and legislators have been twisted into a horrible thing by societal predators wearing suits. I make no secret of my standing on issues of faith, and where I believe the state should be in relation to the church. The first ammendment, guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM. And last time I checked, Paganism and Atheism were both considered forms of Religion. (Much of modern environmental thought is barely disguised Pagan belief).

What I am advocating here, and pretty much elsewhere is a truly impartial judiciary that will look at the evidence, and weigh it against the law, from the Constitution on down, and render a ruling based on the facts. I have no faith that can happen in our current climate.

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 28, 2003 19:46 UTC (Mon) by mgrello (guest, #13433) [Link]

Gee, you're ticked off! Well, I'm really tired of settling down for a non-political discussion of Linux and having some conservative hi-jack the conversation for their own purposes. We weren't discussing well regulated militias, former Presidents using 11 words to lie about oral sex (while ignoring current Presidents using 16 words to perpertrate a lie that, so far, has resulted in 235 of our children and friends and neighbors being killed in action), OJ Simpson, or having religion shoved down our throats.

Now I believe you should be able to own a gun, pray where you like, and I also think the ex-President acted in extremely bad taste in his sex life, and I think OJ got away with murder, but we came here to talk about Linux.

But, be honest, you knew that!

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 29, 2003 1:17 UTC (Tue) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link]

...while ignoring current Presidents using 16 words to perpertrate a lie that, so far, has resulted in 235 of our children and friends and neighbors being killed in action [snip]

Hey, watch where you point that sentence, buddy -- it's loaded! ;-)

...or having religion shoved down our throats.

Where did that come from?

I have noticed quite often that if a liberal proposes, for example, that there ought to be more homosexual public school teachers, this is labeled "fair", "equal opportunity", or "tolerant", but if a conservative proposes that there ought to be more prayer (or even some) in public schools, this is labeled "intolerant", "shoving religion down our throats", or even "facist" in some cases if said liberal has become sufficiently annoyed. You would think that a group of people who hold tolerance is such high regard would practice it more often.

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 29, 2003 11:27 UTC (Tue) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link]

> that there ought to be more homosexual public school teachers [...]
> but if a conservative proposes that there ought to be more prayer [...]

Compromise: Send some catholic priests into public schools, and you get both more
homosexual public school teachers and prayers at the same time (sorry, couldn't resist ;-)

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 29, 2003 14:58 UTC (Tue) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link]

Yeah, that whole thing really suprised me. I always assumed that the priests-molesting-alter-boys thing was blown way out of proportion; maybe it happened once or thrice, and became urban legend after that, sort of like the lady who spilled coffee on herself in the McDonald's drive-through.

Moral of the story: most people are probably better off married, including priests and programmers. ;-)

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 29, 2003 13:06 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

Dunno about Clinton - but I've seen various rants that that whole investigation was a Republican witch hunt - certainly Starr appeared to be on a fishing trip ... which I think is illegal under UK law!

As for the lady and the coffee - you need to check the facts. Coffee may be supposed to be hot, but it should NOT be capable of inflicting life-threatening burns! This coffee was served, IN AN INSULATED CONTAINER, at about 15C above the recommended maximum SAFE temperature. McD's deserved to have a massive damages award against them and, I believe, the jury was swayed into awarding these damages as a result of hearing that they had settled many similar cases out of court. They were outraged that McD's could knowingly choose to serve dangerous coffee!

And in the final settlement, I gather the lady ended up out of pocket, as they settled out of court for a sum that was apparently close too but less than her medical expenses.

Cheers,
Wol