OT but interesting: "The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution"

"jack" wrote in message ...
Tim Sullivan wrote:
: "Gary Seven" wrote in message
: ...
:: I just had a really good laugh reading the following article:
::
:: http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5098610.html
::
:: Apparently the scumbag lawyers over at SCO (that's kind of a
:: misnomer, as
:: the **real** SCO no longer exists) are claiming that the GNU GPL
:: (general
:: public license 1) as it stands violates the U.S. Constitution, etc.
:: etc.
:: Now, is it just me or does anyone else think some of these guys were
:: previously employed at Rambus? Christ, what's the world coming to,
:: anyway!
::
:: G7
::
:: 1. http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html
:
: You'll have to remind me again, what was it Rambus did wrong?

You're nothing but a RMBS cheerleading shill.

I only post here to balance out all of the anti-RMBS shills.

Why bother trying to explain anything to you?

Because I don't believe you can, which is further reinforced by your post.

Asshole.

J.

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

Tim Sullivan wrote:


Because I don't believe you can, which is further reinforced by your post.


And how many times has this been debated by you before? You must have a
search bot keyed on "rambus"..
--

Stacey

On 30 Oct 2003 00:03:33 -0800, (Tim
Sullivan) wrote:
"Gary Seven" wrote in message ...
I just had a really good laugh reading the following article:

http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5098610.html

Apparently the scumbag lawyers over at SCO (that's kind of a misnomer, as
the **real** SCO no longer exists) are claiming that the GNU GPL (general
public license 1) as it stands violates the U.S. Constitution, etc. etc.
Now, is it just me or does anyone else think some of these guys were
previously employed at Rambus? Christ, what's the world coming to, anyway!

G7

1. http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html

You'll have to remind me again, what was it Rambus did wrong?

Actually, I think that this time, The Canopy Group/SCO make the Rambus
lawyers look like just your every-day amateur scumbags in comparison!
Everyone knew that what Rambus did was immoral, it was just a question
or whether or not it was illegal.

With The Canopy Group/SCO, on the other hand, EVERYONE knows that what
they are doing is illegal. What they are claiming is the equivalent
of me walking up to your house and claiming that I own your front lawn
and that you need to pay me money to make use of that front long,
despite having no proof. If I were to do that and then threaten to
take you to court if you don't pay, I would be thrown in jail.
However, as I mentioned in another post, The Canopy Group is hiding
safely back behind the lines and likely won't even receive a slap on
the wrist when the **** hits the fan on this one. A few scapegoats
that were brought in to run the SCO front-end of things might get
fined, but the man behind the curtain is just going to walk away from
this one.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca

stacey wrote in message ...
Tim Sullivan wrote:


Because I don't believe you can, which is further reinforced by your post.


And how many times has this been debated by you before?

Twice, I think, and I have yet to see a description written by the
anti-Rambus shills that even comes close to what actually happened.
Mostly I see people like George MacDonald complain about how his job
will be in jeopardy if Rambus succeeds in enforcing their patents.
I am not saying Rambus is 100% clean or hasn't done anything wrong,
just trying to bring balance to the comments posted by the self
interested(as I am) parties here.

On 30 Oct 2003 20:00:40 -0800, (John Corse)
wrote:

Why bother trying to explain anything to you?

Because I don't believe you can, which is further reinforced by your post.

Idiot. Search google. It's already been discussed.

Tim Sullivan wrote:

stacey wrote in message

And how many times has this been debated by you before?

Twice, I think, and I have yet to see a description written by the
anti-Rambus shills

LOL anti rambus shills? These people are here all the time and I've only
seen you post when rambus in mentioned..

--

Stacey

"Gary Seven" wrote in message
...
I just had a really good laugh reading the following article:

http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5098610.html

Apparently the scumbag lawyers over at SCO (that's kind of a misnomer, as
the **real** SCO no longer exists) are claiming that the GNU GPL (general

The real Caldera doesn't exist either.

Yousuf Khan

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:15:59 +0100, "Gary Seven" wrote:

I just had a really good laugh reading the following article:

http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5098610.html

Apparently the scumbag lawyers over at SCO (that's kind of a misnomer, as
the **real** SCO no longer exists) are claiming that the GNU GPL (general
public license 1) as it stands violates the U.S. Constitution, etc. etc.
Now, is it just me or does anyone else think some of these guys were
previously employed at Rambus? Christ, what's the world coming to, anyway!

G7

1. http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html


Well, it'll be a lot of work changing the constitution, but if its
gotta be done, its gotta be done...

In article ,
says...
Tony Hill wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:29:26 -0500, stacey wrote:
Gary Seven wrote:

I just had a really good laugh reading the following article:

http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5098610.html

Apparently the scumbag lawyers over at SCO (that's kind of a misnomer,
as the **real** SCO no longer exists) are claiming that the GNU GPL
(general public license 1) as it stands violates the U.S. Constitution,
etc. etc. Now, is it just me or does anyone else think some of these
guys were
previously employed at Rambus? Christ, what's the world coming to,
anyway!

G7

1. http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html

"The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright,
antitrust and export control laws," SCO Group said in an answer filed late
Friday to an IBM court filing.


And anyone who thinks M$ isn't backing this has their head in the sand...

Read it again, particularly this part:

"Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. copyright law says that Congress can
regulate copyrights, not the FSF or any other organization."

I think you'll find that MS has every reason to be OPPOSED to the
ruling. Basically The Canopy Group (under the guise of SCO) is saying
that the GPL is invalid because only the government is allowed to
regulate copyrights.


And from the past, you think the US gov would take away MS's copyrights?

I don't believe there is a precedent for this. Patents, yes,
copyrights?

No, MS isn't backing this one in any way, shape or form.

Nah, just 30 million bucks (or more?) to SCO last spring.....

A mere pittance, even by lawyers' accounting.

It's just a
bunch of scumbag investors out to make a quick buck.

Or to crush linux and who exactly would benefit from that? LOL!

Obviously. I'd think they could find some better lawyers though.
When even laymen giggle at the lawyers's statements
(unconstitutional??) they really will have an uphill battle.

Microsoft is not the only evil in this world!


Nope, they've just got (paid for) friends in the right places..

....and it's one that everyone would like to see tamed though.

I like how MS is now lobying congress to deal with the problems MS is having
in europe.. Then WE get to pay with our tax money to protect MS?

Sure, but it's likely to backfire. I think M$ has it's hand in a
beehive, trying to get more honey. The queen is awake.

--
Keith

Keith R. Williams wrote:



I like how MS is now lobying congress to deal with the problems MS is
having in europe.. Then WE get to pay with our tax money to protect MS?

Sure, but it's likely to backfire. I think M$ has it's hand in a
beehive, trying to get more honey. The queen is awake.


We I hope it backfires and doesn't end up like what the music industry
convinced our Gov to do to the Ukraine, broad trade restrictions to enforce
the music industries desires..

--

Stacey