August 2003 - Legacy - lists.gtalug.org

sorry: not ss.org, but OTHER problem (more general)
by verbum-qazKcTl6WRFWk0Htik3J/w＠public.gmane.org 23 Aug '03

23 Aug '03

Very sorry to have raised a false alarm a few minutes ago. I thought a misonfiguration somewhere in the TLUG mail-transmissions chain (ss.org? other server?) was causing my fetchmail, pointed to mail.interlog.com under POP3, to return "domain does not resolve" errors. In fact my problem is more general, and has nothing to do with ss.org as such. Even **OTHER** domains are not getting resolved. How this can be I con't know! -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

First Linux phone out ;-)
by plp-ysDPMY98cNQDDBjDh4tngg＠public.gmane.org 23 Aug '03

23 Aug '03

http://www.gizmodo.com/ Scroll down to 'First Linux phone out'. I wonder what kernel it runs. Ho hum. Peter -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

TlUG badmails: ss.org wont resolve, sez mail.interlog.com
by verbum-qazKcTl6WRFWk0Htik3J/w＠public.gmane.org 23 Aug '03

23 Aug '03

I download mails from mail.interlog.com with fetechmail under POP3, over PPP dialup. The mail.interlog.com server is now saying that ss.org will not resolve, and is therefore terminating all my fetchmail sessions. :-( :-( Tom = Tom Karmo http://www. metascientia.com 416-971-6955 -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

SCO has valid case
by plp-ysDPMY98cNQDDBjDh4tngg＠public.gmane.org 23 Aug '03

23 Aug '03

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Keith Mastin wrote: > I suspect that the basis of the core kernel code is strong enough to > survive an unfavorable ruling. The question in my mind is, is the > opensource community strong enough to survive the courtcase, winning or > losing notwithstanding? I think that it must be made CLEAR that the people being sued are not the GPL, not Linux, but the firm(s) who have introduced the supposed IP into the codebase, while breaking the GPL. Imho this scandal only tests whether the GPL will be enforced by the copyright and trademark owners of the GPL and of the Linux name against whoever put someone's IP into the codebase (if they put it there). The way I see it, the moment SCO officially puts down the offending code as evidence, and the code is found to be taken from someone (possibly from them) as opposed from the public domain (or BSD code), the people who wrote the code will have to be found, and then someone from FSF/GPL will have to serve them a GPL license violation writ immediately. *This* would test the GPL imho. And failure to do this would be a big mistake, as it would be a kind of abandoning of the license and its object (by not defending it). But, ianal. Meanwhile the FSF/GPL lawyers should have two such writs in a drawer, one for each of the involved firms, and be ready to pull the right one out and serve it immediately when needed. There is no question about whether OS will survive the test because the test is not about OS at all. It is about whether someone can get away with slander and FUD against the GPL and Linux, over, say 0.0001% of its code, and bring the house down over this. However, the intention of these people to drag the open source community through this lawsuit and associated fears is obvious, as is their intention to benefit from this precedent they are creating in the future. Peter -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

[Fwd:Netscape lock & purge]
by aitken-BwLjziHGQLusTnJN9+BGXg＠public.gmane.org 23 Aug '03

23 Aug '03

A third problem is that I can't import bookmarks from a saved copy on a floppy. I know that the linux version of Netscape doesn't have the 'import bookmarks' (or somesuch), so I overwrote /home/chris/.netscape/bookmarks.html with the one from the floppy. I know the bookmarks are OK, because they are there when I issue, netscape /home/chris/.netscape/bookmarks.html It seems that my netscape is not looking there for the bookmarks. does this have something to do witht the lock file error I am getting?

1 0

ss.org email trouble
by plp-ysDPMY98cNQDDBjDh4tngg＠public.gmane.org 23 Aug '03

23 Aug '03

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Robert Brockway wrote: > zen:~$ host mail.ets.com > mail.ets.com does not exist, try again Try mail.ets.net The newest fad is to have all the suffixes bought up and use only one of them. Often forgetting to put a redirect in the unused ones (eg ets.com ->ets.net) > zen:~$ host mail.nte.com > mail.nte.com does not exist, try again nte is a mistake by me. Such a domain is not in volved in this. Please ignore the nte name. Peter PS: Some headers follow (imho this needs sorting out between the postmasters at ss.org and ets.net) Received: from smtp1.actcom.net.il by actcom.co.il with ESMTP (8.11.6/actcom-0.2) id h7N0RTR11107 for <plp-ysDPMY98cNQDDBjDh4tngg at public.gmane.org>; Sat, 23 Aug 2003 03:27:31 +0300 (EET DST) (rfc931-sender: mail.actcom.co.il [192.114.47.13]) Received: from lisa.ets.net (lisa.ets.net [205.207.146.21]) by smtp1.actcom.net.il (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h7N0XNs6008874 for <plp-ysDPMY98cNQDDBjDh4tngg at public.gmane.org>; Sat, 23 Aug 2003 03:33:24 +0300 Received: by lisa.ets.net (Postfix) id 96EB46B313; Fri, 22 Aug 2003 20:27:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 20:27:27 -0400 (EDT) This is the Postfix program at host lisa.ets.net. #################################################################### # THIS IS A WARNING ONLY. YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE. # #################################################################### Your message could not be delivered for 4.0 hours. It will be retried until it is 5.0 days old. For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster> The Postfix program <tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org>: host lethe.ss.org[206.108.5.1] said: 421 Error: timeout exceeded Will-Retry-Until: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 16:18:47 -0400 (EDT) -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

SCO has valid case
by kmastin-PzQIwG9Jn9VAFePFGvp55w＠public.gmane.org 23 Aug '03

23 Aug '03

> I was at SCO Forum this week and viewed some of the disputed code and > SCO's explanations both without and with NDA. They have a valid case. .. so you are stating that the court has accepted their prima facie case? (A valid case is not necessarily a winning one, only one that should be heard. Until a court of valid jurisdiction rules otherwise, SCO's case does appear to be valid insofar as valid means that it should be heard.) Winning it is a completely different matter... > Linux kernel 2.4 to 2.6 contains AIX code which allows scalability > beyond that which would have been available in a "regular development > timeframe". Anyone interested in a copy of the non-nda PPT let me know > and I'll email you a copy. I've tried several postings to the list > server but it does'nt seem to be working. This is a great ploy on SCO's behalf, trying the case in the court of public opinion with a jury that is uninstructed on interpreting the applied laws by a judge from a qualified bench. One of the tenets of law is the "Appearance of Justice"... not that justice can be proven to be done, but that it appears to have been done. Every case has at least one loser. That said, the impact of the case so far is that it is bringing a whole bunch of previously unframed questions about the opensource model that haven't really been addressed by opensource advocacy hype. How strong is the GPL and just how flexible is the code? SCO still has their work cut out for them to get anywhere noteworthy within the legal system with this case. Filing a case <> winning a case. IMHO this case in more noteworthy in how it will set precedence in law about the interpretation and application of the copyright legislation to the specific points of the case rather than the outcome, and how the application of the final judgement will affect future code revisions. I suspect that the basis of the core kernel code is strong enough to survive an unfavorable ruling. The question in my mind is, is the opensource community strong enough to survive the courtcase, winning or losing notwithstanding? -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

ss.org email trouble
by robert-5LEc/6Zm6xCUd8a0hrldnti2O/JbrIOy＠public.gmane.org 23 Aug '03

23 Aug '03

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Peter L. Peres wrote: > It turns out that the mail problem is not at ss.org afaik but one hop > before it, at a place called nte.com Hi Peter. I'm seeing something very different to you. > Therefore point your mta transport map to ss.org directly [206.108.5.1] > and your mail will arrive. I just did this with full logging and it works > fine. For me at least it'll just go straight to 206.108.5.1 (in a messaging sense, not a packet sense of course): zen:~$ host -t mx ss.org ss.org MX 1 lethe.ss.org zen:~$ host lethe.ss.org lethe.ss.org A 206.108.5.1 > mail.ets.com is some sort of mx or hop on the way to ss.org from ??? I > keep getting reminders that it still tries to send my mail, with ss.org > timing out every time on the transfer. Both mail.ets.com & mail.nte.com do not resolve for me: zen:~$ host mail.ets.com mail.ets.com does not exist, try again zen:~$ host mail.nte.com mail.nte.com does not exist, try again The domains do exist which is not surprising given the are both 3 letters :) Rob -- Robert Brockway B.Sc. email: robert-5LEc/6Zm6xCUd8a0hrldnti2O/JbrIOy at public.gmane.org, zzbrock at uqconnect.net Linux counter project ID #16440 (http://counter.li.org) "The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens" -Baha'u'llah -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

A Canadian Response to SCO
by robert-5LEc/6Zm6xCUd8a0hrldnti2O/JbrIOy＠public.gmane.org 23 Aug '03

23 Aug '03

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Max Blanco wrote: > Can I read somewhere about how this issue affects the little guy? > I have a 1995 distro of redhat. Does this affect me? > What about if I have a 2.2 kernel built in 2000? Ok, I'm not a lawyer but I do have some idea about how the legal system works. Right now SCO is telling Linux users to get a licencing fee. Right now you are under no legal obligation to do this. SCO have made a number of claims, none of which have been substantiated in court. If any of these claims are ever substantiated in court (something many of us feel is unlikely) then you may need to take notice. Until then SCOs claims are nothing but words. > If I read this right, as long as you stick to 2.4 kernel code, who cares? SCO are going after 2.4. > Can you delete the offending 27 lines of code from the kernel and still > make it crash proof and kickass...? The lines mentioned in the the recent SCO seminars for their resellers have been shown to be absolutely positively available under the BSD licence. This means the code is freely redistributable. The BSD licence is far freer than the GPL. It took the OpenSource community about 5 hours to determine the code SCO put up on the slides at the seminars was available under the BSD licence. The fact that the SCO lawyers apparently couldn't figure out the code in question was available under the BSD licence does not bode well for their abilities in my eyes, unless of course it was the intention of the lawyers and those preparing the seminars to deliberately mislead those present in the audience. So SCO are still yet to provide any proof of their position, despite their claims that they have now done so. Rob -- Robert Brockway B.Sc. email: robert-5LEc/6Zm6xCUd8a0hrldnti2O/JbrIOy at public.gmane.org, zzbrock at uqconnect.net Linux counter project ID #16440 (http://counter.li.org) "The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens" -Baha'u'llah -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

SCO has valid case
by plp-ysDPMY98cNQDDBjDh4tngg＠public.gmane.org 23 Aug '03

23 Aug '03

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Rick Tomaschuk wrote: > peanuts compared to the long term value it offered. What on earth is > wrong with a free market? Our whole economy is based on a free market. This is not about free market, this is about some firm or other dragging down the good name of Linux and attacking the GPL in a FUD war that precedes a multi-billion multi-year lawsuit in a country other than the one where you (I understand) and I (certainly) live, for months on end (**), where such things are a national passtime apparently. The FIRST thing that should worry a Linux user/developer is whether the GPL was violated by someone. Not by whom. Then the second worry would be to undo the damage asap, first by applying the GPL provisions for violations of the GPL license, since THIS is the license that was violated, not some IP ownership or other, about which as a Linux user/developer you should care only as a second thought. That means immediate summons from the GPL and FSF (as appropriate) copyright and license rights owners (such as Linus Torvalds, who owns the copyright on the majority of the kernel code) to the involved or suspected parties to cease distribution and use of Linux and of the name Linux (Linux is also a trademark of Linux Torvalds) until the matter is cleared, and in parallel an effort to find and remove the code that OFFENDS THE GPL (I do NOT care who else it offends !) from the Linux codebase, and replace it as necessary. THIS is what Linux users and developers need. THEN, when on the side, we can talk about whose made a mistake and who went along with it, and have all the fud you want, about those firms who are involved in this. *NOT* about GPL and Linux, which is a *victim* of misuse by someone of someone else's IP, and not *guilty* of it. Come to think of it, the GPL copyright holders could sue both big firms for license violation and slander. > The world is moving toward globalization. The GPL is a welcome > addition to our world but we still need to maintain other options. IMHO The GPL is a welcome addition to what exactly ? It has been here for nearly 10 years I think. Other options ? As many as you want. But without the Linux codebase and the GPL, thank you, we will not have them mixed into the continuous-lawsuit-thing that takes part in a certain country. {\footnote (**) New Linux versions come out about every 6 months. If the lawsuit will work as such lawsuits worked until now, it could bog down Linux development for 6 versions, easily. I do *NOT* want that, badly enough, to start contributing to a new codebase derived from 2.2, and thus unaffected by the lawsuit, starting tomorrow. And I know I am not alone on this. Know thy history, at least so you can avoid past mistakes. 'Waiting it out' is not a good idea in this case. And I don't care if I have to call it 'Notlin' or something like that. } Peter -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0