Re: [OT] US constitution (was RE: SCO Attacks Open Source License )
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Dean Kent wrote: > Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 13:23:08 -0500 > From: Dean Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Linux on 390 Port <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [OT] US constitution (was RE: SCO Attacks Open Source > License ) > > Original Message > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [OT] US constitution (was RE: SCO Attacks Open Source > License ) > Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 14:54:47 +0100 > > > > >This thing is off and running. Genies and bottles. And any action > >taken in US courts by > >anyone is just noise. > > I have no idea how much of an issue it might be - but I am under the > impression that a significant percentage of IT revenues comes from US > markets, and from US owned companies worldwide (that likely favor the > use of common solutions worldwide). If Linux based solutions cannot > be sold here without some levies/taxes/fees/etc. - then it would be > more than just 'noise'. Wouldn't it? I suspect that markets a little to the north of us will swamp the US in the not too-distant future. I am sure they will change the face of OSS (and probably English too) beyond recognition. -- Cheers John. Join the "Linux Support by Small Businesses" list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb Copyright John Summerfield. Reproduction prohibited.
Re: [OT] US constitution (was RE: SCO Attacks Open Source License )
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Little, Chris wrote: > Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 07:19:59 -0600 > From: "Little, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Linux on 390 Port <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [OT] US constitution (was RE: SCO Attacks Open Source > License ) > > you conveniently left out what i was responding to. He said there are many > people in the _US_ that don't give a rats ass. PP broached the hair from the rat's rear, and he did not say "in the us". He's in the uk, a different location altogether, and I think that in that context the opionions of the Chinese (and Indians) are relevant. > > i couldn't care less what 1.2 billion in china think. and i'm sure they feel > the same way. > > -Original Message- > From: Adam Thornton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 20:58 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [OT] US constitution (was RE: SCO Attacks Open Source > License) > > > On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 17:21, Little, Chris wrote: > > i disagree. show me "many" people who don't give a rat's ass about the > > constitution . . . > > At a guess, there are probably about 1.2 billion of them in China. > > Adam > -- Cheers John. Join the "Linux Support by Small Businesses" list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb Copyright John Summerfield. Reproduction prohibited.
Re: [OT] US constitution (was RE: SCO Attacks Open Source License)
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Little, Chris wrote: > Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 17:21:15 -0600 > From: "Little, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Linux on 390 Port <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [OT] US constitution (was RE: SCO Attacks Open Source License) > > i disagree. show me "many" people who don't give a rat's ass about the > constitution . . . I for one don't care for the US constitution. -- Cheers John. Join the "Linux Support by Small Businesses" list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb Copyright John Summerfield. Reproduction prohibited.
Re: [OT] US constitution (was RE: SCO Attacks Open Source License )
> I have no idea how much of an issue it might be - but I am under the > impression that a significant percentage of IT revenues comes from US > markets, and from US owned companies worldwide (that likely favor the > use of common solutions worldwide). If Linux based solutions cannot > be sold here without some levies/taxes/fees/etc. - then it would be > more than just 'noise'. Wouldn't it? As far as I'm aware, the subsidiaries of US companies that operate abroad are bound by the laws of the land in which they operate - not US law. A long time ago I got irritated by the uplift IBM uses on its software in Europe - up to 44% for DB2, for instance. CICS was egregious - it cost 28% more in the UK than in the USA, and it was written here! So I suggested that a future solution - subject to security and bandwidth, both of which we now have - would be to site European data centres in Arizona. We now see telephone calls regularly routed to call centres in India. So it doesn't matter where a data centre is situated, and I think in many cases we just don't know. -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.com +44 7785 302 803
Re: [OT] US constitution (was RE: SCO Attacks Open Source License )
Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OT] US constitution (was RE: SCO Attacks Open Source License ) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 14:54:47 +0100 > >This thing is off and running. Genies and bottles. And any action >taken in US courts by >anyone is just noise. I have no idea how much of an issue it might be - but I am under the impression that a significant percentage of IT revenues comes from US markets, and from US owned companies worldwide (that likely favor the use of common solutions worldwide). If Linux based solutions cannot be sold here without some levies/taxes/fees/etc. - then it would be more than just 'noise'. Wouldn't it? Regards, Dean > >-- > Phil Payne > http://www.isham-research.com > +44 7785 302 803
Re: [OT] US constitution (was RE: SCO Attacks Open Source License )
"Stop this aspect of it"... And f*rt as you leave the room -Original Message- From: Phil Payne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 8:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OT] US constitution (was RE: SCO Attacks Open Source License ) >> you conveniently left out what i was responding to. He said there are many >> people in the _US_ that don't give a rats ass. > i couldn't care less what 1.2 billion in china think. and i'm sure they feel > the same way. And the 1.5 billion Muslims the USA is currently pissing off something rotten. I take Neale's point that this discussion doesn't really belong here, and so I'll stop this aspect of it. But there is great relevance in the fact that there are over 6 billion people on the planet who are qualified - by virtue of them being Homo Sapiens - to take part in Open Source efforts. Only a relatively tiny (although to date pervasively active) proportion of those people have any allegiance to the US Constitution or legal framework. This thing is off and running. Genies and bottles. And any action taken in US courts by anyone is just noise. -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.com +44 7785 302 803
Re: [OT] US constitution (was RE: SCO Attacks Open Source License )
>> you conveniently left out what i was responding to. He said there are many >> people in the _US_ that don't give a rats ass. > i couldn't care less what 1.2 billion in china think. and i'm sure they feel > the same way. And the 1.5 billion Muslims the USA is currently pissing off something rotten. I take Neale's point that this discussion doesn't really belong here, and so I'll stop this aspect of it. But there is great relevance in the fact that there are over 6 billion people on the planet who are qualified - by virtue of them being Homo Sapiens - to take part in Open Source efforts. Only a relatively tiny (although to date pervasively active) proportion of those people have any allegiance to the US Constitution or legal framework. This thing is off and running. Genies and bottles. And any action taken in US courts by anyone is just noise. -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.com +44 7785 302 803
Re: [OT] US constitution (was RE: SCO Attacks Open Source License )
What do we have here?? - a little microcosm of what's going on in the world.. methinks. On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 07:19:59 -0600 "Little, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > you conveniently left out what i was responding to. He said there are many > people in the _US_ that don't give a rats ass. > > i couldn't care less what 1.2 billion in china think. and i'm sure they feel > the same way. > > -Original Message- > From: Adam Thornton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 20:58 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [OT] US constitution (was RE: SCO Attacks Open Source > License) > > > On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 17:21, Little, Chris wrote: > > i disagree. show me "many" people who don't give a rat's ass about the > > constitution . . . > > At a guess, there are probably about 1.2 billion of them in China. > > Adam
Re: [OT] US constitution (was RE: SCO Attacks Open Source License )
you conveniently left out what i was responding to. He said there are many people in the _US_ that don't give a rats ass. i couldn't care less what 1.2 billion in china think. and i'm sure they feel the same way. -Original Message- From: Adam Thornton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 20:58 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OT] US constitution (was RE: SCO Attacks Open Source License) On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 17:21, Little, Chris wrote: > i disagree. show me "many" people who don't give a rat's ass about the > constitution . . . At a guess, there are probably about 1.2 billion of them in China. Adam
Re: [OT] US constitution (was RE: SCO Attacks Open Source License)
On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 17:21, Little, Chris wrote: > i disagree. show me "many" people who don't give a rat's ass about the > constitution . . . At a guess, there are probably about 1.2 billion of them in China. Adam
[OT] US constitution (was RE: SCO Attacks Open Source License)
i disagree. show me "many" people who don't give a rat's ass about the constitution . . . > -Original Message- > From: Beinert, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 10:51 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: SCO Attacks Open Source License > > > Unfortunately, that opinion is shared by many US citizens > > -Original Message- > From: Phil Payne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 2:40 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: SCO Attacks Open Source License > > > > "The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with > copyright, antitrust > > and export control laws," states SCO in documents filed > with the U.S. > > District Court for Utah. > > Some of us don't give a hair from a rat's behind about the US > Constitution. > > -- > Phil Payne > http://www.isham-research.com > +44 7785 302 803 >
