L.A.M.P. refers to a toolset consisting of Linux + Apache + MySQL + PHP|Perl|Python|Postgresql... providing a powerful framework for rapid development of robust solutions. Each component is open source and has proven to be enterprise ready.
That's what I love about it.
The brouhaha between 'good' writing and blogging is really an inability to recognize that blogging is to writing as small talk is to discourse. Without chit chat, huge amounts of contextual info is missing from a 'real' conversation. Blogs and tweets fill this contextual gap. It's 'natural' from a linguistic point of view. Blogs & tweets (bleats?) help inform and cultivate a richer relationship between speaker & listener.
The following is from wikipedia on an emerging 'discourse community', developed by linguist Johnathan Swales:
[ Category : Apache Lucene ]
Novell defends its Bill of Costs generally, in all the four categories that SCO listed objections to -- room rental fees, video fees, other deposition costs, and deposition costs concerning the SCO v. IBM litigation. Novell says it will withdraw a paltry $2,522.74 in conference room charges, but defends all the rest of its costs. SCO had objected to $50,586.14 in Novell's costs out of the total of $124,331.70, so a $2,522.74 reduction isn't much.
SCO also is objecting to video syncing fees -- syncing the video with the transcripts, so as to make the video searchable by keyword. SCO had cited a case -- In re Williams Secs. Litig.-WCG Subclass -- but Novell points out the case actually supports Novell, which we had noticed too. Novell attaches it as Exhibit 3 [PDF], and we have it here as plain text.
SCO *didn't* contest, Novell points out, most of the bill of costs, and it didn't contest that each of the depositions for which Novell seeks to recover costs were "reasonably necessary to the litigation of the case", which is the standard.
We also have some boring filings in the bankruptcy, like an 18th bill from Tanner. 18th. It covers March, so here's hoping Tanner is lining up some new customers. I'm thinking this revenue stream might not spring eternal.
Since the Microsoft-TomTom agreement supposedly promises Microsoft and TomTom won't sue the other for 5 years, I am guessing that this is protection just in case somebody ... anybody... should fail to stick to the agreement's terms. Not that *that* could ever happen with an agreement with Microsoft. No doubt you've followed the company's history, so you know their word is their bond. It's what they are famous for, business ethics. But you know how picky lawyers are. They like to plan for any contingency, however unlikely.
But in some distant alternate universe, where Microsoft might be kicking competitors to the curb by hook or by crook, were Microsoft to sue TomTom despite promising not to, TomTom could pull out its complaint. Similarly, if TomTom failed to do what it has promised, presumably Microsoft might be interested in trying to rip TomTom's face off in resumed litigation. So to speak. Not that this one worked out very well for Microsoft, as I see it, but since Microsoft is apparently unable to change any spots, I assume they'd try to butt their head through the same brick wall again.
[ Category : Apache James ]
And so, you should be wary of FAT, Office Open XML, .NET (including Mono), Silverlight, and of Microsoft's participation in standards committees that don't have a clear royalty-free committment, or, as is the case for Office Open XML, when the royalty-free committment is less than complete. These technologies leave the door open for submarine patents to sink your business. Ah, yes. Mono. Once again. And OOXML. Might governmental agencies wish to particularly take note of OOXML in light of the TomTom settlement? I would think so. And .NET and Silverlight. Perhaps you can think of others.
[ Category : Apache CouchDB ]
So now IBM and Novell and the US Trustee's office and any creditors -- they can one and all come up with plans, not just SCO, and may the best one win, so to speak.
Today's settlement between Microsoft and TomTom ends one phase of the community's response to Microsoft patent aggression, and begins another. On the basis of the information we have, we have no reason to believe that TomTom's settlement agreement with Microsoft violates the license on the kernel, Linux, or any other free software used in its products. The settlement neither implies that Microsoft patents are valid nor that TomTom's products were or are infringing. There's more. Red Hat's legal eagles have put out a statement too, the meat of which is this: "Red Hat was not a party to this case. Even so, without a judicial decision, the settlement does not demonstrate that the claims of Microsoft were valid."
I think it can't be like the Red Hat deal, though, because TomTom is removing the Linux functionality. That leaves not paying a royalty. But the news is that they are paying. Wait. One other possibility, a Novell-like deal? Indeed Ina Fried on CNET gives a hint that is something similar: As part of the deal, as TomTom will pay Microsoft for patent protection related to mapping patents and file-management patents that Microsoft claimed were infringed by TomTom's use of the Linux kernel....
In the case of the three file management patents, Microsoft is providing an agreement not to sue customers for their use of TomTom's products. As long as TomTom stays under GPLv2, this might squeak by. But it's hardly ideal. I'd have preferred that TomTom not settle so that the FAT patents could get tested in court, but it's not my dime.
If you are thinking of attending, and you can, here's the scoop: cell phones that take pictures will be confiscated at the entrance. Laptops are allowed. Observers may attend any hearing of interest without prior registration. Map. As with all judicial centers under Colorado law and federal law, the Byron White US Courthouse is a federal government building which means no permitted concealed weapons, photo ID is required for entrance, and you may be subject to electronic search at the entrances. The court recommends that you call the day before or check the website for the "Argument Calendar" and that you are at the door, ready to go in at least 15 minutes before the session you are interested in is scheduled to start.
Would you like to take a leisurely day trip with me, instead, so I can show you what's been happening in the Google/YouTube-Viacom litigation? There's been a hearing on a motion to compel discovery with some humorous elements to share with you, among other tidbits, that will show you a really effective lawyer at work educating the judge, who admits she's not a techie, on what might work well technically in resolving issues.
The big picture is that Google/YouTube has told the court that it would like to do discovery to prove one of its main points in the litigation, that Viacom is in a better position to police its own copyrighted materials, rather than trying to shift that burden on to YouTube, a mere service provider. [ Update: Here's a very thorough explanation in ABA Journal of the issues in this litigation.]
In support of its discovery motion, YouTube points out that sometimes copyright holders like Viacom and its partners selectively enforce copyright infringement, uploading their own copyrighted materials to YouTube for marketing purposes while at the same time they, or their agents, are sending YouTube cease and desist orders. YouTube would like to do discovery to show that sometimes Viacom knows that its content is on YouTube but, for promotional purposes, and does not ask to remove it, and that since Viacom acquiesces sometimes to its content appearing on YouTube and sometimes it doesn't, it makes it impossible for a service provider like YouTube to tell by simply looking whether any particular video clip is or isn't allowed to be there. The copyright holder is uniquely in a position to know what is and isn't allowed, because only it knows both what it owns and what others can and can't do with it.
[ Category : Apache Tomcat ]
: D
SCO's argument is based on characterizing certain items as not covered by the statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1920, saying some of the costs are unnecessary, being for Novell's convenience and comfort only.
Like transcripts. They are covered by the statute, but Novell listed $7,592.11 for costs for renting deposition rooms. "These costs are not taxable under the statute," SCO asserts.
SCO would like Novell to be put through the very educational experience of being sued for absolutely no wrongdoing whatsoever, according to what the court decided, and then having to pay the expenses for defending itself.
[ Category : Apache Hadoop ]
It's just been announced [PDF] that Monday's hearing, originally scheduled as a hearing on SCO's Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization [PDF] and the related Disclosure Statement [PDF] and Motion for an Order [PDF] confirming a scheduling hearing, etc., will instead be just a status hearing.
What? Issues? With a SCO reorganization plan?
You can get a hint of the depth of them by reading Exhibit A [PDF] attached to the latest Berger Singerman bill, showing the breakdown of time spent on them, to the tune of approximately $13,000. Look at the subhead beginning on page 14, "Plan and Disclosure Statement," and you'll see a long list of activity at Berger Singerman, with meetings and phones calls and conferences and emails and strategy sessions. How to respond to IBM's and Novell's various objections? You'll see that Joseph McMahon of the US Trustee's office appears in the list also, so there have evidently been discussions going on, but if they'd figured out solutions to all the issues, they wouldn't need a status conference. No doubt this reflects the seriousness of the objections raised.