h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Whisky, you appear to have some kind of digibox[1] fixation? Trying to distract from your use of the 2.5 Kernel?

I did find funny watching people leap to conclusion; jump to defend Linux even if using that could end-up being less legal than some other sytems. Much the same way as anybody may want to defend their own actions.

Infact I had hoped for people to ponder OEM software from M$, which has been prone to pirate production in the past.

Now as for the bit about Novell, it was from a computer mag. As for the story about Mandake, also from a mag. Published March 4th 2004.

The basic fix, is to go back to Kernel 2.4. I don't know how they[2] would expect to impose restospective licences anyway.

M$ had a system, a user could make good on using illegal software, register it, and name the place it was purchased from. ie. The name of a shop, not just "some bloke at a computer fair." In return they would give you one legal copy of the software.

[1] Digibox, is a term being used on this site in error. A "Digibox" is a BSB term for its STB. Telewest call their STB a "Smartbox." However populist ideas do fill the site anyway, even if based on inaccurate reporting.

[2] The final named owner of rights.

Jab, you really should try contacting the staff - it appears someone else is using your account...

How else can you possibly justify the last post in comparison with post 1 in this thread

1) Digibox is a term you use
2) You are the one who brought up the subject of Telewest users access to the site
3) Your comparion in Post 1, connecting the fact that some people who may be using what might in the future be considered illegal software should be banned _by_ the BBC and a completely separate company who had decided to limit access to users of their equipment to certain areas and services, is completely erroneous.

If you really wanted to discuss the legality of Linux then you sure went a strange way about it!

Whisky, funny you should say that, I did, contact the staff that is, sent them a e-mail with attached .pdf showing the terms and conditions set out by Telewest.

Indeed I also am prone to use the term digibox, as that is the general term being used to describe the STB. The differenece is I know its wrong, even if others don't and have made comment on this in other threads. If people choose to be ignorant, it's their choice.

A group of users being vilified for what could _later_ be show to be illegal method of access to this site, and a group of people rushing to defend their action, not so unusual. But enough about Linux users.

The situation regard STB users was in the public eye at the time of this thread creation.

The morality of using pirate software is a debate the far precedes this. That was the question in mind. I being far more qualified than you, or anybody to determine what I was 'of a mind to do' when creating this thread.

Even if people don't like comparison between STB or Linux, it's still reasonale to ask about various groups is it not? OR are Linux users special? Ironic then, Linux the subject of legal actions, (reported frequently in the press) when STB use never has been.

Less it be about just Linux then, more about licences, and what are peoples attitudes to them?

Jab...

Ok then, lets look at both cases.

Telewest...

They offer a service, they found out this service had faults in it that enabled people to access various services beyond the terms and conditions of the contract. They fixed these faults... Nothing to do with the BBC at all.

(Note: I don't particularly want to be drawn into the discussion/arguement of how they found out about those faults, I have my own opinions on that particular matter and I'm keeping them to myself)

Now, your initial posting was to ask whether the BBC themselves should be judge and jury as to whether Linux/STB/Digibox or even pigeon users should be banned from the site... Why on earth would the BBC get involved in that? They certainly had nothing to do with Telewest's decisions!

As to what happens to Linux... It's a completely untenable position, the software is freely distributed, therefore it would be impossible for any company to check on a private individual and bring action against them - however, what could happen is that commercial distributors of Linux could be required to remove the particular 'offending' code from their distributions - thus, as you said, rolling Linux back a couple of releases... However, as the source code is public and can be improved upon by anyone and their dog... It would naturally be upgraded in time, and the problem then comes is that a great number of people are already aware of the published code and may well be influenced by it. Now the code is public knowledge its a little difficult to expunge it from people's memories... So basically, they're stuffed.

But my question is repeated... Why should the BBC get involved?

Look here for the latest on the SCO saga:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3535669.stm

Seems the whole thing might just be a flash in the pan. It looks like it was just a plan by SCO to frighten Linux distributors in to paying up. It may have backfired as all they have received to date is £20,000.

Various Linux distributor have asked SCO to tell them which part of the code is copyright and they will remove it. So far SCO have declined to reveal exactly what code is in dispute.

Donald

The BBC can't be expected to look at every case of software piracy, or theft that takes place in the world.

They can be expected to act when they themself are being abused to promote acrimony, not the best use of server time?

The thread title was to mock the situation...
Linux was just another subject "in debate" a group of people on this site care about.

Only when threat of being affected do people show an interest to defend their vested interets. One group may, yet another not, that does not seam fair to me. Then again defending "right" seems to have got lost somewhere along the way. (In general.) The debate could be about "X" as much as "Y" doing wrong.

As for Telepesters, I agree with Whisky, the saga of the who and the why is covered elsewhere. Just take 'it' as an example... It's a group looking out for number 1, as per. However I hope people don't just think Telewest acted on "the e-mail" though. A public website was used to highlight a failing on the part of a private company; the company in question is not known for responding to needs and wants of customers, but would have to re-act to post in the public eye about it being unresponsive to possible revenue loss. For that part I think the BBC allowed itself to be abused, despite reports it priority is to have as many people as possible access its site.

Software piracy is an issue that I wonder about, from the level of a 'kid making a copy for a mate' to a crime syndicate mass producing OEM packs, the "borrowing" of technologies, Think what it would mean if Novell did impose patents it holds. Right through to corporate customers having hundreds (yes) of PCs in one site and one copy of comapany "M" package of "O" installed on them all, and no MLP or any such agreement in place.

Does anybody care about Software piracy at all?

If you goto your bank find £10 missing, chances are you'd want to know why? Yet that bank may be using software without licence you know and understand this, yet does it not bother you, as the 'loss' is not your loss? Or do you consider them getting away with it rational for any pirate software you may own?

Is it a case of if the crime is big enough, it ceases to matter?