text:
SCO–Linux disputes

In a series of legal disputes between SCO Group and Linux vendors and users, SCO alleged that its license agreements with IBM meant that source code IBM wrote and donated to be incorporated into Linux was added in violation of SCO's contractual rights. Members of the Linux community disagreed with SCO's claims; IBM, Novell, and Red Hat filed claims against SCO.

On August 10, 2007, a federal district court judge in SCO v. Novell ruled on summary judgment that Novell, not the SCO Group, was the rightful owner of the copyrights covering the Unix operating system. The court also ruled that "SCO is obligated to recognize Novell's waiver of SCO's claims against IBM and Sequent". After the ruling, Novell announced they had no interest in suing people over Unix and stated "We don't believe there is Unix in Linux". The final district court ruling, on November 20, 2008, affirmed the summary judgment, and added interest payments and a constructive trust.

On August 24, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit partially reversed the district court judgment. The appeals court remanded back to trial on the issues of copyright ownership and Novell's contractual waiver rights. The court upheld the $2,547,817 award granted to Novell for the 2003 Sun agreement.

On March 30, 2010, following a jury trial, Novell, and not The SCO Group, was unanimously found to be the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights. The SCO Group, through bankruptcy trustee Edward Cahn, decided to continue the lawsuit against IBM for causing a decline in SCO revenues.

On March 1, 2016, SCO's lawsuit against IBM was dismissed with prejudice; SCO filed an appeal later that month.

Overview
Unix is a major computer operating system, developed in the United States of America. Prior to the events of this case, the intellectual property rights (IP) in Unix were held by Unix System Laboratories (USL), part of AT&T, but the area of IP ownership was complex. By 2003, the rights in Unix had been transferred several times and there was dispute as to the correct owner in law. Also, some of the code within Unix had been written prior to the Copyright Act of 1976, or was developed by third parties, or was developed or licensed under different licenses existing at the time. The software company SCO Group (SCO), formerly Caldera International, asserted in 2003 that it was the owner of Unix, and that other Unix-type operating systems—particularly the free operating system Linux and other variants of Unix sold by competitor companies—were violating their intellectual property by using Unix code without a license in their works.

SCO initially claimed, and tried to assert, a legal means to litigate directly against all end-users of these operating systems, as well as the companies or groups providing them—potentially a very substantial case and one that would throw fear into the market about using them. However, it was unable to formulate such a case, since the Unix copyrights were weakly worded, there was no basis in patent law, and breach of trade secrets would only affect the one or few companies who might have been alleged to have disclosed trade secrets. Lacking grounds to sue all users generally, SCO dropped this aspect of its cases.

The assertions were heavily contested. Claims of SCO's own copyright violations of these other systems were raised, along with claims related to SCO being bound by, or violating, the GPL licence, under which SCO conducted business related to these systems. Claims were also made that the case was substantially financed and promoted by Microsoft and investment businesses with links to Microsoft; around that time (1998–2004 onwards), Microsoft was fiercely engaged in various FUD tactics such as its Get the facts campaign, that sought to undermine or discredit Linux as a possible competitor to its own Windows operating systems and server systems.

In the end, SCO launched only a few main legal cases—against IBM for improper disclosure and breach of copyright related to its AIX operating system, against Novell for interference (clouding the issue of ownership), against DaimlerChrysler for non-compliance with a demand to certify certain matters related to Unix usage, and against Linux business and former client AutoZone for violating SCO's rights by using Linux. Separately, the Linux company Red Hat also filed a legal claim against SCO for making false claims that affected its (Red Hat's) business, and to seek a court declaration that SCO had no ownership rights in Linux code.

In 2007, a court ruled in SCO v. Novell that Novell and not SCO was the owner of the Unix copyrights. , most of these cases have been resolved, or largely resolved, and none of the rulings have been in SCO's favor.

Timeline and major cases
At the beginning of 2003, SCO claimed that there had been "misappropriation of its UNIX System V code into Linux". However, the company refused to identify the specific segments of code, claiming that it was a secret which they would reveal only to the court. They did say that the code could be found in the SMP, RCU and a few other parts of the Linux kernel.

On 6 March 2003, they announced that they were suing IBM for $1 billion, claiming that IBM transferred SCO trade secrets into Linux. That amount later rose to $3 billion, and then again to $5 billion. Later that year in May 2003, Novell stated publicly that it owned the AT&T Unix intellectual property which SCO claimed IBM violated, a statement which if true would have demolished SCO's infringement suit.

Some educated parties note that the USL v. BSDi case had shown that the Unix copyrights are weak and unenforceable. SCO has not claimed patent infringement, as according to the US Patent and Trademark Office database, no AT&T or Novell patent was ever assigned to SCO. The UNIX trademark was not owned by SCO. That left arguing over trade secrets, which, after some opposition, was hard to take beyond a breach of contract between SCO and IBM, and consequentially, a claim only against IBM. SCO was looking for something directed at the greater Linux community, and has since explicitly dropped all trade secret claims from their case.

SCO now had little legal ground at this point and therefore began numerous legal claims and threats against many of the major names in the computer industry, including IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, Novell, Silicon Graphics, Sun Microsystems and Red Hat.

By mid-2004, five major lawsuits had been filed:

 * SCO v. IBM
 * Red Hat v. SCO
 * SCO v. Novell (not directly related to Linux, the suit has more to do with Unix copyrights)
 * SCO v. DaimlerChrysler
 * SCO v. AutoZone

In cases, SCO publicly implied that a number of other parties have committed copyright infringement, including not only Linux developers, but also Linux users.

UNIX SVRx
SCO's claims are derived from several contracts that may have transferred UNIX System V Release 4 intellectual property assets. The UNIX IP rights originated with Unix System Laboratories (USL), a division of AT&T. In 1993, USL sold all UNIX rights and assets to Novell, including copyrights, trademarks, and active licensing contracts. Some of these rights and assets, plus additional assets derived from Novell's development work, were then sold to the Santa Cruz Operation in 1995. The Santa Cruz Operation had developed and was selling a PC-based UNIX until 2000, when it then resold its UNIX assets to Caldera Systems, which later reorganized into Caldera International and changed its name to SCO Group.

Through this chain of sales, SCO claims to be the "owner of UNIX". The validity of these claims is hotly contested by others. SCO claims copyright to all UNIX code developed by USL, referred to as SVRx, and licensing contracts originating with AT&T, saying that these are inherited through the same chain of sales. The primary document SCO presents as evidence of these claims is the "Asset Purchase Agreement", defining the sale between Novell and the Santa Cruz Operation. SCO says that this includes all copyrights to the UNIX code base and contractual rights to the licensing base. The other parties disagree.

UNIX copyrights ownership
The status of copyrights from USL is murky, since UNIX code is a compilation of elements with different copyright histories. Some code was released without copyright notice before the Copyright Act of 1976 made copyright automatic. This code may be in the public domain and not subject to copyright claims. Other code is affected by the USL v. BSDi case, and is covered by the BSD License.

Groklaw uncovered an old settlement made between Unix System Laboratories (USL) and The University of California in the case of USL v. BSDi. This settlement ended a copyright infringement suit against the university for making BSD source code freely available that USL felt infringed their copyrights. The university filed a counter suit, saying that USL had taken BSD source code and put it in UNIX without properly acknowledging the university's copyright. This settlement muddies the question of SCO's ownership of major parts of the UNIX source code. This uncertainty is particularly significant in regard to SCO's claims against Linux, which uses some BSD code.

Novell challenges SCO's interpretation of the purchase agreement. In response to a letter SCO sent to 1500 companies on May 12, 2003, Novell exchanged a series of letters with SCO beginning in May 2003, claiming that the copyrights for the core UNIX System V were not included in the asset purchase agreement and are retained by Novell. In October 2003, Novell registered those copyrights with the US Copyright Office.

In response to these challenges from Novell, SCO filed a "slander of title" suit against Novell, SCO v. Novell. This claimed that Novell was interfering with their business activities by clouding the ownership of UNIX copyrights. SCO's claim for special damages was dismissed on June 9, 2004, for "failure to specifically plead special damages." However, SCO was given 30 days "to amend its complaint to more specifically plead special damages". In the same ruling, the judge stated that it was questionable whether or not the Asset Purchase Agreement transferred the relevant copyrights, reasoning that the ASA amendment by which SCO was claiming to have acquired those rights contained no transfer language in the form of "seller hereby conveys to buyer" and that it used ambiguous language when it came to the question of when and how and which rights were to be transferred.

SCO filed an amended complaint. In late July, 2005, Novell filed an answer to SCO's complaint, denying all of its accusations. Novell also filed its own Slander of Title counter-lawsuit against SCO. Novell has also filed claims for numerous breaches of the APA (Asset Purchase Agreement) between Novell and the Santa Cruz Operation. Under the APA, Santa Cruz (and later SCO after SCO purchased Santa Cruz Operation's Unix Business) was given the right to market and sell Unixware as a product, retaining 100% of all revenues. Santa Cruz Operation (and later SCO) also was given the responsibility of administering Unix SVR4 license agreements on behalf of Novell. When money was paid for licensing, SCO was to turn over 100% of the revenue to Novell, and then Novell would return 5% as an Administration Fee. Novell claims that SCO signed Unix SVR4 licensing agreements with Microsoft and Sun Microsystems, as well as with numerous Linux End Users for Unix IP allegedly in the Linux Kernel, and then refused to turn the money over to Novell. Novell is suing for 100% of the revenue, claiming SCO is not entitled to the 5% administration fee since they breached their contract with Novell. Novell's counterclaims proposed asking the court to put appropriate funds from SCO into escrow until the case is resolved, since SCO's cash is diminishing quickly.

Novell also retained the right to audit SCO's Unix Licensing Business under the APA. Novell claims that SCO has not turned over vital information about the Microsoft, Sun, and Linux End User License Agreements, despite repeated demands by Novell for them to do so. Novell, in another claim that is part of their counter suit, is asking the court to compel SCO to allow Novell to perform this audit of SCO's Unix Business.

On August 10, 2007, Judge Dale Kimball, hearing the SCO v. Novell case, ruled that "the court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare Copyrights".

License administration standing
The Novell to Santa Cruz Operation Asset Purchase Agreement also involved the administration of some 6000 standing licensing agreements between various UNIX users and the previous owners. These licensees include universities, software corporations and computer hardware companies. SCO's claimed ownership of the licenses has become an issue in three aspects of the SCO–Linux controversies. The first was the cancellation of IBM's license, the second was SCO's complaint against DaimlerChrysler (see SCO v. DaimlerChrysler), and the third is the derivative works claim of the SCO v. IBM case.

In May 2003, SCO canceled IBM's SVRx license to its version of UNIX, AIX. This was based on SCO's claim of unrestricted ownership of the System V licensing contracts inherited from USL. IBM ignored the license cancellation, claiming that an amendment to the original license made it "irrevocable". In addition, as part of the Purchase Agreement, Novell retained certain rights of control over the administration of the licenses which were sold, including rights to act on SCO's behalf in some cases. Novell exercised one of these rights by revoking SCO's cancellation of the IBM license. SCO disputed the validity of both of these actions, and amended its SCO v. IBM complaint to include copyright infringement, based on IBM's continued sale and use of AIX without a valid SVRx license.

In December 2003, SCO demanded that all UNIX licensees certify some items, some related to the use of Linux, that were not provided for in the license agreement language. Since DaimlerChrysler failed to respond, SCO filed the SCO v. DaimlerChrysler suit in March 2004. All claims related to the certification demands were summarily dismissed by the court.

Control of derivative works
The third issue based on the UNIX licensees agreement is related to SCO's claims of control of derivative works.

Many UNIX licensees have added features to the core UNIX SVRx system and those new features contain computer code not in the original SVRx code base. In most cases, software copyright is owned by the person or company that develops the code. SCO, however, claims that the original licensing agreements define this new code as a derivative work. They also claim that they have the right to control and restrict the use and distribution of that new code.

These claims are the basis of SCO v. IBM. SCO's initial complaint, said that IBM violated the original licensing agreement by not maintaining confidentiality with the new code, developed and copyrighted by IBM, and releasing it to the Linux project.

IBM claims that the license agreement (noted in the $Echo newsletter of April 1985) and subsequent licenses defines derivative works as the developer's property. This leaves IBM free to do as it wishes with its new code. In August 2004, IBM filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The motion stated that IBM has the right to do as it wishes with software not part of the original SVRx code. In February 2005, the motion was dismissed as premature, because discovery was not yet complete. IBM refiled this motion along with other summary judgment motions as noted below in September 2006.

SCO allegations of copyright and trade secret violations
SCO claims that Linux infringes SCO's copyright, trade secrets, and contractual rights. This claim is fundamental to the SCOsource program, where SCO has demanded that Linux users obtain licenses from SCOsource to be properly licensed to use the code in question. Exactly which parts of Linux are involved remains unclear as many of their claims are still under seal in the SCO v. IBM lawsuit.

SCO originally claimed in SCO v. IBM that IBM had violated trade secrets. But these alleged violations by IBM would not have involved Linux distributors or end users. SCO's trade secret claims were dropped by SCO in their amended complaint.

SCO also claimed line-for-line literal copying of code from UNIX code files to Linux kernel files and obfuscated copying of code, but originally refused to publicly identify which code was in violation. SCO submitted to the court evidence of their claims under seal but much of it was excluded from the case after it was challenged by IBM as not meeting the specificity requirements to be included.

These examples have fallen into two groups. The first are segments of files or whole files alleged to originate in UNIX SVRx code such as the errno.h header file. The second group are files and materials contributed by IBM that originated with IBM development work associated with AIX and Dynix, IBM's two UNIX products.

Each of these has a different set of issues. In order for copyright to be violated, several conditions must be met. First, the claimant must be able to show that they own the copyrights for the material in question. Second, all or a significant part of the source must be present in the infringing material. There must be enough similarity to show direct copying of material.

SVRx code allegedly in Linux
The issue of ownership of the SVRx code base was discussed above. Besides the unresolved issue of what was actually transferred from Novell to Santa Cruz Operation, there are also the portions of the SVRx code base that are covered by BSD copyrights or that are in the public domain.

SCO's first public disclosure of what they claimed is infringing code was at its SCO Forum conference in August 2003 at the MGM Grand Las Vegas. The first, known as the Berkeley Packet Filter, was distributed under the BSD License and is freely usable by anyone. The second example was related to memory allocation functions, also released under the BSD License. It is no longer in the Linux code base.

SCO has also claimed that code related to application programming interfaces was copied from UNIX. However, this code and the underlying standards they describe are in the public domain and are also covered by rights USL sold to The Open Group. A later claim was made to code segments related to ELF file format standards. This material was developed by the Tool Interface Standard (TIS) Committee and placed in the public domain. SCO claims that the TIS Committee had no authority to place ELF in the public domain, even though SCO's predecessor in interest was a member of the committee.

SCO has claimed that some are violating UNIX SVRx copyrights by putting UNIX code into Linux. They may or may not have brought this claim directly in any of their cases. The IBM case is about derivative works, not SVRx code (see below). The Novell case is about copyright ownership. DaimlerChrysler was about contractual compliance statements.

The "may or may not" comes from AutoZone's case. In AutoZone, SCO's complaint claimed damages for AutoZone's use of Linux. However, when objecting to AutoZone's request for a stay pending the IBM case, SCO apparently contradicted their written complaint, claiming that the case was entirely about AutoZone copying certain libraries (outside the Linux kernel) from a UNIX system to a Linux-based system to facilitate moving an internal application to the Linux platform faster; SCO's original complaint does not appear to mention these libraries. AutoZone denies having done this with UNIX libraries. If SCO's oral description of their case is the correct one, then their AutoZone claim has nothing to do with the Linux kernel or the actions of any distributors.

The copyright issue is addressed directly in two of the cases. The first is by IBM in their counterclaim in SCO v. IBM. The issue is central to a pending motion by IBM, stating that IBM violated no copyrights in its Linux related activities. It is also addressed by Red Hat in the Red Hat v. SCO case. Red Hat claims that SCO's statements about infringement in Linux are unproven and untrue, damaging to them and violates the Lanham Act. Red Hat asks for an injunction to stop claims of violations without proof. They also ask for a judgment that they violated no SCO copyrights. A hearing on the IBM motion was held on September 15, 2004. Judge Kimball took the motion under advisement. The Red Hat case is on hold.

Allegations of reverse copying
EWeek has reported allegations that SCO may have copied parts of the Linux kernel into SCO UNIX as part of its Linux Kernel Personality feature. If true, this would mean that SCO is guilty of a breach of the Linux kernel copyrights. SCO has denied this allegation, but according to Groklaw, one SCO employee confirmed it in a deposition.

IBM code in Linux
SCO has claimed a number of instances of IBM Linux code as breaches of contract. These examples include code related to symmetric multiprocessing (SMP), Journaled File System (JFS), Read-copy-update (RCU) and Non-Uniform Memory Access (NUMA). This code is questionably in the Linux kernel, and may have been added by IBM through the normal kernel submission process. This code was developed and copyrighted by IBM. IBM added features to AIX and Dynix.

SCO claims that they have "control rights" to this due to their licensing agreements with IBM. SCO disavows claiming that they own the code IBM wrote, rather comparing their "control rights" to an easement, rights which allow them to prohibit IBM from publicizing the code they wrote, even though IBM owns the copyrights. They base this claim on language in the original license agreement that requires non-disclosure of the code and claim that all code developed by UNIX licensees that is used with the code under license be held in confidence. This claim is discussed above at Control of derivative works.

SCO and the GPL
Before changing their name to the SCO Group, the company was known as Caldera International.

Caldera was one of the major distributors of Linux between 1994 and 1998. In August 1998, the company split into Caldera Systems and Caldera Thin Clients, with Caldera Systems taking over the Linux systems business and Caldera Thin Clients concentrating on the Thin Clients and embedded business. The parent and shell company Caldera, Inc. ceased to exist in 2000 after a settlement with Microsoft in the Caldera v. Microsoft lawsuit.

Caldera Systems was reorganized to become Caldera International in 2001, the company, which was renamed to The SCO Group in 2002.

Some, like Eben Moglen, have suggested that because Caldera distributed the allegedly infringing code under the GNU General Public License (GPL), that this act would license any proprietary code in Linux.

SCO has stated that they did not know their own code was in Linux, so releasing it under the GPL does not count. However, as late as July and August 2006, long after that claim was made, they were still distributing ELF files (the subject of one of SCO's claims regarding SVRx) under the GPL.

SCO has also claimed, in early stages of the litigation, that the GPL is invalid and non-binding and legally unenforceable. In response, supporters of the GPL, such as Eben Moglen, claimed that SCO's right to distribute Linux relied upon the GPL being a valid copyright license. Later court filings by the SCO Group in SCO v. IBM use SCO's alleged compliance with the license as a defense to IBM's counterclaims.

The GPL has become an issue in SCO v. IBM. Under U.S. copyright law, distribution of creative works whose copyright is owned by another party is illegal without permission from the copyright owner, usually in the form of a license; the GPL is such a license, and thus allows distribution, but only under limited conditions. Since IBM released the relevant code under the terms of the GPL, it claims that the only permission that SCO has to copy and distribute IBM's code in Linux is under the terms and conditions of the GPL, one of which requires the distributor to "accept" the GPL. IBM says that SCO violated the GPL by denouncing the GPL's validity, and by claiming that the GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws. IBM also claims that SCO's SCOsource program is incompatible with the requirement that redistributions of GPLed works must be free of copyright licensing fees (fees may be charged for the acts of duplication and support). IBM has brought counterclaims alleging that SCO has violated the GPL and breached IBM's copyrights by collecting licensing fees while distributing IBM's copyrighted material.

SCO v. IBM
On March 7, 2003, SCO filed suit against IBM. Initially this lawsuit was about breach of contract and trade secrets. Later, SCO dropped the trade secrets claim, so the claim is breach of contract. SCO also added a copyright claim related to IBM's continued use of AIX, but not related to Linux. The judge subsequently stated that the SCO Group had indeed made a claim of copyright infringement against IBM regarding Linux. IBM filed multiple counter claims, including charges of both patent violations, which were later dropped, and violation of copyright law.

On February 8, 2005, Judge Kimball ruled that IBM's motions for summary judgment were premature but added: "Viewed against the backdrop of SCO's plethora of public statements concerning IBM's and others' infringement of SCO's purported copyrights to the UNIX software, it is astonishing that SCO has not offered any competent evidence to create a disputed fact regarding whether IBM has infringed SCO's alleged copyrights through IBM's Linux activities."

On June 28, 2006, Judge Brooke Wells granted, in part, IBM's motion to limit SCO's claims and excluded 186 of SCO's 294 items of allegedly misused intellectual property (IBM had challenged 201 of them for various reasons). Wells cited a number of factors including SCO's inability to provide sufficient specificity in these claims: "In December 2003, near the beginning of this case, the court ordered SCO to, 'identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming forms the basis of their action against IBM.' Even if SCO lacked the code behind methods and concepts at this early stage, SCO could have and should have, at least articulated which methods and concepts formed 'the basis of their action against IBM.' At a minimum, SCO should have identified the code behind their method and concepts in the final submission pursuant to this original order entered in December 2003 and Judge Kimball’s order entered in July 2005."

This left about 100 of SCO's items of allegedly misused intellectual property (the merits of which have not yet been judged), out of 294 items originally disclosed by SCO.

Following the partial summary judgment rulings in the SCO v. Novell Slander of Title case, Judge Kimball asked the parties in SCO v IBM to prepare by August 31, 2007, a statement of the status of this case.

Red Hat v. SCO
Red Hat filed suit against SCO on August 4, 2003. Red Hat sued SCO for false advertising, deceptive trade practices and asked for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement of any of SCO's copyrights. This case has been stayed pending resolution of the IBM case.

SCO v. Novell
After SCO initiated their Linux campaign, they said that they were the owners of UNIX. Novell claimed these statements were false, and that they still owned the rights in question. After Novell registered the copyrights to some key UNIX products, SCO filed suit against Novell on January 20, 2004. Novell removed the suit to federal court on February 6, 2004.

On July 29, 2005, Novell filed its answer with the court, denying SCO's claims. Novell also filed counterclaims asking the court to force SCO to turn over the revenues it had received from UNIX licenses, less a 5% administrative fee. Additionally, Novell asked the court to place the funds in a "constructive trust" in order to ensure that SCO could pay Novell since the company's assets were depleting rapidly.

On August 10, 2007, Judge Dale Kimball, hearing the SCO v. Novell case, ruled that "the court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare Copyrights". Novell was awarded summary judgments on a number of claims, and a number of SCO claims were denied. SCO was instructed to account for and pass to Novell an appropriate portion of income relating to SCOSource licences to Sun Microsystems and Microsoft. A number of matters are not disposed of by Judge Kimball's ruling, and the outcome of these are still pending.

On July 16, 2008, the trial court issued an order awarding Novell $2,547,817 and ruled that SCO was not authorized to enter into the 2003 agreement with Sun. On November 20, 2008, final judgment in the case affirmed the August 10 ruling, and added interest of $918,122 plus $489 per diem after August 29, 2008, along with a constructive trust of $625,486.90.

On August 24, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit partially reversed the August 10, 2007 district court summary judgment ruling. The appeals court remanded back to trial on the issues of copyright ownership and Novell's contractual waiver rights. The court upheld the $2,547,817 award granted to Novell for the 2003 Sun agreement. On March 30, 2010, after a three-week trial before Judge Ted Stewart, a jury returned a verdict "confirming Novell's ownership of the Unix copyrights."

On June 10, 2010, Judge Ted Stewart denied SCO's motion for another trial and ruled for Novell on all remaining issues.

On July 7, 2010, SCO appealed the new judgments to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

On August 30, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court ruling in its entirety, rejecting SCO's attempt to re-argue the case before the Court of Appeals.

SCO v. AutoZone
AutoZone, a corporate user of Linux and former user of SCO OpenServer, was sued by SCO on March 3, 2004. SCO claims AutoZone violated SCO's copyrights by using Linux. The suit was stayed pending the resolution of the IBM, Red Hat and Novell cases.

On September 26, 2008, Judge Robert C. Jones lifted the stay, effective December 31, 2008. He initially scheduled discovery for April 9, 2010. SCO filed an amended complaint on August 14, 2009. On August 31, 2009, AutoZone replied, and filed a motion to dismiss in part.

On October 22, 2009, Edward Cahn, SCO's Chapter 11 trustee, sought bankruptcy court approval for an agreement he reached with AutoZone. According to the court filings, the confidential settlement resolves all claims between SCO and AutoZone.

SCO v. DaimlerChrysler
In December 2003, SCO demanded that some UNIX licensees certify certain issues regarding their use of Linux. DaimlerChrysler, a former UNIX user and current Linux user, did not respond to this demand. On March 3, 2004, SCO filed suit against DaimlerChrysler for violating their UNIX license agreement by failing to respond to the certification request. Almost every claim SCO made has been ruled against in summary judgment. The last remaining issue, that of whether DaimlerChrysler made a timely response, was dismissed by agreement of SCO and DaimlerChrysler in December 2004. SCO retains the right to continue this case at a future date, providing it pays legal fees to DaimlerChrysler.

SCO announces that it will not sue its own customers
On June 23, 2003, SCO sent out a letter announcing that it would not be suing its own Linux customers. In the letter, it states:

"SCO will continue to support our SCO Linux and OpenLinux customers and partners who have previously implemented those products and we will hold them harmless from any SCO intellectual property issues regarding Linux."

SCO and SGI
In August 2003, SCO presented two examples of what they claimed was illegal copying of copyrighted code from UNIX to Linux. One of the examples (Berkeley Packet Filter) was not related to original UNIX code at all. The other example did, however, seem to originate from the UNIX code and was apparently contributed by a UNIX vendor, Silicon Graphics. However, an analysis by the Linux community later revealed that:

 * The code originated from an even older version of UNIX which at some point was published by Caldera, thus making any claim of copyright infringement shaky.
 * The code did not do anything. It was in a part of the Linux kernel that was written in anticipation of a Silicon Graphics architecture that was never released.
 * It had already been removed from the kernel two months earlier.
 * The contested segment was small (80 lines) and trivial.

SCO and BayStar Capital
In October 2003, BayStar Capital and Royal Bank of Canada invested US$50 million in The SCO Group to support the legal cost of SCO's Linux campaign. Later it was shown that BayStar was referred to SCO by Microsoft, whose proprietary Windows operating system competes with Linux. In 2003, BayStar looked at SCO on the recommendation of Microsoft, according to Lawrence R. Goldfarb, managing partner of BayStar Capital: "It was evident that Microsoft had an agenda".

On April 22, 2004, The New York Times reported that BayStar Capital, a private hedge fund which had arranged for $50M in funding for SCO in October 2003, was asking for its $20M back. The remainder of the $50M was from Royal Bank of Canada. SCO stated in their press release that they believed that BayStar did not have grounds for making this demand.

On August 27, 2004, SCO and BayStar resolved their dispute.

SCO and Canopy Group
The Canopy Group is an investment group with shares in a trust of different companies. It is a group owned by the Noorda family, also founders of Novell.

Until February 2005, Canopy held SCO shares, and the management of SCO held shares of Canopy. The two parties became embroiled in a bitter dispute when the Noorda family sought to oust board member Ralph Yarro III on claims of misappropriation. With internal problems not made public (which included the suicides of Canopy's director of information systems, Robert Penrose, and Val Kriedel, the daughter of Ray Noorda ),  the Canopy Group agreed to buy back all the shares that SCO had in Canopy in exchange for their SCO shares and cash.

SCO and Canopy Group are now mostly independent, though SCO continues to rent their Utah office space from Canopy.

Microsoft funding of SCO controversy
On March 4, 2004, a leaked SCO internal e-mail detailed how Microsoft had raised up to $106 million via the BayStar referral and other means. Blake Stowell of SCO confirmed the memo was real, but claimed it to be "a misunderstanding". BayStar claimed the deal was suggested by Microsoft, but that no money for it came directly from them. In addition to the Baystar involvement, Microsoft paid SCO $6M (USD) in May 2003 for a license to "Unix and Unix-related patents", despite the lack of Unix-related patents owned by SCO. License deals between both companies may have reached at least $16M (USD) according to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings. This deal was widely seen in the press as a boost to SCO's finances which would help SCO with its lawsuit against IBM.

SCOsource
After their initial claim of copyright infringement in the Linux kernel, The SCO Group started their SCOsource initiative, which sells licenses of SCO's claimed copyrighted software, other than OpenServer and Unixware licenses. After a small number of high-profile sales (including one that was denied by the claimed purchaser), SCO claimed to offer corporate users of Linux a license at US$699 per processor running Linux. However, many individuals have found it impossible to buy such a license from SCO. SCO says that participants of the SCOsource initiative are not liable for any claims that SCO makes against Linux users.

The Michael Davidson E-Mail
On July 14, 2005, an email was unsealed that had been sent from Michael Davidson to Reg Broughton (both Caldera International employees) in 2002, before many of the lawsuits. In it, Davidson reported how the company had hired an outside consultant because (spelling as in the original): ...of SCO's executive management refusing to believe that it was possible for Linux and much of the GNU software to have come into existence without *someone* *somewhere* having copied pieces of proprietary UNIX source code to which SCO owned the copyright. The hope was that we would find a "smoking gun" somewhere in code that was being used by Red Hat and/or the other Linux companies that would give us some leverage. (There was, at one stage, the idea that we would sell licences to corporate customers who were using Linux as a kind of "insurance policy" in case it turned out that they were using code which infringed on our copyright).

The consultant was to review the Linux code and compare it to Unix source code, to find possible copyright infringement. Davidson himself said that he had not expected to find anything significant based on his own knowledge of the code and had voiced his opinion that it was "a waste of time". After 4 to 6 months of consultant's work, Davidson says: ...we had found absolutely *nothing*. ie no evidence of any copyright infringement whatsoever.

title: SCO–Linux disputes


text:
Talk:Mausolus

Comments
I may be wrong, but isn't Maussolus simply the modern Greek spelling? Not "more correct" at all? It's unheard-of in the literature, or I am mistaken. Wetman 10:05, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll just be taking it out, then.--Wetman (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of Mausolus
Mausoleum means "of Mausolus" but what dos "Mausolus" means?Undead Herle King (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 * It's a personal name. The etymology of names isn't usually mentioned unless it's important. --Thnidu (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Mausolus


text:
Heterocyst

Heterocysts or heterocytes are specialized nitrogen-fixing cells formed during nitrogen starvation by some filamentous cyanobacteria, such as Nostoc, Cylindrospermum, and Anabaena. They fix nitrogen from dinitrogen (N2) in the air using the enzyme nitrogenase, in order to provide the cells in the filament with nitrogen for biosynthesis.

Nitrogenase is inactivated by oxygen, so the heterocyst must create a microanaerobic environment. The heterocysts' unique structure and physiology require a global change in gene expression. For example, heterocysts:

 * produce three additional cell walls, including one of glycolipid that forms a hydrophobic barrier to oxygen
 * produce nitrogenase and other proteins involved in nitrogen fixation
 * degrade photosystem II, which produces oxygen
 * up-regulate glycolytic enzymes
 * produce proteins that scavenge any remaining oxygen
 * contain polar plugs composed of cyanophycin which slows down cell-to-cell diffusion

Cyanobacteria usually obtain a fixed carbon (carbohydrate) by photosynthesis. The lack of water-splitting in photosystem II prevents heterocysts from performing photosynthesis, so the vegetative cells provide them with carbohydrates, which is thought to be sucrose. The fixed carbon and nitrogen sources are exchanged through channels between the cells in the filament. Heterocysts maintain photosystem I, allowing them to generate ATP by cyclic photophosphorylation.

Single heterocysts develop about every 9-15 cells, producing a one-dimensional pattern along the filament. The interval between heterocysts remains approximately constant even though the cells in the filament are dividing. The bacterial filament can be seen as a multicellular organism with two distinct yet interdependent cell types. Such behavior is highly unusual in prokaryotes and may have been the first example of multicellular patterning in evolution. Once a heterocyst has formed it cannot revert to a vegetative cell. Certain heterocyst-forming bacteria can differentiate into spore-like cells called akinetes or motile cells called hormogonia, making them the most phenotyptically versatile of all prokaryotes.

Gene Expression

In low nitrogen environments, heterocyst differentiation is triggered by the transcriptional regulator NtcA. NtcA influences heterocyst differentiation by signaling proteins involved in the process of heterocyst differentiation. For instance, NtcA controls the expression of several genes including HetR which is crucial for heterocyst differentiation. It is crucial as it up-regulates other genes such as hetR, patS, hepA by binding to their promoter and thus acting as a transcription factor. It is also worthy to note that the expression of ntcA, and HetR are dependent on each other and their presence promotes heterocyst differentiation even in the presence of nitrogen. It has also been recently found that other genes such as PatA, hetP regulate heterocyst differentiation. PatA patterns the heterocysts along the filaments, and it is also important for cell division. PatS influences the heterocyst patterning by inhibiting heterocyst differentiation when a group of differentiating cells come together to form a pro- heterocyst (immature heterocyst). Heterocyst maintenance is dependent on an enzyme called hetN. Heterocyst formation is inhibited by the presence of a fixed nitrogen source, such as ammonium or nitrate.

Heterocyst formation
The following sequences take place in formation of heterocysts from a vegetative cell:
 * The cell enlarges.
 * Granular inclusions decrease.
 * Photosynthetic lammel reorients.
 * The wall finally becomes triple-layered. These three layers develop outside the cell's outer layer.
 * The middle layer is homogeneous.
 * The inner layer is laminated.
 * The senescent heterocyst undergoes vacuolation and finally breaks off from the filament causing fragmentation. These fragments are called hormogonia (singular hormogonium) and undergo asexual reproduction.

The cyanobacteria that form heterocysts are divided into the orders Nostocales and Stigonematales, which form simple and branching filaments respectively. Together they form a monophyletic group, with very low genetic variability.

Symbiotic relationships

The bacteria may also enter a symbiotic relationship with certain plants. In such a relationship, the bacteria do not respond to the availability of nitrogen, but to signals produced by the plant for heterocyst differentiation. Up to 60% of the cells can become heterocyst, providing fixed nitrogen to the plant in return for fixed carbon. The signal produced by the plant, and the stage of heterocyst differentiation it affects is unknown. Presumably, the symbiotic signal generated by the plant acts before NtcA activation as hetR is required for symbiotic heterocyst differentiation. For the symbiotic association with the plant, ntcA is needed as the bacteria with mutated ntcA can't infect plants.

Anabaena-Azolla
A notable symbiotic relationship is that of Anabaena cyanobacteria with Azolla plants. Anabaena reside on the stems and within leaves of Azolla plants. The Azolla plant undergoes photosynthesis and provides fixed carbon for the Anabaena to use as an energy source for dinitrogenases in the heterocyst cells. In return, the heterocysts are able to provide the vegetative cells and the Azolla plant with fixed nitrogen in the form of ammonia which supports growth of both organisms.

This symbiotic relationship is exploited by humans in agriculture. In Asia, Azolla plants containing Anabaena species are used as biofertilizer where nitrogen is limiting as well as in animal feed. Different strains of Azolla-Anabaena are suited for different environments and may lead to differences in crop production. Rice crops grown with Azolla-Anabaena as biofertilizer have been shown to result in a much greater quantity and quality of produce compared to crops without the cyanobacteria. Azolla-Anabaena plants are grown before and after rice crops are planted. As the Azolla-Anabaena plants grow, they accumulate fixed nitrogen due to the actions of the nitrogenase enzymes and organic carbon from photosynthesis by the Azolla plants and Anabaena vegetative cells. When the Azolla-Anabaena plants die and decompose, they release high amounts of fixed nitrogen, phosphorus, organic carbon, and many other nutrients into the soil, providing a rich environment ideal for the growth of rice crops.

The Anabaena-Azolla relationship has also been explored as a possible method of removing pollutants from the environment, a process known as phytoremediation. Anabaena sp. together with Azolla caroliniana has been shown to be successful in removing uranium, a toxic pollutant caused by mining, as well as the heavy metals mercury (II), chromium(III), and chromium(VI) from contaminated waste water.

title: Heterocyst


text:
User talk:Wvannoni

There are 96 departments. Department #20 no longer exists and was broken up between #2A and #2B, therefore accounting for 96 departments. Hardouin 10:07, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Asseria Capital
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Asseria Capital, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 02:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wvannoni


text:
Talk:Spencer Cavendish, 8th Duke of Devonshire

Untitled
According to, he was known as SPENCER COMPTON, not just Spencer... - John (still on weird computer with no idea of either tildas or straight lines)

 * That page looks a little inconsistent on which names were used. The current Duke is down as "PEREGRINE Andrew Morny", but his late father is down as "ANDREW ROBERT BUXTON", and I can't believe he used all three names at once. The 9th and 10th Dukes are also down as using all their names, so unless there's some weird Cavendish tradition for ridiculously unwieldy names I suspect it may be mistaken in this regard. Proteus (Talk) 17:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image
Image of Devonshire and his wife Louisa von Alten, 1865. Tryde (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


text:
Augustusburg and Falkenlust Palaces, Brühl

The Augustusburg and Falkenlust Palaces form a historical building complex in Brühl, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. The buildings are connected by the spacious gardens and trees of the Schlosspark. Built in the early 18th century, the palaces and adjoining gardens are considered masterpieces of early rococo architecture and have been listed as a UNESCO cultural World Heritage Site since 1984. Augustusburg Palace (Schloss Augustusburg) and its parks also serve as a venue for the Brühl Palace Concerts.

History
The Augustusburg Castle was built on the foundations of a medieval castle in 1725. It was planned and funded by Archbishop-Elector of Cologne, Clemens August of Bavaria of the Wittelsbach family, and designed by the architects Johann Conrad Schlaun and François de Cuvilliés. Shortly thereafter, François de Cuvilliés designed the Falkenlust hunting lodge to the southeast for Clemens August to practice falconry, and the lodge was built from 1729 to 1740.

The elaborate gardens surrounding the Augustusburg palace were designed by Dominique Girard. An elaborate parterre for an area south of the palaces was also designed, but it was restructured by Peter Joseph Lenné in the 19th century and turned into a landscape garden. Attempts to renovate the area have proven difficult, due to poor source material availability.

From shortly after World War II until 1994, Augustusburg was used as a reception hall for guests of state by the German President, as it is not far from Bonn, which was the capital of the Federal Republic of Germany at that time.

Description
The palace complex consists of the Augustusburg Palace and the smaller Falkenlust lodge roughly 1 mile to the southeast. The main block of Augustusburg Palace is a U-shaped building with three main storeys and two levels of attics. The three wings are made of brick with a roughcast plaster. Two orangeries adjoin the main building on the north and south sides. The magnificent main staircase was designed by Johann Balthasar Neumann and made of ornate marble, jasper and stucco. The main garden directly south of the Augustusburg Palace is a complex, embroidery-like parterre, with four fountains and a mirror pool, flanked by alleys lined with lime trees. A path runs diagonally south from this garden to the Falkenlust lodge.

The Falkenlust lodge was built in the style of a country home, drawing inspiration from the Amalienburg hunting lodge in the park of Nymphenburg Palace. The main building has two floors, flanked by two single-story buildings that housed the prince-elector's falcons. On the ground floor is an oval salon.

See also: Other palaces, residences and hunting lodges of Clemens August of Bavaria

 * Schloss Ahaus
 * Schloss Arnsberg
 * Clemenswerth Palace
 * Electoral Palace, Bonn
 * Schloss Herzogsfreude
 * Schloss Hirschberg near Arnsberg
 * Schloss Liebenburg
 * Mergentheim Palace
 * Schloss Neuhaus in Paderborn
 * Osnabrück Palace
 * Poppelsdorf Palace in Bonn
 * Schloss Sassenberg
 * Vinea Domini in Bonn
 * Amtshaus Wiedenbrück (also known as Burg Reckenberg)


text: File:Seduction Cruel Woman DVD.jpg

title: File:Seduction Cruel Woman DVD.jpg


text:
Kathleen Ollerenshaw

Dame Kathleen Mary Ollerenshaw, (née Timpson; 1 October 1912 – 10 August 2014) was a British mathematician and politician who was Lord Mayor of Manchester from 1975 to 1976 and an advisor on educational matters to Margaret Thatcher's government in the 1980s.

Early life and education
She was born Kathleen Mary Timpson in Withington, Manchester, where she attended Lady Barn House School (1918–26). She was a grandchild of the founder of the Timpson shoe repair business, who had moved to Manchester from Kettering and established the business there by 1870. She became fascinated with mathematics, inspired by the Lady Barn headmistress, Miss Jenkin Jones. While at Lady Barn, she met her future husband, Robert Ollerenshaw.

Ollerenshaw became completely deaf at age eight and was taught to lip read. She gravitated toward the study of mathematics as it is not dependent on hearing. She was further inspired by a headmistress at Lady Barn House School who studied mathematics at Cambridge.

As a young woman, she attended St Leonards School and Sixth Form College in St Andrews, Scotland where today the house of young male boarders is named after her. At the age of 19 she gained admittance to Somerville College, Oxford, to study mathematics. She completed her doctorate at Somerville in 1945 on "Critical Lattices" under the supervision of Theo Chaundy. She wrote five original research papers which were sufficient for her to earn her DPhil degree without the need of a formal written thesis.

While an undergraduate, she became engaged to Robert Ollerenshaw, who became a distinguished military surgeon (Colonel R.G.W. Ollerenshaw, ERD, TD, BM, DMRD)  and a pioneer of medical illustration. They married in September 1939 and had two children, Charles (1941–99) and Florence (1946–72). In 1942 she suffered a miscarriage and "cried nonstop for three days" as a result of stress when her husband was posted abroad for front-line war service.

Career
After the Second World War, the Ollerenshaws moved to Manchester, where Kathleen worked as a part-time lecturer in the mathematics department at Manchester University while raising her children and continued her work on lattices. In 1949, at the age of 37, she received her first effective hearing aid.

Outside of academia, Ollerenshaw served as a Conservative Councillor for Rusholme for twenty-five years (1954–79), a member of the city council's finance committee (1968–71), a chairman of the education committee of the Association of Municipal Corporations (1967–71), Lord Mayor of Manchester (1975–76), High Sheriff of Greater Manchester from 1978 to 1979, and the prime motivator in the creation of the Royal Northern College of Music. She was made a Freeman of the City of Manchester and was an advisor on educational matters to Margaret Thatcher's government in the 1980s.

She was President of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications from 1978 to 1979. She published at least 26 mathematical papers, her best-known contribution being to most-perfect pandiagonal magic squares. Upon her death, she left a legacy in trust to support distinguished research visitors and public engagement activities at the School of Mathematics, University of Manchester. An annual public lecture at the university is named in her honour. An amateur astronomer, Ollerenshaw donated her telescope to Lancaster University, and an observatory there bears her name. She was an honorary member of the Manchester Astronomical Society and held the post of vice-president for a number of years.

Ollerenshaw attended St Leonards School in St Andrews, Fife, and served as the school's president from 1981 to 2003. She was succeeded by Baroness Byford, Conservative spokeswoman in the House of Lords. She turned 100 in October 2012.

She died in Didsbury on 10 August 2014, at the age of 101. Her husband and both their children had predeceased her.

Honours and legacy

 * In 1970, Ollerenshaw was appointed Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire for services to education.
 * Composer Sir Peter Maxwell Davies dedicated his Naxos Quartet No.9 to her.

title: Kathleen Ollerenshaw


text:
Les Sylphides

Les Sylphides is a short, non-narrative ballet blanc to piano music by Frédéric Chopin,  selected and orchestrated by Alexander Glazunov.

The ballet, described as a "romantic reverie", is frequently cited as the first ballet to be simply about mood and dance. Les Sylphides has no plot but instead consists of several white-clad sylphs dancing in the moonlight with the "poet" or "young man" dressed in white tights and a black tunic.

Its original choreography was by Michel Fokine, with Chopin's music orchestrated by Alexander Glazunov. Glazunov had already set some of the music in 1892 as a purely orchestral suite, under the title Chopiniana, Op. 46. In that form, it was introduced to the public in December 1893, conducted by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov.

Performance history
Identifying the premiere of the fuller ballet poses a challenge. One might say that it premiered in 1907 at the Mariinsky Theatre in Saint Petersburg as Rêverie Romantique: Ballet sur la musique de Chopin. However, this also formed the basis of a ballet, Chopiniana, which took different forms, even in Fokine's hands. As Les Sylphides, what we consider the work was premiered by Sergei Diaghilev's Ballets Russes on 2 June 1909 at Théâtre du Châtelet, Paris. The Diaghilev premiere is the most famous, as its soloists were Tamara Karsavina, Vaslav Nijinsky (as the poet, dreamer, or young man), Anna Pavlova, and Alexandra Baldina. The long white tutu that Pavlova originally danced in, and that the entire female corps de ballet adopted soon after, was designed by Léon Bakst and inspired by a lithograph of Marie Taglioni dressed as a sylph.

The London premiere, in the first season of the Diaghilev Ballets Russes, was at the Royal Opera House. With more sylph-like elusiveness, the North American premiere might be dated by an unauthorized version in the Winter Garden, New York, on 14 June 1911 (featuring Baldina alone from the Diaghilev cast). However, its authorized premiere on that continent, by Diaghilev Ballets Russes, was at the Century Theater, New York City, 20 January 1916, with Lydia Lopokova (who also featured in the unauthorized production five years earlier). Nijinsky danced it with that company at the Metropolitan Opera on 14 April 1916, where it was paired with a similar work to a piano suite (by Robert Schumann), Papillons, also choreographed by Fokine. Fokine also set the ballet for several other companies, and he and his wife, Vera Fokina, danced its leading roles themselves for some years.

Original production
Chopiniana, staged by Fokine, had a different musical composition. Also, Chopiniana was originally a compilation of dramatic or character dances set to Chopin's piano music. The Glazunov suite upon which this original version was based had only four Chopin pieces; Fokine wanted to use a waltz as an addition to the suite and was able to get Glazunov to orchestrate this to create his ballet, also called Chopiniana.

 * 1) Polonaise in A major, Op. 40, No. 1
 * 2) Nocturne in F major, Op. 15, No. 1
 * 3) Mazurka in C♯ minor, Op. 50, No. 3
 * 4) Waltz in C♯ minor, Op. 64, No. 2, as added by Michel Fokine
 * 5) Tarantella in A♭ major, Op. 43

The newly orchestrated waltz would be Fokine's inspiration to re-choreograph the ballet into its nearly-final form, selecting different Chopin pieces to go with it and getting these orchestrated by the Maryinsky répétiteur Maurice Keller.

Ballets Russes production
When Fokine's ballet premiered in Paris as part of Diaghilev's "Saison Russe" in 1909, Diaghilev commissioned re-orchestrations of all the dances, except for the Glazunov-orchestrated Waltz, by Anatoly Lyadov, Sergei Taneyev, Nikolai Tcherepnin and Igor Stravinsky. This version, now titled Les Sylphides, was first staged at the Théâtre du Châtelet on 2 June 1909.

Standard version
The canonical version of the ballet Les Sylphides includes:

 * 1) Polonaise in A major (Military), Op. 40, No. 1 (some companies substitute the Prelude in A major, Op. 28, No. 7 instead)
 * 2) Nocturne in A♭ major, Op. 32, No. 2
 * 3) Waltz in G♭ major, Op. 70, No. 1
 * 4) Mazurka in D major, Op. 33, No. 2
 * 5) Mazurka in C major, Op. 67, No. 3
 * 6) Prelude in A major, Op. 28, No. 7
 * 7) Waltz in C♯ minor, Op. 64, No. 2
 * 8) Grande valse brillante in E♭ major, Op. 18

New York City Ballet production
The New York City Ballet (NYCB) produced its own staging of the standard version, omitting the Polonaise in A major (and leaving the Prelude in A major in its original position), under the original title, Chopiniana. The NYCB premiere was staged by Alexandra Danilova and took place 20 January 1972, at the New York State Theater, Lincoln Center. The original cast included Karin von Aroldingen, Susan Hendl, Kay Mazzo, and Peter Martins.

Other orchestrations
A number of musicians have orchestrated the Chopin pieces for major ballet companies, including Maurice Ravel, Benjamin Britten, Alexander Gretchaninov, Roy Douglas, and Gordon Jacob. The Ravel orchestration has been lost. The Britten orchestration was considered lost but a score thought to be his was found in 2013 in the archives of the American Ballet Theatre.

Roy Douglas's version has been recorded a number of times, and has largely supplanted the earlier versions. It was written in 1936, to replace what Douglas called "very bad orchestrations of Chopin's music".

title: Les Sylphides


text:
Battle of Santiago (1962 FIFA World Cup)

The Battle of Santiago (Battaglia di Santiago, Batalla de Santiago) was a football match during the 1962 FIFA World Cup, played between the hosts Chile and Italy on 2 June 1962 in Santiago. It gained its nickname from the level of violence seen in the game, in which two players were sent off, numerous punches were thrown and police intervention was required four times. The referee was Ken Aston, who later went on to invent yellow and red cards.

Background
In this Group B clash, already heightened tensions between the two football teams were exacerbated by the description of Santiago in crude terms by two Italian journalists, and Corrado Pizzinelli; they had written that Santiago was a backwater dump where "the phones don't work, taxis are as rare as faithful husbands, a cable to Europe costs an arm and a leg and a letter takes five days to turn up", and its population as prone to "malnutrition, illiteracy, alcoholism and poverty. Chile is a small, proud and poor country: it has agreed to organise this World Cup in the same way as Mussolini agreed to send our air force to bomb London (they didn't arrive). The capital city has 700 hotel beds. Entire neighbourhoods are given over to open prostitution. This country and its people are proudly miserable and backwards." Chilean newspapers fired back, describing Italians in general as fascists, mafiosos, oversexed, and, because some of Inter Milan's players had recently been involved in a doping scandal, drug addicts. The Italian journalists involved were forced to flee Chile, while an Argentinian scribe mistaken for an Italian in a Santiago bar was beaten up and hospitalised.

Chile's organisation of and preparation for the tournament had been severely disrupted by the 1960 Valdivia earthquake, the strongest earthquake ever recorded in human history. Articles in the Italian papers La Nazione and Corriere della Sera were saying that allowing Chile to host the World Cup was "pure madness"; this was used and magnified by local newspapers to inflame the Chilean population. The British newspaper the Daily Express wrote "The tournament shows every sign of developing into a violent bloodbath. Reports read like battlefront despatches. Italy vs Germany was described as 'wrestling and warfare.'"

Summary
The first foul occurred within 12 seconds of kick-off. Italy's Giorgio Ferrini was sent off in the eighth minute after a foul on Honorino Landa, but refused to leave the pitch and had to be dragged off by policemen. English referee Ken Aston did nothing after a left-hook punch by Chilean outside-left Leonel Sánchez to Italian right-back Mario David, which had come in retaliation for being fouled seconds earlier. When David attempted to kick Sánchez in the head a few minutes later, he was sent off. In the violence that continued, Sánchez broke Humberto Maschio's nose with a left hook punch, but Aston again did not send him off. The two teams engaged in scuffles and spitting, and police had to intervene three more times.

Chile won the match 2–0, with a headed goal from Jaime Ramírez and a low long-range shot from Jorge Toro, both in the last 16 minutes.

Aston, who had now refereed both of Chile's matches, never oversaw a World Cup match again, becoming a senior member of the refereeing committees of the 1966 and 1970 championships.

In his work The Complete Book of the World Cup (Harper Sport), Cris Freddi described the match as "…a horror show, the last of the three great World Cup slugfests." On the same day, Yugoslavia beat Uruguay 3–1 with both teams having a player sent off – Vladimir Popović and Ángel Rubén Cabrera – and Freddi wrote of their opening match against Switzerland: "Chile responded [to conceding an early goal] with some grim tackling, a feature of this World Cup. Aston booked Eschmann then Rojas but should have sent both off when they came to blows a few minutes later."

Aftermath
When highlights from the match were shown on British television a couple of days later (not the same night, because film of matches had to be flown back to the UK), the match was introduced by BBC sports commentator David Coleman as "the most stupid, appalling, disgusting and disgraceful exhibition of football, possibly in the history of the game." Stones were thrown at some Italian players at their training camp.

Coleman also observed that it was the first meeting between the sides and "we hope it will be the last." However, the sides were drawn together at the 1966 World Cup and met at Sunderland's Roker Park ground with Italy winning 2–0. The rematch also featured unsportsmanlike play but to a lesser degree.


text:
Talk:Munich Agreement

Munich Agreement revisited
The Wikipedia article on the Munich Agreement is sadly unbalanced. It is slanderous to politicians who sincerely and for honorable, if debatable, reasons tried to save the peace. It is written with the Guilty Men hypothesis in mind. The suggestion that a good alternative title would have been "The Munich Betrayal" is evidence of a lack of objectivity. Titles should be neutral and not prejudicial. The Munich Settlement is a good alternative name. It is not widely understood that the Agreement cannot be considered a betrayal, for several reasons. In the first place the Czechoslovak Government accepted the Agreement and President Benesh declared, even after the war, to be proud to have made the sacrifices of his country at Munich to save the peace. He understood that Czechoslovakia could have defended itself not for long and that French assistance would not be helpful in this short period. So to avoid the destruction of their country the government agreed with the settlement. In the second place, if there was a betrayal at all, it did not happen at Munich, but a year before, or even much longer. In November 1937 France and Great Britain were already determined that everything should be done to prevent the outbreak of a military conflict between Czechoslovakia and Germany over Sudetenland - Czechoslovakia should give in to German demands. If a military conflict could be prevented, the obligation of France to go to war on the side of Czechoslovakia would not be activated. And a treaty is never breached by efforts to restrain an ally. Winston Churchill, while highly critical of the Agreement, acknowledged this, denying that there was any betrayal. What happened at Munich was that Czechoslovakia as a strategic asset, in the interest of France pointed at Germany, was given up. Its position in the hart of Europe outside the reach of France and the Soviet Union, but allied to them, and therefore potentially threatening Germany, was deemed dangerous for Europe, and in the end untenable. Surely, this position was no longer profitable for France, and highly risky for Czechoslovakia herself. Czechoslovakia had become even a nuisance for the western democracies while it tried to influence them in more antagonistic policies against Germany, while there were still possibilities for peaceful solutions for which Czechoslovakia itself hold the key. In the third place, while in Thirties the Left was highly averse to Hitler, this was only very late translated in approval of firm policies that could have restrained Hitler. Rearmament in France started only in 1936, and not yet full scale. The politicians in a position of responsibility during the Munich Crisis were faced with the consequences of decisions and omissions of a long period before. France and great Britain were not ready for war, and deemed the risk of war much too high. Being aware of their weakness they refused to bluff. That Hitler was bluffing about German strength was uncertain, but more important, it is not the same as bluffing about his willingness of fighting a war. The policies of appeasement resulting in the Munich Agreement may have been ineffectual, and overall and after all, mistaken. But this a judgment over a generation of politicians from the period 1918-1938. The repugnance to war brought about appeasement - efforts to redress grievances of Germany and win her over to international cooperation. Only in March 1939 when the cup of conciliation was at last emptied, was it possible in France and Great Britain to accept fully the risk of war, now that the price of peace had become unbearable. 2A02:A211:A3A0:600:A079:89C9:67D6:DF67 (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC) 2A02:A211:A3A0:600:A079:89C9:67D6:DF67 (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 * You really think these politicians tried to save Europe? Save it from what? They are the ones who created this nonsense state with its too-large-for-a-majority-minority balance size, in an era of pride and bullying, where Germans unlearned their language, were banned from certain positions and in such number to assure they would never control their own affairs. What did Germany actually "gain" in the revision besides giving such people a refuge, anyway? It certainly did not gain the Skoda works. This was like inviting Great Britain to a discussion about Northern Ireland, handing Great Britain Carrickfergus and telling it to go away and be happy it got anything. What about the pressing issue which kept Germany divided in two, East Prussia completely vulnerable to Stalin and subject to the whim of Polish rail? What about that? Surely, if you were truly interested in peace, you would look at that, too. And if you really wanted peace, since the Germans and the Jews were now at each other's throats and the Zionists wanted the Jews anyway, maybe you would look at resettlement in Madagascar, as the Germans proposed, or even Palestine. And maybe you would actually see what those already in Palestine had to say about it. Instead, Britain used this as a prelude to "this but no more" and its guarantee to Poland, which all-but-assured Poland would not consider any proposal by Germany - as the lobbyists who controlled Britain wanted, because the investors they represented had stakes in Polish industry and did not want to lose what they could manipulate and control with cheap European currency. In what Germany took after the Munich agreement, Britain lost nothing. How convenient. They created this entire "peace" conference as a setup so that Germany would be shown to get something and be told to take no more; then the UK would look like they were wonderful peacekeeping heroes, Germany would be put on notice and everything that UK firms were invested in would be safe. Again, how convenient: if Germany did anything next, it would surely lose its support in the UK, and those who did not want appeasement or had taken a hard position on Germany - and had already done their own setup with the Battle of Cable Street - would be one step closer to a united-mind land turned against Germany, based on a fabricated reality that former-Germans who by then lived in the UK, as the Daily Express points out, had been trying to sell the world since 1933. And for what? To destroy Germany and put it back under control of international finance investors? To make sure Germany could not subvert the will of Poland and Poland would not be tied down - like what happens every day in Brussels? To leave Europe to the fate of whether or not Stalin decided to invade and complete the Communist international? Seriously, how can you even write such an assessment of "good altruistic intentions" without considering any of these factors?Lafffingoutloud (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

NPOV rules require all important views, and the views in the article absolutely qualify with all their references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.23.6.111 (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 * It's evident to me that all these issues came about because of improper drawing of boundaries (as is usually the case)...in this instance by the Treaty of Versailles. There were 7 million Czechs and 3 million Germans. The Germans were naturally concentrated in the Sudetenland. And they were being treated badly by the Benes regime. Hitler called them on it but Benes wouldn't budge. Germany, Italy, France, and the UK negotiated a settlement. Benes lost and went into exile in the UK (in a very nice house by-the-way...where did he get his money?). The same kind of thing was going on in what became "Poland" created out of Prussia. It was called E.Prussia, was part of Germany, and was cutoff from the main Germany by poorly drawn boundaries. Germany was landlocked. G'Dansk was its natural port in E.Prussia. Its claim and assumption by force of the land between Germany and E.Prussia was characterized as "invasion of Poland" and brought on WW II. Without this Munich Agreement, there would have been an "Invasion of Czech" which was before Versailles totally separate from Slovakia. I'm not a historian but I know badly slanted history when I see it. It defies all logic. A true and honest historian needs to give this article an enema...or at least some injection of logical reason and truth.

See: 3 of 4 videos Adolf Hitler -The greatest story never told (E03) Origins of the swastika WithGLEE (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

wrong name of abreement
the original wiki mentions chamberlains private agreement with hitler on the day after the munich agreement and the wiki called thst private agreement the anglo german naval agreement. thats wrong. the naval agreement was signed im 1935 and a completely different agreement. the private agreement after munch was signed in 1938 58.96.207.41 (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

for any questions on the comment by 55.96.207.41 please email me at nmax@uk-cra.org Nmax2000 (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Removal of "Dubious" Tag
In the opening paragraphs, there is currently a "dubios" tag placed on a claim about Polish and Romanian rejection of Soviet transit rights. I have improved the source and believe the tag should be removed.

I wanted to receive feedback before doing so, though. Jcgaylor (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I've added the dubius mark there as I recall reading about Romania offering a corridor to USSR. However, I was unable to find the source now. I.e. I'd prefer there to be several independent sources instead of only one, but I won't be challenging removal of the mark in any case.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Czechia?
I don't think the name 'Czechia' should be used. As far as I'm aware, that's a modern innovation, not a name that was used at the time. VenomousConcept (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Does "Czechia" currently appear in this article? I just did a "search" for it and couldn't find it.
 * The Wikipedia article on Name of the Czech Republic says, "The first known usage of the word Czechia in English comes from a book of 1841", though it can be found in Latin texts from 1541. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Starting of World War II in the lede
A brief summary of the argument that the Munich agreement led to WWII needs to be in the lede. That is what people think about when discussing it. And some expansion of that idea in the body, whether true or false. Tuntable (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Chamberlain's constraints
To be fair, the UK population had no appetite for a major war far away. Chamberlain had put a lot of money into the RAF but it was not yet ready. It was unclear whether Canada and Australia would follow the UK at that stage. This should also be mentioned. Tuntable (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Both suggestions sound sensible to me. Be bold, but cite credible sources. (No good deed goes unpunished ;-) Thanks for the suggestions. DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Munich Agreement


text:
Ignatius Kutu Acheampong

Ignatius Kutu Acheampong (23 September 1931 – 16 June 1979) was a Ghanaian military officer and politician who was the military head of state of Ghana from 13 January 1972 to 5 July 1978, when he was deposed in a palace coup. He was executed by firing squad on 16 June 1979.

Early life and education
Acheampong was born to Catholic parents of Ashanti origin. His parents were James Kwadwo Kutu Acheampong, a Catholic Catechist, and Madam Akua Manu. He attended the Roman Catholic schools at Trabuom and the St Peter's school (also Catholic) at Kumasi, both in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. He attended the then Central College of Commerce at Agona Swedru in the Central Region of Ghana.

Acheampong worked as a stenographer/secretary at Timber Sawmill in Kumasi and later taught at Kumasi Commercial College, where he became Vice Principal at Agona-Swedru College of Commerce.

Acheampong trained at Aldershot, England, as a cadet officer. He was commissioned in the Ghana Army in 1959, and served as a member of the UN peacekeepers during the Congo Crisis.

Politics
Then commander of Ghana's First Infantry Brigade, Acheampong led a bloodless coup d'état to overthrow the democratically elected government of the Progress Party and its leader Dr Kofi Busia on 13 January 1972.

He became head of state and chairman of the National Redemption Council (NRC), which was later transformed into the Supreme Military Council on 9 October 1975, with Colonel Acheampong (promoted to General) as its chairman.

A few months after Acheampong came to power, on 27 April 1972, former president Kwame Nkrumah died in exile. Power in Ghana had changed hands several times since Nkrumah was overthrown, and Acheampong allowed Nkrumah's body to be returned and buried on 9 July 1972 at the village of his birth, Nkroful, Ghana. Notable historical changes and events introduced or implemented in Ghana during the period under Acheampong include: the change from the imperial to the metric system of measurement, change from driving on the left to right-hand traffic in "Operation Keep Right", Operation Feed Yourself (a programme aimed at developing self-reliance in agriculture), "National Reconstruction" (aimed at promoting employment and skill for workers), face-lift projects in cities, and the reconstruction/upgrading of stadia to meet international standards.

There were, however, widespread accusations of both the encouragement and endorsement of corruption in the country under his rule. Also, Ghana began experiencing the troubles it had suffered under previous administrations, with increasing food prices and soaring inflation. Under intense political pressure, Acheampong began in late 1976 to flirt with the idea of a government in which the military could still play a role and proposed a 'Union Government' with power sharing between the civilian and the armed forces. This led to student demonstrations and the closure of universities. Violent clashes between pro and anti UNIGOV factions led to the death of at least four people in Kumasi.

Execution
Following 4 June 1979 military uprising that brought Flight Lieutenant Jerry John Rawlings and the young officers of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) to power, Acheampong was court martialed and executed along with General Edward Kwaku Utuka by firing squad on 16 June. Ten days later, two other former heads of state, Akwasi Afrifa and Fred Akuffo, and senior military officers Joy Amedume, George Boakye, Roger Joseph Felli and Robert Kotei, were executed. The AFRC returned Ghana to civilian rule three months after the uprising.

Personal life
Acheampong was married to Faustina Acheampong. One grandson is an American football player Charlie Peprah. His other grandson is 6' 9" Fulham F.C. striker Yakini Acheampong.

Whilst bought up a Catholic, during his rule he addressed both a gathering of 'Spiritual Churches' in July 1972 and a pagan ceremony, the 'Cow Slaughtering ceremony' at Shana for the Pra River god on 1 December 1973. At both events, his comments express belief in the religions.

title: Ignatius Kutu Acheampong


text:
Gainsthorpe

Gainsthorpe is a deserted medieval village (DMV) site in a field which is part of the present Gainsthorpe Farm in Lincolnshire, England. The site is in Hibaldstow civil parish located on a minor road west of the A15 road, south of Hibaldstow and 5 mi south-west of Brigg.

It is now in the care of English Heritage. There is a small car park from where a footpath of about 220 yd leads to the site. The typical medieval layout of sunken roads and raised rectangular tofts and crofts is clearly seen in the humps and hollows of the field.

title: Gainsthorpe


text:
Krzysztof Kamil Baczyński

Krzysztof Kamil Baczyński, (nom de guerre: Jan Bugaj; 22 January 1921 – 4 August 1944) was a Polish poet and Home Army soldier, one of the most well known of the Generation of Columbuses, the young generation of Polish poets, of whom several perished in the Warsaw Uprising and during the German occupation of Poland.

Biography

Baczyński was born in Warsaw into the family of renowned literary critic and soldier of the Polish Legions in World War I, Stanisław Baczyński and school teacher Stefania Zieleńczyk (זיעלענצזיק). His mother was a zealous Catholic but with Jewish roots, and as such was treated by the Germans as Jewish. His uncle, Dr. Adam Zieleńczyk, escaped from the Warsaw Ghetto and was killed by Germans in 1943.

Baczynski was baptized on 7 September 1922 in Warsaw. As a child, he suffered from asthma, his heart was very weak and he was in constant threat of tuberculosis. In 1933, he began education at Gimnazjum i Liceum im. Stefana Batorego, he graduated in May 1939. In his class there were future heroes of the Szare Szeregi - Jan Bytnar (Rudy) and Tadeusz Zawadzki (Zośka). Baczynski debuted as a poet some time in 1938 in Strzała - a magazine published by the Organization of Socialist Youth Spartakus, to which he belonged himself. After graduation, he wished to continue his education at Warsaw's Academy of Fine Arts, but the outbreak of World War II ended these plans.

During the German and Soviet (until 1941) occupation of Poland, he continued to work with the left-wing underground press, most notably with the "Płomienie" (Flames) and "Droga" (Way) magazines. At the same time he was a student of Polish language at the secret underground Warsaw University and the Armia Krajowa's "Agricola" NCOs School. He took up several jobs, and in 1943 joined Batalion Zośka, after which he gave up studies, committing himself to the Polish resistance activities. In his apartment, he hid several pieces of weaponry, including submachine guns and grenades.

On 6 July 1942, he married Barbara Drapczyńska, a university colleague. The marriage resulted in a set of erotica written by Baczyński, reputedly one of the most notable in the Polish language. In 1942, he gave his wife a hand-made volume of poetry In Purest Sorrow as a wedding gift. Shortly before the Warsaw Uprising Baczyński gave a copy of all his poems to one of his friends, to hide in Żoliborz. Because of that, they survived the war.

As a member of Scouting Assault Groups (Harcerskie Grupy Szturmowe), Baczyński took part in many sabotage actions throughout the occupation. One of them was derailment of a German military train in August 1944, which resulted in a 26-hour delay of traffic on the strategic connection Warsaw-Białystok.

After the Warsaw Uprising broke out, he joined the "Parasol" battalion. He was killed in action by a German sniper at approximately 4pm on 4 August 1944 in the Blanka Palace in the Warsaw Old Town. He is buried in the Powązki Military Cemetery, together with his pregnant wife, who was killed on 1 September 1944. He was posthumously awarded the Armia Krajowa Cross and in 1947 the Medal for Warsaw 1939-1945 (pl).

In his poems and short novels, Baczyński demonstrated both romantic traditions and catastrophism. His poems depict the brutality of war, and suggest that love is the only force that can effectively defend a human being against it. His talent was highly appreciated by his contemporaries, Stanisław Pigon, upon hearing news of Baczynski joining the Szare Szeregi, said to Kazimierz Wyka: We belong to a nation, whose fate is to shoot at the enemy with diamonds.

Baczyński in Polish culture

 * The 1984 film The Fourth Day (Dzień czwarty) tells the story of the last four days of his life.
 * In 1965, Polish singer Ewa Demarczyk sings Baczyński poems on LP "Wiersze wojenne" (eng. "War Poems")
 * 1990 Jacek Kaczmarski: Kosmopolak – "Barykada (Śmierć Baczyńskiego)",
 * 1991 Grzegorz Turnau: Naprawdę nie dzieje się nic,
 * 2005 Lao Che: Powstanie Warszawskie – "Godzina W"
 * 2007 Zbigniew Hołdys: - Pocałunek
 * 2012 Tadek (FIRMA) - Elegia o chłopcu polskim
 * The 2013 film "Baczyński"
 * 2020 "Astronomia Poety. Baczyński." − Album by Kwadrofonik and Mela Koteluk
 * 2021 Jacob George Scyther - "Pomarańczowy Ogór"
 * 2022 sanah - Baczyński (pisz do mnie listy)

Published works

 * White Magic and Other Poems trans. by Bill Johnston (Los Angeles: Green Integer, 2005).

title: Krzysztof Kamil Baczyński


text:
Kulfi

Kulfi is a frozen dairy dessert from the Indian subcontinent. It is often described as "traditional Indian ice cream". Kulfi originated in 16th-century Delhi during the Mughal era. It is part of the national cuisines of India and Pakistan. It is also popular in Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Middle East.

Kulfi is denser and creamier than regular ice cream. It comes in various flavours. Traditional ones include cream (malai), rose, mango, cardamom (elaichi), saffron (kesar or zafran), and pistachio. Newer flavours may include apple, orange, strawberry, peanut, or avocado. Unlike ice cream, kulfi is not whipped, which results in a solid, dense dessert similar to frozen custard. Thus, it is sometimes considered a distinct category of frozen dairy-based dessert. The density of kulfi causes it to melt more slowly than ice cream.

History
The word kulfi comes from the Persian (قلفی) meaning "covered cup". The dessert originated in Delhi during the Mughal Empire in the 16th century. The mixture of dense evaporated milk was already popular in the sweet dishes in the Indian subcontinent. During the Mughal period, this mixture was flavoured with pistachios and saffron, packed into metal cones and immersed in slurry ice, resulting in the invention of kulfi. Ain-i-Akbari, a detailed record of the Mughal emperor Akbar's administration, mentions use of saltpeter for refrigeration as well as transportation of Himalayan ice to warmer areas.

Although Delhi has been described as the birthplace of kulfi, Australian food historian Charmaine O'Brien suggests, "...it is likely that [kulfi] originally evolved in the cooler climates of Persia or Samarkand and that the Mughals appropriated the concept and elaborated on it to create the creamy, perfumed dessert that it now is."

Preparation
To prepare kulfi, sweetened, flavoured milk is slow cooked. The milk is stirred almost continuously to prevent it from sticking to the cooking utensil. During this process, the milk condenses and thickens. The slow cooking caramelises the sugar in the mixture and browns its milk proteins, giving kulfi its distinctive taste. The mixture is then poured into moulds (often kulhars) and sealed. The sealed moulds are submerged in an insulated matka filled with ice and salt. This quickly freezes the mixture, giving it a soft, smooth consistency free of ice crystals. Kulfi prepared in this traditional way is called matka kulfi.

The moulds are removed from the freezer 10–15 minutes before serving to allow the kulfi to melt slightly. The kulfi is then removed from the moulds and garnished with ground cardamom, saffron, or pistachios. Kulfi is also served with falooda (vermicelli noodles).

Retail sales
Throughout the Indian subcontinent, kulfi is sold by street vendors known as kulfiwallahs. It is also commonly served in Indian restaurants.

title: Kulfi


text:
Vatican Observatory

The Vatican Observatory (Specola Vaticana) is an astronomical research and educational institution supported by the Holy See. Originally based in the Roman College of Rome, the Observatory is now headquartered in Castel Gandolfo, Italy and operates a telescope at the Mount Graham International Observatory in the United States.

The Director of the Observatory is Brother Guy Consolmagno, an American Jesuit. In 2008, the Templeton Prize was awarded to cosmologist Fr. Michał Heller, a Vatican Observatory Adjunct Scholar. In 2010, the George Van Biesbroeck Prize was awarded to former observatory director, the American Jesuit, Fr. George Coyne.

History
The Church has had a long-standing interest in astronomy, due to the astronomical basis of the calendar by which holy days and Easter are determined. For instance, the Gregorian Calendar, promulgated in 1582 by Pope Gregory XIII, was developed by Aloysius Lilius and later modified by Christoph Clavius at the Collegio Romano from astronomical data. The Gregorian Tower was completed in 1580 for his purpose, designed by Bolognese architect Ottaviano Nonni.

In the 18th century, the Papacy actively supported astronomy, establishing the Observatory of the Roman College in 1774. In 1787–1789, the Specola Vaticana in the Tower of the Winds within the Vatican was established under the direction of Msgr. Filippo Luigi Gilii (1756–1821). When Msgr. Gilii died, the Specola was closed down because it was inconvenient for students in the city because the dome of St. Peter's obstructed its view. Its instruments were transferred to the College Observatory. A third facility, the Observatory of the Capitol, was operated from 1827 to 1870.

Father Angelo Secchi SJ relocated the College Observatory to the top of Sant'Ignazio di Loyola a Campo Marzio (Church of St. Ignatius in Rome). In 1870, with the capture of Rome, the College Observatory fell into the hands of the Italian Government. Out of respect for his work, however, Father Secchi was permitted to continue using the Observatory. After Secchi's death in 1878 the Observatory was nationalized by the Italian government and renamed the Regio Osservatorio al Collegio Romano ("Royal Observatory at the Roman College"), ending astronomical research in the Vatican.

In 1891, however, Pope Leo XIII issued a Motu proprio re-founding the Specola Vaticana (Vatican Observatory) and a new observatory was built on the walls at the edge of the Vatican. The new Vatican Observatory remained there for the next forty years.

In the late nineteenth-century the Vatican Observatory was part of a group of top astronomy institutions from around the world which worked together to create a photographic "Celestial Map" ("Carte du Ciel") and an "astrographic" catalog pinpointing the stars' positions. Italian astronomer Father Francesco Denza led the Vatican's contribution to the project until his death in 1894. In the early twentieth-century Father John Hagen took over the project and recruited a group of nuns from the Sisters of the Holy Child Mary to work on the necessary recording and calculations. The sisters were Sisters Emilia Ponzoni, Regina Colombo, Concetta Finardi and Luigia Panceri.

By the 1930s, the smoke and sky-glow of the city had made it impossible to conduct useful observations in Rome. Pope Pius XI relocated the Observatory to Castel Gandolfo, which is 25 km southeast of Rome. By 1961, the same problems with light pollution made observing difficult at Castel Gandolfo. The Observatory then established the Vatican Observatory Research Group (VORG), with offices at the Steward Observatory of the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona.

D.K.J. O'Connell produced the first color photographs of a green flash at sunset in 1960. In 1993, VORG completed construction of the 1.8 m Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope, which is at Mount Graham near Safford, Arizona.

The Observatory's headquarters remain in Italy at Castel Gandolfo. In early 2008, the Vatican announced that the Observatory would be relocated to a former convent a mile away from the castle as part of a general reconstruction of the Papal residence. Its former space would be used to provide more room for the reception of diplomatic visitors. The old quarters in the castle were cramped and very poorly laid out for the Observatory's use. VORG research activities in Arizona continued unaffected.

Leadership

 * Francesco Denza (1891-1894)
 * Giuseppe Lais (1894-1906)
 * Johann Georg Hagen (1906-1930)
 * Johan Stein (1930-1951)
 * Daniel Joseph Kelly O'Conell (1952-1971)
 * Patrick Treanor (1971-1978)
 * George Coyne (1978 – 19 August 2006)
 * José Gabriel Funes (19 August 2006 – 18 September 2015)
 * Guy Consolmagno (18 September 2015 – present)

title: Vatican Observatory