Slashdot Mirror

And why a library records so sacrosanct when other private records such as phone conversations and financial records could already be examined by the government under RICO and other laws?

Perhaps, because the right to read is more important than the right to buy stuff or the right to talk on the phone?

The real issue is how large each thread can be (in the matter of memory) before it has to access data that is external to the thread. It may mean a lot for gamers running close to reality games and also for those that are doing massive calculations.

The important thing is that developers has to be aware of the possibilities and limitations around this technology. Otherwise it would be like throwing a V8 into a T-Ford. It is possible, but you would never be able to utilize the full power.

Another thing is that todays programming languages are limited. C (and C++) are advanced macro assemblers (not really bad, but it requires a lot of the programmer). Java has thread support, but it's still the programmer (in most cases) that has to decide. Java is not very efficient either, which of course is depending on which platform it's running on in combination with general optimizations. C# is Microsoft's bastard of Java and C++ with the same drawbacks as Java.

There are other languages, but most of them are either too obscure (like Erlang or Prolog) or too unknown.

The point is that a compiler shall be able to break out separate threads and/or processes whenever possible to improve performance. It is of course necessary for the programmer to hint the compiler where it may do this and where it shouldn't, but in any way try to keep the programmer luckily unknowing about the details. The details may depend on the actual system where the application is running. i.e. if the system is busy with serving a bunch of users then the splitting of the application into a bunch of threads is ot really what you want, but if you are running alone (or almost alone) then the application should be permitted to allocate more resources. The key is that the allocation has to be dynamic.

Anybody knowing of any better languages?

Now that the industries are doing exactly that, why don't I hear much support coming from the Slashdot community? Isn't this what you asked for?

The people making those arguments were wrong.

We want the freedom to share. This is always the goal. Sometimes we express this poorly or focus on side arguments. We know, deep down that sharing is not wrong and this is what we argue for.

If you'd like the slashdot philosophy elegantly expressed there's the FSF's "copyright versus community" in text and ogg.

Now that the industries are doing exactly that, why don't I hear much support coming from the Slashdot community? Isn't this what you asked for?

The people making those arguments were wrong.

We want the freedom to share. This is always the goal. Sometimes we express this poorly or focus on side arguments. We know, deep down that sharing is not wrong and this is what we argue for.

If you'd like the slashdot philosophy elegantly expressed there's the FSF's "copyright versus community" in text and ogg.

Considering this company makes money off of bootlegging and piracy it makes sense.

But before you fly off the handle, look at it this way: They took software for trading files and turned it and it's abilities into a profit machine, stooping so far as to load users with spyware to further that profit (remember: Kazaa Lite has no connection to Sharman). All the time we all knew that Kazaa was used 99% of the time for retrieving copyrighted works people had no rights to. This isn't Bittorrent where many files are free.

After they had cashflow they had one of two responsiblities: Either filter owned works or pay up for those works. They made information trade their business and they didn't own the information they were "brokering".

I don't know how people can be suprised or offended when Kazaa or Napster gets sued. I don't work for the **AA, and am not Dr. Dre, just not suprised at this. I'm not suprised if they get there asses handed to them. (I'm not counting on them getting off on any technicalities, I'm just saying they have it coming.)

Napster and Kazaa with websites is tantamount to a drug dealer on the corner with a sign and them turning a profit is as disgusting as it gets. I've bootleged and pirated quite a few things but I nor anyone else should be making money off of that.

That is the point isn't it?

I think we need a better form & delivery of licensing, not to mention what the license reads.

This has nothing to do with licenses, since they are not following the terms of the license (GNU GPL) offered to them by the copyright holders.

This is copyright infringment, plain and simple.

1) They copied copyrighted works and claim it as their own, in some cases without even removing the orignal author's name and GNU GPL license notice.
2) The only way they can legally use the copyrighted works is by honouring the license under which they authors have released it with
3) They have not honoured the terms of the GNU GPL (Unless they are simultaneously denying the use of GNU GPL'd code and are also providing downloads to said source code).
4) Now we fall back to good old-fashioned copyright law. If you don't have permission, you can't copy it.

Considering the complete lack of evidence of there being even a sliver of their own code in the PPC emulation, apart from doing a "search and replace" for "PearPC"->"CherryOS", then this does in fact need to be taken very seriously.

Ok, so if they follow the gpl, so what?

So what? They wouldn't be breaching international copyright law, that's what.

Contributors to PearPC don't want to work 40hrs a week at their real job and come home to find their pride and joy/hobby being ripped off to profit some wanker who just slapped together a nice VB frontend over a couple of weekends.

• 
  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
  
  a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
  
  b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
  
  c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
  
  [My emphasis]
  

At least for code copyright by the FSF, at least. If not, then someone with enough money to pay the lawyers has to step up, but I would think it would not be too hard in this case. If any of the Mac magazines that published glowing articles about CherryOS had any credibility they would fund the lawsuit themselves.

Maybe the pieces is GPL'd? Just that they don't distribute them. They have no obligation to releasing them, but if they should go public, they can't stop the spreading. Read more at GNU's FAQ on GPL.

Don't forget Poland :)

Very funny but no, as a matter of fact he didn't forget Poland, because you see, Poland is in Europe. In case you didn't notice, Poland is one of the most important forces in Europe fighting against software patents in the European Union. Poland is not only a very important state in EU but is also in the very center of Europe. You might take a look at the map sometimes. Good luck.

If you're in need of a serious underdog take a look at Hurd.

They've shown that it's really not hard at all to operate a Torrent site in a responsible manner.

Yeah, until you can't find a good tracker. A lot of trackers show no respect for works released by their author, instead requiring that the warez scene has recognized the work.

The operators of these sites showed personal responsibility and respect for creators' rights.

The only P2P technology that respects the rights of the creator is the one used to distribute religious texts. You must be thinking of authors, not the creator. Besides, if an author creates a work, especially a musical work, how can he or she be sure that the work is original enough not to be considered a derivative of an existing work?

Not to mention all the fun you can have with a free C Compiler.

No.

Have you even read it?

-Peter

You still have to give credit for where you got it from.

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

Also, "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee." What Mandrake etc do is either offer their own tools bundled with your purchase, free techsupport, manuals etc etc. You can't just change the code around a bit, and charge 100$ for it, and not give the customer anything. Also note that the download of CherryOS is a *trial* download. You are supposed to be allowed to download the thing for free since it's GPL'd code.

I do not have knowledge of how to compile Java using gcc ;)

Click here to find out: GCJ ;)

As for the suppying the source, I never understood why people belive that they need to have a link available to the source online to comply with the GPL.

It does not have to be online. The GPL requires you to provide the source code to those who get the binaries from you (e.g., on the same CD or from the same web site) or to include a written offer to give the source code to any third part who requests it. This is stated in paragraph 3 of the GPL.

So the source code does not have to be available online, even if this is a convenient way for some companies to comply with the license. It can also be sent on CD-ROMs or floppy disks to those who request it. The online distribution happens to be cheaper in many cases, but this is not a requirement.

Hell if a company wanted to they could supply you the source in the form of a print out (or alphabit soup) and they would comply with the terms of the GPL license.

Wrong. In paragraph 3 b) of the GPL, you can see that it requires a "complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code [...] on a medium customarily used for software interchange". Furthermore, the same paragraph 3 adds: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.". So distributing the software in some obfuscated form would be a violation of the GPL.

As for the suppying the source, I never understood why people belive that they need to have a link available to the source online to comply with the GPL.

It does not have to be online. The GPL requires you to provide the source code to those who get the binaries from you (e.g., on the same CD or from the same web site) or to include a written offer to give the source code to any third part who requests it. This is stated in paragraph 3 of the GPL.

So the source code does not have to be available online, even if this is a convenient way for some companies to comply with the license. It can also be sent on CD-ROMs or floppy disks to those who request it. The online distribution happens to be cheaper in many cases, but this is not a requirement.

Hell if a company wanted to they could supply you the source in the form of a print out (or alphabit soup) and they would comply with the terms of the GPL license.

Wrong. In paragraph 3 b) of the GPL, you can see that it requires a "complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code [...] on a medium customarily used for software interchange". Furthermore, the same paragraph 3 adds: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.". So distributing the software in some obfuscated form would be a violation of the GPL.

OpenBSD is released under the BSD license (hence the name.) See here for details.

So it's OK to use their code and not release the source. PearPC is GPL'd. Big difference.

Don't just throw something out there with no proof... that's just like people claiming MS licensed code from VMS/DEC

GNU still provides tar as a tar.gz file. http://www.gnu.org/software/tar/tar.html

this isn't much difference from taring up tar

• C++
  • jEdit is a Java programmer's editor with excellent C++ support. I do development on Linux, Win32 and MacOS X, so it's very nice for me to have one editor I use on every platform. jEdit's not as featureful as, say, Emacs, but it's considerably more friendly to use.
  • Boost. If you're writing C++ and you're not using Boost, you're committing a crime against yourself.
  • Python. With Boost's Python library, it's easy to make your C++ applications scriptable. Write the heavy lifting parts in C++, then make those parts callable from Python. Do the rest of your development in a far safer, more sane language. You get almost all of the speed of C++, and far fewer headaches.
  • SWIG is another tool that's excellent for creating scriptable C++ applications.
  • Subversion for your version-control needs. Nothing else will do.
  • Doxygen for all your documentation needs. Learn it, love it. Your code's not done until every public part of the API has been doxygenated.
  • The GNU Autotools are really, really awful. They're also far better supported than Scons or pick-your-Autotools-replacement. Get ready to feel the pain of m4 macros. Sorry. :(
  • The GNU Compiler Collection started getting a good C++ compiler around version 3.0. I've been quite favorably impressed with 3.3, and I'm looking forward to 4.0. I don't recommend it for Windows, but for Solaris and x86 Linux it's beautiful.
  • I haven't found a good C++ unit testing framework yet. If you find one, please let me know.
• Java
  • Eclipse is an excellent Java IDE. jEdit also fits the bill nicely, if all you want is an editor. I use both frequently, and am quite pleased with both.
  • Subversion again for your version-control needs.
  • jUnit for unit tests. Your code's incomplete unless you've written unit tests for it.
  • Javadoc for documentation. I would recommend Doxygen, but it's quite possible you'll be deploying your applications on machines that don't have it installed.
  • Ant for all your build needs.

• C++
  • jEdit is a Java programmer's editor with excellent C++ support. I do development on Linux, Win32 and MacOS X, so it's very nice for me to have one editor I use on every platform. jEdit's not as featureful as, say, Emacs, but it's considerably more friendly to use.
  • Boost. If you're writing C++ and you're not using Boost, you're committing a crime against yourself.
  • Python. With Boost's Python library, it's easy to make your C++ applications scriptable. Write the heavy lifting parts in C++, then make those parts callable from Python. Do the rest of your development in a far safer, more sane language. You get almost all of the speed of C++, and far fewer headaches.
  • SWIG is another tool that's excellent for creating scriptable C++ applications.
  • Subversion for your version-control needs. Nothing else will do.
  • Doxygen for all your documentation needs. Learn it, love it. Your code's not done until every public part of the API has been doxygenated.
  • The GNU Autotools are really, really awful. They're also far better supported than Scons or pick-your-Autotools-replacement. Get ready to feel the pain of m4 macros. Sorry. :(
  • The GNU Compiler Collection started getting a good C++ compiler around version 3.0. I've been quite favorably impressed with 3.3, and I'm looking forward to 4.0. I don't recommend it for Windows, but for Solaris and x86 Linux it's beautiful.
  • I haven't found a good C++ unit testing framework yet. If you find one, please let me know.
• Java
  • Eclipse is an excellent Java IDE. jEdit also fits the bill nicely, if all you want is an editor. I use both frequently, and am quite pleased with both.
  • Subversion again for your version-control needs.
  • jUnit for unit tests. Your code's incomplete unless you've written unit tests for it.
  • Javadoc for documentation. I would recommend Doxygen, but it's quite possible you'll be deploying your applications on machines that don't have it installed.
  • Ant for all your build needs.

Nobody's mentioned Jikes yet. It's an open source (CPL) java compiler from IBM. It's written in C and is significantly faster than javac which runs in the vm.

If you want your java code to run on the vm, jikes may be a good idea. If you want native java code, then there's also gcj .

I see a critical difference between the open source and free software philosophies -- for the open source movement these "alternative sources of software" you talk about include doing government work in proprietary software using proprietary formats (this has obvious short and long-term adverse impact for citizens who want to read government documents; even the state of Massachusetts recognized this before their caving into Microsoft, or revealing the real purpose of the so-called "open formats" project, depending on which way one looks at it).

This is because the open source movement message focuses on things software proprietors can cater to in some way -- fewer bugs, faster development, lower costs, and leveraging talented developers worldwide -- all issues constructed from the very narrow frame of debate businesses talk about. These are not bad things in themselves but they don't speak to a user's freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify software anytime for any reason.

So long as software freedom isn't a part of the debate, users will be encouraged to choose one software proprietor over another. The issue here is not how many dollars the government can save (the main issue many /. posters are examining), the issue is what the government gets for the money it spends. Choosing one master over another is not freedom.

I'd like to know if Mac OS X uses the Altivec instructions to their full potential.

No, at this point too much needs hand tuning for everything to fully utilize the potential of Altivec. Most serious DSP-class apps spend the effort to do this in critical code, but there's plenty of compiled code running in OSX that doesn't benefit from the parallel vectorization that the Altivec unit can offer.

This is all about to change with GCC 4 which offers an SSA tree optimizer. The SSA form is particularly useful for doing automatic vectorization of code. I'm not sure what the efficiency will be like in the first release but it looks like good things are coming.

Anyway, what we need is not an autovec compiler, but instead a library with most CPU hungry algorithms well implemented with SIMD extensions.

What about an open library, cross-platform, multimedia oriented, along the line of SUN's mediaLib ? Would SUN allow the re-use of their API ?

I'm looking for such a library, with GPL/LGPL compatible license. The API has to be in C, to maximise audience. For many projects, C++ is not an option.

Primary use will be DSP work in GNU Radio project, but multimedia extensions could prove useful anywhere in GUI's to audio/video app, etc.

I would take any pointers to such an already existing API/project, or be ready to start a new one, if other people interested in.

See also this previous story for cheap recylced comments.

Or perhaps you should call it GNU/Linux, at least in this setting, considering that linux is only a kernel (read about Linux and GNU, some history will do you good). But more important here, the stated goal of the GNU project was to make a complete and free operating system, and is sponsored by the kind men and women of the Free Software Foundation, without which I think the software world would be a far worse place to work.

I don't have to publish the source unless I distribute. I can take all the GPL code I want, make all the changes I want, but as long as I don't distribute the resulting work, I don't have to publish jack or squat. I can simply enjoy all the benefits in-house. This is quite explicit from the FAQ. Now, in terms of Novel and this contest specifically, it's quite obvious that they will be distributing the resulting work, so of course they will be required to publish the source. The contestants will therefore have that protection.

You're right in that the gif isn't gzipped (as in becoming .gif.gz), but it is LZW compressed, which is the same thing.

No, it isn't. gzip uses Lempel-Ziv (LZ) compression. GIF uses LZW compression, the improved algorithm that Terry Welch came up with, and the subject of the controversial "GIF patent".

This difference is the very reason that gzip exists - the compress program uses LZW and thus could not be Free Software. From gnu.org:

It also does not permit at all the use of LZW for other purposes such as compression of files. This is why we had to develop GNU zip as a replacement for compress.

Hard drive mp3 players existed for a year before the iPod and they consisted of two models:

The Creative Nomad, 14oz, 5"x5"x1.5"
The PJB100, 10oz, 6"x4"x1"

Apple released the iPod and made it a consumer object, rather than a geek object. Apple changed the entire market! Before Apple they were:
Large (bigger than a paperback. Now all of them, LIKE the iPod, are smaller than a deck of cards)
Heavy (at 10oz or more. Now all of them weigh less than 6oz)
Slow (using USB 1. Now all of them, just like the iPod, use USB2 or FireWire)

They were good for cars, good for work, good for train trips, and good for airplanes, before Apple got a hold of them. After Apple they became good for walking, roller blading (yes I have rollerbladed with iPods), working out at the gym, anywhere.

It was like the difference between a desktop and a laptop, in mobility.

The same with music stores. Before the iTMS, there were NONE that let you burn to CD. NONE that let you upload to an mp3 player. NONE that let you listen on multiple computers. NONE that let you back the music up. You say, "In the works", and I say, "Quickly saw what Apple did and tried to match them."

The only other player besides Apple who has made any money off Open Source would be... IBM. Red Hat hardly makes money, GNU and Apache aren't profit centers.

Here's the initial announcement and response about Safari's use of KHTML, with positive response from developers.

This suggests developers haven't been able to keep up with Apple's changes, which makes sense; a handful of developers working full time on anything can outstrip hundreds of developers working part time over weekends and evenings.

As for gcc, the idea is to search gcc-patches and look for apple.com addresses. Searching Google shows over 6k hits, though I'm sure some of them are duplicates. Some Apple devs maintain special branches (for example, in implementing ObjC specific features) while others contribute fixes, or add Altivec/VMX specific patches.

Where do you get your info that Apple ISN'T contributing?

Sometimes, I have the vision for 2020-2030 of some grey-haired FLOSS developers drinking tea together and being nostalgic about the wild times where software development wasn't illegal and fundamental rights were still respected.

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that by posting this, you're violating Richard Stallman's Intellectual Property -- he expressed a very similar idea in his story The Right to Read.

Jono Bacon is also the author of an excellent death metal remix of the Free Software Song.

I use ed, you righteous bastard!

All noobs please read this http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

Basically it's a modification of this document.

Free beer, free dom (I know there isn't a space, more of a highlight). Like the whole GNU philosophy.

;i was wondering the same thing. do modifications of this sort fall under the GPL? if so, isn't google required to share them with the public, or are "patches" not considered "modifications" to the software?

;treehead

gCal? hold on, that name is so formulaic is might already exist...

BINGO!: "Gcal is a program for calculating and printing calendar" from none other than GNU!

I was hoping it would be a GNOME/GTK Calendar, but whatever...

There is no Advertising Clause in the "MIT" license. According to gnu.org there really is no MIT license (obviously in conflict with OSI's list). Thre are only two licenses here that are, according to the site, also referred to as the MIT license. Both are GPL Compatible:

"X11 License

This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. Older versions of XFree86 used the same license, and some of the current variants of XFree86 also do. Later versions of XFree86 are distributed under the XFree86 1.1 license (which is GPL-incompatible).

This license is sometimes called the "MIT" license, but that term is misleading, since MIT has used many licenses for software.

Expat License.

This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. It is sometimes ambiguously referred to as the MIT License."

You are right about the reason so-called advertising clauses are not GPL compatible - it's just really unnecessary in this discussion as the license doesn't contain the advertising clause which, as it exists in the 4-clause BSD license, reads as follows:

"All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors."

Now, how does that compare to the entirety of the "MIT" license:

"Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE."

There is no advertising clause. Now go back into your hole.

Even the article description is accurate saying the software is licensed under the MIT License. The SourceForge project site says that the project is under the MIT License. The source code says that its files are under the MIT License. The GNU Project web site says the X11 License is compatible with the GPL.

Help me out here in understanding why you could possibly have drawn a conclusion that there is any incompatibility with the GPL when there is not a single reference on the planet from any of the involved parties such as Adobe, MIT, or the GNU Project that claims such incompatibility. Explain why you have to share in a public forum something that is so obviously false and can be checked by anyone in one minute. Someone tell me why there is a continuous stream of licensing FUD towards licenses such as the MIT License.

Actually, you will find the term "obnoxious advertising clause" at Various Licenses and Comments about Them. It is referring to the fact that the Original BSD license contained the following clause:

"All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors."

This clause does not make the software released under it non-free, but it can cause practical problems and makes the license incompatible with the GNU GPL. Your parent poster most likely confounded the MIT and Original BSD licenses. (The MIT license it compatible with the GNU GPL.)

Actually, you will find the term "obnoxious advertising clause" at Various Licenses and Comments about Them. It is referring to the fact that the Original BSD license contained the following clause:

"All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors."

This clause does not make the software released under it non-free, but it can cause practical problems and makes the license incompatible with the GNU GPL. Your parent poster most likely confounded the MIT and Original BSD licenses. (The MIT license it compatible with the GNU GPL.)

X11 License
This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.

This license is sometimes called the "MIT" license, but that term is misleading, since MIT has used many licenses for software.

source

Also, I really can't use any window manager other than Ion. Most of the time I only use one big window taking all the screen space and use the tabs (well, the keyboard, really) to switch to other windows. This allows the current window to take (almost) all the available screen space and allows me to focus on what I'm doing.

Finally, my life would be very different without GNU Screen. If your work involves using a console (for whatever reason), I strongly advise you to take some time to learn how to use it.

I'll throw in Mutt and Bash as a bonus. Can't live without them.

Oh, in case you're wondering, the platform would be any Unix where those run (usually Debian but I like other distributions and BSDs as well).

The natural keys (ctrl-a/e) work :-)

emacs is an esoteric and poorly designed vi wannabe

emacs is an esoteric and poorly designed vi wannabe

emacs is an esoteric and poorly designed vi wannabe

since nobody mentioned this yet...
i'm thinking of getting a new cell phone, i have an old siemens c45 which served me great for the last 3 years, since i did like the siemens brand (i got used to it) i had a look at their latest offerings.
i found the siemens cx70 to be a good replacement, being thorough i downloaded the manual, and skimmed the contents until i got to a part which says DRM! apparently it has a DRM chip in, which might not allow you to share melodies/pictures/java apps. this is annoying! i didn't know that they already have these chips everywhere these days!
i got pissed off and started to google around, apparently most new phones (if not all) have these chips inside. so basically i'm paying for this chip to be a cop inside my phone that can deny my of some things...
what could this mean? i am a programmer, so if i decide to program on java midp there's a chance that my phone will refuse to run it!?
i'm all aware that there are business/people who make money/living out of this (four billion dollars, WOW) but what's next? your microwave oven will bitch if use a non licenesed brand of food! or maybe they can put them in PCs so that only authorized software runs... oh wait, that already exists http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
so now i'm seriously considering just changing the battery & cover of my OLD non-DRM cell phone! am i right, or am i being just paranoid?
here's the an excerpt from the manual:
well i just tried to copy that part, aparently even the pdf is protected! why the hell would you do that for? here's the manual http://communications.siemens.com/cds/frontdoor/0, 2241,hq_en_0_63510_rArNrNrNrN_variation%253A-5_pag eType%253Amanuals_imagePos%253A0,00.html#content