Slashdot Mirror

Copy Protection: A clever method of preventing incompetent pirates from stealing software and legitimate customers from using it.

Now be a good mindless "consumeroid" and upgrade your TV and stop bothering those poor multinational corporations.

Or better yet, check at Radio Shack, etc. to see if they have something for this. I heard that there are devices available for dealing with Macrovision(?) but I don't know if they're legal in your jurisdiction and I don't know if they work as promised.

Another option might be to try and find an old VCR without Macrovision but with RCA inputs. I don't know how the quality would be... Seems like you'd be losing some of the benefits of having a DVD player. Find a friend with an old Beta and try it!

Still, you shouldn't have to be going through this trouble.

This reminds me of my favorite RMS quote:

Those who benefit from the current system where programs are property offer two arguments in support of their claims to own programs: the emotional argument and the economic argument.

The emotional argument goes like this: ``I put my sweat, my heart, my soul into this program. It comes from me, it's mine!''
This argument does not require serious refutation. The feeling of attachment is one that programmers can cultivate when it suits them; it is not inevitable. Consider, for example, how willingly the same programmers usually sign over all rights to a large corporation for a salary; the emotional attachment mysteriously vanishes. By contrast, consider the great artists and artisans of medieval times, who didn't even sign their names to their work. To them, the name of the artist was not important. What mattered was that the work was done--and the purpose it would serve. This view prevailed for hundreds of years.

According to RMS, those Apple employees should just be happy that the work was done, and shouldn't be concerned with having their name on it. After all, getting credit for something is like saying you own it, and we all know* that owning software is evil.

---

* yes, that's sarcasm

No mention of it on the GNU software project page, it did mention GNUScape (the em*cs browser), w3m and the mighty all-conquering lynx.

Of course, since there's an Emacs browser, here's a beta version of the vim browser:


function browse(url)
r !lynx -dump a:url
endfunction

The term "HURD" refers strictly to the Mach microkernel and supporting servers that provide kernel-like functionality. In the same way, the term "Linux" is really applicable only to the kernel that Linus founded. This is why Debian refers to its current offering as "Debian GNU/Linux" and to its forthcoming HURD-based distro as "Debian GNU/HURD". The GNU part refers to the utilities surrounding and supporting the kernel-like infrastructure.

In fact, it is my understanding that RMS founded the GNU (GNU's Not Unix) project as a set of tools designed to support a Unix-like microkernel infrastructure -- the Hird of Unix-Replacing Daemons (HURD). The Linux kernel happened to pop up under the same license before the HURD ever thought of bootstrapping, and kind of sidetracked the efforts of the community that was implementing GNU.

So if the HURD itself is beginning to appear Debian-like, it would be only in its development cycle and practices.

Nothing against Mozilla, I'd just like to see some choice in the Linux browser market, and I'd like to see a free product.

Mozilla is distributed under the Mozilla Public License (MPL) and/or the Netscape Public License (NPL), which even Richard Stallman says are free software.

(Of course, RMS prefers that you use the GPL instead of the NPL/MPL, but they are free licenses.)

From Stallman's "GNU Manifesto," at http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html:

For more than ten years, many of the world's best programmers worked at the Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they could have had anywhere else. They got many kinds of non-monetary rewards: fame and appreciation, for example. And creativity is also fun, a reward in itself.

Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same interesting work for a lot of money.

What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned.

--Brett Glass

Free Software has certain rights protected for the user. He wrote:

``Free software'' refers to the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1).
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3).

I refer you to the original article for more detail.

Copyleft inherits all the properties of Free Software and adds another one: that Copylefted software must only be combined with other Copylefted software; and that non-Copylefted software becomes Copylefted if combined with Copylefted software.

This is the 'viral' clause of the GPL. It is the clause which causes the most angst and anger out there. I've criticised it myself as Freedom From Above; akin to 'liberation' by the Red Army (you are Free, under our terms).

But be very, very clear on this: while all Copylefted Software is Free Software, not all Free Software is Copylefted Software. Just today, I got an email from RMS in reply to a question of mine:

One thing that is *not* clear to me is the FSF's position on the modified BSD license (minus the advertising clause).

However, the BSDL is not necessarily a GPL-style Copyleft license.

That's enough of my preaching for now.

be well;

JC.

People who write improvements in free software often work for companies or universities that would do almost anything to get money. A programmer may want to contribute her changes to the community, but her employer may 'see green' and insist on turning the changes into a commercial product.

When we explain to the employer that it is illegal to distribute the improved version except as free software, the employer usually decides to release it as free software rather than throw it away.

Interestingly, in a case of almost Orwellian revisionism, Stallman removed the bit about "seeing green" from the version of the essay that's now published at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html . He did this after I cited it on a public mailing list as an example of his strongly anti-business agenda. However, the Web remembers: mirrors of the original text may be found throughout the Internet. The revised essay still encourages programmers to incorporate GPLed code in their work as a way of "monkey wrenching" private enterprise, but it is now more subtle.

It's also worth noting that, shortly thereafter, Stallman changed the word "commercial" (used in the original version) to "proprietary." The shift to the word "proprietary," which has more negative connotations, cleared the way for another rhetorical device: the FSF's claim that Linux can be "commercial."

I believe that this may not be the only place on the site where Richard has honed his rhetoric to cloak his animus against businesses of all kinds.

--Brett Glass

I've been doing a lot of emailing with RMS of late, and something that I think must annoy him is silly twats like me failing to go to the ever-useful philosophy section of his website.

Just a few notes about Free Books. Richard has - I may be hearing FUD here - previously called O'Reilly the "parasite of Free Software". O'Reilly was and is the de facto "Publisher to Hackerdom", and their license terms used to inspire RMS to say:

Once upon a time, many years ago, I thought I would learn Perl. I got a copy of a free manual, but I found it hard to read. When I asked Perl users about alternatives, they told me that there were better introductory manuals--but those were not free.

Why was this? The authors of the good manuals had written them for O'Reilly Associates, which published them with restrictive terms--no copying, no modification, source files not available--which exclude them from the free software community.

That wasn't the first time this sort of thing has happened, and (to our community's great loss) it was far from the last. Proprietary manual publishers have enticed a great many authors to restrict their manuals since then.

Many times I have heard a GNU user eagerly tell me about a manual that he is writing, with which he expects to help the GNU project--and then had my hopes dashed, as he proceeded to explain that he had signed a contract with a publisher that would restrict it so that we cannot use it.

- Free Software and Free Manuals

Of course, things have changed now. O'Reilly has begun to talk about their Open Publishing License (or whatever it is), and have begun to put certain books online. I would be interested in seeing if Richard considers these to be "Free Documentation" or not.

BTW, I'll agree that the GPL does not really address documentation very well. The OpenContent License is aimed at this sort of stuff.

As someone else pointed out: Richard's constant mantra is "Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not price".

Books still have their advantages over online docs, mind you. For example, a book has a near-zero boot time, has effectively infinite uptime, has extremely high definition displays, allows you to add your own notes directly to the 'file' (requires a Pen (tm) or Pencil (tm)), it is highly portable, it is compatible with most People, it can be found in alternate formats for non-compatible people (ie Braille), it can be given as a gift, it can be thrown at a faulty TV screen, it can be used to attract attention from others (thy fellow geek) or to drive it away (thy fellow 'blond').

Online documentation is searchable, so that you can curse and swear when you don't have the precise phrase you need. It's quick, and cross-linked and whatnot, and utterly inscrutable. Oh, and you can print it out yourself ...

Be well;

JC.

I've been doing a lot of emailing with RMS of late, and something that I think must annoy him is silly twats like me failing to go to the ever-useful philosophy section of his website.

Just a few notes about Free Books. Richard has - I may be hearing FUD here - previously called O'Reilly the "parasite of Free Software". O'Reilly was and is the de facto "Publisher to Hackerdom", and their license terms used to inspire RMS to say:

Once upon a time, many years ago, I thought I would learn Perl. I got a copy of a free manual, but I found it hard to read. When I asked Perl users about alternatives, they told me that there were better introductory manuals--but those were not free.

Why was this? The authors of the good manuals had written them for O'Reilly Associates, which published them with restrictive terms--no copying, no modification, source files not available--which exclude them from the free software community.

That wasn't the first time this sort of thing has happened, and (to our community's great loss) it was far from the last. Proprietary manual publishers have enticed a great many authors to restrict their manuals since then.

Many times I have heard a GNU user eagerly tell me about a manual that he is writing, with which he expects to help the GNU project--and then had my hopes dashed, as he proceeded to explain that he had signed a contract with a publisher that would restrict it so that we cannot use it.

- Free Software and Free Manuals

Of course, things have changed now. O'Reilly has begun to talk about their Open Publishing License (or whatever it is), and have begun to put certain books online. I would be interested in seeing if Richard considers these to be "Free Documentation" or not.

BTW, I'll agree that the GPL does not really address documentation very well. The OpenContent License is aimed at this sort of stuff.

As someone else pointed out: Richard's constant mantra is "Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not price".

Books still have their advantages over online docs, mind you. For example, a book has a near-zero boot time, has effectively infinite uptime, has extremely high definition displays, allows you to add your own notes directly to the 'file' (requires a Pen (tm) or Pencil (tm)), it is highly portable, it is compatible with most People, it can be found in alternate formats for non-compatible people (ie Braille), it can be given as a gift, it can be thrown at a faulty TV screen, it can be used to attract attention from others (thy fellow geek) or to drive it away (thy fellow 'blond').

Online documentation is searchable, so that you can curse and swear when you don't have the precise phrase you need. It's quick, and cross-linked and whatnot, and utterly inscrutable. Oh, and you can print it out yourself ...

Be well;

JC.

Again, for the nth time and quoting from the article mentioned in the original post:

Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not price

RMS further elaborates that the reason why you need free (in the sense of available as source and available for modification) documentation for free (in the same sense) software, is such that you can update the documentation when you modify the software! This seems to be an important point.

So, if I make a better perl (and the world beats a path to my door...) it is kind of unfortunate that I cannot update the most popular O'Reilly books whith my enhancements. (Perl might be a bad example as the available documentation is quite good, but replace it with something else you know where the developer's docs are not sufficient. (sendmail?))

Seriously: read the whole article. RMS is making some good points in there (and I'm not normally a fan).

Again, for the nth time and quoting from the article mentioned in the original post:

Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not price

RMS further elaborates that the reason why you need free (in the sense of available as source and available for modification) documentation for free (in the same sense) software, is such that you can update the documentation when you modify the software! This seems to be an important point.

So, if I make a better perl (and the world beats a path to my door...) it is kind of unfortunate that I cannot update the most popular O'Reilly books whith my enhancements. (Perl might be a bad example as the available documentation is quite good, but replace it with something else you know where the developer's docs are not sufficient. (sendmail?))

Seriously: read the whole article. RMS is making some good points in there (and I'm not normally a fan).

The GPL is not really appropriate for documents (see below). View the OpenContent licence for a more appropriate document.

The OpenContent Content Database (I love that name!) lists the few documents that are known to have been released under the licence.

From the OpenContent FAQ:

Why do we need the OPL?

Computer software can already be made free for public consumption and improvement by distribution under one of several Free Software licenses as mentioned above. If you're developing executable code with instructional potential, please consider licensing it as "Free Software" so that it can both be a part of the Bazaar development cycle and freely accessible to everyone.

Other Content (Learning Objects) such as graphics, images, sound bytes, video clips, models, lecture notes, tutorials, HOW-TO's and anything else that can be "referenced during technology supported learning" can not be released under these licenses because they are written specifically for computer software. The OpenContent License has been created to provide instructional designers and content specialists the same benefits, protections and assurances programmers gain from Free Software licenses. The OPL (pronounced "opal") is always open for comment. This version draws inspiration (and some verbiage) from the GPL and Debian's Social Contract.

The GPL is not really appropriate for documents (see below). View the OpenContent licence for a more appropriate document.

The OpenContent Content Database (I love that name!) lists the few documents that are known to have been released under the licence.

From the OpenContent FAQ:

Why do we need the OPL?

Computer software can already be made free for public consumption and improvement by distribution under one of several Free Software licenses as mentioned above. If you're developing executable code with instructional potential, please consider licensing it as "Free Software" so that it can both be a part of the Bazaar development cycle and freely accessible to everyone.

Other Content (Learning Objects) such as graphics, images, sound bytes, video clips, models, lecture notes, tutorials, HOW-TO's and anything else that can be "referenced during technology supported learning" can not be released under these licenses because they are written specifically for computer software. The OpenContent License has been created to provide instructional designers and content specialists the same benefits, protections and assurances programmers gain from Free Software licenses. The OPL (pronounced "opal") is always open for comment. This version draws inspiration (and some verbiage) from the GPL and Debian's Social Contract.

I've wondered this myself, and the conclusion I've come to is that a geek utilizes his skills in the real world; whether that be a trade, or the running of a Charity.

A nerd is someone who has yet to apply it to the real world. This is an acceptable status, especially if you're still in school.

Or maybe I'm mistaking overanalysis with an imagination for reading into things... I think that's it. (No, I don't care that I just rendered my entire message senseless.)

The GPL does NOT force a developer to release the source code, unless the product is being distributed. Even if Wine used the GPL, Corel has every right to maintain an internal-only tree. Their proprietary enhancements, as you call them, are intended ONLY FOR THEMSELVES.

Let me quote from the preamble:

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

'Nuff said.

SEAL

Read the GPL and you will see how much it warrants the software will work... IE. none.

Not sure about this - where does it say I have to ship source to non purchasers? As far as I know, the GPL doesn't say anything about people I haven't sold to - there is nothing stopping me refusing to sell my binaries to anyone - I just can't stop any of my customers doing that.

It has been my understanding that this comes from section 3b of GNU Copyleft License.

"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 ".

It's that "any third party" mention that makes this so.

Like it or not, but this little verse is politically charged.

Tax-exempt charities can't do politics while staying tax-exempt.

This page does not belong to a server directly funded by FSF. How about moving it somewhere else?

Classics too - I have sent the virus warning to everyone who tells me about Good Times or related things. =)

I think I remember when this happened.
It started out small. Somebody spammed all the religious newsgroups with a few one liners and it blossomed into this huge flame fest.

Not all was funny, but the science facts page was by far the funniest thing I've read in a while. I'm going to get alot of .sigs out of that one (GPLed .sigs of course)

Finkployd

The Gingrinch and Clintons now shared the same plight

Whatever they'd do, they could not do it right.

"Folks hate you," said Bill, "once you land in D.C.

But I've got a plan: Let us bond, you and me.

We'll work as a team, yes! That's my advice!

We'll listen and nod and make NICE NICE NICE!"

The Prez put his hand out, they hugged on the ledge...

And then that old Gingrinch pushed Bill off the edge LOL!

• Games get addicting. Playing them makes you hours pass by you and them at some point you wonder where all your time goes.
  
  
• You don't contribute to yourself or society. Don't you want to change the world?
  
  
• Playing Quake makes you get good at playing Quake and that's all. It has nothing to do with athletic ability, intellect, or imagination. The only exception could be that Quake may improve your tactical ability.
  
  
• Most games hand you an easy reality. Nothing worth doing is easy.
  
  

It seems you need to read this: Free as in Free Speech

Bonobo is the GNOME component model. It is similar (albeit not as far) as the KOpenParts thingy I think. So in effect, it is a Gnome App.

***Beginning*of*Signiture***
Linux? That's GNU/Linux to you mister!

I want source and I am done paying for software that comes without source code and a free license.

Its that whole freedom issue that too manny people ignore.

Look at KDE and GNOME... they are better because they are free. I would never use CDE even if it was the most pleasant looking desktop ever.

***Beginning*of*Signiture***
Linux? That's GNU/Linux to you mister!

See, for example, the "Pragmatic Idealism" essay on the FSF's Web site. NeXT made an Objective-C front end to the GNU C compiler, and wanted to make this front end proprietary. The FSF's lawyer told them this would violate the GPL, and NeXT gave in.

Yes. I think the good idea is to start everything from scratch. All our current toolkits is based on X and Berlin will never need toolkits. The widgets themselves can be replaced and any language can be used that has a CORBA binding.

Berlin is not as far but has the superior design. Once it gets started I think you will see development speed up.

What do you mean by wasted effort? Are you saying we should only have one windowing enviroment forever? If there was a project I was interested in developing I would work on it and I wouldn't give a damn about production value or how well it competes with Microsoft or how much it furthers the movement. I think Berlin is wholly remarkable in design. I am looking forward to a more usable release.

***Beginning*of*Signiture***
Linux? That's GNU/Linux to you mister!

I have been keeping tabs on Berlin development and they most defintely will not keep an X compatible API. Berlin is ahead of its time and the whole point of the project is to go beyond what we have now with X. They have a very nice architechture and I don't think X should ruin it.

***Beginning*of*Signiture***
Linux? That's GNU/Linux to you mister!

I'm not even going to get into how Be is offering BeOS for free if OEMs will preload it and give it equal time, while many versions of Linux are now selling for nearly $90 (i.e., BeOS is "cheaper" than Linux in some instances), because the issue is FREEDOM. LIBERTY. Not price. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.ht ml (and read a bunch more on the GNU website, while you're at it.)

Of course, I'm a big old dork replying to a joke article as if it were serious, but...

If you look at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html you'll read:
As a general rule, I don't believe that it is essential for people to have permission to modify all sorts of articles and books. The issues for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. For example, I don't think you or I are obliged to give permission to modify articles like this one, which describe our actions and our views.

The GPL was specifically designed for information which is itself, in essence, a tool. Information which expresses ideas, philosophies, religious views, and so on, ought to be modifiable and copiable, but under distinctly different terms and conditions, to avoid misrepresenting the originaly author.

Don't get me wrong, the over-abundance of broad copyright laws is a big problem in non-technical writing, too. (It slows down the evolution of our culture, in my opinion.) It's just that the GPL isn't the right fix.

I know, I know... it was a joke. :)

What's the problem, too much free beer at Comdex?

Bravery, Kindness, Clarity, Honesty, Compassion, Generosity

Visit Humpin! (No, it's not what you think!)

Explanation on legality of this information:

The software (source as well as binaries) offered on this site can be freely redistributed because it was published under the GNU General Public License. The purpose of this software is not illegal copying of DVD disks. It is meant to provide information necessary to be able to program a DVD player for Linux. To do this, the CSS system needs to be incorporated in the player. Recently the (very weak) DVD content scrambling system was deciphered, freeing the way for a Linux DVD player. The CSS system is not a copy protection system, since it does not prevent copying of the disk. Writing information about the way an encryption scheme functions is completely legal. The source code and binaries on this site are completely legal too, since they contain no code from the DVD consortium or its members. The sources and programs on this site were written by third parties using clean-room reverse engineering methods which are (ready?) completly legal.

Attention

www.rhythm.cx was hosting a list of mirrors for these files. That list of mirrors has been replaced with a page reading "This site has been taken down for legal reasons." Here's what the maintainer put on the site the day it was shut down:

NOTE (Thu, Nov 11, 12:17pm EST): I've recently been informed that a law firm which is likely to be one that would try get these mirrors taken down has been visiting this mirror site as well as others. With that said, there is a possibility that I may have to remove this site in the near future because like everyone else, I can't afford to go to court to fight it. Luckly, it seems fairly unlikely that any law firm will ever be able to get rid of all these mirrors at this point (there are currently 41 in 8 different countries and this list is growing every day). However, I have only seen very few mirror _lists_ like this one anyplace. If anyone has the resources, it might be wise to mirror this list of mirrors as well so that the right people will still know that these mirrors exist.

UPDATE: Here is a 2600 story with more details on how rhythm.cx was shut down.

I have taken it upon myself to mirror the mirrors. So until such time as the hounds of hell come a-knocking at my door, I present for you this list:

Page last updated: Wed, Nov 17, 2:33pm EST

Current Mirrors
(Numbers are only for the maintainer's convenience)

1. http://www.humpin.org/decss/DeCSS.zip and http://www.humpin.org/decss/decss.tar.gz
   
   
2. http://home.worldonline.dk/~ andersa/download/DeCSS.zip
   
3. http://douglas.min.net/~drw/css-auth/
   
4. http://www.devzero.org/freecss.html
   
5. http://home.t-online.de/home/skinn er01/decss.zip
   
6. http://www.chello.nl/~f .vanwaveren/css-auth/css-auth.tar.gz
   
7. http://www.geociti es.com/ResearchTriangle/Campus/8877/index.html
   
8. http://www.angelfire.com/mt/popefelix/
9. http://www.vexed.net/CSS
   
10. http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~j.vr eeken/
    
11. http://www.dvd.eavy.de/css-auth.tar.gz and http://www.dvd.eavy.de/DeCSS.zip
    
12. http://www.eavy.net/stuff/dvd/css-aut h.tar.gz and http://www.eavy.net/stuff/dvd/DeCSS.zip
    
13. http://www.dynamsol.com/satanix/DeCSS.zip
    
14. http://frozenlinux.com/civ/decss/
    
15. http://www.unitycode.org/
    
16. http://dirtass.beyatch.net/decss.zip
    
17. http://sharedlib.org/decss.zip
    
18. http://decss.tripod.com/index.html
    
19. http://www.free-dvd.org.lu/
    
20. http://www.angelfire.com/in2/mirror/
    
21. http://mclaughlin.orange.ca.us/~andrew/
    
22. http://www.dynamsol.com/satanix/css -auth.tar.gz
    
23. http://batman.jytol.fi/~vuori/dvd/
    
24. http://www.zpok.demon.co.uk/deCSS/CSS.ht ml
    
25. http://plato.nebulanet.net:88/css/
    
26. ftp://alma.dhs.org/pub/DVD/
    
27. http://www.d.umn.edu/~dchan/css/
    
28. http://www.logorrhea.com/main.html
    
29. http://people.delphi.com/salfter/LiVi d.tar.gz
    
30. http://www.theresistance.net/files.html
    
31. ftp://193.219.56.32/pub/dvd/LiVi d.CVS-11.06.tar.gz and ftp://193.219.56. 32/pub/dvd/LiVid.CVS-11.06.css-stuff-only.tar.gz
    
32. http://merlin.keble.ox.ac.uk/~a drian/css/index.html
    
33. http://www.dvd-copy.com/
    
34. http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/dvd/css /css-auth.tar.gz and http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/dvd/css/DeCSS .zip
    
35. http://www.sent.freeserve.co.uk/css -auth.tar.gz and http://www.sent.freeserve.co.uk/DeCSS.zip
    
36. http://members.tripod.lycos.nl/jvz/
    
37. http://joe.to/storage/files/decss.zip
    
38. ftp://ftp.firehead.org/pub/
    
39. http://www.lemuria.org/DeCSS/
    
40. http://members.theglobe.com/avoiderm an/dvd.htm
    
41. http://remco.xgov.net/dvd/
    
42. http://www.able-towers.com/~flow/
    
43. ftp://dvd:dvd@206.98.63.136
    
44. http://www.twistedlogic.com/htm l/tl_archive_map.htm
    
45. ftp://mikpos.dyndns.org/pub/cssdvd.zip
46. http://mu nitions.vipul.net/software/algorithms/streamcipher s/decss.tar.gz
    
47. http:/ /munitions.polkaroo.net/software/algorithms/stream ciphers/decss.tar.gz
    
48. http://muni tions.dyn.org/software/algorithms/streamciphers/de css.tar.gz
    
49. http://mun itions.cifs.org/software/algorithms/streamciphers/ decss.tar.gz
    
50. http://uk1. munitions.net/software/algorithms/streamciphers/de css.tar.gz
    
51. http://209.68.37.134/decss/
    
52. http://muni tions.firenze.linux.it/algorithms/streamciphers/de css.tar.gz
    
53. http://www.tasam.com/~fenkt/dvd/
    
54. ftp://eris.giga.or.at/pub/hacker/crypt/ DVD/
    
55. http://therapy.endorphin.org/DVD/
    
56. http://www.discordia.de/decss/DeCSS.zip and http://www.discordia.de/decss/css-aut h_tar.gz and http://www.discordia.de/decss/LiVid.tgz
    
57. http://download.cnet.com/downloads/0-10079-100-143 3209.html?tag=st.dl.10001 _104_3.lst.titledetail
    
58. http://killer.discordia.ch /Politics/Copyprotection.phtml
    
59. http://livid.on.openprojects.net
    
60. www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Port/322 4/
    
61. ftp://195.115.63.44/pub/DeCSS.zip
    
62. ftp://ftp.one.net/pub/user s/dmahurin/files/software/dvd/
    
63. ftp://ftp.charm.net/pub/usr/home/dutch/ or http://www.charm.net/~dutch/
    
64. http://www.capital.net/~wooly/
    
65. http://home.c2i.net/buddha9/
    
66. http://gullii.stu.rpi.edu/dvd/files/D eCSS.zip and http://gullii.stu.rpi.edu/dvd/f iles/css-auth.tar.gz
    
67. http://dsl129.drizzle.com:2001/downlo ads/DVD/
    
68. http://frodo.campus.luth.se/~iocc/tip.h tml
    
69. http://cryptome.org/dvd-free.htm
    
70. http://perso.libertysurf. fr/ortal98/dvd_rip/decss_12b.zip
71. http://www.jonhanson.com/dvd/
    

RedHat cannot take this on. However, I would suggest that GNU could, if this isn't an issue of software freedom I don't know what is!

GNU also does not have the financial risks of Redhat or any other true commercial organisation, and I would suggest that if required monetary support would be far easier for them to organise than any other body. It would certainly be an interesting test of both the principles of software freedom and the support of the FSF by the commercial linux interests.

Use the Source Luke

RedHat cannot take this on. However, I would suggest that GNU could, if this isn't an issue of software freedom I don't know what is!

GNU also does not have the financial risks of Redhat or any other true commercial organisation, and I would suggest that if required monetary support would be far easier for them to organise than any other body. It would certainly be an interesting test of both the principles of software freedom and the support of the FSF by the commercial linux interests.

Use the Source Luke

(a) I (and many other people, I suspect) don't particularly care what Netscape Corporation thinks "the market" demands, I just want a working way to view Web pages: ie, HTML and image rendering.

You contradict yourself! YOU are part of the market! Thinking that way is a ME ME ME attitude and can't be healthy.

***Beginning*of*Signiture***
Linux? That's GNU/Linux to you mister!

"Today, we are declaring war on software piracy... At home or abroad, intellectual property must protected." (Vice President Al Gore, October 1, 1998)

Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as ``piracy.'' In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnaping and murdering the people on them.

If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word ``piracy'' to describe it. Neutral terms such as ``prohibited copying'' or ``unauthorized copying'' are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as ``sharing information with your neighbor.''

I wonder if they hired Linus for marketing.

But geese guys! Linus is an excellent coder from what I've heard but this reminds me way too much of the celebrity worship I despise so much in the mainstream. Now my comrades do the same in our bailiwick?

Please, say it ain't so? There isn't even anything worthwhile on the page and people already want to by one or four!

I am very skeptical with this new chip. Especially with so many people are going to fall over each other to buy one. I certainly hope everyone will wait for this chip to prove itself before we all hop on the bandwagon.

Also, think about this: Which one do you want to win? Linus the marketer or Linus the coder? In other words, let this chip be succesful on its own merits. Linus shouldn't be a factor.

***Beginning*of*Signiture***
Linux? That's GNU/Linux to you mister!

To refresh your memory, the Three Remedies are:

1. Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all interfaces between software components, all communications protocols, and all file formats. This would block one of Microsoft's favorite tactics: secret and incompatible interfaces.
2. Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the field of software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to other fields, those other fields could be included in this requirement, or they could be exempt.) This would block the other tactic Microsoft mentioned in the Halloween documents: using patents to block development of free software.
3. Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications have been published, so that any programmer can implement software to support the same hardware.

I would like to add to point #3. I would like to include that Microsoft may not integrate the device driver into any of their OSes unless the complete specifications have been published. Of course, the device driver may still be available from the manufacturer, but I'd like to see them prevented from integrating it as well. There is a "device driver support" barrier to entry!!

I heard somewhere that unless the performance is over 50%, you won't notice it. Also note that Linux is only the kernal. Unless you are using a server for many machines, I don't think the performance boost will be apparent at all in the application, X Windows system, or desktop enviroment.

All in all, there is little incentive to compile your kernal other than to be one of the elite.

***Beginning*of*Signiture***
Linux? That's GNU/Linux to you mister!

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

I think you have been reading too many Tom Clancy novels. How can the ordinary citizen know that the NSA is "essential" for "fighting terrorism" when the NSA's very existance was classified for years, and its budget and most of its operations are still classified? Your statement about the NSA's "necessity" is in the classic sense pure pseudo-science, because it is non-falsifiable. How has the NSA prevented any bombs from going off on American soil. "Sorry, sir, that's classified. But trust us, we're the government, and we have your best interests at heart." The American politicial experiment is based on the assumtion that we dare not trust that the government has the best interests of the people at heart, and so the government is supposed to be accountable to the people, and restrained by the rights of the individual.

The erosion of liberties rarely comes packaged with a label that says "here is a totalitarian control; please hand over your freedom now." It most often comes packaged as "there are Bad People(tm) out there! Let us protect you!"

If we "need" a secret police state to protect us from terrorists, we have already lost the real struggle. A wise teacher once said, "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Mark 8:36, KJV) The same question certainly applies to nations. What will it profit America if we become the new Roman Empire, able to enforce a pax americana at home and abroad, if we lose the very idea of what it meant to be "America" in the first place?

Evil and undemocratic means do not give real security

While I will no doubt offend the rabid secularists of /. with this, I would like to point out that the inscription on our currency of "In God We Trust" is a great and necessary viewpoint for the preservation of freedom. [Whether the USA is truly living up to this motto is another matter -- I think it is clear we do not.] If you don't like the word "God", feel free to substitute "Providence", "Fate", "the Universe", or what have you, according to your own tradition and belief. Regardless, the point is that one can try to create one's own security through strength and power, or one can simply try to do the right thing, and trust that it will all work out in the end. That is what "In God We Trust" ought to mean -- that as a nation, we are committed to the principles of liberty, and are willing to risk "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" to live as if this mattered. Even in a dangerous world with certifiable Bad People(tm) out there.

The "security" offered by relying on power is no security at all. Totalitarian regimes fall. Empires crumble. Economies collapse. "Invincible" armies are defeated, "impregnable" defences are broached, and the wheel of history turns again. And really, power is not so absolute as all that. If the USA were to turn into a privacy-lost, thought-police-controlled Absolute Safety State tomorrow, do you really believe that we could make ourselves invulnerable?

If we are willing to send our young men and women to fight and die for oil in the Mideast, don't you think the rest of us ought to be willing to assume some risk to live and die for liberty?

(Of course, the sadly obvious answer is that most Americans would today gladly trade essential liberty for a little temporary safety.)

This is a bug, not a feature

If our society is so fragile that a few terrorists, or the actions of a minor rogue state, can bring us to our knees unless we adopt draconian security measures, I think we ought to admit that this is a bug in the system, rather than resign ourselves to it as a "feature". Slashdotters are quick to lambast the fragility of Microsoft products and praise the stability and robustness of Linux -- now apply this same criticism to the larger technical, economic, and political infrastructures.

Does the electrical power grid offer key targets of opportinity for terrorists? Well then, we should get serious about "negawatts" in the Amory Lovins sense, and look at distributed, locally-generated power rather than relying on a massive electrical grid with a few key failure points and modes. Or even be willing to contemplate the practice of certain Amish groups, which have the rule of "use as much electricity as you want, as long as you make it yourself and don't tie into the grid." Better this, than to live with a secret police.

For an example that's nearer to fruition, consider Richard Stallman. While I might quibble with his analysis of freedom and software (I don't think access to source code is quite as fundamental a right as RMS does), he has certainly done the correct thing with his analysis -- he determined not to allow what he considered to be essential freedoms to be bargained away for the sake of convenience and security, and did the work necessary to live freely. We are all reaping the benefits of his adherance to principle today.

Repeat this analyis with other points of vulnerablity as needed. There's certainly lots of room for debate as to the benefits and drawbacks of particular answers, be we certainly have more options than to be forced to choose between secret, unaccountable intelligence agencies and "a war zone."

For a start on considering this way of thinking, there are several essays by Wendell Berry that may be helpful. (Note: Berry is not a pacifist -- but he believes that our current strategies of "national defense" fail to defend our nation.) Try "Property, Patriotism, and National Defense" in Home Economics and "On Peaceableness Toward Enemies" in Sex, Economy, Freedom, and Community.

This is the huge modern heresy of altering the human soul to fit its conditions, instead of altering human conditions to fit the human soul. If soap boiling is really inconsistent with brotherhood, so much the worst for soap-boiling, not for brotherhood. If civilization really cannot get on with democracy, so much the worse for civilization, not for democracy. Certainly, it would be far better to go back to village communes, if they really are communes. Certainly, it would be better to do without soap rather than to do without society. Certainly, we would sacrifice all our wires, wheels, systems, specialties, physical science and frenzied finance for one half-hour of happiness such as has often come to us with comrades in a common tavern. I do not say the sacrifice will be necessary; I only say it will be easy.
-- G. K. Chesterton, What's Wrong with the World

I have the feeling that most of you are thinking relative to the existing business model. But if you put services first, there are some real possibilities.

Imagine you are Joe Newbie. You install GNOME and suscribe to the Support service by miguel's company. You pay a nominal fee each month. Then every other week you get a CD in the mail with various updates and bug fixes. Also you get a newsletter with various happenings in GNOME world.

Lets say that Joe newbie is having problems with Gnumeric crashing. He emails support with his problem and gets a reply that they have fixed the problem. The fix will be installed on the next CD or can be downloaded. Not only that but the fix will be distributed to all the subscribers.

Now lets say Joe Newbie wants a certain feature. Like perhaps animated icons. He emails support and they say that they will charge a fee but the fee is less for subscribers. The feature will be developed in six weeks and will come on that CD. If the feature is benificial for GNOME as a whole it will be on everyone's CD and included in the next GNOME distribution.

Gnome support could develop themes, desktop wallpaper, alternate icons, etc. They could propietize these which I don't think is against the principles of free software: they are creative works.

Many users will like this service. They always have the latest stable software.

***Beginning*of*Signiture***
Linux? That's GNU/Linux to you mister!

I'm sure this will get moderated down as flame bait because I disagree with the general consensus here at /.

So moderate this down to a -20, but mark my words. The arrogance of the linux community will destroy itself.

ARRRRGGGG! I hate it when people do this. Play the rebel annd show everyone you are breaking the trend. If someone moderates you down then they are evil conformosts.

I think the slashdot community is perhaps the most open minded. You wouldn't have been moderated down even without the pleeinng. And conformity is something most slashdotters dislike and you won't be demoted for being different.

Even if someone does moderate you down, slashdot has this nice moderator check to double check against unfair moderation. Beleive it or not but sometimes the system works.

Now I would like to respond to your comment. GNOME looks ten times better than Windows using a really nice theme. I do digress that Windows is faster. October GNOME is much faster than that ucky 1.0.0 release. Unless you have started Netscape, GNOME is really responsive. I think the fault lies with X because the GUI is slow even without GNOME. Then again someone commented a while ago how Windows uses hardware accels for its fine GUI performance.

You do have a point about GNOME not having simple color schemes. I wonder how difficult it would be for their to be a way to change the colors of the default theme.

***Beginning*of*Signiture***
Linux? That's GNU/Linux to you mister!

Yeah. That was smart of them. Now they got Active desktop, web folders, HTML help, etc. in Windows 98. Even an application my mom uses uses the IE component.

But I see more potential with Free Software. Bonobo technology, for instance will let you embed graphics into the filemanager, icon lists into a spreadsheet, spreadsheets onto the desktop, etc. I think KDE is a ways ahead in this technology (I saw a screenshot of Konqueror with an embeded terrminal).

I think with Free Software, this technology will probably be used more. I think the idea of embedding things on the desktop is a very intriguing idea. Who needs wallpaper when you can embed a graphic. We can even mimic ActiveDesktop with a Mozilla or KHTML componetent.

Ah, the possibilities.

***Beginning*of*Signiture***
Linux? That's GNU/Linux to you mister!

Strictly speaking, there is nothing in CSS that allows flashing or blinking.

I don't think CSS can work the way you describe. All browsers I know have compliant or incomplete CSS support. The biggest plus about CSS is that it degrades gracefully. The HTML itself is very standard: P, TABLE, IMG, EM, BLOCKQUOTE, BODY, H@, etc. So if you view the page with a browser with CSS, you get nice looking web page. Without CSS support the page looks like nothing less than regular boring HTML with all content (which a lot of people prefer).

I must digress that the pixel-based layout in CSS does scare me. I think pixel-based anything is a bad idea... limits the resolution people can view the page in.

***Beginning*of*Signiture***
Linux? That's GNU/Linux to you mister!

Usually when different people are separated they don't get along to well when together. Us people in the United States don't think to highly of China and that is mostly because we don't know or see any Chinese a lot. And I would hate think of what the Chinese have to think about us.

Now reading the above comments I notice that there are many respectful comments posted here. Virtually all respectful comments. Good. This means the internet is doing its job.

Because the internet is an international medium we talk to foreign people on a daily basis. My history teachers says the best way to do away with prejudice is bring these people together. That is exactly what is happening.

Oh! What a great world we live in!

I just wanted to point this out.

***Beginning*of*Signiture***
Linux? That's GNU/Linux to you mister!

Just think. Say you have a flashlight pointed at the wall and you put your hand in front of the flashlight; you get a shadow on the wall. Anyone remember that image posted on slashdot with the shadow of moon on the earth. Now we have single planet hundreds of lightyears away casting a shadow for a brief moment; covering our entire solar system, perhaps a lot more. Just think how many star systems are in this planet's shadow! All the many cubic light-years of space, probably millions, in the shadow from a single point in the sky.


***Beginning*of*Signiture***
Linux? That's GNU/Linux to you mister!

Its happening. One of the greatest things I have seen is the separation of rendering engine from the application. The KDE html rendering component is being ported to bonobo and wrappers for mozilla is already underway IIRC. With HTML rendering everywhere will give GNU a truly web desktop... the right way I because of the nature of open development.

Also there is mnemonic. If you are extreme web surfer dude you won't care about mnemonic. But the mnemonic project is looking to do a very extensable browser interface. They want to do HTML, XML, TeX, MathML, etc. And I don't think it is tied to GUI.

GZilla is coming along nicely I think. Then there is Lynx which is a viable alternative right now. I use it consistantly and the only reason I use netscape occasionally is because too many web developers don't care about text-only users...

Then there is emacs/w3. I haven't been able to get this one to work but I hear it has impressive CSS support.

Just remember this when considering Bazaar development. Programmers program because it is interesting and not for production value. Just because we have two great desktops doesn't mean we won't have another superfluous desktop or ten more. Same thing goes for every other free software project. If it is interesting it will be done, how much it benefits our revolution is often beside the point.

Nothing is more important than the hack.

***Beginning*of*Signiture***
Linux? That's GNU/Linux to you mister!

The WWW Consortium got it right when they developed stylesheets. I don't care whose idea it was, it may have Microsoft's idea, who cares. But with stylesheets we can go to a page with pure structured html. That way we can render it anyway we want by putting in our own stylesheet (will mozilla have this capability?). Text-based browser can render it also. This way the web authors don't need to rely on tables and tags to make it perty.

The great thing about the WWW Consortium standards is that they do 'em the right way. Separate presentation from content is key.

I love stylesheets. I'll have to try the w3/emacs browser cause I guess it does nifty things with stylesheets, I think.

***Beginning*of*Signiture***
Linux? That's GNU/Linux to you mister!