Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Mars, Linksys, Torrent
Fork carefully or be forked preemptively. BSD Forums writes "The leader of the open-source JBoss Java application server environment said that if the group of developers that left his organization attempts to splitâ"or "fork" as it's called in the industryâ"the JBoss code base, he would sue them. Marc Fleury, president of JBoss Group LLC, Atlanta, said he is prepared to take legal action if the group of developers who left the JBoss Group to form a new company, known as Core Developers Network LLC, attempts to diverge from the JBoss code base."
They can learn in the classroom, or outside it. MVP writes "Fridrik "frisk" Skulason, of F-Prot fame (you know, that good old DOS free for personal use antivirus, up-to-date & usable for windows), has a very acid reaction against the decision of University of Calgary to start teaching virus-writing classes (see previous Slashdot thread)."
Just let me control the textbooks ... After a few stories like this one, it may please some people to see at least a partial turnaround from Microsoft on computers donated to schools without Windows licenses. Patrick Cable II writes "I got an interesting letter from Microsoft today at work. Microsoft has started a "Fresh Start" program for educational instutions that basically makes it so schools who have had computers donated to them without licenses or media can get media and a letter stating the computer is licensed to use a Windows operating system (98 or 2000). More information can be found here. Anyone think they're trying to figure out a way to deal with the whole Linux thing?"
Software in the Public Interest has yet to respond with a lower licensing fee for Debian.
More fun than "The Winds of War." For fans of Kim Stanley Robinson, space exploration and colonization, space elevators et cetera, reader Unbeliever writes with new that Hurd will soon meet Mars. "No, not GNU/Hurd, but Gale Ann Hurd. Hurd just signed a deal with Sci-Fi to produce Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars as a Sci-Fi 6-hour miniseries. Red Mars is the first of the Robinson's Red/Green/Blue Mars Trilogy, an 'almost plausible sci-fi' future-history approach about Colonizing and Terraforming Mars. The trilogy looks at the technological, sociological, personal, and political challenges of terraforming a different planet. Also of interest to Slashdotters in general is Robinson's ideas on the growth of multi-national corporations into Meta-Nations, and their effects on world politics."
But doesn't that make it radio their way? In the recent Radio Your Way review, our reviewer said of the device that it had "[n]o off button! As far as I can tell, once you turn the device on there is no way to manually turn it off other than to wait for it to enter sleep mode after several minutes. Very annoying."
Another reader writes with this workaround: "In any mode, hold down the stop button (a little square under the play button) for 2-3 seconds to turn off the unit. This is listed in the manual, which you are right, is a very poorly done Korean effort."
Calm down that jerking knee, then apply ice. In response a post which raised the question of whether Linksys was in violation of the GPL by not distributing, nor offering links to, the source code for the software controlling their 802.11g base stations. A representative from Linksys-PR sent in this note about the "missing" source code:
Linksys is a strong proponent of both Linux and the Open Source movement. The code within our routers is using User Space code without linking dynamically or statically to any GPL (GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE) code. Any code which does not have a static or dynamic link to anything covered by the General Public License is not GPL'ed, and can be considered closed source.
We regret it took some time to respond to this posting. To assure timely responses to inquiries like this in the future, please use the following procedure which complies with the requirements of the General Public License:
1. Please put your request in writing or in an email addressed to info@Linksys.com
2. You have to request the code for the specific modules you want. It is not valid to issue a request for any "code you may be using."
3. Technically, you are also supposed to provide us with a self-addressed stamped envelope, along with funds to cover the cost of providing the code to you. But Linksys will handle requests on a case-by-case basis. Thank you."
Straight from the Tiger's mouth. Tiger Direct Executive Vice President Richard Wallet wrote to contradict Michael Robertson's claims that Microsoft was targeting Tiger Direct customers who purchased Lindows systems to offer them steep discounts on Windows XP. Wallet writes:
"TigerDirect is not selling any version of Windows for $50. We are selling Microsoft Windows XP just like any other reseller and we are in compliance with all of Microsoft's licensing agreements, no better, no worse, and no different.TigerDirect does sell low-cost systems with the Lindows operating system. TigerDirect also sells low-cost systems with Microsoft Windows XP. TigerDirect even sells systems with NO operating systems. The only parties who can tell us which products are or aren't worth selling are our customers. Neither Microsoft nor Lindows has a significant influence on what we buy and sell. We aim to serve our customers with the products they want at the very best values available and world-class customer service.
TigerDirect did in fact perform a survey of its customers as it does on a regular basis. Contrary to the author's claim, this survey was not only sent to Lindows buyers. It was sent to everybody who bought systems from TigerDirect during a specific time period. The purpose of the survey was to help us better serve the needs of our customers by getting a better understanding of what they're using the systems for, what they're running on them, and why they purchased what they did. The result of the survey is going to be to help us better align our PC product mix to increase sales."
Many monkeys make slick visuals. IamTheRealMike writes "Hi all, there is a BitTorrent of the XD2 RPMs for Red Hat 9 available, please be gentle with it. It comes as a directory that contains a readme and an ISO - make sure you read the readme first as there is a bug in the installer you need to know about. When all is done and you've read the instructions, just mount the ISO using the loopback device and point the installer at it. For all those who have been trying and failing to get it using the mirror network, this might provide a useful alternative."
JBoss is open source... doesn't the license protect the guys that walked out? Does this mean that Mr. Fleury will sue me as well if I do a JBoss knockoff?
BitTorrent can distribute directories of files, so why add the extra obfuscation?
I've said this before (when the original article was posted), but I still suspect the JBoss split is related to their Sun certification troubles.
There's an interesting ZDnet article here that talks about JBoss not being 100% kosher J2EE, and the main group's ongoing dispute with Sun. I think that the breakaway group intendeds to fork JBoss to make a more easily certified version, and this Slashback seems to support that somewhat.
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
Here's a revolutionary idea. Instead of posting hysterical flamebait stories to the front page, how about you do your homework before the fact? Is it so difficult to email the guy beforehand and ask him for the real story? You sit on submissions for days sometimes, so how problematic would this be?
I know that posting another "M$ is doing evil" story contributes to the bottom line with all the ad impressions and whatnot, but taken as a whole your FUD is no better than Microsoft's. And that puts you on the same ethical bandwagon.
2. You have to request the code for the specific modules you want. It is not valid to issue a request for any "code you may be using."
Well then, what if I ask Linksys to send me any GPL code they're using ? is that valid enough ? because mething they'd have to send it to me.
As for asking what modules I want specifically, how would I know without reverse-engineering the product ?
I know the GPL allows users of GPLed code to require people to ask for the source code of whatever GPL stuff they're using, but when Linksys tells you you have to ask in writing, including a self-addressed stamped envolope, I call that bad will. It would show good grace if they provided a link to the sources on their site, and it would cost them less than processing snail mail.
So Linksys, put your money where your mouth is and show you're a real proponent of Linux and OSS. Right now, you look like freeloaders who want to make the process of getting your sources as painful as possible.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
...and even though much of what he says is correct (most virus writers, particularly nowadays, are just script-kiddies and not particularly good programmers) I can't agree with his main point. There are very valid reasons to write viruses as learning experiments. And not just for people interested in working in security either - as pure CS there is a lot to be said for it.
He gives the impression that all viruses are harmful, but that's simply not true and he must know that. Many viruses, including all the early ones, were pure CS experiments in artificial life. They had no 'payload', no destructive nature, they just try to survive and reproduce, the basics of biological life transplanted to the digital realm.
Now writing a virus with a destructive payload and spreading it to other people's computers - that is clearly unethical, but I really doubt that's what they have planned in this class.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I'm pretty tired of programmers who think people should adapt to machines instead of machines to people. So, people don't react in an optimal way to a virus infection. Perhaps someone will have some new ideas about how to create software that either makes the behavior change required easier and less annoying than not changing behavior, or makes it completely unecessary. Software is for people. People aren't for software.
This whole section has nothing to do with the point. Sure it takes more skill to write anti-virus software, but that doesn't mean a thorough understanding of how to write a virus wouldn't be helpful. It also doesn't mean that teaching someone how to write a virus turns them into a low skill programmer.
One could argue that all the pieces of source code lying around that are designed to reproduce themselves in their output are a form of virus, yet writing them is considered an interesting intellectual challenge worthy of a serious programmer.
This requirement is predicated on the automatically assumed malicious intent of anybody who writes a virus. The school is trying to protect against accidents, not a deliberate attempt to unleash a virus on the net as a whole.
Preventing source code printouts is only a very minor deterrent against such maliciousness. So I don't think think it's worth considering putting into practice as it invites circumvention by treating the people taking the class as if they were criminals. People treated as criminals from the outset are more likely to act like criminals.
The only valid point in the entire thing.
The rest of it is all predicated on the assumption that anybody who takes the course automatically has criminal intent. I prefer not calling people criminals until they commit a crime. Writing a virus shouldn't be a crime. Releasing one into the wild should be.
The social consequences of making virus writing seem legitimate is a real consideration. Though, I have an unfounded suspicion that the attitude that it isn't legitimate tends to inhibit a-life research some.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
You may be right, but it could be that they'd be perfectly happy with a request like "please send me all GPL software that's used in my Linksys Wireless 4-port Cable/DSL Router". That ought to be perfectly specific enough and that may have been all they wanted. That's very different than "send me all GPL software that you've ever shipped a product with", which is what they might have been trying to avoid.
Somebody help me out here..
If they aren't statically or dynamically linking to the code. Then exactly how are they linking to it? Magically? The had to compile the code to work with linux base right?
What bits did they leave in the open? Unless you disassemble their bio's there is no way to tell wether their code was in binary before it was compiled. Its really not in their best interest to just say 'See look, this is how I did it', even though they accepted the terms of the GPL in good faith. Maybe tomorrow we will find out how well the GPL will hold up.
I do believe that any company that accepts the GPL should not be allowed to turn and run the instant they drop their side of the bargain.
Maybe there should have been a GPL gurantee that starts the moment they sell a product based on linux sources. At least for commercial companies, so they can't say they didn't understand the GPL.
this sig is classified..how about yours?
Thats fine. But as maintainer of BusyBox, which is being illegally shipped with their router without source in violation of the GPL, I had my lawyer send them a lease-compily-with-the-license letter on May 13th. Then did not respond. So I had my lawyer send them a letter letting them know we will sue them if they have not responded by June 16th. I don't care what their PR department says. I expect a proper response from their legal department or we will see them in court. I am tired of people trampling over the GPL and then giving a lame little "oops, sorry" when they get caught. When I walk into the local CompUSA, there is a isle filled with GPL violating routers. Until each of these routers includes a copy of the GPL'd sources, or includes a written offer to obtain the sources for the cost of the media, they will still be violating the GPL. They do not include the source with these routers. And they do not include a written offer for source. Therefore, they must offer source via their website to comply with the GPL. Anything less then that, and they are what microsft would term "software pirates" -- shipping software in violation of the software license agreement.
-Erik -- --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
Buttons suck on car stereos.
I cannot find any aftermarket equipment that has a nob for the tuner, a nob for volume, a nob for the fader, and a nob for the balance and an equilizer that has levers.
Why should I need to push about 8 things to decrease the trebble so I can here less static in the traffic report?
And why can't I just spin a nob to get the sound behind me (Some times I can't deal with it infron of me as I drive).
Because of this I slump along with my crappy factory supplied radio and an RF modulation changer.
Also why do they make AM and FM bands have differnt presets? I could use like 5 presets spread between the bands and not need to wory about FM1 FM2 FM3 AM1 AM2 I only listen to 5 stations why should I need to worry about what band I am set to at all?
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Microsoft started seeing schools that were making successful switches to Free Software, and so now they are backing down. Essentially it is the same situation as a knife-wielding mugger backing down when his victim pulls a gun on him.
Microsoft can posture all it wants, but second hand computers invariably had a Windows license in some part of their career. Heck, most corporate PCs actually end up purchasing the license twice. Asking schools to purchase yet another license when the computer is given away is just ridiculous.
Good god, listen to yourself.
If Jackson can do LotR decently in 6 hours, I think 18 will be enough for Red/Green/Blue Mars. The first three Dune books are just as voluminous, and SciFi did them well in 12.
Really, all things considered, there isn't any reason why Linksys couldn't just use a BSD, NetBSD is more than likely suitable. So as for other works, in most cases, it's just as easy to implement the additional code for things such as IP updating.
:)
Personally, I would release the source to what's been released already. Then I would spend a few extra dollars on developers to make a BSD based system instead. After all, if the real guts have been done using a user mode program, then there's really no problem in porting it. If there has been some kernel mode items made as well, there's really no reason that can't be ported to BSD which often is well documented enough to do marvels in short time frames.
I think that GPL software is worth how much I paid for it, but in the case of design wins such as LinkSys, I would definately try to sort things out nicely instead of noisy since it could simply provoke them to move away from Linux instead. This would do far more damage to the Linux community since if Linksys moved due to frustration with the GPL, then more companies are likely to see it as a problem and simply not use GPL at all.
For Linux which is still growing and still breaking ground on market acceptance, it could be damaging if movements were made to chase corporations off instead of helping make the acceptance grow further.
I would suspect that the best idea would be to request a conversation between a GPL knowledgable spokesperson and either a higher up manager or company lawyer at Linksys. The idea isn't to scare companies off of GPL, but instead to educate them on how to best comply to the GPL. Remember most companies are interested in doing the right thing, but when challenged with law suits and such, they may move on the defensive. After all, so far what I've heard from the previous people posting on the topic, I feel that there has been little effort to speak peacefully with Linksys and instead people immediately open conversations with threats.
I am not from Linksys, but I do work for a company where we've had GPL problems in the past on occassion, nothing serious, but enough that we had to delay products in high demand for Linux since we were afraid we didn't meet GPL. Now we take the Linux platform less seriously and have lost interest in many ways. After all, Linux is harder to develop for, it is harder to market for, it is harder to win customers in general, and many people treat Linux and GPL in general as a religion and are in my personal oppinion dangerously phenatical about it. Now even though we've tried to comply to GPL as best as we can, we still worry that there is some loophole in GPL which people will complain about.
A great example if you're wondering what I mean. Writing software using an LGPL'd Standard C++ Library was not allowed by our attournies since the LGPL considers "Work based on LGPL code" as code which "Must be released under GPL or LGPL", the problem is we've learned that there's a chance we could face risk of litigation because the Standard C++ library is mostly templates and using this code in your product touches on unsteady ground because you don't link to a template, instead it becomes part of your code. This set us back a few weeks and caused us to have to purchase a commercial version which didn't integrate as well due to linking issues. This meant that software which people have used and have written many nice articles about has been delayed in every version because we have to take the legal issues concerned more seriously on Linux than on any other system.
I would generally gladly sep forward and say who I am, but I feel that the phenatics involved with this web site may not be responsible enough to judge my statements as my oppinion as opposed to the oppinion of the company I work for.
P.S. - I'm also worried that I'll get 100,000 e-mails calling me a loser that can't even spell
From the GPL, section 3:
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
Unless they modified the source for your software, they don't have to distribute it. Would you prefer that Linksys start their own distribution site, possibly with outdated versions of your software, to distribute code that is easily available directly from you? I agree that there should be a note or something in the back of the manual stating what software the router runs on and, if applicable, where to obtain it. According to the GPL, if I'm reading it correctly, an alternative to distributing the code yourself is stating where the code can be obtained (assuming no modification).
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.