Slashback: Kororaa GPL, ICANN .XXX, BellSouth NSA

Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories including an update to the Kororaa GPL accusations, BellSouth demands a retraction to NSA story, South Korea rejects Microsft antitrust appeal, Tim Berners Lee continues net neutrality fight, ICANN possibly pressured to nix .XXX domain, another side to Vista Beta2 reviews, and the worst tech IPO in 2 years -- Read on for details.

Kororaa denies GPL violations. AlanS2002 writes "Chris Smart, of the Kororaa Project, has written an update about the accusation that the Kororaa XGL LiveCD is in violation of the GPL. According to Chris, he has been shown no evidence that the nVidia/ATI drivers are derived from any code in the Linux Kernel or that the drivers link to the Kernel. From the best information he has it appears that the drivers make system calls to public interfaces of the Kernel, in the same way that a web browser makes calls to public interfaces of a web server but are not considered to be linked to the web server (they do not link to private functions of the web server). However the Kororaa project has decided to let end users download and install the drivers themselves if need be, which defeats the purpose of continuing to develop their Live CD. As such their will be no Kororaa XGL LiveCD 0.3, however they will continue to make Kororaa XGL LiveCD 0.2 available."

BellSouth demands retraction to NSA story. An anonymous reader writes "CNN reports that BellSouth has moved from strongly denying participation in providing the NSA with calling records to requesting a retraction of the article from USA Today." From the article: "The telecommunications giant sent a letter to USA Today on Thursday asking it to retract last week's story that BellSouth and two other companies helped the NSA compile a massive database of records on domestic phone calls."

South Korea rejects Microsft antitrust appeal. mikesd81 writes "According to MSNBC, the Korean Fair Trade Commission has turned down Microsoft's appeal to separate it's Window's OS and it's media service. The February ruling also included a 34 million dollar fine. Apparently, The commission began investigating Microsoft after a local Internet portal, Daum Communications Corp., filed a complaint with the commission in 2001."

Tim Berners Lee continues net neutrality fight. Kortec writes "As reported by The BCC, Sir Tim Berners Lee has spoken out against the current US bias towards the destruction of network neutrality at the Edinburgh WWW2006 conference. The man behind it all is quoted as saying the two tier system proposed recently on the floor of Congress is not 'part of the internet model,' and that 'the web should remain neutral and resist attempts to fragment it in to different services.'"

ICANN possibly pressured to nix .XXX domain. mobiux writes "Fox News reporting that the US Government allegedly pressured ICANN into denying the .XXX domain, despite orders not to do so. ICM Registry says the e-mails show how the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce, was subjected to intense pressure to intervene on behalf of the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, two socially conservative lobbying organizations."

Another side to Vista Beta2 reviews. lordgreg writes to tell us that while Slashdot already talked about Vista Beta 2 Major Problems, which Gary Krakow addressed in his review. DotProject claims to have the other side of Vista Beta2's Major Problems, the users themselves.

Vonage IPO shaping up to be the worst tech IPO in 2 years. fistfullast33l writes "Vonage went public to great fanfare and poor results today, with it's stock price falling 11% by closing time. Analysts have cited the fact that Vonage has yet to post a profit and increasing competition for the lack of interest. 'It's a wildly unprofitable company still selling at a very high valuation,' said Tom Taulli of Newport Coast, California, an IPO analyst. BusinessWeek also discusses growth barriers listed in Vonage's filings, including 'finding enough customer-support staffers and long delays in getting traditional phone companies to let customers take their existing phone numbers [to Vonage].'"

Comments

How can we believe a single thing

[stox]

said by a company that is involved with national security? They don't even need to tell the truth to the SEC, let alone mear mortal human beings:

The memo Bush signed on May 5, which was published seven days later in the Federal Register, had the unrevealing title "Assignment of Function Relating to Granting of Authority for Issuance of Certain Directives: Memorandum for the Director of National Intelligence." In the document, Bush addressed Negroponte, saying: "I hereby assign to you the function of the President under section 13(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended."

A trip to the statute books showed that the amended version of the 1934 act states that "with respect to matters concerning the national security of the United States," the President or the head of an Executive Branch agency may exempt companies from certain critical legal obligations. These obligations include keeping accurate "books, records, and accounts" and maintaining "a system of internal accounting controls sufficient" to ensure the propriety of financial transactions and the preparation of financial statements in compliance with "generally accepted accounting principles."

FYI

[CrazyDuke]

"...Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, two socially conservative lobbying organizations."

FYI, both organizations are founded/run by James Dobson. I would not necessarily refer to them as seperate entities rather than appendages of the same one. James Dobson, you know, the guy of Spongebob Squarepants is a conspiracy to turn kids gay fame.

Re:FYI

[Brandybuck]

James Dobson, you know, the guy of Spongebob Squarepants is a conspiracy to turn kids gay fame.

The more people like you make stuff up like this, the less people will believe you when you decide to say something truthful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dobson

Re:FYI

[CrazyDuke]

You'd think someone could read the f'ing websites I link to.

Why is Dr. Dobson objecting to a video featuring characters such as SpongeBob?

From his own website.

"From the outset, let's be clear that this issue is not about objections to any specific cartoon characters. Instead, Dr. Dobson is concerned that these popular animated personalities are being exploited by an organization that's determined to promote the acceptance of homosexuality among our nation's youth."

It reads that a cartoon charactor is being used part of a conspiracy to turn kids gay by making it acceptable. Notice I did not post the oversimplified "Spongebob is gay" line for a reason. But, of course thinking before speaking would be too hard on you.

Linux has more copyright owners

[tepples]

If someone doesn't like you linking X component with Y component, the very first thing you should ask them is: are you the copyright holder of X component or Y component?

The Linux® brand kernel uses a distributed copyright ownership model, in stark contrast to the copyright-assignment practices that GNU® brand software follows. If I write a patch to Linux, and a kernel maintainer accepts it, then I am an owner of copyright in Linux. I would wager that even FSF, the owner of copyright in GNU software, owns at least some of the Linux copyright.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[Bronster]

We all know that, to use XGL in GNU/Linux, you need to use non-free binary drivers from nVidia or ATI.

I call FUD. I have successfully tested XGL in kororaa with the Intel i810 chipset in my Dell Inspiron 510m laptop. I guess we don't "all know" after all.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[spuzzzzzzz]

XGL runs very well on my Thinkpad with an ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 using the Free, open source drivers that X.org provides. I imagine the situation is similar for any Radeon cards up to and including the 9200. I also understand that the Free, open source drivers for Intel chips support 3D acceleration.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[Anonymous Coward]

XGL runs on both the GPL intel drivers as well as the GPL ati drivers (though not on all ati cards). So it is not a trap at all.

Also if you don't like the closed source drivers instead of being a luddite and trying to prevent progress, why don't you contribute to the development of the OSS 3d drivers?

Also the drivers aren't 'non-free', they are 'non-Free'. And it's rather disturbing that you're on a first name basis with RMS.

Re:Some economist-geek explain it to me...

[geekoid]

Lets say a company goes public, and is expect to sell 100 shares at a price of 10 bucks per share.
Then they IPO, and only 50 shares are bought. There value would decrease because there is no interest.

  "Now I've taken a small loss on something I expect to shoot way up within the next few days... Would I sell? Hell no! "
you might if there was no interest.
Now if all 100 shares were sold, you would expect the price to go up do to heavy interest, but if an IPO doesn't sparl a lot of interest, there isn't much the company can do.
My examples where very gross, and in the stock world the difference between a hot stoc and a cold one may only a small percentage of sells.

.XXX TLD

[Adrian Lopez]

Unlike many Slashdotters (as evidenced by previous reactions to the subject), I am very happy indeed that ICANN decided to reject the XXX domain, for the reasons given here:

In June 2005, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved the creation of an xxx top-level domain (TLD) for pornographic websites. This reverses their previous decision back in November 2000, when they decided against the creation of the xxx TLD. The Bush administration, responding to the recent decision by ICANN, is objecting to the creation of the new TLD. Meanwhile, many of the folks at Slashdot are objecting to Bush's objection to the xxx TLD.

While the Bush administration's decision is based more on opposition to pornography than on opposition to the xxx TLD, the arguments raised by Slashdot readers are rather problematic. The prevailing argument appears to be that the Bush administration should not interfere with the ICANN's decisions, and that an xxx TLD is a good idea because it could make it easier for parents and system-administrators to filter out pornographic content. The second part of this argument raises important free-speech concerns.

While the xxx domain is currently voluntary, could it eventually become mandatory? The government could require that pornographic content be hosted exclusively on xxx domains, the ICANN could change the rules for com, net and org domains to allow only non-pornographic content, and hosting providers could refuse to host pornographic websites not associated with an xxx domain. In short, there are many ways in which an xxx domain could be abused, all in the name of keeping smut away from impressionable eyes.

The xxx TLD could become a mechanism for the regulation of pornographic websites hosted on xxx domains. According to ZDNet, a "nonprofit organization called the International Foundation For Online Responsibility will be in charge of setting the rules for .xxx. It's intended to have a seven-person board of directors, including a child advocacy advocate, a free-expression aficionado and someone from the adult entertainment industry." What are the rules being set, and why do we need a "child advocacy advocate" to make decisions about adult-oriented domains? Would they require use of AVS (age-verification systems) by websites that use the xxx TLD?

According to an earlier statement by Stuart Lawley, whose company -- ICM Registry -- will administer the xxx TLD, "apart from child pornography, which is completely illegal, we're really not in the content-monitoring business". While this may seem reassuring, how will they decide what constitutes "child pornography"? Which country's definition of "child pornography" will they adopt? Shutting down child pornographers is the government's job, not the registrar's.

There's no good reason why pornographic content should be stuffed into the xxx TLD and isolated from the rest of the Internet's namespace. What is so terrible about pornography that it must be kept in its very own TLD? Who the hell knows. It's a silly decision grounded upon primitive moral codes.

Re:Some economist-geek explain it to me...

[paulthomas]

There are generally not restrictions on selling the stock after the IPO. You might be thinking of some SEC rules regarding changes to the ownership immediately prior to the IPO (whether such rules exist, I'm unsure).

Not only would you not see a fall, you wouldn't see any movement in the stock for 90 days if trading were suspended (buyers not being able to sell would result in no transactions). This is clearly not true if you look at any IPO. In fact, the possibility to have a run up in the stock price early on is part of the politics of traditional IPO underwriting. The investment bank that underwrites the issue essentially buys all of the stock that will be sold from the company, ensuring that the company receives some fixed amount. The underwriter then sells portions of the stock to major investing concerns at a price fixed higher than what was paid to the company. This spread is the compensation for "insuring" the issue. The stock is initially sold to a small and select group of buyers at this price who anticipate a run-up in the price from the general demand from unwary individual investors.

Everyone early in the chain gets some cut and it is your average joe who generally gets the shaft on the flotation of new issues. In this sense you are correct that IPOs generally don't fail -- the underwriter sets the prices that ensure capital for the firm going public and a profit for the underwriter.

With regard to the business model, who knows. I think this is part of why the IPO wasn't terribly successful (for the people who bought before the decline).

Re:Whew

[Aardpig]

Unless they needed the unwashed masses to drum up demand.

Well, it seems to have worked, despite the price drop. I signed up for 100 shares, but was allocated none; so it's not as if they had to dump loads of stock on the customers.

Re:What more can be said...

[Mr. Slippery]

1.) It really is - split infinitive

Er, no, it's not. The infinitive form is the "to X" form; "to boldly split infinitives that no man has split before."

And there's really nothing wrong with splitting infinitives in English, that's a rule from Latin mistakenly carried over.

it's unreadable due to the spelling, grammer,

I love irony.

Re:Since when can anyone "pressure" ICANN?

[rs79]

"Who sits on ICANN? typically, engineers from companies such as HP, Sun, MS,"

Company affiliations notwithstanding, they're lawyers, not engineers. The ones that don't have big company affiliation are lobbyists from the industry.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[mrchaotica]

so I downloaded that and walla the thing worked as expected

It's voilà, damnit! You people look like morons when you spell it wrong!

Economist-geek here...

[Astin]

Point 1 - Umm.. no. It's possible that INSIDERS (ie.- company employees) might have a restriction on them, but 90 days seems extreme. If nobody could sell an stock for 90 days after the IPO, then the stock would do nothing. It would sit there and not trade at all. As soon as it's public, the stock is tradeable by anybody who isn't restricted by their insider (or possibly other) position.

Point 2 - Depends on your strategy. Bear in mind that most stock trades are institutional, not mom and dad buying for their personal account. Pension plans, businesses, hedge funds, etc, will hedge their trades, ie.- They'll buy the stock, but also buy a put (or sell a call) option to cover their position. That's just one example of many though. There could also be stop-loss prices put on them (buy @ $10, but if it hits $9, sell it because I don't want to lose any more than 10%). Other speculators could short sell the stock in anticipation of it dropping. In the case of Vonage, that's quite possible.

As an aside, it's not uncommon in the financial industry that brokerage firm employees have minimum hold times on ALL stock ownership (ie.- you buy a stock, you have to keep it for a minimum of 30 days). The exception to this rule is usually a major price drop (5-10%), in which case the restriction is lifted.

Point 3 - Vonage is hoping on acting like a regular phone company. They sell the service for $40 a month, and tie it to POTS. They also offer your standard package of services - voice mail, caller ID, call forwarding, etc.. They're counting on the fact that people don't change quickly. They trust their phone system as it is. Phone's on the wall in the kitchen, cordless in the den, and it pretty much always works. Saying to them "Hey! Forget that thing on your wall. Just hook up a microphone and headset to your computer!" isn't going to fly. But saying, "We have a new technology that offers you cheaper phone service, cheap long distance, and you won't know the difference from your current phone." is far more appealing. You and I know that we can use Skype for free for VOIP, but the act of talking to a computer is still strange to some people.

Once POTS dies out (which is still likely a long time coming), non-geeks will still need someone to sell them the service, hook them up, etc.. The problem for Vonage is that all the telcos and cable companies will be doing the same thing, and already have a built-in base of users.

One interesting thing I saw a few months ago was that Skype, with almost no advertising, was still being searched for far more than Vonage. Skype announcing that calls to landlines are free in Canada and the US just before the Vonage IPO was a very nice kick in the gut to Vonage.

Regardless, I still use my landline and cell phone.