You shouldn't be asking these questions here or in any other public forum. I, for one, will not answer these questions. It is asking for trouble to answer legal questions in places such as this.
My advice to you is hire a lawyer, or don't release your work. You'd better know the legal implications of what you're doing before you do it, and the description of what you're tyring to do is too vague for anyone, even a lawyer, to give you any kind of decent answer.
BTW, YOU WILL end up in court if someone has made it clear to you that what you are reverse engineering is considered a trade secret. If you've had any kind of access to that trade secret, and you knew it was a trade secret, you'll probably get sued, and you'll probably deserve it.
Now, we just have to get the Slashdot crew to stop posting these things.
You guys can sit here and whine about what this dude said, but he's right.
I have an answer for him: "So what?" What does it matter if non-technical (l)users can't use the OS? That's only important if you're intent on running toward Linus's goal of "World Domination." We're not likely to reach that goal any time soon with Open Source software, precisely because of what the author states in his article.
Before you go calling me an elitist snob, or a technocrat, let's not forget that our entire movement (if you can call it that) is founded in technocratic snobbery. The GPL effectively limits the use of software to those who have the skills to compile their own, to write their own, and to contribute changes to a common source. Think about it people! OSS is all about the formation of a new technological elite, a cadre of uber-professionals and Slashdot is one of our cliques, and if you don't see it you've got your eyes shut. Despite all the populist rhetoric about OSS, it's still at the core an elitist, technocratic phenomenon.
So, I ask again, "Who really cares about the end user experience with OSS? If they don't like the interface, let them write their own." (Qu'ils mangent de la brioche!)
For those of you who do care, the Linux kernel could very well be used as the centerpiece for an innovative, ground-breaking OS, but minus the GNU utilities and X-Windows. Imagine that, an OS where the only OSS part was the kernel and the rest was proprietary. There's nothing stopping that from happening today, nothing other than inertia. The GPL won't stop it, because the GPL would only apply to the kernel, not to the rest of the OS if it were designed and coded from scratch or from non-GPL code. So, if M$ wants a more stable NT, just swipe the Linux kernel and port the rest of NT to work with it. They would only be obligated to release changes that they made to the actual Linux kernel under terms of the GPL.--Scary, no?--Of course with the various flavors of BSD, you don't even have to worry about the kernel being under the GPL, since the BSD license is much more corporate friendly. All you have to do is put some copyright statement in you docs and in your code and you can do anything you want with the source, even make your branch closed.
There is an opportunity for an enterprising organization or individual to create a truly revolutionary interface, a lot of the hard work has been done by others. Its up to you to fill in the rest.
I hate to post "Me, too" posts but this is exactly what I was trying to say in the CA software for Red Hat discussion. You don't win by compromising with a force that you utterly oppose.
And that from an Anonymous Coward, too!
If it hadn't already been moderated to 5, I would have used my last moderation point on it, rather than posting this waste of bandwidth.
Truth be told, no, I didn't read every single line of KDE 1.89 and QT 2.1 beta. But the mere fact of having the source code from a trusted server, makes it less likely to contain Trojans. Nor did I check every line of source in the Slackware 7.0 distro, either.
I do, generally, give the source code of smaller items the once over, and I write a lot of the software that I use anyway.
I admit that viruses could become an issue, if we follow the shrink-wrapped route and do some things in a dumb way. But, if a user is smart and conscientious about security and we don't start doing colossally stupid, Redmondian things with our software, then we should be virtually immune to GNU/Linux viruses.
if CA really wanted to impress me, they would make a virus scanner that integrated in to samba so that it could scan files as they are sent out and received in.
I see an opportunity here. Why don't you follow your own advice and create such a beast?
I can see your point about scanning for Windoze viruses with Linux, and I'll grant you that would actually be useful.
However, we DO NOT need virus checkers to protect our systems or our own data from viruses or Trojan horse applications. You only need those things when you run closed-source binary applications. Nobody in their right mind would use closed source when they can get the source code and check it themselves before they compile it. If I can't get the source, then I don't use it.
If you use binary-only software, then you deserve whatever Hell it unleashes on your system.
(You know, I'm starting to feel like Richard Stallman, here.)
Anyway, virus checking software will not stop Trojan horses, and it will only give the user a false sense of security. The people who *need* anti-virus software are the ones who are the least likely to keep it updated.
What newbie Linux users really need are friendly, easy-to-setup security software, or a distro that comes preconfigured to be secure and has a simple interface to give the root user control of the various security settings.
I also take issue with folks who think GNU/Linux will have arrived when there is all this shrink-wrapped software available for it. That is not what I want, nor what most of you are going to want if you stop and think about it. Shrink-wrapped software means locking people out of their own systems. It means becoming more like the enemy. If you become the enemy, even in order to defeat them, you haven't won, just replaced the enemy with yourself. The whole fixation with trying to turn GNU/Linux into the next Windows with shrink-wrapped software and comparable software will destroy the community in the long run. I see us heading in that direction and I don't like it. For the good of the community, the fixation with Micro$oft has got to stop, and this desire have all the same tools as them has to end. To win, we need to transcend the commercial software mentality and come up with something truly innovative to move the computing world in a new direction....
Uh, sorry for the rant. I'll stop before I get too far off topic, but you get the point.
But, a virus scanner won't protect you from Trojans!
Besides, running this software is no substitute for good security. People need to learn to set their machines up for security, and the distributors need to make it easier for users to secure their systems.
We do not need any of the products being offered by Computer Associates, and I take issue with any software vendor that aims their software at any single distro.
InoculateIT for Red Hat Linux, which provides complete protection for Linux machines deployed as components of the eBusiness infrastructure from all kinds of virus threats
Yeah, right. Do we really need that?
The rest of the stuff are things that any decent SysAdmin could cobble together with scripts or even get free scripts to do.
And, have you noticed that all this stuff is "for Red Hat Linux?" I say, "No, thank you" on that count, too.
I've said it all along and I'll say it again. IF this is how big business chooses to treat 10 million potential customers, then FUCK them!
I will NOT buy any encrypted DVD products, ever! We can just get rid of all the DeCSS code and say fine. If you guys want to play that way, we can, too.
Why should I pay for their (Hollywood's) dreck anyway? They ought to pay me for pain and suffering for being forced to watch their lousy films.
Anyway, I think big media's in for a rude awakening. The Internet does actually level the playing field (technically if not legally/socially), and they don't like it.
There are times when anonymity is useful and even necessary. Take the case of a political dissident in a totalitarian regime. This person cannot express their own beliefs, their own experience of oppression and use their real name. To do so would be suicide. There are legitimate uses of anonymity. They are admittedly rare.
The answer to all these court maneuverings by the DVD CCA and the MPAA is simple:
The hackers remove the code from their websites.
10 million folks with Linux can't view encrypted DVDs.
10 million potential customers won't be buying encrypted DVD films.
At $40 bucks a disk, with 10 million customers, each buying an average of one disk per month, that's $4.8 billion in potential revenue tossed down the toilet. I know I won't be buying any encrypted DVDs. What about you?
Really, this is a good thing. If we had a true democracy, it would be basically mob rule. Get 51% of the people to vote in a certain election to back a stupid idea, and it's unrevocable law??? Not in a republic with checks and balences in place thank you.
I'm not complaining about checks and balances. I'm quite happy that we have them. I'm just complaining that the people who run for public office don't care about anything but what keeps them in office. You are exactly right!
As has been mentioned here before, I wouldn't want anyone for President who actually wants the job.
Ah well, the only thing left to do is to quote Vlotaire: "Russia will never be a democracy, because the people usually get the kind of government that they deserve." That is exactly what we're getting in the U.S. because people don't care anymore.
There was a rather apropos quote on the bottom of Slashdot yesterday. Since I don't remember it exactly, I'll paraphrase: Any system that depends on human reliability is unrelaiable. That's the gist of it, societies are inherently unreliable and illogical, because it is composed of unreliable and illogical humans.
It seems that here in the U.S., with the number of laws that have been struck down by courts on Constitutional grounds, it appears that the lawmakers know little, if anything, about the law (and alot of them are/have been/profess to be lawyers). With some of the laws that judges have allowed to stand, it appears that many judges also know little about the Constitution.
If they appear to know so little about their own field, how can they know anything about tech?
It's hard enough to convince your employer that you can work from home and be efficient and productive.
Actually, I think some employers fear that you'll be too productive at home. You'll get the work they give you done in half the time because you have no distractive co-workers singing in their cubes or dropping by with the latest gossip. In my case, I they know that I'll finish my day's work in four hours, and they're paying me for eight, so from their point of view they're out four hours. Combine that with the fact that most managers have absolutely no idea how to manage remote workers, and that's why the PHBs don't let you telecommute.
I get to work from home, but only on nights and weekends when one of our customers has some special event going on that requires my assistance. I don't consider it a perk of my job, but my employer certainly does.:-)
I know this is splitting hairs, but the 'B' should be on the left of an ergonomic keyboard. If you learned to touch type on the QWERTY layout, then you'd be way lost with the B on the right.
The 6 should actually be on the right side of the keyboard, but most ergo keyboards (including the one I'm using to type this) put it on the left. I've gotten so used to this that I find myself typing the 6 with my left hand, even on non-ergo keyboards.
The only detailed specification that can be trusted is the source code for the system. Any other spec is out of date by the time its printed.
That may very well be, but when you're starting on a project from scratch. You have to have something to work with. You can't start from nothing, or are you Yuri Geller?
Don't assume that the client really knows what he wants. The system can be designed to be flexible so that adding "little changes" is not a problem.
XP advocates early releases so that the client can use the system and feed back what he learns back to the developers.
Isn't that just wonderful, more headaches. I see this all too often. This is why one should insist on good, complete specifications. Have the customer sign the specs and an agreement to have the work done. When they come back with "little changes," the answer ought to be: You've agreed to this specification. You will be shipped this product. Any changes to the product will be made as enhancements to the already shipped product, and will be specified, estimated, and billed accordingly.
The key to making any project work, and this is not unique to XP, is having the customer involved and available during development, so that they may answer the developers' questions.
I'm also tired of bosses who short change my estimates (by as much as 50%) or who give estimates on work I'm going to do without even consulting me on the time. Then, they bitch when something goes over their estimate (even when it's still within mine). But that's another subject entirely.
Well, I still use my three-button mouse quite a bit, but I find that using KDE with KWM I can use a lot of keyboard shortcuts to navigate the screen, including Alt+Tab to switch among running apps.
As for ergonomic keyboard, I love my Adessos. They're available for ADB, PS/2, and AT connectors. I find that they are comfortable, durable and I type faster using them than on any other keyboard.
Apart from the redundant section in the middle, this was very well put. As someone who has been typing on all sorts of keyboards (including manual typewrites) for years, I can agree almost completely. When I'm typing, I DO NOT want to touch the mouse or move my fingers off of the center keys, even when I'm entering mostly numbers, I don't reach for the numeric keypad.
I find myself enjoying "ergonomic" keyboards very much.
The QOTD that appeared at the bottom of the screen while I was reading this article was quite appropriate: "Philosophy: A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing. -- Ambrose Bierce."
I have to say that the whole zen thing is a bit overblown. I do agree that you enter a sort of state of mind where you are unaware of what else is going on around you. If that is what you're calling Zen, then so be it. I don't think that there is anything truly mystical about it. It's just a state of hyperconcentration.
Man, this Dell keyboard is bugging me. I miss my Adesso (which is at home)!
Privacy? What is privacy? You think YOU ever had any? Hah! I laugh at you, silly person. You never had any privacy, anywhere, and you never will, particularly not now. You're just a commodity to an info broker, no more, no less. You're just a taxpayer ID number to the tax authority, a license number to the DMV. You will be bought and sold many times over in your lifetime, same as you always have been, same as people always have been since the dawn of civilization.
The notes are the students' expression of ideas expressed by the Prof. The student owns the notes outright regardless of what the Prof. said during the lecture. The only time a Prof. could claim to own a given student's notes is if that student copied down verbatim what the Prof. said.
Anyway, most of my university class notes were along the lines of: "Prof. going on about more crap I read in the textbook last night. I'm bored. Damn, that woman in the third seat is hot! Wonder what she's doing tonight. [doodle, doodle]"
Then, in Grad. School things started to get interesting, because there were more discussions and fewer lectures, so I was making notes of some of my classmate's ideas, but I never did ask the woman in the third seat on a date.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
You shouldn't be asking these questions here or in any other public forum. I, for one, will not answer these questions. It is asking for trouble to answer legal questions in places such as this.
My advice to you is hire a lawyer, or don't release your work. You'd better know the legal implications of what you're doing before you do it, and the description of what you're tyring to do is too vague for anyone, even a lawyer, to give you any kind of decent answer.
BTW, YOU WILL end up in court if someone has made it clear to you that what you are reverse engineering is considered a trade secret. If you've had any kind of access to that trade secret, and you knew it was a trade secret, you'll probably get sued, and you'll probably deserve it.
Now, we just have to get the Slashdot crew to stop posting these things.
You guys can sit here and whine about what this dude said, but he's right.
I have an answer for him: "So what?" What does it matter if non-technical (l)users can't use the OS? That's only important if you're intent on running toward Linus's goal of "World Domination." We're not likely to reach that goal any time soon with Open Source software, precisely because of what the author states in his article.
Before you go calling me an elitist snob, or a technocrat, let's not forget that our entire movement (if you can call it that) is founded in technocratic snobbery. The GPL effectively limits the use of software to those who have the skills to compile their own, to write their own, and to contribute changes to a common source. Think about it people! OSS is all about the formation of a new technological elite, a cadre of uber-professionals and Slashdot is one of our cliques, and if you don't see it you've got your eyes shut. Despite all the populist rhetoric about OSS, it's still at the core an elitist, technocratic phenomenon.
So, I ask again, "Who really cares about the end user experience with OSS? If they don't like the interface, let them write their own." (Qu'ils mangent de la brioche!)
For those of you who do care, the Linux kernel could very well be used as the centerpiece for an innovative, ground-breaking OS, but minus the GNU utilities and X-Windows. Imagine that, an OS where the only OSS part was the kernel and the rest was proprietary. There's nothing stopping that from happening today, nothing other than inertia. The GPL won't stop it, because the GPL would only apply to the kernel, not to the rest of the OS if it were designed and coded from scratch or from non-GPL code. So, if M$ wants a more stable NT, just swipe the Linux kernel and port the rest of NT to work with it. They would only be obligated to release changes that they made to the actual Linux kernel under terms of the GPL.--Scary, no?--Of course with the various flavors of BSD, you don't even have to worry about the kernel being under the GPL, since the BSD license is much more corporate friendly. All you have to do is put some copyright statement in you docs and in your code and you can do anything you want with the source, even make your branch closed.
There is an opportunity for an enterprising organization or individual to create a truly revolutionary interface, a lot of the hard work has been done by others. Its up to you to fill in the rest.
I hate to post "Me, too" posts but this is exactly what I was trying to say in the CA software for Red Hat discussion. You don't win by compromising with a force that you utterly oppose.
And that from an Anonymous Coward, too!
If it hadn't already been moderated to 5, I would have used my last moderation point on it, rather than posting this waste of bandwidth.
I have to agree with RMS, on this one, though:
I'd rather have mediocre FREE software (as in Free Speech) than the "best" closed software.
Yes, the subject says it all....
Red Hat is the virus.
Couldn't resist.
What can I say? I don't have a life. :-)
:-)
Truth be told, no, I didn't read every single line of KDE 1.89 and QT 2.1 beta. But the mere fact of having the source code from a trusted server, makes it less likely to contain Trojans. Nor did I check every line of source in the Slackware 7.0 distro, either.
I do, generally, give the source code of smaller items the once over, and I write a lot of the software that I use anyway.
I admit that viruses could become an issue, if we follow the shrink-wrapped route and do some things in a dumb way. But, if a user is smart and conscientious about security and we don't start doing colossally stupid, Redmondian things with our software, then we should be virtually immune to GNU/Linux viruses.
Now, where'd that OpenBSD CD go?
if CA really wanted to impress me, they would make a virus scanner that integrated in to samba so that it could scan files as they are sent out and received in.
I see an opportunity here. Why don't you follow your own advice and create such a beast?
I can see your point about scanning for Windoze viruses with Linux, and I'll grant you that would actually be useful.
However, we DO NOT need virus checkers to protect our systems or our own data from viruses or Trojan horse applications. You only need those things when you run closed-source binary applications. Nobody in their right mind would use closed source when they can get the source code and check it themselves before they compile it. If I can't get the source, then I don't use it.
If you use binary-only software, then you deserve whatever Hell it unleashes on your system.
(You know, I'm starting to feel like Richard Stallman, here.)
Anyway, virus checking software will not stop Trojan horses, and it will only give the user a false sense of security. The people who *need* anti-virus software are the ones who are the least likely to keep it updated.
What newbie Linux users really need are friendly, easy-to-setup security software, or a distro that comes preconfigured to be secure and has a simple interface to give the root user control of the various security settings.
I also take issue with folks who think GNU/Linux will have arrived when there is all this shrink-wrapped software available for it. That is not what I want, nor what most of you are going to want if you stop and think about it. Shrink-wrapped software means locking people out of their own systems. It means becoming more like the enemy. If you become the enemy, even in order to defeat them, you haven't won, just replaced the enemy with yourself. The whole fixation with trying to turn GNU/Linux into the next Windows with shrink-wrapped software and comparable software will destroy the community in the long run. I see us heading in that direction and I don't like it. For the good of the community, the fixation with Micro$oft has got to stop, and this desire have all the same tools as them has to end. To win, we need to transcend the commercial software mentality and come up with something truly innovative to move the computing world in a new direction....
Uh, sorry for the rant. I'll stop before I get too far off topic, but you get the point.
But, a virus scanner won't protect you from Trojans!
Besides, running this software is no substitute for good security. People need to learn to set their machines up for security, and the distributors need to make it easier for users to secure their systems.
We do not need any of the products being offered by Computer Associates, and I take issue with any software vendor that aims their software at any single distro.
InoculateIT for Red Hat Linux, which provides complete protection for Linux machines deployed as components of the eBusiness infrastructure from all kinds of virus threats
Yeah, right. Do we really need that?
The rest of the stuff are things that any decent SysAdmin could cobble together with scripts or even get free scripts to do.
And, have you noticed that all this stuff is "for Red Hat Linux?" I say, "No, thank you" on that count, too.
I've said it all along and I'll say it again. IF this is how big business chooses to treat 10 million potential customers, then FUCK them!
I will NOT buy any encrypted DVD products, ever! We can just get rid of all the DeCSS code and say fine. If you guys want to play that way, we can, too.
Why should I pay for their (Hollywood's) dreck anyway? They ought to pay me for pain and suffering for being forced to watch their lousy films.
Anyway, I think big media's in for a rude awakening. The Internet does actually level the playing field (technically if not legally/socially), and they don't like it.
There are times when anonymity is useful and even necessary. Take the case of a political dissident in a totalitarian regime. This person cannot express their own beliefs, their own experience of oppression and use their real name. To do so would be suicide. There are legitimate uses of anonymity. They are admittedly rare.
The answer to all these court maneuverings by the DVD CCA and the MPAA is simple:
The hackers remove the code from their websites.
10 million folks with Linux can't view encrypted DVDs.
10 million potential customers won't be buying encrypted DVD films.
At $40 bucks a disk, with 10 million customers, each buying an average of one disk per month, that's $4.8 billion in potential revenue tossed down the toilet. I know I won't be buying any encrypted DVDs. What about you?
Really, this is a good thing. If we had a true democracy, it would be basically mob rule. Get 51% of the people to vote in a certain election to back a stupid idea, and it's unrevocable law??? Not in a republic with checks and balences in place thank you.
I'm not complaining about checks and balances. I'm quite happy that we have them. I'm just complaining that the people who run for public office don't care about anything but what keeps them in office. You are exactly right!
As has been mentioned here before, I wouldn't want anyone for President who actually wants the job.
Ah well, the only thing left to do is to quote Vlotaire: "Russia will never be a democracy, because the people usually get the kind of government that they deserve." That is exactly what we're getting in the U.S. because people don't care anymore.
There was a rather apropos quote on the bottom of Slashdot yesterday. Since I don't remember it exactly, I'll paraphrase: Any system that depends on human reliability is unrelaiable. That's the gist of it, societies are inherently unreliable and illogical, because it is composed of unreliable and illogical humans.
It seems that here in the U.S., with the number of laws that have been struck down by courts on Constitutional grounds, it appears that the lawmakers know little, if anything, about the law (and alot of them are/have been/profess to be lawyers). With some of the laws that judges have allowed to stand, it appears that many judges also know little about the Constitution.
If they appear to know so little about their own field, how can they know anything about tech?
It's hard enough to convince your employer that you can work from home and be efficient and productive.
Actually, I think some employers fear that you'll be too productive at home. You'll get the work they give you done in half the time because you have no distractive co-workers singing in their cubes or dropping by with the latest gossip. In my case, I they know that I'll finish my day's work in four hours, and they're paying me for eight, so from their point of view they're out four hours. Combine that with the fact that most managers have absolutely no idea how to manage remote workers, and that's why the PHBs don't let you telecommute.
I get to work from home, but only on nights and weekends when one of our customers has some special event going on that requires my assistance. I don't consider it a perk of my job, but my employer certainly does. :-)
I resolve to stop working for a living and write more Open Source code.
I resolve to get the critters out of my attic.
I resolve to write 3,000+ words (or tokens) a day on my own projects: programming, documentation, or fiction.
I resolve to get a new lifestyle.
I can't moderate and post in the same article, so I guess I can't moderate you up.
I resolve to be a better moderator for next year.
I know this is splitting hairs, but the 'B' should be on the left of an ergonomic keyboard. If you learned to touch type on the QWERTY layout, then you'd be way lost with the B on the right.
The 6 should actually be on the right side of the keyboard, but most ergo keyboards (including the one I'm using to type this) put it on the left. I've gotten so used to this that I find myself typing the 6 with my left hand, even on non-ergo keyboards.
The only detailed specification that can be trusted is the source code for the system. Any other spec is out of date by the time its printed.
That may very well be, but when you're starting on a project from scratch. You have to have something to work with. You can't start from nothing, or are you Yuri Geller?
Don't assume that the client really knows what he wants. The system can be designed to be flexible so that adding "little changes" is not a problem.
XP advocates early releases so that the client can use the system and feed back what he learns back to the developers.
Isn't that just wonderful, more headaches. I see this all too often. This is why one should insist on good, complete specifications. Have the customer sign the specs and an agreement to have the work done. When they come back with "little changes," the answer ought to be: You've agreed to this specification. You will be shipped this product. Any changes to the product will be made as enhancements to the already shipped product, and will be specified, estimated, and billed accordingly.
The key to making any project work, and this is not unique to XP, is having the customer involved and available during development, so that they may answer the developers' questions.
I'm also tired of bosses who short change my estimates (by as much as 50%) or who give estimates on work I'm going to do without even consulting me on the time. Then, they bitch when something goes over their estimate (even when it's still within mine). But that's another subject entirely.
Sounds like a great way to write non-maintainable code to me. I think I'll pass on this one.
Thanks for the informative review, BTW.
Well, I still use my three-button mouse quite a bit, but I find that using KDE with KWM I can use a lot of keyboard shortcuts to navigate the screen, including Alt+Tab to switch among running apps.
As for ergonomic keyboard, I love my Adessos. They're available for ADB, PS/2, and AT connectors. I find that they are comfortable, durable and I type faster using them than on any other keyboard.
Apart from the redundant section in the middle, this was very well put. As someone who has been typing on all sorts of keyboards (including manual typewrites) for years, I can agree almost completely. When I'm typing, I DO NOT want to touch the mouse or move my fingers off of the center keys, even when I'm entering mostly numbers, I don't reach for the numeric keypad.
I find myself enjoying "ergonomic" keyboards very much.
The QOTD that appeared at the bottom of the screen while I was reading this article was quite appropriate: "Philosophy: A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing. -- Ambrose Bierce."
I have to say that the whole zen thing is a bit overblown. I do agree that you enter a sort of state of mind where you are unaware of what else is going on around you. If that is what you're calling Zen, then so be it. I don't think that there is anything truly mystical about it. It's just a state of hyperconcentration.
Man, this Dell keyboard is bugging me. I miss my Adesso (which is at home)!
Privacy? What is privacy? You think YOU ever had any? Hah! I laugh at you, silly person. You never had any privacy, anywhere, and you never will, particularly not now. You're just a commodity to an info broker, no more, no less. You're just a taxpayer ID number to the tax authority, a license number to the DMV. You will be bought and sold many times over in your lifetime, same as you always have been, same as people always have been since the dawn of civilization.
Ok, a bit dramatic, but essentially true.
No, you're wrong.
:-)
The notes are the students' expression of ideas expressed by the Prof. The student owns the notes outright regardless of what the Prof. said during the lecture. The only time a Prof. could claim to own a given student's notes is if that student copied down verbatim what the Prof. said.
Anyway, most of my university class notes were along the lines of:
"Prof. going on about more crap I read in the textbook last night. I'm bored.
Damn, that woman in the third seat is hot!
Wonder what she's doing tonight. [doodle, doodle]"
Then, in Grad. School things started to get interesting, because there were more discussions and fewer lectures, so I was making notes of some of my classmate's ideas, but I never did ask the woman in the third seat on a date.