People could make a fork and call it something else, like OpenIPF and this would not at all be confused with IPFilter. The names are significantly different not to incite confusion.
The openIFP people should start with Darrin's source code. This is the right to fork. I bet they would win and Darrin would loose as Darrin has past his license off as open source and BSD compatible for quite some time and under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, people should resonably conclude that his past license is open source compatible. (IANAL)
Since Darren Reed's previous license is vague, one must look to the circumstances surrounding his use of the license. First, he has allowed his software to be included in and treated as open source software. Second, he may have even claimed his software was open source or lead people to believe this fact. Third, people have dependended upon this fact and may have invested significant, and unquantifiable time and energy into his product via bug fixes, suggestions, etc. Fourth, these people probably did this under the understanding that his software was indeed open source. Under these conditions and through the doctrine of promissory estoppel, Darren may not have the right to provide an alternative interpretation of his license which would not comply with the open source definition (which explicitly includes the right to make deriviative work without asking the creator).
Lastly, people should stop calling his software "open source" unless he explicitly grants this right to make derivitive works, and Darren should start correcting people when his software is refered as open source... beacuse
his new interpretation of his license clearly isn't open source. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
promissory estoppel
n. a false statement treated as a promise by a court when the listener had relied on what was told to him/her to his/her disadvantage. In order to see that justice is done a judge will preclude the maker of the statement from denying it. Thus, the legal inability of the person who made the false statement to deny it makes it an enforceable promise called "promissory estoppel," or an "equitable estoppel." Example: Bernie Blowhard tells Arthur Artist that Blowhard has a contract to make a movie and wants Artist to paint the background scenery in return for a percentage of the profits. Artist paints, and Blowhard then admits he needed the scenery to try to get a movie deal which fell through and there are no profits to share. Artist sues and the judge finds that Blowhard cannot deny a contract with Artist and gives Artist judgment for the value of his work.
If Darren wishes to limit his license it in the way he seems to be trying, then his license is *not* open source. Go read the OSD definition. Furthermore, since he has allowed his software to be categorized as open source... and even embedded into an open source operating system without balking, then promisory estopple comes into play... I don't think he can legally change his tune.
The primary driving right in open source is
the ability to take the source code and
fork it. This is a last resort technique,
but anyone claiming to have an open source
license *must* give the right to fork.
Darren evidently does not believe in the right
to fork: "I've said elsewhere, IPFilter will go where I wish it to, under my navigation.".
s/IPFilter/MS Windows/
Also, I'm not sure, but the word "use" is very
vague and most likely (almost definately) gives
the user the right to use it to learn and construct derivative works. But then again, I'm not a lawyer here. If Darren was handing out the binary... use may mean somethign entirely different. But he was handing out the source code. And making modifications is a resonable "use" by almost anyone's book.
You missed the point. It's ridiculous to think there could actually be a legal basis to such a suit.
Yes, it is ridiculous to think that there could actually be legal basis to sue over copyright violations on software where the source code is not provided. After all, it says in the constitution "to advance the sciences and useful arts" is the motivation for copyright law. That copyright applies to binaries that I can't read and learn from is absolutely ridiculous.
I don't think it is ridiculous. It says in the article that they have made a treaty in '93 (eons ago) about this very thing. Thus there is prior "law" to which these people have decided to govern themselves. A danish toy company has no right to prance right in and pretend that it doesn't exist. Further, if we can shove our corporatized idea of 100 year copyrights and 20 year frivious patents and expect them to obey... then I don't see why the corporate world should respect their culture.
Scott seems to think that a paper record
is less safe than an electronic one. Physical
compromises are very different than electronic
ones. With a physical compromise, there is
a serious chance of getting caught; I'm not
so sure about electronic break-ins, but I
suspect it is far less likely to get caught.
With a physical compromise, one must either
search on site (increasing chances of getting
caught) or leave with boxes and boxes of
records (which makes the break-in clear).
In the electronic compromise it's similar,
but the risks are much lower and if the
entire data set is downloaded it may only
take a few minutes, leaving no real trace
of the break-in.
Anyway, he then goes on to give examples
about how I will find myself some day in
a far away city and the computer will
know enouh about me to recommend movies
and food in the locale. God forbid.
He thinks that most people actually
*want* this invasion of privacy! *shudder*
The risks of digital information are
significant, and the rights of ownership
have yet to be answered in a satisfactory
manner. Scott definately has an agenda here,
and for reason, his pocket book gets bigger
everytime someone buys a massive Sun to
store personal information about me and you!
They said:
"We follow industry standard processes"
I said:
"Care to enumerate them?"
They said:
"I'm sorry, but those are trade secrets".
No shit. Unfortunately, my client can't
switch vendors... too much cost. Oh humm.
We _do_ need industry standards.
users designate a particular part of a Web page that they would like to monitor for changes. Checksums are generated for each HTML-bound section of that Web page and for the user-defined selection of text, and are then archived. When there is change in the text, the new and archived checksums are compared, and the user is notified via email or mobile device if there is a change.
Thus, they have patented:
A user asks or signifies interest in a
particular section of a web page
Taking and archiving the check-sum of this
portion.
Storing the user request with the checksum
Sending out e-mails to the user if this
check-summed portion of the web page changes.
This is rather specific, if you read the claims
you'll probably see they also had to stick in
more restrictions before the PTO would let it
pass...
It's the big concepts that attract me to maths, the ideas and the big picture, not the nitty-gritty of putting together lots of little logical steps.
As someone who has a BS in math and is an active programmer, I disagree strongly. The key to understanding mathematics is understaning the underlying patterns, the grammer. Reading all of those "fuzzy" math books that do not get to the nitty gritty details just give the average person a false sense of understanding.
I'm so glad to see Norman Megill continue with his project. I was one of the first users of the C version of his program in '93. As someone who was struggling with Abstract Algebra at the time, his stuff breathed fresh new understanding.
If you are the type who pulls
out the assembler to _really_ understand
what the program is doing... then metamath
is for you.
I don't think that there is any scientific merit
here. I do think that Burlington Northern was using the tests to intimidate employees under
the guise of science.
Basically, what you're saying is that you've been doing some "pretty cool" stuff in the evenings and now the company your are working for is moving in that direction. This is common. I'm not a lawyer, but here are some thoughts:
First, I'd write down _explicitly_ what you have been working on for the last few months, both on and off the job. Clearly state how there is no overlap, and how you took initiative to explore strange new worlds. Send this to your boss so that it is "on the record". If it goes to court, this will look good.
Second, Ask them to put in writing what they interpret the off-work clause to mean. If they don't want to explain their legal agreement, you are dealing with bullies -- leave immediately. Respectfully disagree in writing.
Third, ask your supervisor what the options are. There are a few I can think of: (a) Perhaps they can *purchase* the rights to your evening work, (b) You can make sure that your exposure within the company stays _far_ away from what your evening work is doing (refuse to go to meetings that would be a conflict of interest), (c) You should ask for a raise if they want you to work in the area you've been studying the last few months.
In general, companys are willing to work with you; the legal costs can be 10-60K to raise a law suit. So, as long as you're cheaper than that... you don't have a problem. Well. Hope this helps. -- Clark
What are you talking about. A bulk of the first-generation open source stuff out there was at least partially funded by DARPA. Get a clue. This is a great opportunity for those with open source experience to put forth a proposal that may fund them for a year or more.
The way DARPA usually works is on a grant basis. Those people qualified should get together (or stay seperate) and write up a grant. DARPA isn't going to look for grantees. The potential grantees must go to DARPA (with a proposal).
At least this way what is blocked and what is not blocked will be publicly known and the community of users can control it. For those with some initiative, there is probably some grant money to do this... espececially from the political campaigns (who routinely have their sites blocked). Thoughts?
Bill Gates thinks he is inhuman and above
the law beacuse the media tells him that
he is inhuman and above the law, a
"supra-geinus". Perhaps a few books and
articles like this may help to change
some popular opinion about gates, and
this, more than anything else may make
the fella a bit less arrogant and a more responsible citizen.
Re:Good, The New Workers need to unionise.
on
The Jungle
·
· Score: 1
No, many of us look at it from a standpoint of reality and common sense. Many new economy companies have razor thin profit margins if they have any at all. A union quickly becomes moot if a company goes under. A union could help hasten a young company's demise.
Yes. Razor thin profit margins and SKY HIGH executive salaries. The proof is in the puddin.
This is nowhere near a situation similar to autoworkers where they are being treated with low wages and unsafe working environments.
A majority of the employees in such a business
as Amazon are not technology workers. They are phone support, packing, shipping, billing. Hard labor and/or mundane clerical operations. Individually, they are powerless; however, they do have the power to communicate with their fellow workers and join together to protect their rights. They should have the right to do so, read the declaration of independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Notice that governments are formed primarly to secure these unalienable Rights. Why? United we stand and divided we fall. There is no reason why Amazon should afford to pay it's top execs millions in stock options while the line workers are working in poor conditions. When you negotiate as an individual with a company, you are negotiating against a united management. It is only just and fair that individuals have the right to negotiate with management as a whole, so that the barganing power is more evenly distributed among the parties.
The author of this article is spot on. As for the author for this comment, I say, grow up.
Slashdot Mirror
+1
People could make a fork and call it something else, like OpenIPF and this would not at all be confused with IPFilter. The names are significantly different not to incite confusion.
The openIFP people should start with Darrin's source code. This is the right to fork. I bet they would win and Darrin would loose as Darrin has past his license off as open source and BSD compatible for quite some time and under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, people should resonably conclude that his past license is open source compatible. (IANAL)
Since Darren Reed's previous license is vague, one must look to the circumstances surrounding his use of the license. First, he has allowed his software to be included in and treated as open source software. Second, he may have even claimed his software was open source or lead people to believe this fact. Third, people have dependended upon this fact and may have invested significant, and unquantifiable time and energy into his product via bug fixes, suggestions, etc. Fourth, these people probably did this under the understanding that his software was indeed open source. Under these conditions and through the doctrine of promissory estoppel, Darren may not have the right to provide an alternative interpretation of his license which would not comply with the open source definition (which explicitly includes the right to make deriviative work without asking the creator). Lastly, people should stop calling his software "open source" unless he explicitly grants this right to make derivitive works, and Darren should start correcting people when his software is refered as open source... beacuse his new interpretation of his license clearly isn't open source. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
promissory estoppel n. a false statement treated as a promise by a court when the listener had relied on what was told to him/her to his/her disadvantage. In order to see that justice is done a judge will preclude the maker of the statement from denying it. Thus, the legal inability of the person who made the false statement to deny it makes it an enforceable promise called "promissory estoppel," or an "equitable estoppel." Example: Bernie Blowhard tells Arthur Artist that Blowhard has a contract to make a movie and wants Artist to paint the background scenery in return for a percentage of the profits. Artist paints, and Blowhard then admits he needed the scenery to try to get a movie deal which fell through and there are no profits to share. Artist sues and the judge finds that Blowhard cannot deny a contract with Artist and gives Artist judgment for the value of his work.
If Darren wishes to limit his license it in the way he seems to be trying, then his license is *not* open source. Go read the OSD definition. Furthermore, since he has allowed his software to be categorized as open source... and even embedded into an open source operating system without balking, then promisory estopple comes into play... I don't think he can legally change his tune.
Also, I'm not sure, but the word "use" is very vague and most likely (almost definately) gives the user the right to use it to learn and construct derivative works. But then again, I'm not a lawyer here. If Darren was handing out the binary... use may mean somethign entirely different. But he was handing out the source code. And making modifications is a resonable "use" by almost anyone's book.
Yes, it is ridiculous to think that there could actually be legal basis to sue over copyright violations on software where the source code is not provided. After all, it says in the constitution "to advance the sciences and useful arts" is the motivation for copyright law. That copyright applies to binaries that I can't read and learn from is absolutely ridiculous.
I don't think it is ridiculous. It says in the article that they have made a treaty in '93 (eons ago) about this very thing. Thus there is prior "law" to which these people have decided to govern themselves. A danish toy company has no right to prance right in and pretend that it doesn't exist. Further, if we can shove our corporatized idea of 100 year copyrights and 20 year frivious patents and expect them to obey... then I don't see why the corporate world should respect their culture.
Anyway, he then goes on to give examples about how I will find myself some day in a far away city and the computer will know enouh about me to recommend movies and food in the locale. God forbid. He thinks that most people actually *want* this invasion of privacy! *shudder*
The risks of digital information are significant, and the rights of ownership have yet to be answered in a satisfactory manner. Scott definately has an agenda here, and for reason, his pocket book gets bigger everytime someone buys a massive Sun to store personal information about me and you!
What do you think of Distributed Copyright? Especially the suggested remedy sent to Judge Jackson? Thank you! Clark Evans
Yes, this was my point.
They said: "We follow industry standard processes" I said: "Care to enumerate them?" They said: "I'm sorry, but those are trade secrets". No shit. Unfortunately, my client can't switch vendors... too much cost. Oh humm. We _do_ need industry standards.
Thus, they have patented:
- A user asks or signifies interest in a
particular section of a web page
- Taking and archiving the check-sum of this
portion.
- Storing the user request with the checksum
- Sending out e-mails to the user if this
check-summed portion of the web page changes.
This is rather specific, if you read the claims you'll probably see they also had to stick in more restrictions before the PTO would let it pass...As someone who has a BS in math and is an active programmer, I disagree strongly. The key to understanding mathematics is understaning the underlying patterns, the grammer. Reading all of those "fuzzy" math books that do not get to the nitty gritty details just give the average person a false sense of understanding.
I'm so glad to see Norman Megill continue with his project. I was one of the first users of the C version of his program in '93. As someone who was struggling with Abstract Algebra at the time, his stuff breathed fresh new understanding.
If you are the type who pulls out the assembler to _really_ understand what the program is doing... then metamath is for you.
I don't think that there is any scientific merit here. I do think that Burlington Northern was using the tests to intimidate employees under the guise of science.
Did you read the article? I talks about a process for making the diamonds they require.
First, I'd write down _explicitly_ what you have been working on for the last few months, both on and off the job. Clearly state how there is no overlap, and how you took initiative to explore strange new worlds. Send this to your boss so that it is "on the record". If it goes to court, this will look good.
Second, Ask them to put in writing what they interpret the off-work clause to mean. If they don't want to explain their legal agreement, you are dealing with bullies -- leave immediately. Respectfully disagree in writing.
Third, ask your supervisor what the options are. There are a few I can think of: (a) Perhaps they can *purchase* the rights to your evening work, (b) You can make sure that your exposure within the company stays _far_ away from what your evening work is doing (refuse to go to meetings that would be a conflict of interest), (c) You should ask for a raise if they want you to work in the area you've been studying the last few months.
In general, companys are willing to work with you; the legal costs can be 10-60K to raise a law suit. So, as long as you're cheaper than that... you don't have a problem. Well. Hope this helps. -- Clark
The OpenBSD fellas can then write a proposal to modify OpenBDS so that it is a trusted system. This is what DARPA projects are all about.
What are you talking about. A bulk of the first-generation open source stuff out there was at least partially funded by DARPA. Get a clue. This is a great opportunity for those with open source experience to put forth a proposal that may fund them for a year or more.
The way DARPA usually works is on a grant basis. Those people qualified should get together (or stay seperate) and write up a grant. DARPA isn't going to look for grantees. The potential grantees must go to DARPA (with a proposal).
At least this way what is blocked and what is not blocked will be publicly known and the community of users can control it. For those with some initiative, there is probably some grant money to do this... espececially from the political campaigns (who routinely have their sites blocked). Thoughts?
(think patent invalidation)
Bill Gates thinks he is inhuman and above the law beacuse the media tells him that he is inhuman and above the law, a "supra-geinus". Perhaps a few books and articles like this may help to change some popular opinion about gates, and this, more than anything else may make the fella a bit less arrogant and a more responsible citizen.
Yes. Razor thin profit margins and SKY HIGH executive salaries. The proof is in the puddin.
A majority of the employees in such a business as Amazon are not technology workers. They are phone support, packing, shipping, billing. Hard labor and/or mundane clerical operations. Individually, they are powerless; however, they do have the power to communicate with their fellow workers and join together to protect their rights. They should have the right to do so, read the declaration of independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Notice that governments are formed primarly to secure these unalienable Rights. Why? United we stand and divided we fall. There is no reason why Amazon should afford to pay it's top execs millions in stock options while the line workers are working in poor conditions. When you negotiate as an individual with a company, you are negotiating against a united management. It is only just and fair that individuals have the right to negotiate with management as a whole, so that the barganing power is more evenly distributed among the parties.
The author of this article is spot on. As for the author for this comment, I say, grow up.