Damn dude, you know something called the "Omega Laser" is just doomed to end up malfunctioning and destroying the world. It sounds like something that Dr. Robotnik would build...
Though you can look at their schematics (if you have the same software as them), the license isn't really "open source" in the sense we've come to love. They place restrictions on how you can use the designs (not for anything that might cause injury) and how you can distribute them (can't build anything commercial). They can revoke the license at any time. So, for instance, you couldn't use these in a GPL project. Check out the license.
This is in fact a nice step, but not all licenses are created equal!
This is pretty trivial to build; you shouldn't need schematics. Audio signals are pure analog, so all you really need to do is get a switch with multiple throws (3 for stereo) and wire it up to jacks and mount it in some kind of box. If you get a rotary switch you could have a pretty much arbitrary number of computers hooked up to it.
If you care about sound quality or having the device look nice, just get a desktop mixer. That's perfect for having multiple computers driving a single stereo.
They are currently being sued, or threatened? Perhaps you could argue that it takes merely mindless transcription of the shirt to a file (or perhaps an OCR scanner) in order to make the device function. This would be similar to the steps you need to get the code to work in the first place (compiling it). In any case, it would be interesting to see how a judge would view that.
It's not. This is just typical slashdot DMCA alarmism!
The only thing I can think of that would reasonably make people think that a book describing circumvention would be illegal is the threats that Ed Felten received about his watermarking paper. However, I don't see any reasonable argument (or any actual caselaw) that would indicate that such a thing is banned by the DMCA.
> the issue is distributing information about how to bypass copyprotection which is very illigal just ask the poor guy who made decss.
No. 2600 got in trouble for distributing the source code for DeCSS because the source code (while information, at some level) is a "circumvention device" (according to the judge). The functional aspect of the code (once run through a compiler) was key to this. It would be difficult to argue that a book is an actual "device," and the DMCA does not ban anything (relevant) other than the act of circumvention and circumvention devices.
> How is modding your X-Box illegal under the DCMA?
Well, check it out -- search for 17 USC 1201 on google and read the law. Section c, I think, describes circumvention devices and outlaws them. Also, the act of circumvention is outlawed.
In this case, circumvention and circumvention device are defined carefully, but I believe that x-box modchips would fall under the definition. Certainly the act of using a modchip to play illegally copied games would be a DMCA violation. If the modding community builds enough reasonable legal uses of modchips (ie, Xbox linux), then it's possible that modchips would be in the clear because they have substantial non-infringing use.
> if the actual harware mod is illegal then WTF? I should be able to do whatever I want with my hardware (physically).
Yes, that's something awful about the DMCA, isn't it?
Back in my day, we didn't have these fancy electronic games. Our pee games were writing in snow, dissolving the urinal cookie, or cutting up toilet paper.
If I may quote the GPL: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted"
So he's allowing copying, distribution, and modification, but not running. Looks good to me.
It's true that the GPL does not restrict how you can run a program.
Nonetheless, you must provide the source (the preferred form for modifying the work) along with the work (the signed binary). The source must include the signing key, because without that the (not inconsiderable) functional aspect of the work (its ability to run) is destroyed during the process of modification. Such a form could hardly be considered the "preferred" form for modifying it! If he was distributing a work that didn't run in the first place, then your argument would hold some water...
The best (single-player) games I have ever played are:
Bionic Commando (NES) Adventures of Lolo II (NES) Super Mario Bros. III (NES) Chrono Trigger (SNES) Super Mario World (SNES) Legend of Zelda III: A Link To The Past (SNES) Castlevania: Symphony of the Night (Playstation) The Secret of Monkey Island (PC) (sequel is good too) Quake I (PC) Worms: Armageddon (PC, etc.) (also great multi-player) Pyro II (PC)
Actually, I'm interested in what others think are "must-play" games given these tastes. I don't like these "new-fangled" 3D games much, to tell you the truth...
No, because the work is the program with the signature of the CA that allows it to be run in the signed environment. You can't just conveniently forget a certain part of the work--the GPL requires that you give the source for *all* of it. That doesn't just mean the program code, but anything else that it needs to run. If somehow you can argue that the signature is a separate work (not likely for these phone devices) that's not a derivative of the original GPL work, then you'd be in the clear.
You have to provide the source for *the work* offered, which in this case is the signed binary. The source is the preferred form for making modifications to the work. If you can't even reproduce the work without the key, then I can't see how that could possibly be considered the preferred form!
Maybe I'm overlooking it, but I don't see that the GPL requires people to let you redistribute their binaries. As far as I can tell, the creator of this software can prohibit you from redistributing his binaries, even if they are derived from GPL'ed source code.
No way. Look at section 3, which begins:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following...
And section 6, which says:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
> Linus would still be the only person (that I know of) whose name is the basis of the name of a major OS.
Anything with BSD in its name came from "Berkeley Software Distribution" which of course is named after the city of Berkeley, which itself is named after the philosopher Bishop George Berkeley. Go B go!
> You can distribute source which only compiles on Microsoft's Visual C++ compiler, even though it isn't possible to recreate > the binary without using proprietary pieces of software.
Well, the GPL makes exceptions for tools that come with major components of the operating system (it even mentions the compiler specifically). Rememember that when the GPL was made, there were no free software platforms or compilers! They obviously thought about this situation...
> You can redistribute the source to Quake, even though you can't actually get Quake out of it unless you already have the > proprietary map and texture files.
iD licensed the source to the Quake engine, but did not put Quake I the game under the GPL. If they did, they'd have to release the map and texture files as well, since those are required for making modifications to the game.
> However the precedents all point to this being acceptable under the conditions being presented.
What precedents? The GPL is fairly clear about what must be included as "source" for a GPL work, and I don't think that the signing key (and software) fall under the "usually included" exemption.
> ??? Since when is the prefered form for modification the binary version? He said that he was freely distributing the source > and an unsigned binary, clearly this meets the GPL... Or at least the GPL as I understand it as IANAL.
I think you misunderstood my post. What I'm saying is that if he has a piece of software on his site, "signed gameboy emulator," that is a derivative work of the GPL gameboy emulator whose code it is based on. Therefore he has to provide the tools and source code for modifying that work. Because it's not possible to build a signed binary without the signing key, the signing key becomes part of the "source" as defined in the GPL. If the CA gives him a vendor key, he could do this, but if the CA signs the binaries themselves (probably true) then he wouldn't be able to distribute the signed binary at all.
> In fact, the signing works nicely in your favor, since nobody can undercut you on price. Or they can, but they too have to > pay the L500,... or purchase a copy from him and then resell it!
The GPL defines the source as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." If the work includes the signature and you don't plan on distributing the private key (or can't, because the signing authority won't give it to you) then you are probably in violation. This makes sense--if the platform *only* accepted signed binaries, then users would be unable to make modifications to the program, which is an important freedom that the GPL is intended to protect. You might be okay if the signature can somehow be separated from the GPL'd work, but that's probably not likely for these phone apps.
Aside from that, if you're looking to recoup your 500 pounds for the signing fee, you might also be in for trouble since once someone buys a single copy, he can legally put up his own web site giving it out for free.
They have live demonstrations of Asimo, Honda's walking humanoid robot. The presentation is intended for kids, but the robot is pretty fucken cool. If you're there, don't miss it!
... we started using CVS and found it to be the best version control system any of us have ever used.
Wow. Really? I use CVS, as do most of my colleagues, but I don't know anybody who actually likes it. It's filled with idiosyncracies, is fundamentally insecure, is totally useless for binary data, and lacks basic obvious features. You want to delete a directory? You want to get a list of the actual changes when you update? You want to nest CVS repositories? Sorry, not in CVS!
There are loads of car stereos with an input jack for your MP3 player. Some of them call this feature "MP3 ready" or some misleading thing like that, but that's what you want, so head down to your local car stereo store and go for it!
What I need is a mouse with a 2D scroll wheel on it, which itself has a little laptop nipple for scrolling within text-boxes inside the scrolled region of the window.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn dude, you know something called the "Omega Laser" is just doomed to end up malfunctioning and destroying the world. It sounds like something that Dr. Robotnik would build...
Though you can look at their schematics (if you have the same software as them), the license isn't really "open source" in the sense we've come to love. They place restrictions on how you can use the designs (not for anything that might cause injury) and how you can distribute them (can't build anything commercial). They can revoke the license at any time. So, for instance, you couldn't use these in a GPL project. Check out the license.
This is in fact a nice step, but not all licenses are created equal!
This is pretty trivial to build; you shouldn't need schematics. Audio signals are pure analog, so all you really need to do is get a switch with multiple throws (3 for stereo) and wire it up to jacks and mount it in some kind of box. If you get a rotary switch you could have a pretty much arbitrary number of computers hooked up to it.
If you care about sound quality or having the device look nice, just get a desktop mixer. That's perfect for having multiple computers driving a single stereo.
> As long as you are not using your X-Box to play pirated games (or access other copyrighted material), you are not using it to
> circumvent anything.
That's true, but even if you don't use the modchip to circumvent, the modchip itself may be illegal because it is a circumvention device.
They are currently being sued, or threatened? Perhaps you could argue that it takes merely mindless transcription of the shirt to a file (or perhaps an OCR scanner) in order to make the device function. This would be similar to the steps you need to get the code to work in the first place (compiling it). In any case, it would be interesting to see how a judge would view that.
It's not. This is just typical slashdot DMCA alarmism!
The only thing I can think of that would reasonably make people think that a book describing circumvention would be illegal is the threats that Ed Felten received about his watermarking paper. However, I don't see any reasonable argument (or any actual caselaw) that would indicate that such a thing is banned by the DMCA.
> the issue is distributing information about how to bypass copyprotection which is very illigal just ask the poor guy who made decss.
No. 2600 got in trouble for distributing the source code for DeCSS because the source code (while information, at some level) is a "circumvention device" (according to the judge). The functional aspect of the code (once run through a compiler) was key to this. It would be difficult to argue that a book is an actual "device," and the DMCA does not ban anything (relevant) other than the act of circumvention and circumvention devices.
> How is modding your X-Box illegal under the DCMA?
Well, check it out -- search for 17 USC 1201 on google and read the law. Section c, I think, describes circumvention devices and outlaws them. Also, the act of circumvention is outlawed.
In this case, circumvention and circumvention device are defined carefully, but I believe that x-box modchips would fall under the definition. Certainly the act of using a modchip to play illegally copied games would be a DMCA violation. If the modding community builds enough reasonable legal uses of modchips (ie, Xbox linux), then it's possible that modchips would be in the clear because they have substantial non-infringing use.
> if the actual harware mod is illegal then WTF? I should be able to do whatever I want with my hardware (physically).
Yes, that's something awful about the DMCA, isn't it?
Back in my day, we didn't have these fancy electronic games. Our pee games were writing in snow, dissolving the urinal cookie, or cutting up toilet paper.
If I may quote the GPL:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted"
So he's allowing copying, distribution, and modification, but not running. Looks good to me.
It's true that the GPL does not restrict how you can run a program.
Nonetheless, you must provide the source (the preferred form for modifying the work) along with the work (the signed binary).
The source must include the signing key, because without that the (not inconsiderable) functional aspect of the work (its ability to run) is destroyed during the process of modification. Such a form could hardly be considered the "preferred" form for modifying it! If he was distributing a work that didn't run in the first place, then your argument would hold some water...
The best (single-player) games I have ever played are:
Bionic Commando (NES)
Adventures of Lolo II (NES)
Super Mario Bros. III (NES)
Chrono Trigger (SNES)
Super Mario World (SNES)
Legend of Zelda III: A Link To The Past (SNES)
Castlevania: Symphony of the Night (Playstation)
The Secret of Monkey Island (PC) (sequel is good too)
Quake I (PC)
Worms: Armageddon (PC, etc.) (also great multi-player)
Pyro II (PC)
Actually, I'm interested in what others think are "must-play" games given these tastes. I don't like these "new-fangled" 3D games much, to tell you the truth...
No, because the work is the program with the signature of the CA that allows it to be run in the signed environment. You can't just conveniently forget a certain part of the work--the GPL requires that you give the source for *all* of it. That doesn't just mean the program code, but anything else that it needs to run. If somehow you can argue that the signature is a separate work (not likely for these phone devices) that's not a derivative of the original GPL work, then you'd be in the clear.
You have to provide the source for *the work* offered, which in this case is the signed binary. The source is the preferred form for making modifications to the work. If you can't even reproduce the work without the key, then I can't see how that could possibly be considered the preferred form!
Maybe I'm overlooking it, but I don't see that the GPL requires people to let you redistribute their binaries. As far as I can tell, the creator of this software can prohibit you from redistributing his binaries, even if they are derived from GPL'ed source code.
...
No way. Look at section 3, which begins:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following
And section 6, which says:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
> Linus would still be the only person (that I know of) whose name is the basis of the name of a major OS.
Anything with BSD in its name came from "Berkeley Software Distribution" which of course is named after the city of Berkeley, which itself is named after the philosopher Bishop George Berkeley. Go B go!
(I agree with the rest of your post, by the way!)
> You can distribute source which only compiles on Microsoft's Visual C++ compiler, even though it isn't possible to recreate
> the binary without using proprietary pieces of software.
Well, the GPL makes exceptions for tools that come with major components of the operating system (it even mentions the compiler specifically). Rememember that when the GPL was made, there were no free software platforms or compilers! They obviously thought about this situation...
> You can redistribute the source to Quake, even though you can't actually get Quake out of it unless you already have the
> proprietary map and texture files.
iD licensed the source to the Quake engine, but did not put Quake I the game under the GPL. If they did, they'd have to release the map and texture files as well, since those are required for making modifications to the game.
> However the precedents all point to this being acceptable under the conditions being presented.
What precedents? The GPL is fairly clear about what must be included as "source" for a GPL work, and I don't think that the signing key (and software) fall under the "usually included" exemption.
> ??? Since when is the prefered form for modification the binary version? He said that he was freely distributing the source
> and an unsigned binary, clearly this meets the GPL... Or at least the GPL as I understand it as IANAL.
I think you misunderstood my post. What I'm saying is that if he has a piece of software on his site, "signed gameboy emulator," that is a derivative work of the GPL gameboy emulator whose code it is based on. Therefore he has to provide the tools and source code for modifying that work. Because it's not possible to build a signed binary without the signing key, the signing key becomes part of the "source" as defined in the GPL. If the CA gives him a vendor key, he could do this, but if the CA signs the binaries themselves (probably true) then he wouldn't be able to distribute the signed binary at all.
> In fact, the signing works nicely in your favor, since nobody can undercut you on price. Or they can, but they too have to ... or purchase a copy from him and then resell it!
> pay the L500,
The GPL defines the source as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." If the work includes the signature and you don't plan on distributing the private key (or can't, because the signing authority won't give it to you) then you are probably in violation. This makes sense--if the platform *only* accepted signed binaries, then users would be unable to make modifications to the program, which is an important freedom that the GPL is intended to protect. You might be okay if the signature can somehow be separated from the GPL'd work, but that's probably not likely for these phone apps.
Aside from that, if you're looking to recoup your 500 pounds for the signing fee, you might also be in for trouble since once someone buys a single copy, he can legally put up his own web site giving it out for free.
There is a way to meet people who live near you. It is called "The World." You should check it out!
They have live demonstrations of Asimo, Honda's walking humanoid robot. The presentation is intended for kids, but the robot is pretty fucken cool. If you're there, don't miss it!
... we started using CVS and found it to be the best version control system any of us have ever used.
Wow. Really? I use CVS, as do most of my colleagues, but I don't know anybody who actually likes it. It's filled with idiosyncracies, is fundamentally insecure, is totally useless for binary data, and lacks basic obvious features. You want to delete a directory? You want to get a list of the actual changes when you update? You want to nest CVS repositories? Sorry, not in CVS!
There are loads of car stereos with an input jack for your MP3 player. Some of them call this feature "MP3 ready" or some misleading thing like that, but that's what you want, so head down to your local car stereo store and go for it!
What I need is a mouse with a 2D scroll wheel on it, which itself has a little laptop nipple for scrolling within text-boxes inside the scrolled region of the window.
If only you could replace the one that comes built into those titanium powerbooks...