Check out the Horde project. I've used their webmail & address book - both very good. They have projects for many of the other things you mention, as well.
Why wouldn't use use the google name, instead of the IP? Seems like more people would be willing to trust google, rather than a naked address. Maybe that's been done so much it's passe, and I've just missed it?
The LGPL would dictate that we publicly release the source code to our copy-protection support - an action which would violate the tenets of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
Now, I've never used their software, but wouldn't the breaking of the copy protection be the part that the DMCA would have a problem with, not the publishing of how to do so? ElcomSoft wasn't publishing how to crack ebooks, but that didn't help Dmitry.
I'm sure Transgaming knows more about why they can't use the LGPL than I do, but this part seems inconsistent to me.
I have to disagree with this. I, personally, don't want the same government that has brought us so many half-assed & corporate-sponsored bills (*cough* DMCA *cough*) trying to do any more to 'help'.
You're suggesting that our government needs to act more like China's?
...the GPL requires any changes to the source code to be made public and be licensed under the GPL...
Small things like this are what contribute to the FUD about the GPL. Say it with me - you only have to release your changes if you distribute them. It's these misinterpretations that allow MSFT to claim that using Linux will 'infect' your company.
Slashdot Mirror
I had to go check this out, and not only do you see the information from the last person who ordered (I'm presuming), but THAT PAGE ISN'T ENCRYPTED.
Non-SSL'd CC transmission, now that's livin'.Check out the Horde project. I've used their webmail & address book - both very good. They have projects for many of the other things you mention, as well.
Why wouldn't use use the google name, instead of the IP? Seems like more people would be willing to trust google, rather than a naked address. Maybe that's been done so much it's passe, and I've just missed it?
From their page:
The LGPL would dictate that we publicly release the source code to our copy-protection support - an action which would violate the tenets of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
Now, I've never used their software, but wouldn't the breaking of the copy protection be the part that the DMCA would have a problem with, not the publishing of how to do so? ElcomSoft wasn't publishing how to crack ebooks, but that didn't help Dmitry.
I'm sure Transgaming knows more about why they can't use the LGPL than I do, but this part seems inconsistent to me.
I'm not trolling, but that's not a news piece. Yes, it's on their 'news.com' site, but it's an opinion column, written by Bruce Perens.
I'm not saying he's not right, it's just that presenting it as news is misleading.
I have to disagree with this. I, personally, don't want the same government that has brought us so many half-assed & corporate-sponsored bills (*cough* DMCA *cough*) trying to do any more to 'help'.
You're suggesting that our government needs to act more like China's?
Small things like this are what contribute to the FUD about the GPL. Say it with me - you only have to release your changes if you distribute them. It's these misinterpretations that allow MSFT to claim that using Linux will 'infect' your company.
For reference, it's here in the GPL.
here
If you're not interested in code as code, you don't get it.