We need to have as many technical and scientific minds work with the lawyers of the EFF all through this case. This being the first case testing this abomination of a law, we need to make sure that it is rightly patched and/or overturned. We don't want to fall for a 'quick fix' that seems to be better, when in the long run the law still favors the wrong side. Make sure the lawyers know what to get fixed and how to fix them properly for the benefit of everyone.
OK, I'm on it! Let's see...
Bugzilla Helper Product: Digital Millenium Copyright Act
Component: Creation and utilization of access-control circumvention devices, legality of
Platform: all
Operating System: all (especially open-source OSes)
Build ID: 1998-10-28
URL:http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=sklyarov, http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=sdmi Summary: I am allowed to use an AC-circumvention device, but not allowed to create or distribute one, even if it is to be used for legitimate purposes; this sets up a feedback loop that short-circuits the effectiveness of full-disclosure security practices, consumer-rights advocacy, and exercise of First Amendment rights.
Description: According to the DMCA, I am allowed to use an access-control circumvention devices to gain access to works which I have the "legitimate" right to ("legitimate" in this sense is defined as "rights which I have paid money for and have not been unilaterally revoked by the copyright holder" but excludes the featureset known as "fair use doctrine" and "expiration of copyright"); however, if I create an access-control circumvention device, I can be prosecuted in the United States as a criminal and/or civil offense. Furthermore, describing how to create an access-control circumvention device is an offense, even if the device is used in a manner that complies with the DMCA.
Reproduces: Sometimes, but not others; effect seems to depend on whether the "criminal" is a foreigner, an academic, or considered to be part of a "hacker organization" or the "open-source movement" (the latter two are erroneously treated as synonymous by the court system).
Steps to reproduce:
Discover that an access-control mechanism protecting copyrighted works is inadequate or flawed
Write an academic paper or technical article detailing the flaw/inadequacy
Delvier a presentation or create a software application that exploits the flaw/inadequacy; software can be of proof-of-concept quality, though being distributed commercially by a company operating in a country where such products are not illegal increases the chance of triggering the DMCA bug
Get arrested by the FBI or threatened with civil action by a large multinational company whose "livelihood" is threatened by your discovery
Actual results: In one case, a team of academics was bullied into canceling a presentation showing the ineffectiveness of a proposed "watermark" introduced into a digital music file as part of the SDMI initiative. In another case, a Russian programmer was arrested by the FBI as he was leaving a hotel where he had given a presentation exposing the weakness of encryption used in an Adobe "e-book reader" program.
Severity: Critical: DMCA hangs offenders with presumption of guilt, fails to prevent leaks, and causes users to lose data and companies to spend large amounts of money trying, to paraphrase Bruce Schneier, "make water not wet".
...when the BSA annoucned it was riding into town.
I work at a local computer/software store, and I've been hearing the ads (I live near one of the cities mentioned in the article).
And all last week, we've had people buying multiple copies of Office XP (now with new anti-consumer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpiracy features!) and Windows. All thanks to Der Gestapo at the BSA.
Interstingly enough, we got a huge shipment of Office XP and the Windows trinity (98/ME/100), enough to cover our recent spike in sales. Lucky us, huh?
Fortunately, as the *koff*koff*"Linux expert" at the store, I was able to do my part to make sure a few people walked away with some penguin-themed boxes...
The FBI in this case sought legal rights to survey the activities of an alledged mobster. The FBI had reason to survey this person's activities and obtained the legal authroization plant a deveice of some kind.
Um, no they didn't; that's the whole point of this alleged mobster's suit.
They had a search warrant, which allowed the FBI to search for currently existing evidence. Scarfo's suit charges that in order to place whatever device they used, they needed a wiretap order, which has a stronger standard to meet.
The vote in the Senate was unanimous (the one abstention was not physically present) and the vote in the House was a voice vote; there is no record who which representative voted which way.
You would think that java would be another thing that would be very portable but Debian still does not include Open Office because none of the Free java compilers can run the java parts of it.
I was under the impression that no one included OpenOffice because it wasn't ready yet; I seem to recall an editorial in a magazine that criticzed Sun for giving us an "open-source office suite" that lacked basic print functionality, for one.
Now, to be fair, the editorial pointed out that Sun had to strip out all of the code that they had licensed from others, but the point is, OpenOffice on it's "debut" was much like the Netscape 5 codebase; barely usable without major work.
Granted, this was many months ago, and I'm sure much work has been done to clean up the OpenOffice code. But how come I can't find anyone talking about OpenOffice besides their own website? Does no one care about the "MS Office-killer" any more?
Can someone please explain how Cox's resignation will help the cause? Whouldn't it be more effective if he remained in his position and used it to promote the cause?
His resignation has nothing to do with his ability to "help the cause."
His resignation is based on his personal belief that he would share the blame if another programmer was arrested, in a situation similar to Skylarov's, while attending a conference he helped organize and/or promote.
Without simplicity, products are destined for failure. Great concepts are often complex concepts packaged in simple packaging. Why would a teacher unfamiliar with your product choose "K-12LTSP v.1.0" over "Microsoft Windows"? If you don't choose a name that you can build recognition with your products will be simply unrecognizeable (and thus unsold).
Perhaps when there is nothing left on the internet but IRC and a few lame-ass user-brewed sites, slashdotters will finally come to realize that the basic concept of intellectual property and the right to charge for it is fundamental to there being information in the first place.
Sorry, but "information" has been around a lot longer than the concept of "intellectual property". And somehow, artists and authors managed to not starve to death out on the street for hundreds, nay thousands, of years, while creating new ideas to share. (Ever wonder how much the creator of the trebuchet got paid?)
"Intellectual property" is a quaint legal fiction that supposes that you have some ability or right to control an idea that has been passed to me and resides in my mind. Never mind the fact that there are no true, 100% original ideas ("If I see farther, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants" and all that), things such as copyright and patents work because they used to apply to physical, tangible products -- a story had to be recorded or performed, and inventions had to be created from raw material.
When there is a finite amount of time and physical material to create products from, then it makes sense there is reason to grant "idea makers" some time to profit off of their ideas. If I take Fred's idea for a more efficient teakettle and can make more money off of them than Fred could (by producing more of themor charging less for them), then it makes sense to see Fred get compensated, since I'm making more money than if I used those materials to make my boring old teakettle design. The same goes with books; if I print and sell a J.R.R. Tolkein novel, I'll make more money than if I used that paper and ink to print "Photographs of Elbows, Volume 137".
But at some point, those ideas become known -- they become so commonplace as to be the basis for new creations. The original intent for copyright and patents was a codification of that principle; at some point, copyright and patent holders have to relinquish control over their ideas, to join the wellspring for new ideas; that's the price for being allowed to have a monopoly of distribution and production.
Current IP law is trying to make the free and easy transfer of intangible information as slow and difficult as transferring tangible objects, and it just won't work; the two are fundamentally different. And as the methods of production and distribution became even cheaper and easier -- look, people across the country and around the world are reading this, and all I had to do was hit "Submit"! -- the kludges intended to hamper them will become even more unworkable. And there will come a breaking point.
Oh, sure, maybe most of the people who hang out on Slashdot would never make such an obvious error, but lemme tell you, there are heaps of people buying software out there who don't really have any idea of what they're buying; they're relying on word-of-mouth from people who read an article in last month's PC World.
I know this, because I sell retail software for a living.
I get people coming in asking for "Windows 2000 Millenium Edition" every day. They think they can upgrade Windows 98 to Office 2000, or that they can't run Office 2000 because they only have Windows 98. And that's the products from one company; I get people who tell me that StarOffice is Microsoft's version of Office for Linux, and still others who ask for "Adobe" -- not "Adobe Photoshop" or "Adobe Illustrator", but "Adobe". Sure, I help straighten them out (and manage to not come off as egotistical and self-absorbed in the process, unlike so many of the people posting in this thread).
But yeah, I can tell you there's a good chance that someone would buy SuSE Linux, because it includes KOffice and KIllustrator, and think they're getting away with murder because they they're not paying $400 for Adobe Illustrator and $500 for Microsoft Office.
Right now I'm leaning toward debian, as all examples I've seen of apt-get are extremely nice. However, I'd have no clue how to even start/using/ apt-get. I don't know what the sources file is. I don't know how to use dpkg. I have no clue.
So the question is: is there an easy way to pick up on this and other debianisms that I'm going to run into?
As a Red Hat-turned-Debian user, I can tell you the process is quite simple.
First, dpkg is simply the program that installs and removes packages, a la rpm. You can install locally-downloaded software with a simple "dpkg -i <filename>". You can also use dpkg to get a list of the installed packages, and set the status of certain packages as well (you can tell it to "hold" a package to prevent it from being updated, "purge" a package to remove its configuration files when removing, and more).
The apt tool is the Debian method of tracking file sources and dependancies. It uses a plaintext file,/etc/apt/soruces.list, to keep track of file lcoations (usually they are http or ftp locations, but there are add-ons that allow you to install from CDs, a tool to create and maintain a local mirror, and more; I believe Mandrake was looking at tweaking apt to use rpms as well).
To install a program without having to know the exact location of the file, you simply use "apt-get install <packagename>"-- apt checks the locally-stored index and prompts you to insert the proper CD, downloads it from a remote site, etc. Upgrades are handled in the same fashion.
Most all of this can be found in the respective manpages. Hope this gets you started.
...Cisco is reporting a projected 40% upswing in earnings for the next quarter, after a favorable review of their technical support personnel on the discussion site Slashdot led to a surge in sales for support contracts.
"It's the first the the Slashdot effect has been a productive one", said an unnamed Cisco official, pausing briefly to dodge a large bag of cash sailing through a nearby window.
Isn't it just a little ironic for a open source advocate to be questioning if a restrictive software license is legal? After all GPL does require you to give away the source to your software if you use GPLed source, or staticly link to a GPLed application.
The GPL and EULAs are different beasts entirely.
The GPL only covers distribution of the software in question, and explicitly grants you rights that you would not have under copyright law (namely, ability to publish and distribute the code or derivative works without compensation to the author).
EULAs cover use of the software; as a result, they tend to restrict what you can do with their product, as traditional copyright already covers distribution of the software.
Hey Thompson, see if you can get your superior wavelet mathematicians and marketting statisticians to tell you what 2% of ZERO is!
Thomson may get the last laugh on you, though.
From the article you apparently didn't read:
This week, Linde revealed Thomson's licensing policy for streaming or broadcasting "pure MP3." The royalty rate is two percent of revenues related to streaming, with a minimum fee of $2,000 per year.
That's right, it doesn't matter how little you rake in, they want $2000 a year for streaming MP3. Better hope you stay under their radar, or start making plans to move to Ogg-Vorbis sometime soon...
Don't scoff at it too quickly, now -- Those shrink-wrapped licenses stand on the same legal ground as the GPL! After all, neither is written on paper, and they rely on implicit acceptance through the actions of the end user.
But you're making a common error when comparing the GPL to EULAs: the GPL covers distribution of the software in question, where EULAs cover the use of the software.
Since they affect the use of the software, EULAs serve to restrict the rights of the end user -- there wouldn't be a need to agree to a license that says "you can do whatever you want with this stuff", would there? -- because unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material is already illegal according to copyright law.
The GPL serves only as a contract for distribution of the software; specifically, granting the end user free and unlimited(*) right to distribute the copyrighted source code. Thus UCITA has little bearing on the GPL, since as far as I k now, it attempts to alter the nature of usage agreements, not copyright law.
(*)The pedantics among us will point out there is one "limitation" to the GPL's "freedom"; when distributing code that you have acquired under the GPL, that code must also be distributed under the terms of the GPL; this is the hook that keeps GPLed code "Free" in a world where proprietary software is the norm, and is as strange a concept now as young Bill Gates' idea of selling what everyone else was giving away, many years ago...
OK, They get a tip from the BSA, but so what? I have NO agreement with them, so I say "No, you can't come in, pound sand, I have no business with you"
Sure, you can say "go away" but, depending on the size of the "penalties" they can recover from you, they will keep pestering you until you "prove" you're in the clear.
There is no "innocent until proven guilty" with them.
Let's say I have a shop with NO Microsoft software, and that has NEVER had any Microsoft software. Can they audit me, and , if they can, what gives them the right?
The IButton looks cool, although I'm not 100% clear how it works -- is it just a chip that I can dump my keys to? Or does it need some kind of "dock"? (to be fair, I only scanned the link).
At the same time, it doesn't change the basic premise of this story -- that is, your encryption is only as secure as your keys. If I snag the keychain with your IButton, then that key will eventually be compromised. At the very least, it denies you access to the systems that require your IButton.
Debian does only have old packages... Have you recently installed a 2.2R2 system? Kernel 2.2.18? XFree 3.3.6. No version of KDE. Trust me, the lack of KDE keeps a lot of potential users using Mandrake. OpenSSH 1.? XMMS 1.01?
You're right, Debian stable has only older stuff. But if you get into your sources.list file and change "stable" to "unstable" and apt-get dist-upgrade, you get all of the goodies you desire (except for pre-compiled 2.4 kernels, but as someone pointed out, I'm going to recompile my kernel anyway -- and kmake-kpkg makes it pretty painless).
As for the stability of "unstable", well, Red Hat's x.0 releases wish they could be this "unstable". Honestly, when testing freezes (hopefully with a 2.4 kernel) I may just switch my sources.list back to "stable" and forget about needing the latest and greatest stuff every day...
I'm feeling generous today, so it's time to feed a lonely old troll...
What APACHE cracked? How come when an apache server is cracked, the slashdot crowd says "who were these idiots who can't apply patches!" but when an IIS server is cracked and people say "they haven't applied the patches, cluess admins!" those folks get either flamed or modded into oblivion? The double standard is really getting old and the reason I don't read/. very often anymore...
1. There is no "Slashdot crowd". We all disagree, many times vehemently, on just about every topic you can imagine. Closed vs. open source, Linux vs. xBSD, KDE vs. GNOME, Perl vs. python, mySQL vs. postgreSQL; you nameit, at least half a dozen flamewars on/. have occurred over it.
2. You can't even come up with a compelling rant; where is the double standard here? Using your own words...
Apache:when an apache server is cracked, the slashdot crowd says "who were these idiots who can't apply patches!"
IIS:when an IIS server is cracked and people say "they haven't applied the patches, cluess admins!"
It seems to me that your rhetorical "Slashdot crowd" is saying that it's the admin's fault in both cases.
3. If/. is so painful for you to read, leave. You're only wasting your time and ours posting mindless gripes. But then again, that's the only thing a good troll does anymore...
So let's say I'm discussing something techie via e-mail or a discussion forum using the Passport site and by way of example I include a snippet of GPL'd code. My reading of MS's Passport terms tells me that they now have the right to use that snippet of GPL code, create derivative products, etc. Doesn't that collide with the GPL? Sounds like a lawyer's wet dream...
It does not collide with the GPL, because the GPL is the license under which you release your (implicitly) copyrighted work.
The Passport Terms of Service is an attempt to re-hack the copyright issue in their favor by saying that, when you use their service, you are agreeing to give them a free (an is no-compenstation) unlimited license to do whatever they want with any copyrighted material that passes through any Passport-"affiliated" service. (Note the section labeled "License to Microsoft" to see what I mean.)
So in essence, your code could be considered to be under two licenses; the GPL and the MS-specific "AYBABTU" license. (Hey, I like that name...)
Dual-licensing is possible -- IIRC, Mozilla is offered under both the MPL and the GPL now. And I believe Troll Tech still offers Qt under the GPL and the QPL.
Slashdot Mirror
Say what? You mean I haven't seen these games appear in the past few months?
According to Apple's gaming site, these are games due to ship in the coming months:
Sure, Mac gaming isn't as lively as Windows gaming, but it's note the wasteland you made it out to be, either...
Jay (=
OK, I'm on it! Let's see...
Bugzilla Helper
Product: Digital Millenium Copyright Act
Component: Creation and utilization of access-control circumvention devices, legality of
Platform: all
Operating System: all (especially open-source OSes)
Build ID: 1998-10-28
URL: http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=sklyarov, http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=sdmi
Summary:
I am allowed to use an AC-circumvention device, but not allowed to create or distribute one, even if it is to be used for legitimate purposes; this sets up a feedback loop that short-circuits the effectiveness of full-disclosure security practices, consumer-rights advocacy, and exercise of First Amendment rights.
Description:
According to the DMCA, I am allowed to use an access-control circumvention devices to gain access to works which I have the "legitimate" right to ("legitimate" in this sense is defined as "rights which I have paid money for and have not been unilaterally revoked by the copyright holder" but excludes the featureset known as "fair use doctrine" and "expiration of copyright"); however, if I create an access-control circumvention device, I can be prosecuted in the United States as a criminal and/or civil offense. Furthermore, describing how to create an access-control circumvention device is an offense, even if the device is used in a manner that complies with the DMCA.
Reproduces:
Sometimes, but not others; effect seems to depend on whether the "criminal" is a foreigner, an academic, or considered to be part of a "hacker organization" or the "open-source movement" (the latter two are erroneously treated as synonymous by the court system).
Steps to reproduce:
Actual results:
In one case, a team of academics was bullied into canceling a presentation showing the ineffectiveness of a proposed "watermark" introduced into a digital music file as part of the SDMI initiative. In another case, a Russian programmer was arrested by the FBI as he was leaving a hotel where he had given a presentation exposing the weakness of encryption used in an Adobe "e-book reader" program.
Severity:
Critical: DMCA hangs offenders with presumption of guilt, fails to prevent leaks, and causes users to lose data and companies to spend large amounts of money trying, to paraphrase Bruce Schneier, "make water not wet".
...when the BSA annoucned it was riding into town.
I work at a local computer/software store, and I've been hearing the ads (I live near one of the cities mentioned in the article).
And all last week, we've had people buying multiple copies of Office XP (now with new anti-consumer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpiracy features!) and Windows. All thanks to Der Gestapo at the BSA.
Interstingly enough, we got a huge shipment of Office XP and the Windows trinity (98/ME/100), enough to cover our recent spike in sales. Lucky us, huh?
Fortunately, as the *koff*koff*"Linux expert" at the store, I was able to do my part to make sure a few people walked away with some penguin-themed boxes...
Jay (=
The FBI in this case sought legal rights to survey the activities of an alledged mobster. The FBI had reason to survey this person's activities and obtained the legal authroization plant a deveice of some kind.
Um, no they didn't; that's the whole point of this alleged mobster's suit.
They had a search warrant, which allowed the FBI to search for currently existing evidence. Scarfo's suit charges that in order to place whatever device they used, they needed a wiretap order, which has a stronger standard to meet.
Jay (=
The vote in the Senate was unanimous (the one abstention was not physically present) and the vote in the House was a voice vote; there is no record who which representative voted which way.
Nice, huh?
Jay (=
You would think that java would be another thing that would be very portable but Debian still does not include Open Office because none of the Free java compilers can run the java parts of it.
I was under the impression that no one included OpenOffice because it wasn't ready yet; I seem to recall an editorial in a magazine that criticzed Sun for giving us an "open-source office suite" that lacked basic print functionality, for one.
Now, to be fair, the editorial pointed out that Sun had to strip out all of the code that they had licensed from others, but the point is, OpenOffice on it's "debut" was much like the Netscape 5 codebase; barely usable without major work.
Granted, this was many months ago, and I'm sure much work has been done to clean up the OpenOffice code. But how come I can't find anyone talking about OpenOffice besides their own website? Does no one care about the "MS Office-killer" any more?
Jay (=
Can someone please explain how Cox's resignation will help the cause? Whouldn't it be more effective if he remained in his position and used it to promote the cause?
His resignation has nothing to do with his ability to "help the cause."
His resignation is based on his personal belief that he would share the blame if another programmer was arrested, in a situation similar to Skylarov's, while attending a conference he helped organize and/or promote.
Jay (=
Without simplicity, products are destined for failure. Great concepts are often complex concepts packaged in simple packaging. Why would a teacher unfamiliar with your product choose "K-12LTSP v.1.0" over "Microsoft Windows"? If you don't choose a name that you can build recognition with your products will be simply unrecognizeable (and thus unsold).
Okay, how about Debian Jr. for a name then?
Jay (=
Perhaps when there is nothing left on the internet but IRC and a few lame-ass user-brewed sites, slashdotters will finally come to realize that the basic concept of intellectual property and the right to charge for it is fundamental to there being information in the first place.
Sorry, but "information" has been around a lot longer than the concept of "intellectual property". And somehow, artists and authors managed to not starve to death out on the street for hundreds, nay thousands, of years, while creating new ideas to share. (Ever wonder how much the creator of the trebuchet got paid?)
"Intellectual property" is a quaint legal fiction that supposes that you have some ability or right to control an idea that has been passed to me and resides in my mind. Never mind the fact that there are no true, 100% original ideas ("If I see farther, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants" and all that), things such as copyright and patents work because they used to apply to physical, tangible products -- a story had to be recorded or performed, and inventions had to be created from raw material.
When there is a finite amount of time and physical material to create products from, then it makes sense there is reason to grant "idea makers" some time to profit off of their ideas. If I take Fred's idea for a more efficient teakettle and can make more money off of them than Fred could (by producing more of themor charging less for them), then it makes sense to see Fred get compensated, since I'm making more money than if I used those materials to make my boring old teakettle design. The same goes with books; if I print and sell a J.R.R. Tolkein novel, I'll make more money than if I used that paper and ink to print "Photographs of Elbows, Volume 137".
But at some point, those ideas become known -- they become so commonplace as to be the basis for new creations. The original intent for copyright and patents was a codification of that principle; at some point, copyright and patent holders have to relinquish control over their ideas, to join the wellspring for new ideas; that's the price for being allowed to have a monopoly of distribution and production.
Current IP law is trying to make the free and easy transfer of intangible information as slow and difficult as transferring tangible objects, and it just won't work; the two are fundamentally different. And as the methods of production and distribution became even cheaper and easier -- look, people across the country and around the world are reading this, and all I had to do was hit "Submit"! -- the kludges intended to hamper them will become even more unworkable. And there will come a breaking point.
Jay (=
Oh, sure, maybe most of the people who hang out on Slashdot would never make such an obvious error, but lemme tell you, there are heaps of people buying software out there who don't really have any idea of what they're buying; they're relying on word-of-mouth from people who read an article in last month's PC World.
I know this, because I sell retail software for a living.
I get people coming in asking for "Windows 2000 Millenium Edition" every day. They think they can upgrade Windows 98 to Office 2000, or that they can't run Office 2000 because they only have Windows 98. And that's the products from one company; I get people who tell me that StarOffice is Microsoft's version of Office for Linux, and still others who ask for "Adobe" -- not "Adobe Photoshop" or "Adobe Illustrator", but "Adobe". Sure, I help straighten them out (and manage to not come off as egotistical and self-absorbed in the process, unlike so many of the people posting in this thread).
But yeah, I can tell you there's a good chance that someone would buy SuSE Linux, because it includes KOffice and KIllustrator, and think they're getting away with murder because they they're not paying $400 for Adobe Illustrator and $500 for Microsoft Office.
Jay (=
Right now I'm leaning toward debian, as all examples I've seen of apt-get are extremely nice. However, I'd have no clue how to even start /using/ apt-get. I don't know what the sources file is. I don't know how to use dpkg. I have no clue.
/etc/apt/soruces.list, to keep track of file lcoations (usually they are http or ftp locations, but there are add-ons that allow you to install from CDs, a tool to create and maintain a local mirror, and more; I believe Mandrake was looking at tweaking apt to use rpms as well).
So the question is: is there an easy way to pick up on this and other debianisms that I'm going to run into?
As a Red Hat-turned-Debian user, I can tell you the process is quite simple.
First, dpkg is simply the program that installs and removes packages, a la rpm. You can install locally-downloaded software with a simple "dpkg -i <filename>". You can also use dpkg to get a list of the installed packages, and set the status of certain packages as well (you can tell it to "hold" a package to prevent it from being updated, "purge" a package to remove its configuration files when removing, and more).
The apt tool is the Debian method of tracking file sources and dependancies. It uses a plaintext file,
To install a program without having to know the exact location of the file, you simply use "apt-get install <packagename>"-- apt checks the locally-stored index and prompts you to insert the proper CD, downloads it from a remote site, etc. Upgrades are handled in the same fashion.
Most all of this can be found in the respective manpages. Hope this gets you started.
Jay (=
I thought Progeny Linux was based upon the current release of Potato.
Are they just going to be quietly rev their version when Debian 3.0 comes out, or will we get a new box out of the deal?
Jay (=
...Cisco is reporting a projected 40% upswing in earnings for the next quarter, after a favorable review of their technical support personnel on the discussion site Slashdot led to a surge in sales for support contracts.
"It's the first the the Slashdot effect has been a productive one", said an unnamed Cisco official, pausing briefly to dodge a large bag of cash sailing through a nearby window.
Jay (=
Isn't it just a little ironic for a open source advocate to be questioning if a restrictive software license is legal? After all GPL does require you to give away the source to your software if you use GPLed source, or staticly link to a GPLed application.
The GPL and EULAs are different beasts entirely.
The GPL only covers distribution of the software in question, and explicitly grants you rights that you would not have under copyright law (namely, ability to publish and distribute the code or derivative works without compensation to the author).
EULAs cover use of the software; as a result, they tend to restrict what you can do with their product, as traditional copyright already covers distribution of the software.
Hey Thompson, see if you can get your superior wavelet mathematicians and marketting statisticians to tell you what 2% of ZERO is!
Thomson may get the last laugh on you, though.
From the article you apparently didn't read:
That's right, it doesn't matter how little you rake in, they want $2000 a year for streaming MP3. Better hope you stay under their radar, or start making plans to move to Ogg-Vorbis sometime soon...
Jay (=
Don't scoff at it too quickly, now -- Those shrink-wrapped licenses stand on the same legal ground as the GPL! After all, neither is written on paper, and they rely on implicit acceptance through the actions of the end user.
But you're making a common error when comparing the GPL to EULAs: the GPL covers distribution of the software in question, where EULAs cover the use of the software.
Since they affect the use of the software, EULAs serve to restrict the rights of the end user -- there wouldn't be a need to agree to a license that says "you can do whatever you want with this stuff", would there? -- because unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material is already illegal according to copyright law.
The GPL serves only as a contract for distribution of the software; specifically, granting the end user free and unlimited(*) right to distribute the copyrighted source code. Thus UCITA has little bearing on the GPL, since as far as I k now, it attempts to alter the nature of usage agreements, not copyright law.
(*)The pedantics among us will point out there is one "limitation" to the GPL's "freedom"; when distributing code that you have acquired under the GPL, that code must also be distributed under the terms of the GPL; this is the hook that keeps GPLed code "Free" in a world where proprietary software is the norm, and is as strange a concept now as young Bill Gates' idea of selling what everyone else was giving away, many years ago...
Jay (=
OK, They get a tip from the BSA, but so what? I have NO agreement with them, so I say "No, you can't come in, pound sand, I have no business with you"
Sure, you can say "go away" but, depending on the size of the "penalties" they can recover from you, they will keep pestering you until you "prove" you're in the clear.
There is no "innocent until proven guilty" with them.
Jay (=
Let's say I have a shop with NO Microsoft software, and that has NEVER had any Microsoft software. Can they audit me, and , if they can, what gives them the right?
An anonymous tip to the BSA.
Jay (=
Do what I said in another post: if you don't like it, leave the company and get service elsewhere.
And pray that they don't sell you out to Microsoft as well.
Jay (=
The internet has made radio passe. Let it go.
It has?
You mean I can listen to internet broadcasting while in my car, or at the gym?
I can buy a cheap $20 wireless internet terminal to take with me when I go camping?
I think you'd best re-examine your preconceptions before you go making such a silly statement.
Jay (=
The IButton looks cool, although I'm not 100% clear how it works -- is it just a chip that I can dump my keys to? Or does it need some kind of "dock"? (to be fair, I only scanned the link).
At the same time, it doesn't change the basic premise of this story -- that is, your encryption is only as secure as your keys. If I snag the keychain with your IButton, then that key will eventually be compromised. At the very least, it denies you access to the systems that require your IButton.
Jay (=
Debian does only have old packages... Have you recently installed a 2.2R2 system? Kernel 2.2.18? XFree 3.3.6. No version of KDE. Trust me, the lack of KDE keeps a lot of potential users using Mandrake. OpenSSH 1.? XMMS 1.01?
You're right, Debian stable has only older stuff. But if you get into your sources.list file and change "stable" to "unstable" and apt-get dist-upgrade, you get all of the goodies you desire (except for pre-compiled 2.4 kernels, but as someone pointed out, I'm going to recompile my kernel anyway -- and kmake-kpkg makes it pretty painless).
As for the stability of "unstable", well, Red Hat's x.0 releases wish they could be this "unstable". Honestly, when testing freezes (hopefully with a 2.4 kernel) I may just switch my sources.list back to "stable" and forget about needing the latest and greatest stuff every day...
(Yeah, right... who am I kidding? *grin*)
Jay (=
I'm feeling generous today, so it's time to feed a lonely old troll...
/. very often anymore...
/. have occurred over it.
/. is so painful for you to read, leave. You're only wasting your time and ours posting mindless gripes. But then again, that's the only thing a good troll does anymore...
What APACHE cracked? How come when an apache server is cracked, the slashdot crowd says "who were these idiots who can't apply patches!" but when an IIS server is cracked and people say "they haven't applied the patches, cluess admins!" those folks get either flamed or modded into oblivion? The double standard is really getting old and the reason I don't read
1. There is no "Slashdot crowd". We all disagree, many times vehemently, on just about every topic you can imagine. Closed vs. open source, Linux vs. xBSD, KDE vs. GNOME, Perl vs. python, mySQL vs. postgreSQL; you nameit, at least half a dozen flamewars on
2. You can't even come up with a compelling rant; where is the double standard here? Using your own words...
Apache: when an apache server is cracked, the slashdot crowd says "who were these idiots who can't apply patches!"
IIS: when an IIS server is cracked and people say "they haven't applied the patches, cluess admins!"
It seems to me that your rhetorical "Slashdot crowd" is saying that it's the admin's fault in both cases.
3. If
Jay (=
So let's say I'm discussing something techie via e-mail or a discussion forum using the Passport site and by way of example I include a snippet of GPL'd code. My reading of MS's Passport terms tells me that they now have the right to use that snippet of GPL code, create derivative products, etc. Doesn't that collide with the GPL? Sounds like a lawyer's wet dream...
It does not collide with the GPL, because the GPL is the license under which you release your (implicitly) copyrighted work.
The Passport Terms of Service is an attempt to re-hack the copyright issue in their favor by saying that, when you use their service, you are agreeing to give them a free (an is no-compenstation) unlimited license to do whatever they want with any copyrighted material that passes through any Passport-"affiliated" service. (Note the section labeled "License to Microsoft" to see what I mean.)
So in essence, your code could be considered to be under two licenses; the GPL and the MS-specific "AYBABTU" license. (Hey, I like that name...)
Dual-licensing is possible -- IIRC, Mozilla is offered under both the MPL and the GPL now. And I believe Troll Tech still offers Qt under the GPL and the QPL.
Jay (=
Remember, kids, Xenu says:
All your race are belong to us! You are on the way to supression. You have no chance to ascend, make your time!
Oh my god, it's been a long time since I've laughed that hard.
Operation Clambake needs to make up and sell T-shirts with that on it and sell them as a fund-raiser...
Jay (=