"Should be...", as a philisophical choice, is one thing. I won't argue that at all. "Should be...", as a legal requirement, may be another matter. ObIANAL. My understanding of the GPL is that it only kicks in when you RELEASE the program. I can take a GPL'd program, modify it to heck and back, and use it for my own purposes forever. I'm under no obligation to release the source, or to allow anyone else to use it. It's only when I release, or share, the binary, that I'm obligated to release the soruce.
If the company in question pays the programmer to make the modifications, it seems to me that they would have a legal claim that the option to release the binary and source belongs to them, not the programmer. The certainly can't release the binary and NOT the source, but they may very well be able to release NEITHER and keep the program entirely in-house.
The final issue I'm not certain about is the definition of "in-house." If I allow the public to access the program, or the results of the program, is it still in-house? IOW, is a web server open to public access considered in-house use? I would think so, but, again IANAL.
It's one thing to make money by packaging and providing support for an operating system. Linux isn't a application. It's a package of a lot of different apps. Red Hat provides a service by creating, maintaining and updating the package. They also provide paid support.
"Black and White" is a game. It's a complete application, already packaged. I don't see much of a market for paid support for a game, nor do I see much of a follow-on market for upgrades and new versions. So please help me Get It. Explain what this new business model is that will allow a company to make money off an open sourced game?
The only realistic possibility I can see would be to keep a (partially?) closed-source server which includes a serial number validator similar to Halflife, etc. and charge for the serial number to play online. It might even be possible to open source the server and keep a centralized database of valid serial numbers. I'm not sure I'd classify this as a new, open-source business model, however.
The comparison between UNIX and games is invalid. So is the earlier comment that Linux is proof that open source security is possible.
With a UNIX server, the object is to validate the identity of the person attempting to perform an action, and to provide a secure way for the server and the user to communicate. It's all about secure communications.
With games, the communications is out in the open. The issue is validating the data that the client is sending.
Things aren't quite this simple, of course. Unix does do some data validation, such as a user password, but even this is of a different nature. With a login password, there is only one acceptable input - the correct password. With a game server, it isn't even always the data that must be validated - it's the source of the data. Is the aiming info in Quake coming from the user's movement of the mouse, or is it modified by an aim-bot? This is akin to a Unix server trying to differentiate between an actual user loggin in and a script running on an automated telnet client. If the script knows the correct password and is programmed to provide a small, variable delay between characters to simulate human typing, the server has a hell of a problem.
This exploit only works on Microsoft Internet Explorer running on Microsoft Windows. Your user-agent is Mozilla/3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; 68K), so you would not be affected.
I can understand that Junkbuster, blocking cookies, might prevent the exploit from working, but I don't understand why the site thinks I'm running Mozilla on a Mac?!?!?
There's a difference in lingo and language. Language is defined by the mainstream. If a majority of the people use a word in a certain sense, then that's what the word means. If you don't use it the same way, you're either using the word wrong or you're speaking a specific lingo.
I've been in the Navy for 15 years. If I ask another sailor the location of the nearest head, he'll direct me to the restroom without any problem. If I ask a waiter in a restaurant where the head is, I'll likely get some really strange looks. It isn't the waiters fault, however, it's mine.Head does not mean restroom in the English language, only in naval lingo.
In geek-speak, hacker means one thing. To the rest of the world, it means something else. If you use geek-speak to a non-geek and are misunderstood, the fault is yours, not theirs.
Because the requirement is that X be >= the larger of A and B. If A = 5 on some scale of security but you have supertight security on your own trade secrets, such that B = 1000, you must protect the MS "trade secret" at 1000.
For example, the US Supreme Court will not review a state law having to do with fines for scooping up your dog's crap off the sidewalk unless you can come up with some sort of constitutional reason for them to hear it (e.g., the fine is so excessive as to be cruel & unusual, dogshit on the sidewalk is your way of expressing free speech). This is not because the case is trivial (which my example clearly is), but because the court simply has no authority to review laws which are not within its ENUMERATED POWERS (buzzword alert).
That unless says it all. The Supreme Court can review any law for constitutionality. They can and will refuse to review a case if they do not feel there is a legitimate constitutional challenge to the law. They can and do refuse to hear cases if they feel that the lower courts have made the correct ruling in regards to constitutionality. Neither the Supreme Court nor any other court can invalidate a law willy nilly. They can only rule that a law is unconstitutional. (State courts can review laws for compliance with state constitutions, of course.)
If you can come up with an example of a law which does not fall within their ENUMERATED POWERS as regards to constitutionality, please post it here. Otherwise, it seems to me that the Supreme Court IS the final arbitrater of all US laws.
Hypothetical: Nvidia discovers that a driver released by Matrox (or substitute your favorite vidio company here) violates an NVidia copyright. Nvidia contacts Matrox and Matrox replies "Oops, our bad. We'll fix it on our next release in a couple of weeks." What do you suppose Nvidia's response would be?
Re:Don't worry about it, Napster's a different iss
on
MP3.com Loses In Court
·
· Score: 1
While the CD verification does cut down on the most direct form of piracy, it's hardly a comprehensive method. Essentially, my CD collection just became the union of the set of CD collections owned by myself and all my friends. I open an account and register all my CDs. My friends do the same. I then give my login and password to all my friends, and get theirs in return. I login and register all my CDs under each of my friends name, while they do the same for me. Viola! A collection of several hundred CDs.
For just one quick example which shows why I disagree with your statement, consider how simple it is to add an icon to the Windows Start button or the desktop as compared to doing the equivalent under Gnome or KDE.
Unfortunately, not everyone understands the basic principles of scientific research or of logic. The six o'clock news won't report that the study shows a correlation, but not a causation, between video games and violent behavior. They won't bother to define "violent behavior". They'll simply scream "Latest studies show a link between violent video games and violence in our schools!!!!"
Politicians won't bother to read the study and understand what it actually means. They'll use selective quotes and beg that we vote for them because they'll Do Something(tm) about this Horrible Threat to our Schools(tm); after all, we must Save the Children(tm). Activists determined to brand the American Ideal with their own particular visions (duly enforced by law, of course) and misguided crusaders eager to save the American people from themselves will be just as quick to trumpet snippets of the report which seem to support their cause.
This isn't, however, the fault of the researches. Public opinion and the fear of public response can not and should not be allowed to dictate the course of scientific research. It's hardly over-reacting, however, to view the publication of such studies with some trepidation. Not because of the nature of the studies themselves, but because of the (mis)use to which they'll undoubtedly be put.
Re:Announcing payrandomibt.com
on
Pay Lars
·
· Score: 1
It's serious in the sense that the website does do exactly what they said, and they will pass any money received on to Metallica or their reps.
It's not serious in that it's intended to be very tounge-in-cheek and to point out how stupid Metallica's suit is. Check out the more info link on the page.
The page is sponsored by August Nelson and says, in part "At August Nelson, we think that industry fears of rampant piracy ruining the music business are nothing but paranoid propoganda. Industry representatives have failed to point to any data that shows the extent to which MP3s and CD burners, by making copying music so easy, have hurt industry revenues. That's because there are no such data, because sales keep going up!" (The cool propoganda link inside the quote is copied as well. Check it out.)
In other words: Congress is permitted, but not required, to grant patents so long as they promote progress. Patents are not intended to bestow upon inventors any of the qualities of material property but are granted only to encourage innovation and publication.
If patents are not intended to bestow upon the inventors any of the qualites of material property, how then do they encourage innovation? Isn't it precisely because they bestow the ability to control and profit from an inovation that they encourage inovations?
The question them becomes, does extending the strength and length of a patent beyond some arbitrary parameters actualy provide more encouragement? Will you spend more time or effort inovating and progressing if you know that you'll control your invention for 75 years rather than, say, 20?
Finally, doesn't protecting uninovative and unprogressive items have the opposite effect? Aren't you likely to put more time and effort into research if you need to show true originality in your concept than if you can patent every flight of fancy which comes your way?
Get a clue. No one is forcing anyone to use the GPL or GPL'd. If you don't like it, don't use the software. Actually, even if you don't like it, use it all you want! Just don't modify it and release it, or use the source in your own programs.
It's funny how people want to come in, take someone elses hard work without recompense and use it to make money, then call the original programmer fascist because he shared his work with the understanding that others would do the same.
"In the revolutionary's mad rush for total upheaval -- the 'out with the old and in with the new' -- many who are conscripted into the revolution are left without a voice, and many are left without a vote on the change," Love said.
I'm assuming that the "many" in question here are businesses, not individuals. The "revolution" (could we be a bit more melodramatic, perhaps?) isn't about companines, nor does it conscript anyone. There is still a thriving market in (true) proprietary software and is likely to be for the forseable future. If you don't like Open Source, don't participate. It's that simple.
Caldera has been struggling to keep their head above water for years. They've tried various products and business models, none with notable success. Now, they're trying to latch on to the coattails of the Open Source movement, and complaining bitterly that their grip is slipping.
There's a review on Ars Technica about the TiVo. I trust it's considered "fair use" to quote a paragraph:
"Now, at this point I should say something about privacy. TiVo guarantees that they neither monitor nor report your TV watching habits and preferences. All taste matching is reportedly done on your local machine, and no such data is sent back to TiVo. While I can't verify that claim, I will note that they are vigilant in making it clear that they respect your privacy."
IF it only transmits the info you request it to send (by voting Thumbs [Up/Down]), it's not a big deal. That's a big "IF".
It would be quite easy for this thing to record and transmit everything from which TV shows you watch to which commercials you fast forward through. And since you have an account with them, this info isn't anonymous; it's tied directly to you.
Also, even if the initial offering only transmits requested info, this is a computer. Updating it to transmit additional info is likely a small download in the middle of the night while you're snuggled trustingly in your bed.
Also, I would HATE customized commercials. There's an IBM (I think) commercial which shows a bunch of people sitting around talking about getting inappropriate advertisements. An apartment dweller gets ads for replacement windows; a cat owner gets dog food ads, etc. As they're talking, they're being watched by suits through one-way glass. The consumers turn towards the glass and yell something like "Hey! Isn't anybody listening?!" Then there's a blurb about software which can help you identify your custormer and maintain info on them. The song playing in the back ground is "Getting To Know You."
I though this was one of the most chilling things I'd ever seen. I don't want some advertisement agency watching what I do, what I own, what I buy. I don't want IBM or any other company to get to know me. I don't want some faceless entity, whether it's a person or a computer program, choosing which commercials I should watch. I don't want DoubleClick keeping track of which web pages I visit. Just stay the fsck out of my life!
So doesn't this put you in the exact same position as the MS developers? That is, you're both taking a piece of crappy code written with little or no coherent design and trying to fix it after the fact?
Right now, I have 42 gigs of hard drive storage in my system. Ten years ago, I had 20 megs. In ten years, my storage capacity has increased by a factor of over 2000. 400GB is only a ten fold increase of what I have right now. That's hardly an earth-shaking increase.
Slashdot Mirror
If the company in question pays the programmer to make the modifications, it seems to me that they would have a legal claim that the option to release the binary and source belongs to them, not the programmer. The certainly can't release the binary and NOT the source, but they may very well be able to release NEITHER and keep the program entirely in-house.
The final issue I'm not certain about is the definition of "in-house." If I allow the public to access the program, or the results of the program, is it still in-house? IOW, is a web server open to public access considered in-house use? I would think so, but, again IANAL.
"Black and White" is a game. It's a complete application, already packaged. I don't see much of a market for paid support for a game, nor do I see much of a follow-on market for upgrades and new versions. So please help me Get It. Explain what this new business model is that will allow a company to make money off an open sourced game?
The only realistic possibility I can see would be to keep a (partially?) closed-source server which includes a serial number validator similar to Halflife, etc. and charge for the serial number to play online. It might even be possible to open source the server and keep a centralized database of valid serial numbers. I'm not sure I'd classify this as a new, open-source business model, however.
With a UNIX server, the object is to validate the identity of the person attempting to perform an action, and to provide a secure way for the server and the user to communicate. It's all about secure communications.
With games, the communications is out in the open. The issue is validating the data that the client is sending.
Things aren't quite this simple, of course. Unix does do some data validation, such as a user password, but even this is of a different nature. With a login password, there is only one acceptable input - the correct password. With a game server, it isn't even always the data that must be validated - it's the source of the data. Is the aiming info in Quake coming from the user's movement of the mouse, or is it modified by an aim-bot? This is akin to a Unix server trying to differentiate between an actual user loggin in and a script running on an automated telnet client. If the script knows the correct password and is programmed to provide a small, variable delay between characters to simulate human typing, the server has a hell of a problem.
It seems at least as correct as it would be to use OS/2, DR-DOS, PC-DOS, Free-DOS, etc.
This exploit only works on Microsoft Internet Explorer running on Microsoft Windows. Your user-agent is Mozilla/3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; 68K), so you would not be affected.
I can understand that Junkbuster, blocking cookies, might prevent the exploit from working, but I don't understand why the site thinks I'm running Mozilla on a Mac?!?!?
You've made a better argument for decriminalizing marijuana and assault rifles than you have for criminalizaing Napster.
There's a difference in lingo and language. Language is defined by the mainstream. If a majority of the people use a word in a certain sense, then that's what the word means. If you don't use it the same way, you're either using the word wrong or you're speaking a specific lingo.
I've been in the Navy for 15 years. If I ask another sailor the location of the nearest head, he'll direct me to the restroom without any problem. If I ask a waiter in a restaurant where the head is, I'll likely get some really strange looks. It isn't the waiters fault, however, it's mine.Head does not mean restroom in the English language, only in naval lingo.
In geek-speak, hacker means one thing. To the rest of the world, it means something else. If you use geek-speak to a non-geek and are misunderstood, the fault is yours, not theirs.
Because the requirement is that X be >= the larger of A and B. If A = 5 on some scale of security but you have supertight security on your own trade secrets, such that B = 1000, you must protect the MS "trade secret" at 1000.
That unless says it all. The Supreme Court can review any law for constitutionality. They can and will refuse to review a case if they do not feel there is a legitimate constitutional challenge to the law. They can and do refuse to hear cases if they feel that the lower courts have made the correct ruling in regards to constitutionality. Neither the Supreme Court nor any other court can invalidate a law willy nilly. They can only rule that a law is unconstitutional. (State courts can review laws for compliance with state constitutions, of course.)
If you can come up with an example of a law which does not fall within their ENUMERATED POWERS as regards to constitutionality, please post it here. Otherwise, it seems to me that the Supreme Court IS the final arbitrater of all US laws.
Hypothetical: Nvidia discovers that a driver released by Matrox (or substitute your favorite vidio company here) violates an NVidia copyright. Nvidia contacts Matrox and Matrox replies "Oops, our bad. We'll fix it on our next release in a couple of weeks." What do you suppose Nvidia's response would be?
For just one quick example which shows why I disagree with your statement, consider how simple it is to add an icon to the Windows Start button or the desktop as compared to doing the equivalent under Gnome or KDE.
Politicians won't bother to read the study and understand what it actually means. They'll use selective quotes and beg that we vote for them because they'll Do Something(tm) about this Horrible Threat to our Schools(tm); after all, we must Save the Children(tm). Activists determined to brand the American Ideal with their own particular visions (duly enforced by law, of course) and misguided crusaders eager to save the American people from themselves will be just as quick to trumpet snippets of the report which seem to support their cause.
This isn't, however, the fault of the researches. Public opinion and the fear of public response can not and should not be allowed to dictate the course of scientific research. It's hardly over-reacting, however, to view the publication of such studies with some trepidation. Not because of the nature of the studies themselves, but because of the (mis)use to which they'll undoubtedly be put.
It's not serious in that it's intended to be very tounge-in-cheek and to point out how stupid Metallica's suit is. Check out the more info link on the page.
The page is sponsored by August Nelson and says, in part "At August Nelson, we think that industry fears of rampant piracy ruining the music business are nothing but paranoid propoganda. Industry representatives have failed to point to any data that shows the extent to which MP3s and CD burners, by making copying music so easy, have hurt industry revenues. That's because there are no such data, because sales keep going up!" (The cool propoganda link inside the quote is copied as well. Check it out.)
If patents are not intended to bestow upon the inventors any of the qualites of material property, how then do they encourage innovation? Isn't it precisely because they bestow the ability to control and profit from an inovation that they encourage inovations?
The question them becomes, does extending the strength and length of a patent beyond some arbitrary parameters actualy provide more encouragement? Will you spend more time or effort inovating and progressing if you know that you'll control your invention for 75 years rather than, say, 20?
Finally, doesn't protecting uninovative and unprogressive items have the opposite effect? Aren't you likely to put more time and effort into research if you need to show true originality in your concept than if you can patent every flight of fancy which comes your way?
Has anyone tried a legal challenge to the patent law extensions based upon the argument that they don't promote advancement?
It's funny how people want to come in, take someone elses hard work without recompense and use it to make money, then call the original programmer fascist because he shared his work with the understanding that others would do the same.
I'm assuming that the "many" in question here are businesses, not individuals. The "revolution" (could we be a bit more melodramatic, perhaps?) isn't about companines, nor does it conscript anyone. There is still a thriving market in (true) proprietary software and is likely to be for the forseable future. If you don't like Open Source, don't participate. It's that simple.
Caldera has been struggling to keep their head above water for years. They've tried various products and business models, none with notable success. Now, they're trying to latch on to the coattails of the Open Source movement, and complaining bitterly that their grip is slipping.
"Now, at this point I should say something about privacy. TiVo guarantees that they neither monitor nor report your TV watching habits and preferences. All taste matching is reportedly done on your local machine, and no such data is sent back to TiVo. While I can't verify that claim, I will note that they are vigilant in making it clear that they respect your privacy."
It would be quite easy for this thing to record and transmit everything from which TV shows you watch to which commercials you fast forward through. And since you have an account with them, this info isn't anonymous; it's tied directly to you.
Also, even if the initial offering only transmits requested info, this is a computer. Updating it to transmit additional info is likely a small download in the middle of the night while you're snuggled trustingly in your bed.
Also, I would HATE customized commercials. There's an IBM (I think) commercial which shows a bunch of people sitting around talking about getting inappropriate advertisements. An apartment dweller gets ads for replacement windows; a cat owner gets dog food ads, etc. As they're talking, they're being watched by suits through one-way glass. The consumers turn towards the glass and yell something like "Hey! Isn't anybody listening?!" Then there's a blurb about software which can help you identify your custormer and maintain info on them. The song playing in the back ground is "Getting To Know You."
I though this was one of the most chilling things I'd ever seen. I don't want some advertisement agency watching what I do, what I own, what I buy. I don't want IBM or any other company to get to know me. I don't want some faceless entity, whether it's a person or a computer program, choosing which commercials I should watch. I don't want DoubleClick keeping track of which web pages I visit. Just stay the fsck out of my life!
So doesn't this put you in the exact same position as the MS developers? That is, you're both taking a piece of crappy code written with little or no coherent design and trying to fix it after the fact?
Depends upon your definition of "large group." The group of people working in their spare time is much larger than the overpaid group.
Right now, I have 42 gigs of hard drive storage in my system. Ten years ago, I had 20 megs. In ten years, my storage capacity has increased by a factor of over 2000. 400GB is only a ten fold increase of what I have right now. That's hardly an earth-shaking increase.