Go loss leader! I didn't really need another PC, but if me buying an xbox to use as a PC costs Microsoft money, then I guess I can find some use for it.
OK, maybe I should have quoted "sold" rather then product. They don't sell Red Hat Linux, just media, docs, and support for it. But this still burns them with Thomsons terms.
This is really bad news for linux. People need to pop in an install CD, and end up with a desktop that can do normal things, like play mp3s. My mom can't go download XMMS plugins, better fonts, and a DVD player to get a working desktop, I'm sorry.
Red Hat still was contacted by Thomson to remove mp3 players from their "product" (Red Hat Linux) since it is sold. So while the terms may not have changed, kiss mp3 players in your distros goodbye.
While everyone has lots of mp3s still, please only share out your OGGs on P2P networks to encourage use of the format.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE. This EULA grants you the following rights:
* Installation and Use. You may install and use an unlimited number of copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
* Reproduction and Distribution. You may reproduce and distribute an unlimited number of copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; provided that each copy shall be a true and complete copy, including all copyright and trademark notices, and shall be accompanied by a copy of this EULA. Copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be distributed for profit either on a standalone basis or included as part of your own product.
So uhm, looks like I can distribute it without charge. Someone give me a place to stash 1.5M:
-rw-r--r-- 1 jmd jmd 1524606 Dec 7 2000 truetype.tar.gz
> One of its agents has issued a warning about the popular practice of using chalk marks
Warn? WARN?! Why warn when you can just outlaw chalk! It's this kind of thinking that's getting government computers hacked and innocent civilians killed.
when I click on it, I see that there is a good use for the technology. But why should they be allowed to hijack my browser?
That's the plan for Mozilla eventually. Only allow a new window when user interaction deems it appropriate. Bug 159036 is filed for this, but not targeted, so if anyone wants to help implement it, that would be wonderful.
The only ways to open a new window would be:
1. Opened from the interface (in new window, middle click, File > New, Accel-N, etc.) -- these are already immune and don't need to be worried about. 2. Opened via an onClick, onDblClick, onMouseDown, onMouseUp, onKeyPress, onKeyDown, onKeyUp, onSubmit?(debatable). 3. Opened via a javascript: URL of a clicked link. 4. Opened via a function called from one of these functions. (anywhere down the line)
And that we will be taking an inventory write off in Q2 related to the amount of Xbox MCPs that were made obsolete when MSFT transitioned to a new security code (by way of the MIT hacker) and excess in nForce chipsets that we built in anticipation of higher demand of Athlon-based PCs.
O poor monopoly powers. Entire chip lines and console plans changed by a lone MIT student.
One thing to consider for laser printers for home use, at least in my experiance with older HP LaserJets... they will dim your rooms lights every 10-15 mins as they power up to warm the toner. I worry what this does to the poor PC feeding off this power.
Yes, I had thought of those. But I can't imagine anyone who's asinine enough to download for free a random piece of software off the Internet, compile it, put it into production use, then when it fails, attempt to sue the author. And I especially can't imagine a judge moronic enough to believe the guy.
I "license" my software by releasing it into the public domain, and include no such disclaimers. If you're senseless enough to assume I'm guaranteeing it to be flawless to the world, well, I just can't see that being held up, regardless of what laws may be on the books.
My "license" boilerplate:
# This work is public domain. The author hereby releases all copyright. # Anyone may use, reproduce, and modify this work without restriction. # # "...for the more there are who say 'Ours,' - not 'Mine' - by that # much is each richer..." -Dante (Purgatorio, XV)
But it accidentally raises a interesting point. With Slashdot so much a part of the "Open Source community" for some people, other then Taco's moral conscience, does it have a legal obligation to not actually censor users open dialogue here?
For instance, I would image it's perfectly legal for editors here to delete obvious trolls such as above. But what if a valid post is made, making disparaging, but true remakes about Open Source, or Mozilla, or something similar. It's on topic, completely factual, not a troll or flame-bait in the least (unless disagreeing with status quo counts as flame bait).
It's a private site, so in that sense editors could delete the post. But isn't there some assurance of accurate representation that the discussion is from the users, and not controlled and certain thoughts censored by editors?
I think a lot of people are sour to idea of click-thru licenses because they typically take rights away, in commercial software. But the GPL, BSD License, etc all grant you additional rights.
What is the purpose to making sure people have agreed to these additional rights? It's nice to let them know as a favor, I suppose... Mozilla shows the license during install.
But if they don't agree to the "Open Source" terms, they are left with normal fair-use rights to the software, which, for an open source program, SHOULD BE PERFECTLY FINE. There is nothing we have to take away, so no need to force agreement to the terms. In fact, the GPL says as much. You can still use the application without accepting the GPL, you just can't modify it (due to copyright law).
I can't think of a license under the Open Source terms that takes away rights, therefor I oppose the requirement of such click-thru license agreements.
That's terrible. Nothing like punishing your early adopters and *paying* beta testers.
Recently I had been hearing/so/ many good things about OS X, but if I have to pay $129.95 evey six months to keep my OS up to date, I think I'll be sticking with Linux, where up2date and ISOs are free for home users who don't require support.
(What happened to Apple being a hardware company?)
You have a source on this little factoid, or are you making it up as you go. Why can't they run over to Waldenbooks and buy it at 10% off... or surf over to Amazon and buy it at 30% off.
Hell, I can donate books to my local library. Tell you guys what... gimme your book budget (at 80$/book) and your shopping list, I'll have Amazon ship 'em to you and I'll keep the change.
Say I own the "rights" to 500 songs. I bought the CD, tape, payed for an individual mp3 download, whatever.
How is offering them over napster servers any more illegal then what a library does? If user X downloads them, and keeps them permanently, or sells them, or otherwise violates HIS local copyright statutes, I don't see how that's my fault for simplying for having/tunes shared out.
The screenshots off of the main gnome.org page, under "See GNOME in Action!", are from December 1999. Yow. Talk about making yourself look bad. I think it's time to update that section guys. Help yourselves out. GNOME 1.x looked like a toy.
When launching the demo, I'm presenting with a "Java Security Warning". The applet is signed with a valid SSL certificate, but I've never seen a Java applet on the web pop up a dialog like this before.
Does this mean the applet isn't running in its own sandbox, since I have to confirm starting it? A friend of mine recieved a security zone rejection for the ActiveX when trying to load the demo in MS IE.
Sounds scary. Course, the major web browsers fashion the simple SSL warning dialog to scare the bejezus out of any vistor to a page that isn't signed by verisign, so this is probably nothing as well. Can someone with knowledge on this part of Java confirm?
Quite meaningless, since "Free Software" isn't a trademark, and they aren't using RMS's definition.
> you'd see that the DFSG are not the same as the OSI rules
If that's the case, then Debian has changed their rules. OSI's definition was an exact copy of Debians to begin with. All that was changed ware references to 'Debian'. It says this much on opensource.org. I don't follow Debian enough to know if they've changed a word or two in DFSG recently, it's a useless OS as far as enterprise is concerned, and therefor useless to me.
Before anyone praises "On2 Technologies" too much, you should be aware of their product line. VP3 is their old leftovers. They've since improved it and release VP4, and recently made more improvments and released the VP5 codec. They've been giving VP3 away for some time, as more of a demo of what their newer technologies can do better.
While it's better then nothing, (we certainly need an open video codec), but On2 isn't exactly fully on the Open Source wagon.
Just a few facts for those who didn't and won't bother to read the background and articles.
> The acid test of any license is whether it's DFSG free
The OSI definition is the same as Debian's. Welcome to the Open Source world. Please refrain from posting in our forums. Thank you.
> while passing the OSI open-source definition is not actually Free Software
Of course it isn't. Open Source and Free Software are two entirely different things. They're not applying for Stallman's holy blessing, just for Open Source certification. See welcome message and instructions above.
Slashdot Mirror
Go loss leader! I didn't really need another PC, but if me buying an xbox to use as a PC costs Microsoft money, then I guess I can find some use for it.
OK, maybe I should have quoted "sold" rather then product. They don't sell Red Hat Linux, just media, docs, and support for it. But this still burns them with Thomsons terms.
This is really bad news for linux. People need to pop in an install CD, and end up with a desktop that can do normal things, like play mp3s. My mom can't go download XMMS plugins, better fonts, and a DVD player to get a working desktop, I'm sorry.
Red Hat still was contacted by Thomson to remove mp3 players from their "product" (Red Hat Linux) since it is sold. So while the terms may not have changed, kiss mp3 players in your distros goodbye.
While everyone has lots of mp3s still, please only share out your OGGs on P2P networks to encourage use of the format.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE. This EULA grants you the following rights:
* Installation and Use. You may install and use an unlimited number of
copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
* Reproduction and Distribution. You may reproduce and distribute an
unlimited number of copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; provided that each copy
shall be a true and complete copy, including all copyright and trademark
notices, and shall be accompanied by a copy of this EULA. Copies of the
SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be distributed for profit either on a standalone
basis or included as part of your own product.
So uhm, looks like I can distribute it without charge. Someone give me a place to stash 1.5M:
-rw-r--r-- 1 jmd jmd 1524606 Dec 7 2000 truetype.tar.gz
> One of its agents has issued a warning about the popular practice of using chalk marks
Warn? WARN?! Why warn when you can just outlaw chalk! It's this kind of thinking that's getting government computers hacked and innocent civilians killed.
That's the plan for Mozilla eventually. Only allow a new window when user interaction deems it appropriate. Bug 159036 is filed for this, but not targeted, so if anyone wants to help implement it, that would be wonderful.
The only ways to open a new window would be:
1. Opened from the interface (in new window, middle click, File > New, Accel-N, etc.) -- these are already immune and don't need to be worried about.
2. Opened via an onClick, onDblClick, onMouseDown, onMouseUp, onKeyPress, onKeyDown, onKeyUp, onSubmit?(debatable).
3. Opened via a javascript: URL of a clicked link.
4. Opened via a function called from one of these functions. (anywhere down the line)
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=159
This silly law would be worth it if I got to see Valenti behind bars.
Besides, the whole thing is rather childish. Heck, if the MPAA thinks they can "hack" me, they're welcome to try.
O poor monopoly powers. Entire chip lines and console plans changed by a lone MIT student.
I love it.
One thing to consider for laser printers for home use, at least in my experiance with older HP LaserJets... they will dim your rooms lights every 10-15 mins as they power up to warm the toner. I worry what this does to the poor PC feeding off this power.
Please, enough with the McDonalds coffee thing. That case was terribly misrepresented by the media. Read this:
9 987
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=36285&cid=390
Yes, I had thought of those. But I can't imagine anyone who's asinine enough to download for free a random piece of software off the Internet, compile it, put it into production use, then when it fails, attempt to sue the author. And I especially can't imagine a judge moronic enough to believe the guy.
I "license" my software by releasing it into the public domain, and include no such disclaimers. If you're senseless enough to assume I'm guaranteeing it to be flawless to the world, well, I just can't see that being held up, regardless of what laws may be on the books.
My "license" boilerplate:
# This work is public domain. The author hereby releases all copyright.
# Anyone may use, reproduce, and modify this work without restriction.
#
# "...for the more there are who say 'Ours,' - not 'Mine' - by that
# much is each richer..." -Dante (Purgatorio, XV)
The post was obviously a complete troll.
But it accidentally raises a interesting point. With Slashdot so much a part of the "Open Source community" for some people, other then Taco's moral conscience, does it have a legal obligation to not actually censor users open dialogue here?
For instance, I would image it's perfectly legal for editors here to delete obvious trolls such as above. But what if a valid post is made, making disparaging, but true remakes about Open Source, or Mozilla, or something similar. It's on topic, completely factual, not a troll or flame-bait in the least (unless disagreeing with status quo counts as flame bait).
It's a private site, so in that sense editors could delete the post. But isn't there some assurance of accurate representation that the discussion is from the users, and not controlled and certain thoughts censored by editors?
I think a lot of people are sour to idea of click-thru licenses because they typically take rights away, in commercial software. But the GPL, BSD License, etc all grant you additional rights.
What is the purpose to making sure people have agreed to these additional rights? It's nice to let them know as a favor, I suppose... Mozilla shows the license during install.
But if they don't agree to the "Open Source" terms, they are left with normal fair-use rights to the software, which, for an open source program, SHOULD BE PERFECTLY FINE. There is nothing we have to take away, so no need to force agreement to the terms. In fact, the GPL says as much. You can still use the application without accepting the GPL, you just can't modify it (due to copyright law).
I can't think of a license under the Open Source terms that takes away rights, therefor I oppose the requirement of such click-thru license agreements.
That's terrible. Nothing like punishing your early adopters and *paying* beta testers.
/so/ many good things about OS X, but if I have to pay $129.95 evey six months to keep my OS up to date, I think I'll be sticking with Linux, where up2date and ISOs are free for home users who don't require support.
Recently I had been hearing
(What happened to Apple being a hardware company?)
E-week story about this is here:
p
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,382210,00.as
You have a source on this little factoid, or are you making it up as you go. Why can't they run over to Waldenbooks and buy it at 10% off... or surf over to Amazon and buy it at 30% off.
Hell, I can donate books to my local library. Tell you guys what... gimme your book budget (at 80$/book) and your shopping list, I'll have Amazon ship 'em to you and I'll keep the change.
Say I own the "rights" to 500 songs. I bought the CD, tape, payed for an individual mp3 download, whatever.
/tunes shared out.
How is offering them over napster servers any more illegal then what a library does? If user X downloads them, and keeps them permanently, or sells them, or otherwise violates HIS local copyright statutes, I don't see how that's my fault for simplying for having
The screenshots off of the main gnome.org page, under "See GNOME in Action!", are from December 1999. Yow. Talk about making yourself look bad. I think it's time to update that section guys. Help yourselves out. GNOME 1.x looked like a toy.
> it will complain loud and long if the applet is not signed by one of the big companies in your JRE's trusted list.
Crap! You mean Java plugin has builtin companies it will run any code from with full user level access? Can I disable this "helpful feature"?
The dialog has no mention of the applet running with more privledges then other Java apples, and no link or button for 'help' or 'more info'. Awful.
When launching the demo, I'm presenting with a "Java Security Warning". The applet is signed with a valid SSL certificate, but I've never seen a Java applet on the web pop up a dialog like this before.
Does this mean the applet isn't running in its own sandbox, since I have to confirm starting it? A friend of mine recieved a security zone rejection for the ActiveX when trying to load the demo in MS IE.
Sounds scary. Course, the major web browsers fashion the simple SSL warning dialog to scare the bejezus out of any vistor to a page that isn't signed by verisign, so this is probably nothing as well. Can someone with knowledge on this part of Java confirm?
> This is how the term "hacker" became demonized by the media, too.
The difference is, there's a thriving hacker culture trying to get the media to use the word properly. (Although I think we've given up now)
I don't see many actual pirates objecting to the term being used for mere copyright infringers.
Besides... "pirate" is a cool term... peg legs, hooks, eye patches, talking parrots... what's not to love about the imagery?
> OSI: Open Source International
Speaking of homework... it's "Initiative".
> DFSG: Debian Free Software guidelines.
Quite meaningless, since "Free Software" isn't a trademark, and they aren't using RMS's definition.
> you'd see that the DFSG are not the same as the OSI rules
If that's the case, then Debian has changed their rules. OSI's definition was an exact copy of Debians to begin with. All that was changed ware references to 'Debian'. It says this much on opensource.org. I don't follow Debian enough to know if they've changed a word or two in DFSG recently, it's a useless OS as far as enterprise is concerned, and therefor useless to me.
Before anyone praises "On2 Technologies" too much, you should be aware of their product line. VP3 is their old leftovers. They've since improved it and release VP4, and recently made more improvments and released the VP5 codec. They've been giving VP3 away for some time, as more of a demo of what their newer technologies can do better.
While it's better then nothing, (we certainly need an open video codec), but On2 isn't exactly fully on the Open Source wagon.
Just a few facts for those who didn't and won't bother to read the background and articles.
> The acid test of any license is whether it's DFSG free
The OSI definition is the same as Debian's. Welcome to the Open Source world. Please refrain from posting in our forums. Thank you.
> while passing the OSI open-source definition is not actually Free Software
Of course it isn't. Open Source and Free Software are two entirely different things. They're not applying for Stallman's holy blessing, just for Open Source certification. See welcome message and instructions above.
> to help tourists distinguish between denominations
Maybe they're tourists from ancient Rome, and can't read Arabic numbers.