The problem is not allowing Unix Kerboros clients to talk to the Kerberos server. It is making it hard for a Unix server to replace an MS Kerberos Domain Controller.
And you know something, MS did a nasty thing. They did not opt to keep their documentation of their Kerberos extensions a secret. They released their documentation, but then forced you to look at a click through agreement, whereby you agree not to use the information to make alternative implementations. In other words, should the SAMBA programmers reverse engineer their extension, the burden of proof goes to them, to show that they did not do so in violation of that "license".
Stallman may not have elaborated much about this, but he is wholly and totally right about MS's dishonorable motives when it comes to embrace and extend. Next time, UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT FIRST.
If you are worried about that, just specify the version under which it is licensed. State: I release xxx.yy.tar.gz under the terms of the GNU GPL Version 2.0. If FSF comes out with a GPL Version 3.0 which you hate, you will still get to use Version 2.0.
On one hand, you accuse people of twisting the definition of free. But on the other hand, you call this warped definition "Open Source". I don't know about you, but RMS specifically denies any connection of Free Software to Open Source software. If you can't tell the difference, I suggest that you don't know enough about what "free" is, to give anyone a scolding about how "free software" is misnamed.
Have a look at the GPL. Tell me about the freedoms it grants, and tell me it is not "Free".
Yes, "free" software will never be as free as that was in the public domain. Ever notice how little aoftware existed in the public domain, compared to what exists under the BSD or GPL? People desire protection when they contribute to a the commons, or they will hoard.
Come to the think about it, the BSD license does not really protect. But that is not your argument. You want public domain, not BSD. So go away, troll. I banish you.
I think RMS will disagree. He lived in a time when AT&T, Sun, et al decided to lock away the Unix they developed, even when they benefitted from the original Unix's free distribution.
Imagine: you run some important piece of software, and one day in the future, you decide to change it. But nobody would show you the source, even though it was obtained freely once upon a time before (liberal sense, not gratis). It has happened before and it will happen again. The BSD license offers no legal protection to software. Even if you were the original author of Version 1.0. The bloke denying it gto you could use the excuse that Version 2.0 belongs to him, and he does not have Version 1.0 anymore.
I don't understand what you are saying. It is true that you must release the code under the GPL, in source form, for any code you distribute that is derived code licensed by the GPL.
Since my powers of mind reading a limited, let me guess: you are objecting to the viral nature of the GPL?
Yes, it was intended that way. If you distribute A hacked to become B, and A was under the GPL, then B must be GPLed. You certainly cannot call the A's source code the source code to B. That would be misrepresenting your product. There are laws against this kind of practice. You can't call your 1 liter car engine a 1.6 liter one. It is as simple as that.
You don't want people to look at the source to B? Then don't distribute B!
The difference is that the GPL grants you rights to the code, subject to some provisions. Microsoft's EULA takes away your rights. If you reject the MS EULA, you absolutely cannot use the software. If you reject the GPL, you may continue to use the software, but you just can't modify it and distribute it on different terms. This only restriction of the GPL exists to prevent code from becoming locked away - something that the BSD does not prevent.
I think it is pretty obvious which License is written with charity in mind, and which isn't.
This does not impress me. Isn't this just a proof that the one-time pad is secure? Hasn't that be demostrated?
Suppose you can't store the stream of bits. No big deal. We'll just take large enough fragments of it, and find some way to statistically describe those fragments. If the source of the fragments is not provably random, then this gives us a way to restrict the space of keys to brute force.
I think you are confusing the idea of updates with subscription-ware.
Updates are a useful thing. But functionality off-loaded to some server while your software merely uploads the input and output may not be a great idea. Besides the issue of cost, there are issues of privacy, and control to consider.
This is not to say that subscription-ware is necessarily bad. The consumers should have a
You can't trademark a number. This is why Intel named the processor Pentium. They discovered in court that Cyrix can call their chip 386's, and 486's without problems.
The only way to make the problem go away is precisely as you described. Write a library using opaque types, and wean the binary developers off the old glibc.
Would those guys be willing to help in the effort to mainatain such a library? I wonder.
It is strange that you should say this, because the present exploit has nothing to do with buffer overflows. If there is anything to be said about "safe" or "unsafe", it is that you can write unsafe programs in any language. As far as I can tell, C is still a good language for doing systems work.
Actually, if all you were concerned about was the price differential in the premiums, the fault also lies with the female population which drives safely. Get THEM to drive unsafely, and bring up the risks so that it is comparable to males!
Sorry, but you are wrong. There are quite a few distributed databases being planned. For example, data the from Sloan Digital Sky Survey and various other astronomical surveys are planned to be "merged" into a distributed database, wherein on querys one (or more) servers, but the result is returned possibly via peer to peer channels.
One can extend this idea to geological surveys, amongst others.
That's not very different from how Napster operates. One querys a central server, and the peers who hold the actual data return the result.
So you see, there are many ways in which peer to peer is not about piracy at all!
You are right in that the point of copyright is compensation, and not ownership. So basically, one should be focusing on issue of fair compensation, not the deprivation of ownership rights.
Now go ahead and examine those licenses and tell me what it is about. It is about how one does not have the right to do what the owner does. It is about the deprivation of ownership rights, not about fair compensation!
Don't be too quick to say you will not offer your firstborn son. That was merely an analogy. For example, I am unwilling to use Windows, but yet, the need to read my boss's email forces me to run some Windows. It was Bill Gates greed and refusal to play fair in the software business that forced me to use software I would rather not. They did not have to exploit their monopoly, but they did.
The whole point is that your common-sense notions must be re-examined. Thus meremly conforming to common sense it should not be used as an argument for the morality or ethics of the issue.
The AC made a point in appealing to the evilness of stealing - that it deprives the rightful owner of something he has a natural right to. Clearly, for a wholly digital work, this does not apply.
Saying that the owner is free to impose arbitary restrictions on someone else's freedom is the crux of the issue. Do you think copyright owners can and should have such powers? As an example, may I ask for your first born son in return for using my software? I think common sense says you should not. So by your own common sense, you must admit that one has limits on the powers of copyright owners.
What is the limit? The limit of free use, for example?
But then along comes CDs : Now suddenly you can stick a CD in your drive and a $0.60 CD-R in your
burner, hit dupe and you have a 100% copy. Put that with some good transparency labels and you can
actually have a professional looking copy that doesn't make you look like a cheap thief. The same thing is
a concern for the movie industry with DVD's : What happens when people can make digital copies of
DVDs?
Dude! Get with the times. The music publishing business has changed with these technologies. What you are telling me is that the aspiring wannabe musicians can, with the purchase of modest computer equipment, put out works with some spit, shine and polish. It used to be that the music record labels can point to their glossy catalogues as evidence of their contribution to the common good. Now almost anyone can.
There will a a proliferation of indie bands. Tastes will no longer be so bland, and we will get better variety. There is absolutely nothing -- morally, ethically or commercially -- wrong with such a development.
It think it has been pointed out to death that it is the recording companies who are resistant to change who will have to suffer. On the whole, the rest of society will be better off.
If you can show me one person who has not been able to pursue legitimate recording activites because of
copy protection I will eat my words.
The fact that we can now, does not mean that your children can in the future. The rant is about people who want to deprive future generations, not the present. They are setting a trend whose logical conclusion would be to impoverish our kids. That is what the rant is about, amongst others. It is about the evils of a trend which is not good for society as a whole.
I don't know about you, but the economic argument was the most compelling. The content guys make a few billions in a year combined, but the combined telco's and carriers make that sum in a few weeks. From a government's and lawmaker's perspective, that alone should give one pause about the relative merits of content protection vs free speech.
Slashdot Mirror
And you know something, MS did a nasty thing. They did not opt to keep their documentation of their Kerberos extensions a secret. They released their documentation, but then forced you to look at a click through agreement, whereby you agree not to use the information to make alternative implementations. In other words, should the SAMBA programmers reverse engineer their extension, the burden of proof goes to them, to show that they did not do so in violation of that "license".
Stallman may not have elaborated much about this, but he is wholly and totally right about MS's dishonorable motives when it comes to embrace and extend. Next time, UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT FIRST.
And a word to the Moderators: you are on crack.
Oh wait...
If you do play Quake, you should know that one trick to light up a room is to do exactly that - fire a Plasma Rifle shot.
It is either that your roll your own license.
Have a look at the GPL. Tell me about the freedoms it grants, and tell me it is not "Free".
Yes, "free" software will never be as free as that was in the public domain. Ever notice how little aoftware existed in the public domain, compared to what exists under the BSD or GPL? People desire protection when they contribute to a the commons, or they will hoard.
Come to the think about it, the BSD license does not really protect. But that is not your argument. You want public domain, not BSD. So go away, troll. I banish you.
Imagine: you run some important piece of software, and one day in the future, you decide to change it. But nobody would show you the source, even though it was obtained freely once upon a time before (liberal sense, not gratis). It has happened before and it will happen again. The BSD license offers no legal protection to software. Even if you were the original author of Version 1.0. The bloke denying it gto you could use the excuse that Version 2.0 belongs to him, and he does not have Version 1.0 anymore.
Since my powers of mind reading a limited, let me guess: you are objecting to the viral nature of the GPL?
Yes, it was intended that way. If you distribute A hacked to become B, and A was under the GPL, then B must be GPLed. You certainly cannot call the A's source code the source code to B. That would be misrepresenting your product. There are laws against this kind of practice. You can't call your 1 liter car engine a 1.6 liter one. It is as simple as that.
You don't want people to look at the source to B? Then don't distribute B!
I think it is pretty obvious which License is written with charity in mind, and which isn't.
Suppose you can't store the stream of bits. No big deal. We'll just take large enough fragments of it, and find some way to statistically describe those fragments. If the source of the fragments is not provably random, then this gives us a way to restrict the space of keys to brute force.
So - am I wrong?
Updates are a useful thing. But functionality off-loaded to some server while your software merely uploads the input and output may not be a great idea. Besides the issue of cost, there are issues of privacy, and control to consider.
This is not to say that subscription-ware is necessarily bad. The consumers should have a
choice
of which version to get.The marketdroids in Nike aren't too bright. That's hardly news.
Get FRESH!
You can't trademark a number. This is why Intel named the processor Pentium. They discovered in court that Cyrix can call their chip 386's, and 486's without problems.
Would those guys be willing to help in the effort to mainatain such a library? I wonder.
It is strange that you should say this, because the present exploit has nothing to do with buffer overflows. If there is anything to be said about "safe" or "unsafe", it is that you can write unsafe programs in any language. As far as I can tell, C is still a good language for doing systems work.
And that is the day we gladly hand over the reins to such an obviously advantaged species, homo superior!
Remember the headline from the Pons and Flieshmann's cold fusion debacle?
One can extend this idea to geological surveys, amongst others.
That's not very different from how Napster operates. One querys a central server, and the peers who hold the actual data return the result.
So you see, there are many ways in which peer to peer is not about piracy at all!
Now go ahead and examine those licenses and tell me what it is about. It is about how one does not have the right to do what the owner does. It is about the deprivation of ownership rights, not about fair compensation!
Don't be too quick to say you will not offer your firstborn son. That was merely an analogy. For example, I am unwilling to use Windows, but yet, the need to read my boss's email forces me to run some Windows. It was Bill Gates greed and refusal to play fair in the software business that forced me to use software I would rather not. They did not have to exploit their monopoly, but they did.
ROTFL.
The AC made a point in appealing to the evilness of stealing - that it deprives the rightful owner of something he has a natural right to. Clearly, for a wholly digital work, this does not apply.
Saying that the owner is free to impose arbitary restrictions on someone else's freedom is the crux of the issue. Do you think copyright owners can and should have such powers? As an example, may I ask for your first born son in return for using my software? I think common sense says you should not. So by your own common sense, you must admit that one has limits on the powers of copyright owners.
What is the limit? The limit of free use, for example?
There will a a proliferation of indie bands. Tastes will no longer be so bland, and we will get better variety. There is absolutely nothing -- morally, ethically or commercially -- wrong with such a development.
It think it has been pointed out to death that it is the recording companies who are resistant to change who will have to suffer. On the whole, the rest of society will be better off.
But frequently the sign without learning of the full implications of what they do.
The fact that we can now, does not mean that your children can in the future. The rant is about people who want to deprive future generations, not the present. They are setting a trend whose logical conclusion would be to impoverish our kids. That is what the rant is about, amongst others. It is about the evils of a trend which is not good for society as a whole.
I don't know about you, but the economic argument was the most compelling. The content guys make a few billions in a year combined, but the combined telco's and carriers make that sum in a few weeks. From a government's and lawmaker's perspective, that alone should give one pause about the relative merits of content protection vs free speech.