DRM will work fine, just as it does on Windows, and it won't be unbreakable, just like its not unbreakable on Windows. It just needs to work well enough to be more of a hassle than simply buying the legal copy on Steam.
There will be cracks and patches for Steam games on Linux just as there are for Windows, and you'll get them from the same seedy corners of the internet with the same risks of getting pwned ("yes this crack absolutely needs root to work, trust us").
The fact remains that even if the Open ZFS code base was re-licensed they would still have GPLv2 compatibility issues with any other reasonable licence choice.
The gist of it is that CDDL isn't the problem. Even if you changed CDDL to GPLv3, LGPLv3 or Apache2 the license would still be incompatible with GPLv2 (Linux license). GPLv2 is the problem.
In fairness its GPL that has the incompatibility problem not CDDL.
CDDL is compatible BSD, Apache2, LGPL, etc.
GPLv2 is incompatbile with CDDL, Apache2, GPLv3, LGPLv3, etc.
Even if the license were not CDDL, it would have to be released under a license that came with a patent clause, which means GPLv3, LGPLv3, Apache2 or similar all of which are incompatible with GPLv2 which Linux is licensed under.
Also GNU/Linux isn't an OS, its a description of a software stack. RHEL, Debian, Arch Linux, Trisquel GNU/Linux, Android etc are all Operating Systems.
Apparently this was what happened to Josh Wolf -- he videotaped protesters vandalizing a car, the government demanded his original source materials, he argued a Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify, but it was generally agreed that he wasn't involved in any vandalism so the court said he didn't have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, so he went to jail.
This is a good thing. Suppose you were on trial for vandalizing that car, and that video proves you were not there, you should, and under our system of laws do, have the right to compel this person to testify. Both defendants and plaintiffs right to justice outweighs a third parties right to be silent, unless of course that testimony incriminates the third party. That caveat can be solved by granting the witness immunity and compelling them to testify.
The Sklyarov incedent was absurd for a variety of reasons, but don't enhance the facts, report them as is. Sklyarov spent 22 days in jail and was then out on bail, charges were eventually dropped.
Ah yes, good old apvector, apstring, apstack, apqueue and apmatrix (If I missed one let me know.). All those classes were to teach the basics of data structures without getting to involved with the standard library . I took the AP Comp Sci AB exam in 2003 which I believe was the last year for C++ on the exam. The teacher spent the last 2 weeks teaching some basic Java as filler material since that was what the world was heading to he said. When I got to college I didn't see Java again till I took it as an elective in my third year as C++ was still the teaching language at the college.
...and the drivers who will be reclassified properly as employees and not have there tips stolen anymore. But hey, I guess we should do away with class actions so companies can continue to rip people off just so long as the amounts are small enough not to justify a regular lawsuit by individuals.
Don't need a EULA, copyright already restricts you from making copies of the copy. With one of these You bought, effectively a high quality print, you didn't buy the original with the right to make and sell your own prints.
He won't have to, insurance companies will do that for him. If self driving cars prove to be safer than manual cars insurance will adjust premiums according to risk.
You were on to something there, but made the wrong point I think. I would the driver experience is a major factor that changes over miles more so than mechanical issues. Likely your first 25k miles are more dangerous than your second 25k is more dangerous than your second 50k is more dangerous than your second 100k
In this scenario you are not changing the loss amounts, just who pays. So it could be a requirement when you drive a car (specifically a licensing requirement to use the auto-drive feature) that you pay the premiums that insure (with some mandated coverage amounts) the developer of the software, similar to having a borrower pay mortgage insurance (which covers the banks risk not yours even though your paying for it). If self-driving cars are truly safer statistically this will end up net less than traditional insurance, if a make or model of car is known to be bad the insurance premiums will go up on it and the problem is self correcting in that people wont' buy that car.
A simpler model would be a license agreement that requires the user to indemnify the car maker while auto-drive is being used, and then insure themselves just like people do today. The market in this case is again self correcting as premiums will favor safer cars and punish riskier ones. This could end up driving up insurance costs on manual cards if the self-driving cars are drastically better in the statistics.
In some states even if the bank forecloses they can still come after you for the balance if the sale of the house doesn't cover the outstanding debt (i.e. the value of the house dropped significantly after you bought it).
The entire problem with One time pads is key management. Key management why they are not commonly used. Just saying "Everyone should use one time pads" is not very constructive.
Asymmetric ciphers are often used simply to exchange key material for use with a symmetric cipher (a notable exception being S/MIME and PGP/MIME where the payload is also encrypted with the asymmetric cipher). HTTPS for instance authenticates using the cert keys but data transmission is usually done by AES128 or similar after a key exchange.
Such techniques are overlooked because they have huge flaws. I you were to monitor the message exchange in the scheme the GP used you could recover both keys and the plaintext easily.
If you were monitoring the exchange you could get bob's key very easily by XORing ciphertext1 and ciphertext2 or alices key by XORing ciphertext2 and ciphertext3
Actually, he was not thrown in prison, charges were dropped and he was released, and the company he worked for was acquitted. So technically your False is false.
Slashdot Mirror
DRM will work fine, just as it does on Windows, and it won't be unbreakable, just like its not unbreakable on Windows. It just needs to work well enough to be more of a hassle than simply buying the legal copy on Steam.
There will be cracks and patches for Steam games on Linux just as there are for Windows, and you'll get them from the same seedy corners of the internet with the same risks of getting pwned ("yes this crack absolutely needs root to work, trust us").
So basically, no difference.
BSD doesn't come with appropriate patent clauses.
The fact remains that even if the Open ZFS code base was re-licensed they would still have GPLv2 compatibility issues with any other reasonable licence choice.
My post from elsewhere in this thread
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4226771&cid=44883623
The gist of it is that CDDL isn't the problem. Even if you changed CDDL to GPLv3, LGPLv3 or Apache2 the license would still be incompatible with GPLv2 (Linux license). GPLv2 is the problem.
In fairness its GPL that has the incompatibility problem not CDDL.
CDDL is compatible BSD, Apache2, LGPL, etc.
GPLv2 is incompatbile with CDDL, Apache2, GPLv3, LGPLv3, etc.
Even if the license were not CDDL, it would have to be released under a license that came with a patent clause, which means GPLv3, LGPLv3, Apache2 or similar all of which are incompatible with GPLv2 which Linux is licensed under.
CDDL isn't the problem.
ZFS Intent Log. It soaks up sync writes to a fast drive so they can be written out later to the slower drives.
Also GNU/Linux isn't an OS, its a description of a software stack. RHEL, Debian, Arch Linux, Trisquel GNU/Linux, Android etc are all Operating Systems.
Apparently this was what happened to Josh Wolf -- he videotaped protesters vandalizing a car, the government demanded his original source materials, he argued a Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify, but it was generally agreed that he wasn't involved in any vandalism so the court said he didn't have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, so he went to jail.
This is a good thing. Suppose you were on trial for vandalizing that car, and that video proves you were not there, you should, and under our system of laws do, have the right to compel this person to testify. Both defendants and plaintiffs right to justice outweighs a third parties right to be silent, unless of course that testimony incriminates the third party. That caveat can be solved by granting the witness immunity and compelling them to testify.
The Sklyarov incedent was absurd for a variety of reasons, but don't enhance the facts, report them as is. Sklyarov spent 22 days in jail and was then out on bail, charges were eventually dropped.
Ah yes, good old apvector, apstring, apstack, apqueue and apmatrix (If I missed one let me know.). All those classes were to teach the basics of data structures without getting to involved with the standard library . I took the AP Comp Sci AB exam in 2003 which I believe was the last year for C++ on the exam. The teacher spent the last 2 weeks teaching some basic Java as filler material since that was what the world was heading to he said. When I got to college I didn't see Java again till I took it as an elective in my third year as C++ was still the teaching language at the college.
...and the drivers who will be reclassified properly as employees and not have there tips stolen anymore. But hey, I guess we should do away with class actions so companies can continue to rip people off just so long as the amounts are small enough not to justify a regular lawsuit by individuals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_Things
Don't need a EULA, copyright already restricts you from making copies of the copy. With one of these You bought, effectively a high quality print, you didn't buy the original with the right to make and sell your own prints.
You should try VA 267 from McLean to Ashburn and to a lesser extent from Sterling to Centreville on VA 28. Tech and defense companies abound.
He won't have to, insurance companies will do that for him. If self driving cars prove to be safer than manual cars insurance will adjust premiums according to risk.
You were on to something there, but made the wrong point I think. I would the driver experience is a major factor that changes over miles more so than mechanical issues. Likely your first 25k miles are more dangerous than your second 25k is more dangerous than your second 50k is more dangerous than your second 100k
In this scenario you are not changing the loss amounts, just who pays. So it could be a requirement when you drive a car (specifically a licensing requirement to use the auto-drive feature) that you pay the premiums that insure (with some mandated coverage amounts) the developer of the software, similar to having a borrower pay mortgage insurance (which covers the banks risk not yours even though your paying for it). If self-driving cars are truly safer statistically this will end up net less than traditional insurance, if a make or model of car is known to be bad the insurance premiums will go up on it and the problem is self correcting in that people wont' buy that car.
A simpler model would be a license agreement that requires the user to indemnify the car maker while auto-drive is being used, and then insure themselves just like people do today. The market in this case is again self correcting as premiums will favor safer cars and punish riskier ones. This could end up driving up insurance costs on manual cards if the self-driving cars are drastically better in the statistics.
In some states even if the bank forecloses they can still come after you for the balance if the sale of the house doesn't cover the outstanding debt (i.e. the value of the house dropped significantly after you bought it).
The entire problem with One time pads is key management. Key management why they are not commonly used. Just saying "Everyone should use one time pads" is not very constructive.
I agree, A one time pad is theoretically unbreakable. Key management is a pain though and unpractical quite often.
Parallel construction is also used for proving inevitable discovery.
Asymmetric ciphers are often used simply to exchange key material for use with a symmetric cipher (a notable exception being S/MIME and PGP/MIME where the payload is also encrypted with the asymmetric cipher). HTTPS for instance authenticates using the cert keys but data transmission is usually done by AES128 or similar after a key exchange.
Such techniques are overlooked because they have huge flaws. I you were to monitor the message exchange in the scheme the GP used you could recover both keys and the plaintext easily.
If you were monitoring the exchange you could get bob's key very easily by XORing ciphertext1 and ciphertext2 or alices key by XORing ciphertext2 and ciphertext3
Actually, he was not thrown in prison, charges were dropped and he was released, and the company he worked for was acquitted. So technically your False is false.