More like a derivative of abrogate, as in the course of action they took to abolish the effectiveness of one Dmitry Sklyarov for pointing out how silly their "encryption" was at a security conference.
See, that's where you're wrong. It was a huge success in this case. They got hordes of intelligence on the domestic activities of U.S. citizens, without any need for public documentation or warrants, and nobody has gone to jail for it. In fact, the telecoms were granted blanket immunity from prosecution after the fact. Sure, they couldn't keep it up forever, but that was never the goal to begin with.
Mod parent up! I tire of the endless bullshit argument that "Japan tried to surrender." Anything less than unconditional surrender wouldn't have been surrender at all.
There's a couple of trailing zeros worth of difference in the death toll of WWII compared to the sum of all conflicts fought since then. War is an inevitable consequence of human nature. Yes, it's to be avoided at all costs, but offhand comments that appeal to the purely emotional side of conflict are disingenuous at best, and downright annoying at worst.
thus necessitating the need for both engines to run alongside each other in support of legacy modules
I can think of several languages that have had such issues over the years;). Anyhow, I'm a dinosaur... I still do 99% of my web development in Perl on Debian (mostly using a framework I wrote myself a couple of years ago plus a sprinkling of third-party tools). Whatever gets the job done...
I don't agree with DRM from a philosophical standpoint when it acts broadly to only allow me to view content that falls under a particular licensing model. I can't argue with DRM measures designed to enforce specific licensing restrictions on specific works; the people who produce the work have the right to license it any way they see fit, and they certainly have the right to enforce that licensing. Frankly, I'd rather see it attempted (rather badly, usually) in software than see huge gobs of tax dollars spent dealing with infringement issues in the courts.
The fact that I license 90% of my software under the GPLv2 and BSD-style licenses doesn't mean I have any right to tell others how to license their works. DRM isn't automatically "evil" until it's used to deny any and all content that isn't licensed in a particular way. In that event, I'd most likely simply decline to use the product altogether, pursuing a freer alternative instead. There's a reason my servers run Debian.
I also understand that your code doesn't fall under redist needs if you only use it internally, however you are mistaken that it isn't GPL, it is.
I'm sorry, that's just plain wrong. As far as any licensing considerations go, my code carries only an automatic copyright under United States law until it gets distributed to another legal entity. I can take additional measures, such as licensing it under a particular agreement, or placing it in the public domain, but these don't matter either until someone else takes possession of the code. The very fact that I cannot be held liable for any of the terms of the GPL prior to redistribution makes it impossible to consider any privately held code to be automatically GPL. Reference this portion of the GPLv3:
"To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well."
Emphasis is mine. Also consider this portion:
"You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you."
In other words, I can pay someone to make modifications to GPL software for my own use, and that new code isn't considered covered by the GPL unless I say so. I just can't go distributing the modified work while attempting to limit freedoms associated with other authors' code.
Unfortunately, Microsoft (along with some other orgs) went to great lengths to spread FUD about the "virus-like" nature of the GPL, implying that any in-house use of GPL software would forever taint code that touched it. This is ridiculous, of course: software developers are free to license the same code simultaneously under different licensing models if they so choose. It's still their code; they just can't place additional restrictions on what others can do with the portions of the codebase that aren't theirs under copyright law.
It's still progress, and I'm impressed with the level of cooperation between Novell and Microsoft on the effort to get an SL1-compatible Moonlight player working. The fact that I'm impressed with anything related to the Redmond institution is impressive by itself (too many years of dealing with Win32 code left me calloused). I stand by my belief that the Silverlight platform shows immensely more promise for new development than Flash.
Ummm... I just took the ten seconds to install the Moonlight plugin for Firefox 3 (running under Ubuntu 8.04 i386). After I'm done watching the presidential inauguration, what precisely is stopping me from continuing to use the plugin to interact with other Silverlight-based content?
Listen, I'm a fairly serious open source developer myself, and I'm excited about a new technology that attempts to rectify some of the shortcomings we've all suffered from with Flash. Why can't you just give credit where it's due? Feel free to trot out your recent open source software engineering contributions...
In any case judging samba performance on the basis of a very odd use-case like 50 users hitting a single file is kind of strange. Generally you don't have that many people trying to access a single file.
I'm not trying to put Samba down here, as I'm a rather hard-core Debian server fanatic myself. I simply wonder this: what if you were serving files over HTTP from a Samba share? This could indeed result in a case where you were receiving hundreds of simultaneous requests for a file, albeit mostly "read" requests. Read/write activity would be different, but I do wonder how Samba would perform. I might actually try serving up some commonly accessed content on one of my more active websites via a Samba share just to see how it holds up...
If you use GPL code, your code is GPL, it's that simple... if you don't like it, don't use it.
This is incorrect. You are only required to honor the GPL for code you distribute to others (outside your company, for example). What you do with it in-house is completely up to you.
It's got to be a regional/department thing, then. Guess it depends on where you're from; I wouldn't be surprised at all if metro Atlanta cops did this, but would be *very* surprised to learn that cops in the outlying counties are now followed the same procedure.
Let me help you out: the source code for devices that will be used for evidentiary purposes at trial must be made available to defense parties. This does not mean you have to license the source code to anyone for use in their own device, and I somehow doubt the source being available for inspection is going to cause a landslide of "copycat" devices. These things cost real money to certify and manufacture.
It's new to Slashdot. You aren't coming off as trollish; you're coming off as a wannabe intellectual. I appreciated this post, and sent a link to several friends.
You know, there's a hell of a lot of people who don't routinely surf Penny Arcade or Slashdot every day who would probably enjoy this work.
Eh, I like Komodo all right, but I wind up writing the majority of my code in plain old gedit. Actually, almost any editor with syntax highlighting is "good enough" for me. Several of my active projects number in the many thousands of lines of code, too.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not.
maybe the \. moderators were using windows.
With command line syntax line that, it's a sure bet.
More like a derivative of abrogate, as in the course of action they took to abolish the effectiveness of one Dmitry Sklyarov for pointing out how silly their "encryption" was at a security conference.
It has always been an utter failure ...
See, that's where you're wrong. It was a huge success in this case. They got hordes of intelligence on the domestic activities of U.S. citizens, without any need for public documentation or warrants, and nobody has gone to jail for it. In fact, the telecoms were granted blanket immunity from prosecution after the fact. Sure, they couldn't keep it up forever, but that was never the goal to begin with.
Agreed.
This is the word that has been escaping you.
I don't think the parent understands the meaning of sarcasm.
Mod parent up! I tire of the endless bullshit argument that "Japan tried to surrender." Anything less than unconditional surrender wouldn't have been surrender at all.
There's a couple of trailing zeros worth of difference in the death toll of WWII compared to the sum of all conflicts fought since then. War is an inevitable consequence of human nature. Yes, it's to be avoided at all costs, but offhand comments that appeal to the purely emotional side of conflict are disingenuous at best, and downright annoying at worst.
thus necessitating the need for both engines to run alongside each other in support of legacy modules
I can think of several languages that have had such issues over the years ;). Anyhow, I'm a dinosaur... I still do 99% of my web development in Perl on Debian (mostly using a framework I wrote myself a couple of years ago plus a sprinkling of third-party tools). Whatever gets the job done...
I don't agree with DRM from a philosophical standpoint when it acts broadly to only allow me to view content that falls under a particular licensing model. I can't argue with DRM measures designed to enforce specific licensing restrictions on specific works; the people who produce the work have the right to license it any way they see fit, and they certainly have the right to enforce that licensing. Frankly, I'd rather see it attempted (rather badly, usually) in software than see huge gobs of tax dollars spent dealing with infringement issues in the courts.
The fact that I license 90% of my software under the GPLv2 and BSD-style licenses doesn't mean I have any right to tell others how to license their works. DRM isn't automatically "evil" until it's used to deny any and all content that isn't licensed in a particular way. In that event, I'd most likely simply decline to use the product altogether, pursuing a freer alternative instead. There's a reason my servers run Debian.
I also understand that your code doesn't fall under redist needs if you only use it internally, however you are mistaken that it isn't GPL, it is.
I'm sorry, that's just plain wrong. As far as any licensing considerations go, my code carries only an automatic copyright under United States law until it gets distributed to another legal entity. I can take additional measures, such as licensing it under a particular agreement, or placing it in the public domain, but these don't matter either until someone else takes possession of the code. The very fact that I cannot be held liable for any of the terms of the GPL prior to redistribution makes it impossible to consider any privately held code to be automatically GPL. Reference this portion of the GPLv3:
"To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well."
Emphasis is mine. Also consider this portion:
"You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you."
In other words, I can pay someone to make modifications to GPL software for my own use, and that new code isn't considered covered by the GPL unless I say so. I just can't go distributing the modified work while attempting to limit freedoms associated with other authors' code.
Unfortunately, Microsoft (along with some other orgs) went to great lengths to spread FUD about the "virus-like" nature of the GPL, implying that any in-house use of GPL software would forever taint code that touched it. This is ridiculous, of course: software developers are free to license the same code simultaneously under different licensing models if they so choose. It's still their code; they just can't place additional restrictions on what others can do with the portions of the codebase that aren't theirs under copyright law.
Good heavens man, help is available. :)
It's still progress, and I'm impressed with the level of cooperation between Novell and Microsoft on the effort to get an SL1-compatible Moonlight player working. The fact that I'm impressed with anything related to the Redmond institution is impressive by itself (too many years of dealing with Win32 code left me calloused). I stand by my belief that the Silverlight platform shows immensely more promise for new development than Flash.
Why not?
Damnit, you're dashing the hopes of thousands of young engineers who so desperately something to reverse engineer! You are truly an insensitive clod.
It is just a hack for a one time occasion.
Ummm... I just took the ten seconds to install the Moonlight plugin for Firefox 3 (running under Ubuntu 8.04 i386). After I'm done watching the presidential inauguration, what precisely is stopping me from continuing to use the plugin to interact with other Silverlight-based content?
Listen, I'm a fairly serious open source developer myself, and I'm excited about a new technology that attempts to rectify some of the shortcomings we've all suffered from with Flash. Why can't you just give credit where it's due? Feel free to trot out your recent open source software engineering contributions...
In any case judging samba performance on the basis of a very odd use-case like 50 users hitting a single file is kind of strange. Generally you don't have that many people trying to access a single file.
I'm not trying to put Samba down here, as I'm a rather hard-core Debian server fanatic myself. I simply wonder this: what if you were serving files over HTTP from a Samba share? This could indeed result in a case where you were receiving hundreds of simultaneous requests for a file, albeit mostly "read" requests. Read/write activity would be different, but I do wonder how Samba would perform. I might actually try serving up some commonly accessed content on one of my more active websites via a Samba share just to see how it holds up...
If you use GPL code, your code is GPL, it's that simple... if you don't like it, don't use it.
This is incorrect. You are only required to honor the GPL for code you distribute to others (outside your company, for example). What you do with it in-house is completely up to you.
It's got to be a regional/department thing, then. Guess it depends on where you're from; I wouldn't be surprised at all if metro Atlanta cops did this, but would be *very* surprised to learn that cops in the outlying counties are now followed the same procedure.
Let me help you out: the source code for devices that will be used for evidentiary purposes at trial must be made available to defense parties. This does not mean you have to license the source code to anyone for use in their own device, and I somehow doubt the source being available for inspection is going to cause a landslide of "copycat" devices. These things cost real money to certify and manufacture.
Cops don't generally do this unless they suspect the vehicle may be stolen. Nice try, though.
It's new to Slashdot. You aren't coming off as trollish; you're coming off as a wannabe intellectual. I appreciated this post, and sent a link to several friends.
You know, there's a hell of a lot of people who don't routinely surf Penny Arcade or Slashdot every day who would probably enjoy this work.
As your username indicates: fail.
Maybe a better question is this: how much user-contributed content (original productions) will later be considered "classic?"
Eh, I like Komodo all right, but I wind up writing the majority of my code in plain old gedit. Actually, almost any editor with syntax highlighting is "good enough" for me. Several of my active projects number in the many thousands of lines of code, too.
Yeah, I know those people cheat already, but why make it legal.
So, you're advocating continuing to screw the general public on taxes because you like having a legal basis to punish the wealthy for being wealthy?