3) What about the GPL? Well, what about it? Nothing Caldera is doing violates the GPL (at least, I can't prove it).
Not without seeing the act ual license Caldera is going to use, no. Consider, however, the following excerpts from the GPL:
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the
distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
Caldera, in their reviewers guide, calls the Linux Kernel "the core of OpenLinux Workstation". Who can argue that something like that is not 'based on' (GPLed) Linux?
(more from the GPL)
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
So, Caldera sells a (modified, presumably) version of the Linux kernel (with some proprietary tools, to install it, etc).They then say 'you may only install this on a single system'.
It seems to me this is clearly not allowed under the GPL.
However, the above quote includes the word 'herein' - meaning in the GPL. The GPL specifically states:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License;
A strange situation occurs (based on the information I have now): Caldera disallows use of their softare on more than one system, but it does not disallow redistribution. Much like 'shareware' licenses, which allow free distribution of the software, but use is limited.
Some people have argue that once you've obtained the software it's yours to do with as you please, but to redistribute the software (modified or not), you have to have permission from the copyright owner.
I don't think Caldera's model can survive. It can only work if none of the copyright holders decide to sue Caldera, and they actually have a much better distribution (to compensate for the loss in goodwill).
If this holds up, however, there is no longer any added value to the GPL versus some of the less restrictive licenses (BSD/MIT/X11 etc).
it's bad enough basing your business on a piece of closed software from someone like IBM or Sun, but at least with them you know that they'll be around for a while.
IBM will be around for a while, but that doesn't say much about the product you're buying. Ask anyone who bought Visual Age for Java for Linux. It had one version. When the new major version for Windows came out, a new version (with support for JDK1.2) was announced. Never happened.
If I'll be buying closed-license software in the future, it will have to be pretty special.
One of the reasons I'm heavily involved with the Hercules IBM mainframe emulator is that it's not licensed under the GPV
Hercules runs on Windows or Linux. To compile it, you must use egcs. If you're this violently opposed to the GPL and the FSF, why is this so? Hercules is distributed under the QPL,
which appears to me to be only marginally less restrictive than the GPL (and more like the LGPL), including some language that looks very much like a 'coercive form of sharing' (with the "maintainer", at least). Why isn't Hercules available under a BSD-ish license?
There's room in the Open Source movement for lots of different licenses.
This I agree with. I don't think Chip disagrees, either.
You arguments against the GPL have much in common with Microsoft's; including that they are mostly FUD. This helps Microsoft, not Open Source.
Mundie only talks about the software industry
on
Mundie Responds
·
· Score: 1
When Mundie talks about money-making business models based on Open Source, what he really means is software businesses.
For the vast majority of businesses, the intellectual property on software created by them doesn't create any direct revenue, but rather the information that that software manages does.
These types of companies can benefit from and contribute to Free Software, and many do this already. The major advantage, of course, being that they're made dependant on highly priced but closely guarded Intellectual Property.
When Mundie says
[the GPL] it debases the currency of the ideas and labor that transform great ideas into great products
... he shows his true colors. Free Software is competition - and when competition thrives, prices drop; and Microsoft is worried that users will realise the real value of Microsofts intellectual property.
This is not true. You're not allowed to distribute modified versions, but as long as you don't redistribute the package, you're free to do with it as you please - according to Bernstein.
"The situation is analogous to a censorware company blackmailing a service provider into removing Holocaust-denial
material, by blocking thousands of innocent websites. Now, I don't like Holocaust denial, but standing up for free
speech means standing up for speech I don't believe in."
So, you're saying you don't like MAPS' published policy, and you don't like the fact that MAPS has a list of network blocks that contain spamware vendors.
But as I understand your point, you will stand up for MAPS' right to publish this list, correct?
I feel the same way.
The right to Free speech is extremely important, but it does not, I repeat not impy a right to be heard, or a right to use other peoples property to make the speech be heard.
MAPS and MAPS' users have the right to voice their opinion that the owners of the netblocks in MAPS' lists are irresponsible, and that they feel responsible admins should drop packets to and from those networks, or refuse SMTP connections from them.
Network and mailserver owners have the right to actually drop those packets, and actually refuse those connections. Or do you feel that we don't have that right?
On my scale of evil, by the way, spammers are much worse than holocaust deniers. Holocaust deniers are evil, and should be exposed. But most of them limit their activity to speech, and nothing forces me to deal or argue with them. (I do, from time to time, but that's beside the point). Spammers are different. They attempt to make me listen to their message, without my consent, and at my cost (and often at the cost of irresponsible, but otherwise innocent third parties - open relays). Spam costs me real money to receive, money I could have used to excercise my right to free speech.
I have no choice but to defend myself from them - and MAPS' lists are some of the most valuable tools to do that.
"Interesting... I always thought that self censorship meant that I decided what I did not want to see. Not that my
company made that decision, or my ISP, or their backbone ISP, or anyone else... but me.
MAPS does not give you the choice of self censorship - it gives service providers the choice of whether to subject
you to censorship or not."
And how does this prevent you from choosing service providers who don't use MAPS?
Why should I be prevented from deciding that I do want to use MAPS' lists to decide what I do not want to see?
Self-censorship, by the way, means that you decide what not to say, not see.
This article has made me realize that 'censorware' isn't actually a bad thing; as long as users are informed of the fact that it's being used (and what caused something to be listed).
I'm satisfied that MAPS excercises a lot of restraint when listing IP's; in fact, I would like MAPS to be much more aggressive at times. If MAPS didn't escalate to larger netblocks, companies like Media3 would only move their spammers' IP's around, and they would still be profiting from spam.
Yes, this causes collateral damage. In fact, it is intended to cause collateral damage; people like the owners of peacefire.org should be talking to Media3 about terminating spammers like the ones found at Media3's entry at the Spamhaus Project, all but one in the same netblock as peacefire.org.
Spam is censorship; it fills up mailboxes and causes legitimate email to bounce. It consumes network resources paid for by unwilling recipients; I think it is not acceptable to ask these recipients to eat their spam because peacefire.org doesn't want to move to a different hosting provider.
If MAPS' careful process of education, listing and escalation causes it to be in the same category as the censorware, then so be it. I use MAPS because it prevents my network connectivity from becoming prohibitively expensive; as long as I can do that, I can avoid going to places that use censorware to filter 'net access.
Goodbye, peacefire.org. See you when you've found another web host, or Media3 cleans up their act.
If (and this is a big ?If?) Network Ice can demonstrate that MAPS could be inaccurately labelling some sites as spam sites, specifically Network Ice, then MAPS could have
problems.
most developers get scared
when I make changes to the system... they always thing it will break their app...
If you're a sysadmin, you should know you're in trouble when developers act like this. It's an indication they have no idea how their application works, or what it's security-requirements are; the application will most likely not have been designed with security in mind.
I have made this mistake myself a few times (I develop and admin systems nowadays)
I am associated with one of the companies in question. It was the Source Fragment Disclosure Vulnerability. I have a copy his
original email somewhere to prove it.
See, your statement carries as much weight as his does, since neither his nor your claims can be verified through public information.
Knowing Gerrie Mansur, though, I'll believe neither of you for now.
The RSS zone used to have TXT records. It currently does not have text records, as of August 2000. They were eliminated because the zone
file is growing rather large. This affects Qmail users who utilize rblsmtpd to check the RSS list, as the previous instructions relied on the
existance of TXT records to function.
I'm not sure if or how this affects Exim users (as Exim is the mail server Kurt refers to), and it's not the RBL. For me, RSS hasn't been functioning properly since (about) 8/8.
(aside: You know, I haven't seen much about all this in the mainstream media [but maybe I've just been missing it]. This seems really strange to me, because:)
The first issue (unsolicited free emailaccounts accessible to all) isn't so much a security thing (after all, anyone can create an email pretending to be me from a free email service anyway) as it is a matter of trust.
NSI continues to show that it's not worthy of that trust. The data that was entrusted to them for technical and administrative purposes, is now a source of income for NSI, who are also denying others the right to do the same.
The terms of being registered with NSI, which at the time I registered my domains still had the monopoly, have been changing constantly.
If anyone can recommend a registry that will allow me to keep control of my data, please step forward. I want that control back.
NSI has shown that it's not worthy of our trust. NSI can't be and shouldn't be trusted. Not by the US Department of Commerce, not by ICANN, and not by Internet users in general. --
I don't see why I haven't been given the opportunity to moderate yet.
Don't worry about it. I'm sure it's nothing personal. I don't post much, but have moderator points for the second time this week. There's a random factor in it, I guess.
Either way, moderating/. should be taken seriously, and it filters out the worst noise, but it's not the be-all-end-all of the/. experience.
It's definitely not something you should get upset about. It'll float your way sometime soon; after that, the glamour 'll wear off pretty quickly. IMO, of course. --
On an almost off-topic but related note (hey! it says topic=slashdot on the URL doesn't it?), I noticed today that some instances of pages (I'm not sure wether it's to do with the ad up top), with certain ads (and sometimes not), but usually over 30 comments blow Internet Explorer 5 and Netscape 4.6 on '95 out of the water; the available resources go below 5%, and Windows refuses to do anything else.
Has anyone else experienced this? I've never seen it happen before....
How about if your NT box isn't secure, you're just not a good enough administrator? No suggestion that if you used Unix, you might not have to DEAL with some of these problems?
I agree with this. I just finished remotely removing ISM.DLL from all my NT-webservers, all the time thinking: I knew I should've removed it when I removed all the.htr files!
There's two problems here:
An NT admin (any admin, really) shouldn't expose his system to the outside world unless he can trust the software on it to be secure.
Microsofts pre-installed extentions are dangerous.
I'm not leaving any microsoft extensions in IIS unless they're required.
You or your company linked to the slashdot postings in a disclaimer above the article and thereby made a little history. I never saw a mainstream media outlet connecting so fast with it's own critics.
Well, it looks OK right now, but I don't think Jack Bryar has had a chance to respond, yet. It would be far more effective if he would aknowledge the factual errors in his column, or if he would publish a response to Franks' article. Now it just looks like Andover is leaving him hanging.
Misinformation and FUD - intentional or not - shouldn't be countered with flames; reasoned argument works much better, and maybe, just maybe, it might convince Jack and others like him. One at a time.
Slashdot Mirror
(more from the GPL)
So, Caldera sells a (modified, presumably) version of the Linux kernel (with some proprietary tools, to install it, etc).They then say 'you may only install this on a single system'.It seems to me this is clearly not allowed under the GPL. However, the above quote includes the word 'herein' - meaning in the GPL. The GPL specifically states:
A strange situation occurs (based on the information I have now): Caldera disallows use of their softare on more than one system, but it does not disallow redistribution. Much like 'shareware' licenses, which allow free distribution of the software, but use is limited.
Some people have argue that once you've obtained the software it's yours to do with as you please, but to redistribute the software (modified or not), you have to have permission from the copyright owner.
I don't think Caldera's model can survive. It can only work if none of the copyright holders decide to sue Caldera, and they actually have a much better distribution (to compensate for the loss in goodwill).
If this holds up, however, there is no longer any added value to the GPL versus some of the less restrictive licenses (BSD/MIT/X11 etc).
If I'll be buying closed-license software in the future, it will have to be pretty special.
You arguments against the GPL have much in common with Microsoft's; including that they are mostly FUD. This helps Microsoft, not Open Source.
When Mundie talks about money-making business models based on Open Source, what he really means is software businesses.
For the vast majority of businesses, the intellectual property on software created by them doesn't create any direct revenue, but rather the information that that software manages does.
These types of companies can benefit from and contribute to Free Software, and many do this already. The major advantage, of course, being that they're made dependant on highly priced but closely guarded Intellectual Property.
When Mundie says
... he shows his true colors. Free Software is competition - and when competition thrives, prices drop; and Microsoft is worried that users will realise the real value of Microsofts intellectual property.
This is not true. You're not allowed to distribute modified versions, but as long as you don't redistribute the package, you're free to do with it as you please - according to Bernstein.
So, you're saying you don't like MAPS' published policy, and you don't like the fact that MAPS has a list of network blocks that contain spamware vendors.
But as I understand your point, you will stand up for MAPS' right to publish this list, correct?
I feel the same way.
The right to Free speech is extremely important, but it does not, I repeat not impy a right to be heard, or a right to use other peoples property to make the speech be heard.
MAPS and MAPS' users have the right to voice their opinion that the owners of the netblocks in MAPS' lists are irresponsible, and that they feel responsible admins should drop packets to and from those networks, or refuse SMTP connections from them.
Network and mailserver owners have the right to actually drop those packets, and actually refuse those connections. Or do you feel that we don't have that right?
On my scale of evil, by the way, spammers are much worse than holocaust deniers. Holocaust deniers are evil, and should be exposed. But most of them limit their activity to speech, and nothing forces me to deal or argue with them. (I do, from time to time, but that's beside the point). Spammers are different. They attempt to make me listen to their message, without my consent, and at my cost (and often at the cost of irresponsible, but otherwise innocent third parties - open relays). Spam costs me real money to receive, money I could have used to excercise my right to free speech.
I have no choice but to defend myself from them - and MAPS' lists are some of the most valuable tools to do that.
Why should I be prevented from deciding that I do want to use MAPS' lists to decide what I do not want to see?
Self-censorship, by the way, means that you decide what not to say, not see.
I'm satisfied that MAPS excercises a lot of restraint when listing IP's; in fact, I would like MAPS to be much more aggressive at times. If MAPS didn't escalate to larger netblocks, companies like Media3 would only move their spammers' IP's around, and they would still be profiting from spam.
Yes, this causes collateral damage. In fact, it is intended to cause collateral damage; people like the owners of peacefire.org should be talking to Media3 about terminating spammers like the ones found at Media3's entry at the Spamhaus Project, all but one in the same netblock as peacefire.org.
Spam is censorship; it fills up mailboxes and causes legitimate email to bounce. It consumes network resources paid for by unwilling recipients; I think it is not acceptable to ask these recipients to eat their spam because peacefire.org doesn't want to move to a different hosting provider.
Have a look at the site that caused this netblock to be listed, and at Media3's Service Agreement. Media3 is obviously not willing to enforce that, so they themselves are supporting spam.
If MAPS' careful process of education, listing and escalation causes it to be in the same category as the censorware, then so be it. I use MAPS because it prevents my network connectivity from becoming prohibitively expensive; as long as I can do that, I can avoid going to places that use censorware to filter 'net access.
Goodbye, peacefire.org. See you when you've found another web host, or Media3 cleans up their act.
Network Ice are not the company in this suit, Black Ice are.
Here are some samples of them spamming (found in nanae):
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=557977300&fmt=tex t
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=558186941&fmt=tex t
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=600168362&fmt=tex t
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=626576761&fmt=tex t
If you're a sysadmin, you should know you're in trouble when developers act like this. It's an indication they have no idea how their application works, or what it's security-requirements are; the application will most likely not have been designed with security in mind.
I have made this mistake myself a few times (I develop and admin systems nowadays)
See, your statement carries as much weight as his does, since neither his nor your claims can be verified through public information.
Knowing Gerrie Mansur, though, I'll believe neither of you for now.
I'm not sure if or how this affects Exim users (as Exim is the mail server Kurt refers to), and it's not the RBL. For me, RSS hasn't been functioning properly since (about) 8/8.
The first issue (unsolicited free emailaccounts accessible to all) isn't so much a security thing (after all, anyone can create an email pretending to be me from a free email service anyway) as it is a matter of trust.
NSI continues to show that it's not worthy of that trust. The data that was entrusted to them for technical and administrative purposes, is now a source of income for NSI, who are also denying others the right to do the same.
The terms of being registered with NSI, which at the time I registered my domains still had the monopoly, have been changing constantly.
If anyone can recommend a registry that will allow me to keep control of my data, please step forward. I want that control back.
NSI has shown that it's not worthy of our trust. NSI can't be and shouldn't be trusted. Not by the US Department of Commerce, not by ICANN, and not by Internet users in general.
--
Either way, moderating /. should be taken seriously, and it filters out the worst noise, but it's not the be-all-end-all of the /. experience.
It's definitely not something you should get upset about. It'll float your way sometime soon; after that, the glamour 'll wear off pretty quickly. IMO, of course.
--
On an almost off-topic but related note (hey! it says topic=slashdot on the URL doesn't it?), I noticed today that some instances of pages (I'm not sure wether it's to do with the ad up top), with certain ads (and sometimes not), but usually over 30 comments blow Internet Explorer 5 and Netscape 4.6 on '95 out of the water; the available resources go below 5%, and Windows refuses to do anything else.
Has anyone else experienced this? I've never seen it happen before....
--
I agree with this. I just finished remotely removing ISM.DLL from all my NT-webservers, all the time thinking: I knew I should've removed it when I removed all the .htr files!
There's two problems here:
I'm not leaving any microsoft extensions in IIS unless they're required.
Sigh. Thank ghod we're moving to Apache.
--
Well, it looks OK right now, but I don't think Jack Bryar has had a chance to respond, yet. It would be far more effective if he would aknowledge the factual errors in his column, or if he would publish a response to Franks' article. Now it just looks like Andover is leaving him hanging.
Misinformation and FUD - intentional or not - shouldn't be countered with flames; reasoned argument works much better, and maybe, just maybe, it might convince Jack and others like him. One at a time.
--
Actually, Dutch is Frank's native tounge.
--