to deny certain interfaces marked as GPL-only to the module
Does this have to do with the status of the driver as a derivative work of the kernel? As I understand it (and I may well understand wrong), Linus believes that some drivers should be considered derivative works, and some (such as the Nvidia drivers), should not. I could see how conforming to a published API could make the difference.
So, if you take a hex editor to this binary, and replace "GPL" with "XXX", does the thing still work? If not, would that imply that it relies on these GPL-only interfaces, and is therefore a derivative work of the kernel, which must be distributed under the GPL? (And if so, would anyone have the stones to take Linuxant to court over such a grey-area matter, for the first real in-court test of the GPL?)
So what you're saying is: all PlayFair does is allow someone to do what they could already do, except 15 minutes faster and without wasting a CD? So what's the big deal with this hack?
Really, there's a principle at work here, which is that I should be legally allowed to perform whatever arbitrary transformations I wish on data that I legally possess, and should be allowed to distribute programs which perform these transformations, provided that none of the transformations I perform invole distributing unauthorised copies of copyrighted works or derivative works thereof. Why shouldn't everybody have that freedom?
"But, but, breaking these access restrictions will freak the media cartel out!" Well, fuck them. They can stop distributing their shit online, or at all, if they don't like people buying it and using it, or they can learn to live with new technology. What they can't do is take away my freedom because the world freaks them out.
This is not only possible, it's being done on Freenet right now. One relevant project is Frost, an anonymous/pseudonymous message board system that runs over Freenet. It's still real rough around the edges, more a proof-of-concept than a real robust system, but it's a direction for the future.
If you don't really like music that much, and just want some background noise to tap your foot to[1], why are you even interested in purchasing music? Why not just listen to whatever's on the radio for free?
[1] Not that there's anything wrong with this; I don't really care about movies, but I wouldn't want some film snob telling me I'm a shallow person because I think Apocalypse Now is boring.
Off the top of my head, in recent years Radiohead, Peter Gabriel, Tool, and the Flaming Lips have all put out very good major-label records that, while not concept albums, are much more than just collections of singles. Others have mentioned Dream Theater; if you like metal and occasionally gratuitous displays of extreme musical talent, you should check them out.
I agree that it's sad that mainstream music has mostly abandoned the album in favor of easily marketed plastic shiny things. There are still a lot of good albums being made, though; if you're into the hard stuff I recommend looking at just about any band on Relapse Records.
But who the fuck cares about L.A.? It's not like California's electoral votes are going to go Republican, anyway.
Also, the recession ended two years ago, haven't you heard? Productivity is up! The stock market is up! Yaaaay! All hail Bush's brilliant economic strategery!
I hear you, man. I've never paid for a music download, and never will. Why should I when I can get a higher quality recording for the same price? (you can get almost any album for 10-12 dollars used, if not much less). Besides, I like having a physical artifact of a record that I love. Maybe I'm just a luddite, though.
Yeah, but with VHS tapes you had to go through the whole cumbersome process each time you wanted a copy. These days, only one person needs to go through this obnoxious process and throw the result up on the Network. This will only cause people who currently buy CDs and rip them to more useful, unencumbered formats to go to P2P exclusively.
The point being, if the record industry successfully produces 100% un-crackable (at least to normal consumers) copy protection which still plays on 100% of CD players...
And the point is that this is not possible. In the absence of a DMCA-type law or ubiquitous TCPA-crippled hardware, this sort of usage-control crap is just a race that the media cartel can't win.
Actually, you're an ignorant fucking tool. Bono said, "fucking". The FCC let it slide because it was used as a synonym for "very", not as sexual slang. What the FCC is saying now is that saying "fuck" will get you fucked regardless of context.
I'm not sure I agree that patents in general a bad thing, at least patents as I think they were originally intended. The point of patents is that you make public your invention in return for a short-term monopoly on its use. Suppose I invent a more efficient frob-making machine. I can set up a factory and get rich selling frobs for cheaper than my competitors could, because I have a cheaper way of manufacturing them. Of course, if my competitors independently discovers the same process I'm using, they can use it too. With a patent system, I make public my frob-making process, advancing the state of the art and perhaps inspiring other inventions, but no one else can use my actual invention to compete with me for a decade or so (after which time, the entire industry gets more efficient as everyone adopts my invention). I get rich in that decade, technology advances, the economy gets more productive, everybody is happy.
Of course, the present patent system is terribly broken. I agree that no patents at all would probably be better than what we have now, but a working patent system would be better than either.
without patents in medical, nothing would get done
Nonsense; without patents in medical, things wouldn't get done the way they are now. Big corporations are not the only entities that can discover things; universities and publically-funded research groups could keep right on researching drugs. This would probably result in fewer new drugs being discovered, but they would probably be important ones as opposed to penis pills, and be more widely available. There would still be a place for businesses, even, mass-producing and distributing these "open-source" medicines.
This whole idea is abhorrent to capitalist zealots, of course.
Exactly what could persuade other countries to use this US-owned software instead of F/OSS which they can control themselves? The US attempting to shut down Free Software worldwide would amount to the US trying to levy a tax for doing business on the rest of the world. Even given the vast economic and military might of the USA, I don't see this as a sustainable strategy; unfortunately, I suppose some of the clowns in our government probably do.
The public want a secure, easy to use, verifiable, non-bullshit voting system to ensure fair elections.
If "the public" really wanted this, wouldn't more people bother to at least show up to vote? That's the real problem: "the people" don't know what's going on, and most probably wouldn't give a fuck if they did. In the abcence of real public oversight, the small-time elected officials in charge of this stuff will just take the easiest route that appears to be to their political advantage: do what the nice Diebold salesdroid says. That is, if they aren't actually planning on rigging elections.
That problem isn't that there's a private company involved; the conflict you describe could be resolved if the government set some reasonable requirements for voting machines. That it hasn't shows that the US government is sort of broken (and I don't just mean the present BushCo junta). Over the next few years we'll see just how broken it is.
Unfortunately a popular vote system would mean that almost all states but California and New York become largely ignorable.
As opposed to the current system, where all but a half-dozen "swing states" are largely ignorable? In 2000 I was registerd to vote in New Jersey; I could just as well have not voted, because Gore won in a walk like everybody knew he was going to (not that I'm complaining about that result, mind you; I would have taken, and would still take, anybody over the ape-in-a-suit we have now).
I like state's rights too, but the current system really isn't doing much to serve them. I would rather we started taking the 10th amendment seriously again, rather than relying on the anachronistic electoral college.
Yes, and any interesting/compatibility-breaking changes they made in their version could immediately be added to all other GPL implementations. It might let them "pollute" Java (if people actually cared to use their changes), but it wouldn't let them "hijack" Java, which is the real concern.
Yes, you're missing something very important: the code-morphing guy is lying through his fucking teeth. This whole thing is a scam that will be sold to the same dipshit PHBs who are deploying dotnet in the first place.
As for Cringley, I want some of what he's smoking.
I figure I'm about as culpable as anyone running a router on the regular public internet. My node will route any requests it recieves, regardless of content; in the normal course of operation, I can't even tell what is locally stored on my hard disk. I'm no lawyer, so I don't know the ins and outs of common carrier status; I have no idea if this line of argument would hold up in court. It's basically the legal theory that the whole freenet project rests upon, though. And, yes, if the feds decided to crack down on freenet, I would be happy to stand up in court and argue for free, anonymous, uncensorable communication.
if certain people feel so strongly about enabling criminally free speech (kiddie porn, etc.), then they should feel strongly enough about it to be able to do so without my money or anybody else's
Isn't this exactly what they're doing? AFAIK, nobody has been forced to financially support the freenet project against their will. No tax money has been going to it, as well it shouldn't. Until you start actually pushing for laws to make anonymity illegal, I think most freenet supporters would happily support your right to not participate.
Is Freenet so hard that this many programmers can't deliver a working version in close to a year?!
Yes, it is. First off, the behavior of the network is very nondeterministic. It's not really feasible to set up a controlled test network that would reveal any of the actual problems the network has been having. There's a lot of trial and error involved, and every new trial involved getting several hundred net-monkies to upgrade their software. Secondly, the freenet project is something really new. There isn't a lot of well-developed theory to work off of, and no working models to clone. Other big open-source projects often require lots of work and skill, but they're almost all working in previously-explored territory.
First, is it relatively safe? Does it do what the directions say it does and no more?
Yes, as far as I can tell (been running freenet sporadically for several years, constantly since last summer). The source is open, and due to the nature of the project there are a lot of slightly paranoid people looking at it. The bandwidth limiting code is actually kind of flaky, but if it's a big concern to you you can always run lower-level traffic shaping software.
Is especially vile content a big problem and will I feel guilty once I get into it?
Well, I've never felt guilty about running a node. There's certainly quite a bit of illegal distribution of copyrighted material going on over freenet, as well as a non-trivial amount of actual bad shit (read: child porn) (at least, I assume there is; I've seen links indicating that that's what they lead to, but never followed them). I feel, however, that there are better ways of dealing with such stuff than by making all secure, anonymous communication impossible. It's about as easy to avoid content you don't wish to see on the freenet as it is on the regular old web.
Second, Is it being run efficiently? I really don't know what it would take. One programmer plus a herd of volunteers sounds good, but please do let me know.
Um... it's kind of chaotic, but it gets results (in fits and starts, sometimes). The active developers are mostly nice, very smart people. You might be interested in perusing the freenet-devel archives.
more than 500MB of disk space to spare
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that will fill up in about a weekend. My local datastore is currently about 12GB, and I'll be putting in a spare 40GB drive soon just for freenet. Don't let this put you off, though; the network has plenty of storage space; what it really needs is more bandwidth. If you have a fast network connection, you should really try it out. It's an interesting project to follow, and could end up actually being very valuable to the world.
This is cool, and definitely a step in the right direction. But for $9.99 I can buy a used copy of most any album, and get full quality sound and the cover art package (which is important to me, although my tastes aren't primarily in electronic music, which seems to often have pretty sparse packaging). If they were selling MP3/ogg singles for, say, 50 cents or less, I would probably buy a bunch as a replacement for things like Kazaa, which are mostly try-before-you-buy mechanisms for me. Still, way to go Warp.
Now, when Relapse Records gets on board with this, I'll be all over it. Those old 7" splits are fucking hard to find.
I don't get it. Do graphic designers enjoy being Adobe's serfs? How many graphics nerds donating 10% of the cost of a Photoshop upgrade would it take for the GIMP folks to hire some more programmers to implement the stuff it would take to be a real PS replacement?
Slashdot Mirror
to deny certain interfaces marked as GPL-only to the module
Does this have to do with the status of the driver as a derivative work of the kernel? As I understand it (and I may well understand wrong), Linus believes that some drivers should be considered derivative works, and some (such as the Nvidia drivers), should not. I could see how conforming to a published API could make the difference.
So, if you take a hex editor to this binary, and replace "GPL" with "XXX", does the thing still work? If not, would that imply that it relies on these GPL-only interfaces, and is therefore a derivative work of the kernel, which must be distributed under the GPL? (And if so, would anyone have the stones to take Linuxant to court over such a grey-area matter, for the first real in-court test of the GPL?)
So what you're saying is: all PlayFair does is allow someone to do what they could already do, except 15 minutes faster and without wasting a CD? So what's the big deal with this hack?
Really, there's a principle at work here, which is that I should be legally allowed to perform whatever arbitrary transformations I wish on data that I legally possess, and should be allowed to distribute programs which perform these transformations, provided that none of the transformations I perform invole distributing unauthorised copies of copyrighted works or derivative works thereof. Why shouldn't everybody have that freedom?
"But, but, breaking these access restrictions will freak the media cartel out!" Well, fuck them. They can stop distributing their shit online, or at all, if they don't like people buying it and using it, or they can learn to live with new technology. What they can't do is take away my freedom because the world freaks them out.
This is not only possible, it's being done on Freenet right now. One relevant project is Frost, an anonymous/pseudonymous message board system that runs over Freenet. It's still real rough around the edges, more a proof-of-concept than a real robust system, but it's a direction for the future.
If you don't really like music that much, and just want some background noise to tap your foot to[1], why are you even interested in purchasing music? Why not just listen to whatever's on the radio for free?
[1] Not that there's anything wrong with this; I don't really care about movies, but I wouldn't want some film snob telling me I'm a shallow person because I think Apocalypse Now is boring.
Anything even approaching mainstream?
Off the top of my head, in recent years Radiohead, Peter Gabriel, Tool, and the Flaming Lips have all put out very good major-label records that, while not concept albums, are much more than just collections of singles. Others have mentioned Dream Theater; if you like metal and occasionally gratuitous displays of extreme musical talent, you should check them out.
I agree that it's sad that mainstream music has mostly abandoned the album in favor of easily marketed plastic shiny things. There are still a lot of good albums being made, though; if you're into the hard stuff I recommend looking at just about any band on Relapse Records.
Scenes from a Memory is my favorite album by Dream Theater (I haven't heard Awake yet)
If you prefer the heavier side of DT, you need to acquire a copy of Awake NOW. It's by far my favorite of their albums.
But who the fuck cares about L.A.? It's not like California's electoral votes are going to go Republican, anyway.
Also, the recession ended two years ago, haven't you heard? Productivity is up! The stock market is up! Yaaaay! All hail Bush's brilliant economic strategery!
I hear you, man. I've never paid for a music download, and never will. Why should I when I can get a higher quality recording for the same price? (you can get almost any album for 10-12 dollars used, if not much less). Besides, I like having a physical artifact of a record that I love. Maybe I'm just a luddite, though.
Yeah, but with VHS tapes you had to go through the whole cumbersome process each time you wanted a copy. These days, only one person needs to go through this obnoxious process and throw the result up on the Network. This will only cause people who currently buy CDs and rip them to more useful, unencumbered formats to go to P2P exclusively.
The point being, if the record industry successfully produces 100% un-crackable (at least to normal consumers) copy protection which still plays on 100% of CD players...
And the point is that this is not possible. In the absence of a DMCA-type law or ubiquitous TCPA-crippled hardware, this sort of usage-control crap is just a race that the media cartel can't win.
Actually, you're an ignorant fucking tool. Bono said, "fucking". The FCC let it slide because it was used as a synonym for "very", not as sexual slang. What the FCC is saying now is that saying "fuck" will get you fucked regardless of context.
I'm not sure I agree that patents in general a bad thing, at least patents as I think they were originally intended. The point of patents is that you make public your invention in return for a short-term monopoly on its use. Suppose I invent a more efficient frob-making machine. I can set up a factory and get rich selling frobs for cheaper than my competitors could, because I have a cheaper way of manufacturing them. Of course, if my competitors independently discovers the same process I'm using, they can use it too. With a patent system, I make public my frob-making process, advancing the state of the art and perhaps inspiring other inventions, but no one else can use my actual invention to compete with me for a decade or so (after which time, the entire industry gets more efficient as everyone adopts my invention). I get rich in that decade, technology advances, the economy gets more productive, everybody is happy.
Of course, the present patent system is terribly broken. I agree that no patents at all would probably be better than what we have now, but a working patent system would be better than either.
without patents in medical, nothing would get done
Nonsense; without patents in medical, things wouldn't get done the way they are now. Big corporations are not the only entities that can discover things; universities and publically-funded research groups could keep right on researching drugs. This would probably result in fewer new drugs being discovered, but they would probably be important ones as opposed to penis pills, and be more widely available. There would still be a place for businesses, even, mass-producing and distributing these "open-source" medicines.
This whole idea is abhorrent to capitalist zealots, of course.
Exactly what could persuade other countries to use this US-owned software instead of F/OSS which they can control themselves? The US attempting to shut down Free Software worldwide would amount to the US trying to levy a tax for doing business on the rest of the world. Even given the vast economic and military might of the USA, I don't see this as a sustainable strategy; unfortunately, I suppose some of the clowns in our government probably do.
The public want a secure, easy to use, verifiable, non-bullshit voting system to ensure fair elections.
If "the public" really wanted this, wouldn't more people bother to at least show up to vote? That's the real problem: "the people" don't know what's going on, and most probably wouldn't give a fuck if they did. In the abcence of real public oversight, the small-time elected officials in charge of this stuff will just take the easiest route that appears to be to their political advantage: do what the nice Diebold salesdroid says. That is, if they aren't actually planning on rigging elections.
That problem isn't that there's a private company involved; the conflict you describe could be resolved if the government set some reasonable requirements for voting machines. That it hasn't shows that the US government is sort of broken (and I don't just mean the present BushCo junta). Over the next few years we'll see just how broken it is.
Unfortunately a popular vote system would mean that almost all states but California and New York become largely ignorable.
As opposed to the current system, where all but a half-dozen "swing states" are largely ignorable? In 2000 I was registerd to vote in New Jersey; I could just as well have not voted, because Gore won in a walk like everybody knew he was going to (not that I'm complaining about that result, mind you; I would have taken, and would still take, anybody over the ape-in-a-suit we have now).
I like state's rights too, but the current system really isn't doing much to serve them. I would rather we started taking the 10th amendment seriously again, rather than relying on the anachronistic electoral college.
Yes, and any interesting/compatibility-breaking changes they made in their version could immediately be added to all other GPL implementations. It might let them "pollute" Java (if people actually cared to use their changes), but it wouldn't let them "hijack" Java, which is the real concern.
Am I missing something here?
Yes, you're missing something very important: the code-morphing guy is lying through his fucking teeth. This whole thing is a scam that will be sold to the same dipshit PHBs who are deploying dotnet in the first place.
As for Cringley, I want some of what he's smoking.
I figure I'm about as culpable as anyone running a router on the regular public internet. My node will route any requests it recieves, regardless of content; in the normal course of operation, I can't even tell what is locally stored on my hard disk. I'm no lawyer, so I don't know the ins and outs of common carrier status; I have no idea if this line of argument would hold up in court. It's basically the legal theory that the whole freenet project rests upon, though. And, yes, if the feds decided to crack down on freenet, I would be happy to stand up in court and argue for free, anonymous, uncensorable communication.
if certain people feel so strongly about enabling criminally free speech (kiddie porn, etc.), then they should feel strongly enough about it to be able to do so without my money or anybody else's
Isn't this exactly what they're doing? AFAIK, nobody has been forced to financially support the freenet project against their will. No tax money has been going to it, as well it shouldn't. Until you start actually pushing for laws to make anonymity illegal, I think most freenet supporters would happily support your right to not participate.
Is Freenet so hard that this many programmers can't deliver a working version in close to a year?!
Yes, it is. First off, the behavior of the network is very nondeterministic. It's not really feasible to set up a controlled test network that would reveal any of the actual problems the network has been having. There's a lot of trial and error involved, and every new trial involved getting several hundred net-monkies to upgrade their software. Secondly, the freenet project is something really new. There isn't a lot of well-developed theory to work off of, and no working models to clone. Other big open-source projects often require lots of work and skill, but they're almost all working in previously-explored territory.
First, is it relatively safe? Does it do what the directions say it does and no more?
Yes, as far as I can tell (been running freenet sporadically for several years, constantly since last summer). The source is open, and due to the nature of the project there are a lot of slightly paranoid people looking at it. The bandwidth limiting code is actually kind of flaky, but if it's a big concern to you you can always run lower-level traffic shaping software.
Is especially vile content a big problem and will I feel guilty once I get into it?
Well, I've never felt guilty about running a node. There's certainly quite a bit of illegal distribution of copyrighted material going on over freenet, as well as a non-trivial amount of actual bad shit (read: child porn) (at least, I assume there is; I've seen links indicating that that's what they lead to, but never followed them). I feel, however, that there are better ways of dealing with such stuff than by making all secure, anonymous communication impossible. It's about as easy to avoid content you don't wish to see on the freenet as it is on the regular old web.
Second, Is it being run efficiently? I really don't know what it would take. One programmer plus a herd of volunteers sounds good, but please do let me know.
Um... it's kind of chaotic, but it gets results (in fits and starts, sometimes). The active developers are mostly nice, very smart people. You might be interested in perusing the freenet-devel archives.
more than 500MB of disk space to spare
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that will fill up in about a weekend. My local datastore is currently about 12GB, and I'll be putting in a spare 40GB drive soon just for freenet. Don't let this put you off, though; the network has plenty of storage space; what it really needs is more bandwidth. If you have a fast network connection, you should really try it out. It's an interesting project to follow, and could end up actually being very valuable to the world.
You can't really ship a fridge or air conditioner to India, fix it, and ship it back.
You can, however, make stuff cheaply enough that it's a better idea to just throw away the broken piece and buy a new one.
This is cool, and definitely a step in the right direction. But for $9.99 I can buy a used copy of most any album, and get full quality sound and the cover art package (which is important to me, although my tastes aren't primarily in electronic music, which seems to often have pretty sparse packaging). If they were selling MP3/ogg singles for, say, 50 cents or less, I would probably buy a bunch as a replacement for things like Kazaa, which are mostly try-before-you-buy mechanisms for me. Still, way to go Warp.
Now, when Relapse Records gets on board with this, I'll be all over it. Those old 7" splits are fucking hard to find.
If you're a graphic designer, you use Photoshop.
I don't get it. Do graphic designers enjoy being Adobe's serfs? How many graphics nerds donating 10% of the cost of a Photoshop upgrade would it take for the GIMP folks to hire some more programmers to implement the stuff it would take to be a real PS replacement?