With the knowledge of the people buying. If you read the little fine print at the bottom of the contract you sign w/ Car dealers, airlines, hotels, etc, you will notice a "prices subject to change" disclaimer. That's not there on Amazon.
In all fairness, this latest incident may have never happened to begin with if the code was GPL'd from the start.
How? The code is not GPL'd for sure, but it sure as hell is open for us to see. Just because it uses the MITPGP License not the GPL does not make it any less secure.
...it would have likely been an option that could easially be left out...
It is an option that is easially left out. Just dissable it. Or, for that matter, don't complile it in, just as you would have the option of doing so with GPL'd code.
I really don't see what the big deal is that this doesn't use GPL. For security purposes, one Open Source License is just as good as the next.
Then you don't use it too much. If you run 5 windows open and active all the time, Netscape 4.7X WILL CRASH. I have never met someone who uses Netscape this way who hasn't had a darned lot of crashes. Mozilla M17 is better, but not much.
This isn't flaimbait, but to say that NS under Linux is stable is sort of silly.
The DeCSS case that I assume that you're refering to is not a trade secret case. It's a DMCA case involving copyright protection being circumvented. And under the DMCA, DeCSS is illegal. It's the DMCA that is most likely unconstitutional.
You can't lose copyrights or patents merely by not defending them.
Actually you can, sort of. You can lose a patent by selectivly enforcing it, ie. letting one party enfringe on it without license but not others. I believe copyright goes the same way. If I let you pirate my book/software/whatever but not him, then I loose my copyright. I can't let anyone pirate my stuff if I don't want everyone doing it. So if they had either on this CueCat they would have to enforce it.
No, but it is the only form of IP protection explicitly in the US Constitution. That makes it just about as close to a natural right as a man-made law can be in this country.
Napster: The judge knew exactly what Napster does. It does not post copyrighted anything. It knowingly provides a forum in which users violate copyright law and does nothing to stop them. Doing so is illegal as our laws stand. (There's the case of the swapmeet that was closed b/c people were swapping pirated music.) That's why the judge issued the order to shut Napster down. The judge understood the facts and acted correctly. The order was illegal though, because it would, as Napster's lawyers argued, spell death for the company and that can't be done until they lose at trial (and they will).
DeCSS: DeCSS is illegal according to the DMCA which is law. The DMCA might be unconstitutional (I think it is) but until the supreme court says so, DeCSS is a copyright circumvention device and illegal. Distributing it may not be, and linking to it probably isn't and a T-Shirt with it certainly isn't, but the software tool is.
IIRC the only way that PGP can be exported is to be printed, exported as print and scanned. This is because as text on paper PGP is pure speech and not a tool.
Wouldn't a T-Shirt with DeCSS on it fall into the same category? The printed DeCSS code on a T-Shirt couldn't be considered a piracy tool any more than the printout of PGP sourcecode could be considered an encryption tool.
"The philosophy behind the GPL is that people should be allowed to use their data however they want (including sharing with others)."
No. That's the philosophy behind the BSD license. It is very hard to violate BSD-style licenses and almost no benefit is gained from doing so.
The GPL is a different animal. The GPL's philosophy is that people should program collectively and unselfishly to create a good product. Hoarding of code (releasing binary-only derivatives) is discouraged and outlawed. Under the GPL, people cannot use data however they want but must share it with others.
Both licenses "use the existing IP laws to make this so".
You just don't get it, do you? No one ever said IP laws are bad/wrong. The purpose is not to abolish them. Copyright, patent, trademark, they all are very useful concepts and are needed. Without them, the global economy would collapse, and even if you're anti WMF, WTO (as I am) you can't really think that would be a Good Thing.
But on the other hand, free speech is just as important. The post you are replying to points out hypocrisy of/.ers who rant and rave over GPL violations but see nothing wrong with pirating anything and everything under the sun, claiming it's free speech.
What Napster is doing is illegal. They are (or are hoping they will be) profiting from piracy. Gnutella isn't and is therefore probably fine. The users of Gnutella may be breaking the letter of the law, but it is too hard to track them and too costly to prosecute them.
The GPL isn't using the system against itself, as you claim. The GPL is using the system for just the purpose the system was created. The purpose of the GPL is to protect property and limit it's use. The RIAA is, at this point, using the system against itself. By resisting electronic distribution and charging too much, they are encouraging the their own (and the system's) destruction.
<RANT>IMHO information does not want to be free. It wants to be created and used.</RANT>
The RIAA is trying to halt the use of information. They killed the single as a medium and charge too much for records. As a result they are being hit hard by mp3 piracy. If the RIAA wanted to solve this problem once and for all, they could adapt their pricing schemes to reflect the new and drastically lower cost of duplication and distribution and LET US LISTEN TO THE MUSIC WE'D GLADLY PAY FOR.
Your toddler raises an interesting point. He cannot see the objective differnce between chips and flakes. To him they are the same shape and therefore the same thing.
In this case the media and the general public are no better informed as your toddler. To them there is no objective difference between hackers and crackers. And there never will be. The differece is only useful to "technical types".
"Cracker" may retain use in the technical community, but it has no meaning in the outside world. To the media, they (hackers/crackers, we, you, whatever) are hackers. Period.
That's not the way the english language (any language actually) works. If the media (and the general public) called mechanics "blacksmiths" and no one but the mechanics themselves mechanics, sooner or later the word for people who worked on cars would become "blacksmiths".
It's the same with hackers. The media calls them hackers, the general public calls them hackers; no one but the hackers themselves uses the term crackers. If this continues long enough (and I argue that it has) the word for people that do that sort of thing will become "hacker" whether or not they call themselves hackers. That's the way language evolves. Get over it.
It's not at all processor-dependent. It's person-dependent don't you think? Once a person's writing speeds beyond 25 wpm or so, it becomes too messy (and this is for 90% of people or so) for today's software to recognize, no matter what processor that software is running on.
Icebreaker ships have made it to the north pole. These are boats mind you. Ice only gets anywhere near a mile over land. Floating ice is surprisingly thin.
Just to pick nits, this is an Apple Laptop we're talking about. Anyone using it as a development machine would be downright silly. Of course on a computer there would still be a keyboard. This is some sort of webpadish thing.
To write in a manner that handwriting recognition can get (even the really, really good progs) 60-70 wpm is a vast overestimate. The numbers I've seen (and experienced on a Newton) never exceed 25 wpm.
What about pure speed of data entry?? There is no way that pen based entry will come anywhere near the 70 or so words/min that a decent typist can attain. A pen/speech recognition solution, maybe. But writing is just too slow. That's one of the reasons the keyboard was invented in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
With the knowledge of the people buying. If you read the little fine print at the bottom of the contract you sign w/ Car dealers, airlines, hotels, etc, you will notice a "prices subject to change" disclaimer. That's not there on Amazon.
Do you have a link to HTTP tunneling software?
Bullshit source is not available for any version later than 2.6.2. Here's the source for 6.5.1i .
Check your facts man.
In all fairness, this latest incident may have never happened to begin with if the code was GPL'd from the start.
...it would have likely been an option that could easially be left out...
How? The code is not GPL'd for sure, but it sure as hell is open for us to see. Just because it uses the MITPGP License not the GPL does not make it any less secure.
It is an option that is easially left out. Just dissable it. Or, for that matter, don't complile it in, just as you would have the option of doing so with GPL'd code.
I really don't see what the big deal is that this doesn't use GPL. For security purposes, one Open Source License is just as good as the next.
Then you don't use it too much. If you run 5 windows open and active all the time, Netscape 4.7X WILL CRASH. I have never met someone who uses Netscape this way who hasn't had a darned lot of crashes. Mozilla M17 is better, but not much.
This isn't flaimbait, but to say that NS under Linux is stable is sort of silly.
The DeCSS case that I assume that you're refering to is not a trade secret case. It's a DMCA case involving copyright protection being circumvented. And under the DMCA, DeCSS is illegal. It's the DMCA that is most likely unconstitutional.
Right, there is plenty of legal protection for trade secrets, but as he said, none once it's out.
You can't lose copyrights or patents merely by not defending them.
Actually you can, sort of. You can lose a patent by selectivly enforcing it, ie. letting one party enfringe on it without license but not others. I believe copyright goes the same way. If I let you pirate my book/software/whatever but not him, then I loose my copyright. I can't let anyone pirate my stuff if I don't want everyone doing it. So if they had either on this CueCat they would have to enforce it.
But they don't so it's a moot point.
That's one damn good point.
"Copyright is not a natural right."
No, but it is the only form of IP protection explicitly in the US Constitution. That makes it just about as close to a natural right as a man-made law can be in this country.
Napster:
The judge knew exactly what Napster does. It does not post copyrighted anything. It knowingly provides a forum in which users violate copyright law and does nothing to stop them. Doing so is illegal as our laws stand. (There's the case of the swapmeet that was closed b/c people were swapping pirated music.) That's why the judge issued the order to shut Napster down. The judge understood the facts and acted correctly. The order was illegal though, because it would, as Napster's lawyers argued, spell death for the company and that can't be done until they lose at trial (and they will).
DeCSS:
DeCSS is illegal according to the DMCA which is law. The DMCA might be unconstitutional (I think it is) but until the supreme court says so, DeCSS is a copyright circumvention device and illegal. Distributing it may not be, and linking to it probably isn't and a T-Shirt with it certainly isn't, but the software tool is.
IIRC the only way that PGP can be exported is to be printed, exported as print and scanned. This is because as text on paper PGP is pure speech and not a tool.
Wouldn't a T-Shirt with DeCSS on it fall into the same category? The printed DeCSS code on a T-Shirt couldn't be considered a piracy tool any more than the printout of PGP sourcecode could be considered an encryption tool.
"The GPL requires you to share source code if and only if you've also shared binary files."
That's what we've been talking about the whole time. A system to share binary files was the topic of the thread.
"The GPL makes use of the system in order to undermine it."
How does the GPL try to undermine the system of IP laws?
"The philosophy behind the GPL is that people should be allowed to use their data however they want (including sharing with others)."
No. That's the philosophy behind the BSD license. It is very hard to violate BSD-style licenses and almost no benefit is gained from doing so.
The GPL is a different animal. The GPL's philosophy is that people should program collectively and unselfishly to create a good product. Hoarding of code (releasing binary-only derivatives) is discouraged and outlawed. Under the GPL, people cannot use data however they want but must share it with others.
Both licenses "use the existing IP laws to make this so".
You just don't get it, do you? No one ever said IP laws are bad/wrong. The purpose is not to abolish them. Copyright, patent, trademark, they all are very useful concepts and are needed. Without them, the global economy would collapse, and even if you're anti WMF, WTO (as I am) you can't really think that would be a Good Thing.
/.ers who rant and rave over GPL violations but see nothing wrong with pirating anything and everything under the sun, claiming it's free speech.
.
But on the other hand, free speech is just as important. The post you are replying to points out hypocrisy of
What Napster is doing is illegal. They are (or are hoping they will be) profiting from piracy. Gnutella isn't and is therefore probably fine. The users of Gnutella may be breaking the letter of the law, but it is too hard to track them and too costly to prosecute them.
The GPL isn't using the system against itself, as you claim. The GPL is using the system for just the purpose the system was created. The purpose of the GPL is to protect property and limit it's use. The RIAA is, at this point, using the system against itself. By resisting electronic distribution and charging too much, they are encouraging the their own (and the system's) destruction.
<RANT>IMHO information does not want to be free. It wants to be created and used.</RANT>
The RIAA is trying to halt the use of information. They killed the single as a medium and charge too much for records. As a result they are being hit hard by mp3 piracy. If the RIAA wanted to solve this problem once and for all, they could adapt their pricing schemes to reflect the new and drastically lower cost of duplication and distribution and LET US LISTEN TO THE MUSIC WE'D GLADLY PAY FOR
Your toddler raises an interesting point. He cannot see the objective differnce between chips and flakes. To him they are the same shape and therefore the same thing.
In this case the media and the general public are no better informed as your toddler. To them there is no objective difference between hackers and crackers. And there never will be. The differece is only useful to "technical types".
"Cracker" may retain use in the technical community, but it has no meaning in the outside world. To the media, they (hackers/crackers, we, you, whatever) are hackers. Period.
That's not the way the english language (any language actually) works. If the media (and the general public) called mechanics "blacksmiths" and no one but the mechanics themselves mechanics, sooner or later the word for people who worked on cars would become "blacksmiths".
It's the same with hackers. The media calls them hackers, the general public calls them hackers; no one but the hackers themselves uses the term crackers. If this continues long enough (and I argue that it has) the word for people that do that sort of thing will become "hacker" whether or not they call themselves hackers. That's the way language evolves. Get over it.
It's not at all processor-dependent. It's person-dependent don't you think? Once a person's writing speeds beyond 25 wpm or so, it becomes too messy (and this is for 90% of people or so) for today's software to recognize, no matter what processor that software is running on.
Nope. Netcraft quotes "images.slashdot.org is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) on Linux".
Icebreaker ships have made it to the north pole. These are boats mind you. Ice only gets anywhere near a mile over land. Floating ice is surprisingly thin.
Sebastian Junger
"keyboard arm" == carpal tunnel syndrome
To claim more people have been hurt by mice than keyboards is insensitive.
Just to pick nits, this is an Apple Laptop we're talking about. Anyone using it as a development machine would be downright silly. Of course on a computer there would still be a keyboard. This is some sort of webpadish thing.
To write in a manner that handwriting recognition can get (even the really, really good progs) 60-70 wpm is a vast overestimate. The numbers I've seen (and experienced on a Newton) never exceed 25 wpm.
What about pure speed of data entry?? There is no way that pen based entry will come anywhere near the 70 or so words/min that a decent typist can attain. A pen/speech recognition solution, maybe. But writing is just too slow. That's one of the reasons the keyboard was invented in the first place.