Most accidents happen DURING THE DAY. DURING RUSH HOUR. Most deadly accidents involve alcohol.
I've got a fantastic idea.. let's put a sprinkler system on the Titanic.
What are they not telling you, that is ALWAYS the issue. Can that stop your car at any time? Can they collect individual's driving data? Can this data be sold, published, or used in a court of law? How can it be used in a court of law.. could someone be implicated in a murder based solely on your car's data?
You're playing a deadly game of British Roulette in my oppinion.
And every Catholic Irishman knows that is he's near an explosion in England, he's guilty. Brits could take a lesson from them now.. A little rebellion now could save a bloody hell later.
MoRE doesn't exist in the USA. The DVD CCA isn't really worries about the reverse engineering if they can completly block the ACT of COPYING or VIEWING on unapproved systems.
In other words, they want to make Fair Use - illegal.
"Do programmers have a right to hack into proprietary code in order to create an open source version?"
Yes, which is why we have IBM compatable computers today. It's called reverse engineering. And the example you give is the EXACT reason it is legal. Interoperability.
We're not talking about copying a physical software package. We're talking about using the same "idea" or "method" for CSS decryption as the DVD CCA uses.
(Reguarding your snippet on DeCSS "copying software")
Dear NPR -
The fact that people have reverse engineered the DVD consortium's CSS is not the story here. This is a completely legal act. This same act gave us IBM compatible computers such as Compaq, and Dell. Amdahl and TI mainframes were reverse engineered from IBM systems.. File exchange between Microsoft Excel and Lotus 123. Universal toilet plungers. Just because some people weren't out to profit from their work, doesn't make reverse engineering illegal or unethical.
Also; it is perfectly legal to make copies of the audio-visual content which you own. The law that allows you to do this is called Fair Use. It is legal to make perfect digital copies of my audiovisual library. DeCSS has been developed to view DVD movies because the DVD Consortium has not provided people with the software to do so. The fact that you can copy a movie is moot. The cost of copying a DVD movie dwarfs the already available 15 dollar copy at Wal-Mart. But I have the right to do this, and so do you.
When you buy audiovisual content at the store, you buy the rights to view and copy the content for you personal use. The software called DeCSS allows this - just like your CD player and VCR do now.
The real issue to the DVD Consortium is that they chose a shoddy encryption algorithm. Someone broke it. Now, other companies can use the Publicly Licensed DeCSS code to give away free viewers for DVD's. The DVD consortium (which is a non-profit organization) may loose profits because they choose to keep the DVD standard as a trade secret instead of a licensed copyright. Now they are trying to fix their legal snafu with lawyers 'n lawsuits.
The DVD consortium should cut their losses and change their licensing model. As a non-profit organization for the better-good of DVD consumers, they should follow the model of the DeCSS software and use the GNU Public License or BSD public license. They would gain the support of fifty thousand of the worlds best software developers instead of alienate us. They would get free development support and fewer software bugs. Then, we could truly call it a standard.
So please make it known to your listening public. Are you a supporter of induvidual freedoms?
Hey!!! RMS.. This guy needs a job!! Cygnus, where are you?? Redhat?
The Visual C++ compiler for alpha is __really__ fast.
No, really.. someone interview him! We could REALLY use the help on the egcs compiler for Alpha. Some people have kicked around with the code quite a bit.. but apparently the compiler optimization is in the wrong place to do a full out-of-order optimization.
You're full of poop. The reason for the continued delay is that XFree4 has so many new features to debug:
* SilkenMouse * Multihead __&__ Xinerama * DRI/DRM - 3D * XAA and DGA completly rewritten * New modular server.. everything is dynamic load * Integration of new X sample implementation code And alot more..
Panaflex "Sure.. I believe in black helocopters as much as the next guy"
peter303 sayeth: "largest computer company in the world began by selling BASIC for the Altair."
Wow.. I always thought that IBM got started building manual calculators for the Census Bureau..
You much be refering to the largest SOFTWARE company. And low and behold.. that version of BASIC was umm.. borrowed from UMICH. I guess they didn't have the GPL then.. huh? Or did Lady Lovelace get that from rms?
Ohh jeez.. go stick yourself in the eye. If linux had been built using Borland C as the compiler.. do ya think it'd be where it is today.
NO.. it wouldn't exist.
Soo.. it's not just a "convenience" to have a free compiler. In some cases it is necessary. Other's it doesn't matter.
But let me add that as a personal/application compiler - go for it. I happen to use ccc myself. It's freaking fast and wonderfully STRICT! I'm not a f77 guy.. but thhis compiler is freaking fast.
One noteable feature in ccc is that they are trying to make the cmdline switches to ccc compatable with gcc. Ofcourse.. ladebug still sucks rocks. Nowhere near gdb standards.
I'm sorry, but everybody has priorities. Just because you're not the SAME, doesn't mean it isn't important.
Alot of people have businesses or offerings that are "close enough" in name that precidents(sp?) like this could really hurt the small man.
Even if he does run a place called "RadioShucks". He deserves to have it. And, atleast in the real world, a trademark dispute will not only take the conflicting names or symbols into consideration, BUT ALSO THE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES that each offers. (Think Big Red gum, and Big Red drink. Kraft foods, Kraft financial services.)
If etoy had been a parody site of eToys, you bet your buns no judge would infringe on their first amendment right. If their just doing their own thing.. then is it right for a legal semi-truck to squish em like a bug?!
"Did somebody say, 'McDougle?'" - overheard from the oval office on a whitehouse tour.
And why not? The "industry" might as well. If it isn't painfully obvious, I don't think anybody can come up with a fool-proof system as long as you've got multiple vendors and short design cycles.. not to mention billions of devices in the hands of curious and defiant people.
Six months to come up with a new system?? Well, atleast it's longer than the 2 weeks they spent on the last one. But still..
When you are using a small limited subset of keys, and provide the algorythm(even in machine code).. someone is going to reverse engineer. Not to mention than people can just raid the DMA buffers to get at digital audio anyhow.
And do they think that they can just invent a new crypto system in 6 months.. ohhh kay do kay.
Why don't they face the facts instead of flinging this crap in front of the 99% of us who want _legal_ fair use from our audio and video purchases.
Stop burdening the consumer with your "industry" ego. If you didn't make such a big deal of your "protection" and just stuck to what the consumer wanted (content), you'd have alot better net profits in the end, instead of trying to be a defense organization.
I would have to respectfully disagree that XFree doesn't need X.org. Only because the vast majority of developers insist that the X standards be adheered to - including XFree developers. The catch-22 occurs because there has never been a feedback mechanism back into the SI from XFree, so anything that XFree code-forked would have to be re-implemented on new X releases. Not a big deal on the driver side.
What was bad about this situation, is that when people start to talk about innovations that require major changes to the SI, we must develop them using extensions for fear of breaking with the SI.(Some things just can't be done using extensions, though) When people start using extensions then traditional application developers are weary of using them because there's little reason for workstation vendors to support these extensions. Most developers always aim for the square middle if possible.
This all changed because X.org realized that the commercial ISV had virtually disappeared. Almost all the commercial work being done was for in-house development and narrowly focused niche markets. The other 99.9% of X developers were using linux and *bsd!!!
I think some innovations have been (until fairly recently) stiffled because of X.org's unwillingness to accept feedback. Features that are just now being implemented or discussed that could have happened 2-4 years ago. (Insert laundry list here)
Another factor is that most X developers really thought X was dead. Heck, even Jim Gettys told me at the last ALS that he was really supprised that X was still around (and pleased that it is!). Knowing how "well documented" the SI is (remember that X is larger than the Linux Kernel?) there was quite a loss of real expertise on X internals.
What you see here is very exciting. You see the ability of XFree to affect the SI. You see a standards organization accepting the true standard. You see a resurgence of expertise in developer resources on the XFree team. You see organizations supporting *very* good things like Precision Insight, SGI, Mesa, and MetroLink.
And you ain't seen nothing yet. This is just my opinion, ofcourse. I havn't been involved until recently (and in a very minor fashion) But I've been watching XFree since they were X386.
Slashdot Mirror
Run xfstt
The difference is that you don't get shares of china when it goes IPO.. you just get stuck with the tax bill.
pan
Alright, AC.. I'll take your bait.
Prove it. Publish your results so we can look at them. Just cause you looked at the dashboard of a new car, you're saying it's better than another?
Maybe it just has a better dashboard.
Pan
Most accidents happen DURING THE DAY. DURING RUSH HOUR. Most deadly accidents involve alcohol.
I've got a fantastic idea.. let's put a sprinkler system on the Titanic.
What are they not telling you, that is ALWAYS the issue. Can that stop your car at any time? Can they collect individual's driving data? Can this data be sold, published, or used in a court of law? How can it be used in a court of law.. could someone be implicated in a murder based solely on your car's data?
You're playing a deadly game of British Roulette in my oppinion.
And every Catholic Irishman knows that is he's near an explosion in England, he's guilty. Brits could take a lesson from them now.. A little rebellion now could save a bloody hell later.
Pan
Done.. here's my 65 dollars. And I did it on my Penguin card, so 1% of it goes to The Linux Fund.
hehehehe
Pan
Why arn't they named in the suit? They are linking as well.
Ohh.. i forgot.. they have money.
Pan
MoRE doesn't exist in the USA. The DVD CCA isn't really worries about the reverse engineering if they can completly block the ACT of COPYING or VIEWING on unapproved systems.
In other words, they want to make Fair Use - illegal.
Roger
"Do programmers have a right to hack into proprietary code in order to create an open source version?"
Yes, which is why we have IBM compatable computers today. It's called reverse engineering. And the example you give is the EXACT reason it is legal. Interoperability.
We're not talking about copying a physical software package. We're talking about using the same "idea" or "method" for CSS decryption as the DVD CCA uses.
Pan
What I wrote - I hope I have the issues right!!:
(Reguarding your snippet on DeCSS "copying software")
Dear NPR -
The fact that people have reverse engineered the DVD consortium's CSS is not the story here. This is a completely legal act. This
same act gave us IBM compatible computers such as Compaq, and Dell. Amdahl and TI mainframes were reverse engineered from
IBM systems.. File exchange between Microsoft Excel and Lotus 123. Universal toilet plungers. Just because some people weren't
out to profit from their work, doesn't make reverse engineering illegal or unethical.
Also; it is perfectly legal to make copies of the audio-visual content which you own. The law that allows you to do this is called Fair
Use. It is legal to make perfect digital copies of my audiovisual library. DeCSS has been developed to view DVD movies because
the DVD Consortium has not provided people with the software to do so. The fact that you can copy a movie is moot. The cost of
copying a DVD movie dwarfs the already available 15 dollar copy at Wal-Mart. But I have the right to do this, and so do you.
When you buy audiovisual content at the store, you buy the rights to view and copy the content for you personal use. The software
called DeCSS allows this - just like your CD player and VCR do now.
The real issue to the DVD Consortium is that they chose a shoddy encryption algorithm. Someone broke it. Now, other companies
can use the Publicly Licensed DeCSS code to give away free viewers for DVD's. The DVD consortium (which is a non-profit
organization) may loose profits because they choose to keep the DVD standard as a trade secret instead of a licensed copyright.
Now they are trying to fix their legal snafu with lawyers 'n lawsuits.
The DVD consortium should cut their losses and change their licensing model. As a non-profit organization for the better-good of
DVD consumers, they should follow the model of the DeCSS software and use the GNU Public License or BSD public license. They would gain the
support of fifty thousand of the worlds best software developers instead of alienate us. They would get free development support and
fewer software bugs. Then, we could truly call it a standard.
So please make it known to your listening public. Are you a supporter of induvidual freedoms?
Roger Davenport, Dec 29,1999
Dallas, TX
Well, crap! I forgot my pirate hat... Ayyy ahhh Cap'n Crunch!
Pan
Yeah.. and add & multiply vector instructions as well.
The Alpha has an MVI instruction set for doing this even more. Unfortunately, I havn't looked into using it!
Roger
Hey!!! RMS.. This guy needs a job!! Cygnus, where are you?? Redhat?
The Visual C++ compiler for alpha is __really__ fast.
No, really.. someone interview him! We could REALLY use the help on the egcs compiler for Alpha. Some people have kicked around with the code quite a bit.. but apparently the compiler optimization is in the wrong place to do a full out-of-order optimization.
Pan
Yes they are very closed. It's a shame. The DRI project is more open than than XFree, and it is integrating XFree, DRI, and Mesa. Check it out:
http://dri.sourceforge.net
Roger
Well.. the 3D support is either GLX or DRI. Doesn't have much to do with the base XFree code right now!
Pan
Bahhh..
You're full of poop. The reason for the continued delay is that XFree4 has so many new features to debug:
* SilkenMouse
* Multihead __&__ Xinerama
* DRI/DRM - 3D
* XAA and DGA completly rewritten
* New modular server.. everything is dynamic load
* Integration of new X sample implementation code
And alot more..
Panaflex
"Sure.. I believe in black helocopters as much as the next guy"
Well.. our e6k costs around 700k. (not including shipping, power, cooling, etc.)
Pan
peter303 sayeth:
"largest computer company in the world began by selling BASIC for the Altair."
Wow.. I always thought that IBM got started building manual calculators for the Census Bureau..
You much be refering to the largest SOFTWARE company. And low and behold.. that version of BASIC was umm.. borrowed from UMICH. I guess they didn't have the GPL then.. huh? Or did Lady Lovelace get that from rms?
Pan
Ohh jeez.. go stick yourself in the eye. If linux had been built using Borland C as the compiler.. do ya think it'd be where it is today.
NO.. it wouldn't exist.
Soo.. it's not just a "convenience" to have a free compiler. In some cases it is necessary. Other's it doesn't matter.
But let me add that as a personal/application compiler - go for it. I happen to use ccc myself. It's freaking fast and wonderfully STRICT! I'm not a f77 guy.. but thhis compiler is freaking fast.
One noteable feature in ccc is that they are trying to make the cmdline switches to ccc compatable with gcc. Ofcourse.. ladebug still sucks rocks. Nowhere near gdb standards.
Pan
Ohh please.. silly man. He just said there's alot of Pro-MS people on here. Maybe they spread FUD?
Go ahead and kill linux on your system and go buy yourself a CareBear.
pan
Well, if you havn't noticed.. jeff is working on a NEW VENTURE. They plan on re-inventing just-in-time inventory systems.
The competition, Brainsandneurons.com is heating up though.
Pan
Just to play devil's advocate here.. but what do you think of the Boston Tea Party?
Pan
"Wake up and look at REAL problems..."
I'm sorry, but everybody has priorities. Just because you're not the SAME, doesn't mean it isn't important.
Alot of people have businesses or offerings that are "close enough" in name that precidents(sp?) like this could really hurt the small man.
Even if he does run a place called "RadioShucks". He deserves to have it. And, atleast in the real world, a trademark dispute will not only take the conflicting names or symbols into consideration, BUT ALSO THE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES that each offers. (Think Big Red gum, and Big Red drink. Kraft foods, Kraft financial services.)
If etoy had been a parody site of eToys, you bet your buns no judge would infringe on their first amendment right. If their just doing their own thing.. then is it right for a legal semi-truck to squish em like a bug?!
"Did somebody say, 'McDougle?'" - overheard from the oval office on a whitehouse tour.
Pan
And why not? The "industry" might as well. If it isn't painfully obvious, I don't think anybody can come up with a fool-proof system as long as you've got multiple vendors and short design cycles.. not to mention billions of devices in the hands of curious and defiant people.
Six months to come up with a new system?? Well, atleast it's longer than the 2 weeks they spent on the last one. But still..
When you are using a small limited subset of keys, and provide the algorythm(even in machine code).. someone is going to reverse engineer. Not to mention than people can just raid the DMA buffers to get at digital audio anyhow.
And do they think that they can just invent a new crypto system in 6 months.. ohhh kay do kay.
Why don't they face the facts instead of flinging this crap in front of the 99% of us who want _legal_ fair use from our audio and video purchases.
Stop burdening the consumer with your "industry" ego. If you didn't make such a big deal of your "protection" and just stuck to what the consumer wanted (content), you'd have alot better net profits in the end, instead of trying to be a defense organization.
Pan
DOOHH!! Sorry about that. I'm using Mozilla M11 now.. looks like I found a bug! (Hitting the submit button twice?)
Roger
I would have to respectfully disagree that XFree doesn't need X.org. Only because the vast majority of developers insist that the X standards be adheered to - including XFree developers. The catch-22 occurs because there has never been a feedback mechanism back into the SI from XFree, so anything that XFree code-forked would have to be re-implemented on new X releases. Not a big deal on the driver side.
What was bad about this situation, is that when people start to talk about innovations that require major changes to the SI, we must develop them using extensions for fear of breaking with the SI.(Some things just can't be done using extensions, though) When people start using extensions then traditional application developers are weary of using them because there's little reason for workstation vendors to support these extensions. Most developers always aim for the square middle if possible.
This all changed because X.org realized that the commercial ISV had virtually disappeared. Almost all the commercial work being done was for in-house development and narrowly focused niche markets. The other 99.9% of X developers were using linux and *bsd!!!
I think some innovations have been (until fairly recently) stiffled because of X.org's unwillingness to accept feedback. Features that are just now being implemented or discussed that could have happened 2-4 years ago. (Insert laundry list here)
Another factor is that most X developers really thought X was dead. Heck, even Jim Gettys told me at the last ALS that he was really supprised that X was still around (and pleased that it is!). Knowing how "well documented" the SI is (remember that X is larger than the Linux Kernel?) there was quite a loss of real expertise on X internals.
What you see here is very exciting. You see the ability of XFree to affect the SI. You see a standards organization accepting the true standard. You see a resurgence of expertise in developer resources on the XFree team. You see organizations supporting *very* good things like Precision Insight, SGI, Mesa, and MetroLink.
And you ain't seen nothing yet. This is just my opinion, ofcourse. I havn't been involved until recently (and in a very minor fashion) But I've been watching XFree since they were X386.
This isn't your mama's X server!!
Roger