I'm surprised to see this on/. I looked at XForms a while ago because I was writing an XML based server side forms system, and I could have used the Apache XML Cocoon support for XForms to do some stuff. The truth was that XForms just shifted some of the complexity to the browser, they didn't really add much that wasn't already possible, they just made it easier.
At this point I asked myself, will this be showing up in most browsers any time in the near future? I don't think so. There's no overriding need.
Compare: SVG. There's an overriding need, and it's coming fast.
Davis confident in voting process Administrator challenges report on machines
James Rada Times-News Staffwriter
CUMBERLAND -- Here's an open offer from Allegany County Elections Administrator Kitty Davis to Aviel Rubin, the lead researcher of a Johns Hopkins University study that found "significant security flaws" in the electronic voting system being used by the county.
"I would challenge him to come and try any of the things he said could be done on my machines and us not be able to tell something is wrong. We wouldn't even need to do all the checks with the election judges," said Davis.
Creating the binary from the source is explicitly covered by section 3 of the GPL, which explicitly backreferences section 2. Under copyright law, it would also be considered the preparation of a derivitive work, thus requiring a license. Neither of those is based solely on "my opinion".
Cite a reference then, because the GPL does not cover compiling AT ALL from my reading.
Your arguments that you can place a copyright notice only at first or on distribution are spurious. 2. covers modifications, how do you know that it covers simply copying and redistributing other people's code?
Way back in 1991, Linus placed the notice. At that point the code was 100% his so there was no issue of mixing code from different authors. Once a pure GPL "program" exists, section 0 clearly tells us that the licence applies to any "derivative work under copyright law".
No, no, no. It refers to "work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder". If a malicious person adds code to which they DO NOT own the copyright, then even if they "place a notice" they are NOT the "copyright holder" and don't satisfy 0.
And contrary to what you said, actually, that would totally overrule any subsequent clauses since 0 is what defines the scope of the license. If it doesn't meet the test, the other rules don't count.
SCO obtained this improperly licenced mix of their IP and Linux IP, and then modified
Oh did they? Demonstrate that. If they DID modify the code, that would make your argument more valid, especially if they modified the code they claim was stolen.
The argument that you can't inadvertantly GPL your own code doesn't really fly -- you absoluetly CAN commit unintentional and unknowing copyright infringement by not meeting a licencing term.
If americans would just give up on the gizmos and use a very simple, time honoured system (pencil and paper, folks) you wouldn't have these problems....
Right so what if you insert a line of code into the program. That's a line of code you stole from SCO (hypothetically!). SCO then reviews the code for whatever reason but they leave that line in. They are the "copyright holder" even though they didn't enter the line themselves, at some point, they might know it's there right? They might even search for their own code and find it.
Then SCO "places a notice" on the program because they add a new file containing the GPL to the distro. Does that qualify?
Note that section 2 does NOT say modification at the source code level. Simply distributing binaries or RPMs is sufficient as that was not its original form. If you read section 2.3, you'll see that distributing object code explicitly counts as a modification that subjects you to the conditions of items 1 and 2, including 2b.
What are you talking about? Section 2.3? There is no section 2.3. Read the license again, GPL
Section 2, which discusses modifications, does not specify source, it doesn't specify anything. Your ideas about binaries etc. are YOUR opinion.
As far as "place a notice" goes, my point which you missed is that WHO places that notice DOES matter. You say Linus placed a note but Linus doesn't speak for SCO so that's irrelevant. What matters is whether SCO placed a notice themselves, and IF they did that, WERE they doing it as "the copyright holder" or not. If they WERE, then they inadvertently GPL'd their own code.
That would seem to strengthen the argument against SCO, IF they had MODIFIED the "programs" that they claim were stolen from them.
What are you suggesting? That SCO broke the license? What actions on their part would cause that to happen?
Whether they knew or not DOES matter because if they DID know and still distributed the code WITH THE GPL ATTACHED, then that would be a much stronger argument that they "placed a notice" "as the copyright holder". In which case section 0 applies, and they GPL'd their own code.
Section 0 of the GPL states, "This license applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License." However, Section 6 states, "Each time you redistribute the program (or any work based on the program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the program."
We must ask: 1. Did SCO "place a notice" on the program ? 2. Or did they just copy someone else's notice ? 3. Did SCO add ANY of their own code to SCO Linux, under GPL? If so, then they are copyright holder for at least SOME code in the distro. 4. Would that "copyright holder" status spread to the whole distro or stay only the code they willfully added ? 5. What responsibility do they have to check the code they just copy ? 6. Since they are COPYing someone else's code, doesn't that mean they should check to make sure they have PERMISSION ? 7. Did they "place a notice" ? 8. If so, did they do it "as the copyright holder" even if someone else put the code in ? 9. What if they didn't put it in, but they knew it was there ? 10. Once they knew it was there, how quickly did they react ?
This kind of thing is just a rise in the stakes. It looks scary, but every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The taller you get, the harder you fall.
What's critical at this point is to save this one for that rainy day when SCO makes their blunder. Then you take all the crap that's saved up, and build up a firestorm of anti-SCO sentiment.
If the anti-american sentiment is, as you claim, more keenly focused on the current prez, etc., you must then conclude that it is thus also focused more keenly on Microsoft. George W's politics and Microsoft's politics are very closely aligned.
This appears to be a political decision. Let's face it, there's strong anti-American sentiment in Europe, and Microsoft is seen there as a rook in the game of chess that they play with the states. This especially is true since the new U.S. government dropped antitrust penalties.
There are people who see Microsoft as being imperialist. They are a hegemony at home, and now they're going after world hegemony.
If you're a German city councillor what are you going to do - spend money that will go into foreign, "imperialist" pockets? Or spend money that will (at least partly for SuSE) stay in the country?
+ any other political factors that may be going on with world politics.
Whoa, I just had this crazy idea. Why bother with Bluetooth or barcode scanners when you can use Camera Phones!! There's already a ton of standard two-dimensional 2d barcode standards. All the camera phones are running Symbian with Java, or maybe Linux with Java. Write a little open source image processing application and then...
encode a URL into the barcode and take a photo of it...there's your global namespace, your application platform is HTML or WAP or whatever. The whole network is already bootstrapped.
It would be like semacodes but without any nasty dangly scanners to carry around.
I kind of threw in UbiComp (ubiquitous computing) instead of location based computer (LBS) because they're basically the same thing, but the UbiComp people are cool, whereas the LBS people are all just chasing megabucks dreams.
What's wrong with this picture? Well, one thing is that one of the fundamental premises of open source is that the licenses are all conditioned on the act of software distribution, and once you're no longer distributing an application, none of the licenses mean squat.
One of the things that was criticized about the APSL was that it covers deployment as well. And they define deployment as anything other than R&D and personal use. Check it out in Section 1.4.
The ITU just makes guidelines. Individual countries must then craft legislation to implement those guidelines, if they want to. They're not required to do so. Obviously, some don't.
I would mainly say that there's a couple of barriers: 1. Money. The government still owns the telephone company. Wi-Fi would hurt them, so they don't allow it. 2. Education. The government see short term license fees as instant income, and don't understand how Wi-Fi will help the economy. 3. Power. The regulator is still controlled by the telco, and the telco doesn't want to lose revenue to Voice over Internet fueled by Wi-Fi.
Of course in all these situations, the people, therefore the economy, therefore the country, therefore the government, would actually benefit from Wi-Fi.
Nigeria: open spectrum and heavy Wi-Fi use. However there is tons of interference in Lagos and the regulator recently said they might back out.
Ghana: Wi-Fi is used a lot but regulation is unclear. Reportedly a hassle to import radios. It's possible to license on the 2.4 bands, which means it's not open spectrum. IDN makes a PC/linux based access point LOCALLY.
Tanzania: unlicensed 100 mW. license for 100 mW or higher is $50 (per radio). TCC is the regulator.
South Africa: uses ancient ISM band definition. [1] Regulator recently threatened Wireless ISPs who were using 2.4 for outdoor point-to-point links!
Kenya: no clear regulation, not much use. But new government seems to be moving towards open spectrum. CCK is regulator
Uganda: open spectrum. heavy use of Wi-Fi. BushNet is one ISP that is very progressive.
simon
[1] the ancient Industrial, Scientific, and Medical (ISM) band definition didn't allow "carrier" use to carry any telecomm/internet traffic. Now there are no type-of-use restrictions AT ALL on 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz, but some countries still use the obsolete ISM definition by mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised to see this on /. I looked at XForms a while ago because I was writing an XML based server side forms system, and I could have used the Apache XML Cocoon support for XForms to do some stuff. The truth was that XForms just shifted some of the complexity to the browser, they didn't really add much that wasn't already possible, they just made it easier.
At this point I asked myself, will this be showing up in most browsers any time in the near future? I don't think so. There's no overriding need.
Compare: SVG. There's an overriding need, and it's coming fast.
simon
simon
Cite a reference then, because the GPL does not cover compiling AT ALL from my reading.
Your arguments that you can place a copyright notice only at first or on distribution are spurious. 2. covers modifications, how do you know that it covers simply copying and redistributing other people's code?
No, no, no. It refers to "work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder". If a malicious person adds code to which they DO NOT own the copyright, then even if they "place a notice" they are NOT the "copyright holder" and don't satisfy 0.
And contrary to what you said, actually, that would totally overrule any subsequent clauses since 0 is what defines the scope of the license. If it doesn't meet the test, the other rules don't count.
Oh did they? Demonstrate that. If they DID modify the code, that would make your argument more valid, especially if they modified the code they claim was stolen.
Irrelevant.
simon
If americans would just give up on the gizmos and use a very simple, time honoured system (pencil and paper, folks) you wouldn't have these problems....
stating the blindingly obvious,
simon
Right so what if you insert a line of code into the program. That's a line of code you stole from SCO (hypothetically!). SCO then reviews the code for whatever reason but they leave that line in. They are the "copyright holder" even though they didn't enter the line themselves, at some point, they might know it's there right? They might even search for their own code and find it.
Then SCO "places a notice" on the program because they add a new file containing the GPL to the distro. Does that qualify?
simon
What are you talking about? Section 2.3? There is no section 2.3. Read the license again, GPL
Section 2, which discusses modifications, does not specify source, it doesn't specify anything. Your ideas about binaries etc. are YOUR opinion.
As far as "place a notice" goes, my point which you missed is that WHO places that notice DOES matter. You say Linus placed a note but Linus doesn't speak for SCO so that's irrelevant. What matters is whether SCO placed a notice themselves, and IF they did that, WERE they doing it as "the copyright holder" or not. If they WERE, then they inadvertently GPL'd their own code.
simon
copyleft/gpl.html
That would seem to strengthen the argument against SCO, IF they had MODIFIED the "programs" that they claim were stolen from them.
What are you suggesting? That SCO broke the license? What actions on their part would cause that to happen?
Whether they knew or not DOES matter because if they DID know and still distributed the code WITH THE GPL ATTACHED, then that would be a much stronger argument that they "placed a notice" "as the copyright holder". In which case section 0 applies, and they GPL'd their own code.
simon
SCO was finished anyway. At this point we need to make it stick to the people, the company will just fold and disappear.
simon
"It's a fascinating situation all around."
Agreed! as much as I'm rooting for Linux, it's interesting to see how the GPL fares in the first major legal challenge.
simon
We must ask:
1. Did SCO "place a notice" on the program ?
2. Or did they just copy someone else's notice ?
3. Did SCO add ANY of their own code to SCO Linux, under GPL? If so, then they are copyright holder for at least SOME code in the distro.
4. Would that "copyright holder" status spread to the whole distro or stay only the code they willfully added ?
5. What responsibility do they have to check the code they just copy ?
6. Since they are COPYing someone else's code, doesn't that mean they should check to make sure they have PERMISSION ?
7. Did they "place a notice" ?
8. If so, did they do it "as the copyright holder" even if someone else put the code in ?
9. What if they didn't put it in, but they knew it was there ?
10. Once they knew it was there, how quickly did they react ?
simon
Outsourced workers still work in groups with managers hanging over their heads, offices, and time clocks.
... don't.
Telecommuters
simon
This kind of thing is just a rise in the stakes. It looks scary, but every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The taller you get, the harder you fall.
What's critical at this point is to save this one for that rainy day when SCO makes their blunder. Then you take all the crap that's saved up, and build up a firestorm of anti-SCO sentiment.
simon
They'll just bypass this edict by pricing it ridiculously high.
Ahh, well you see, Canada is not like the US. In Canada, people can call shenanigans on corporations and actually get somewhere.
simon
My tiBook has a DVI output ... does that mean that it's outputting a digital signal if I play a DVD on it?
That would change the definition of "the analog hole" just a little bit eh?
simon
an honest bitTorrent User. I've only used it for legit stuff so far, and it's been a fantastic life-saver each time (maybe half a dozen times)
simon
dazk,
I don't live in the US btw...
If the anti-american sentiment is, as you claim, more keenly focused on the current prez, etc., you must then conclude that it is thus also focused more keenly on Microsoft. George W's politics and Microsoft's politics are very closely aligned.
simon
This appears to be a political decision. Let's face it, there's strong anti-American sentiment in Europe, and Microsoft is seen there as a rook in the game of chess that they play with the states. This especially is true since the new U.S. government dropped antitrust penalties.
There are people who see Microsoft as being imperialist. They are a hegemony at home, and now they're going after world hegemony.
If you're a German city councillor what are you going to do - spend money that will go into foreign, "imperialist" pockets? Or spend money that will (at least partly for SuSE) stay in the country?
+ any other political factors that may be going on with world politics.
simon
Then there was the "partnership" with google, who became big and started to innovate after yahoo promoted them.
Dude, google was around and great already before yahoo starting using them.
simon
Whoa, I just had this crazy idea. Why bother with Bluetooth or barcode scanners when you can use Camera Phones!! There's already a ton of standard two-dimensional 2d barcode standards. All the camera phones are running Symbian with Java, or maybe Linux with Java. Write a little open source image processing application and then ...
...there's your global namespace, your application platform is HTML or WAP or whatever. The whole network is already bootstrapped.
encode a URL into the barcode and take a photo of it
It would be like semacodes but without any nasty dangly scanners to carry around.
simon
May I suggest my own ideas on this subject? They are summarized over at SemaCodes: WiFi + CueCat = UbiComp ... Tag the real world with semacode URLs
I kind of threw in UbiComp (ubiquitous computing) instead of location based computer (LBS) because they're basically the same thing, but the UbiComp people are cool, whereas the LBS people are all just chasing megabucks dreams.
IMO
simon
What's wrong with this picture? Well, one thing is that one of the fundamental premises of open source is that the licenses are all conditioned on the act of software distribution, and once you're no longer distributing an application, none of the licenses mean squat.
One of the things that was criticized about the APSL was that it covers deployment as well. And they define deployment as anything other than R&D and personal use. Check it out in Section 1.4.
simon
On this Fourth of July, it's usual -- at least in the U.S. -- to watch fireworks.
Is there somewhere else in the world where it's usual to watch fireworks on July 4?
simon
The ITU just makes guidelines. Individual countries must then craft legislation to implement those guidelines, if they want to. They're not required to do so. Obviously, some don't.
I would mainly say that there's a couple of barriers:
1. Money. The government still owns the telephone company. Wi-Fi would hurt them, so they don't allow it.
2. Education. The government see short term license fees as instant income, and don't understand how Wi-Fi will help the economy.
3. Power. The regulator is still controlled by the telco, and the telco doesn't want to lose revenue to Voice over Internet fueled by Wi-Fi.
Of course in all these situations, the people,
therefore the economy,
therefore the country,
therefore the government,
would actually benefit from Wi-Fi.
simon
Nigeria: open spectrum and heavy Wi-Fi use. However there is tons of interference in Lagos and the regulator recently said they might back out.
Ghana: Wi-Fi is used a lot but regulation is unclear. Reportedly a hassle to import radios. It's possible to license on the 2.4 bands, which means it's not open spectrum. IDN makes a PC/linux based access point LOCALLY.
Tanzania: unlicensed 100 mW. license for 100 mW or higher is $50 (per radio). TCC is the regulator.
South Africa: uses ancient ISM band definition. [1] Regulator recently threatened Wireless ISPs who were using 2.4 for outdoor point-to-point links!
Kenya: no clear regulation, not much use. But new government seems to be moving towards open spectrum. CCK is regulator
Uganda: open spectrum. heavy use of Wi-Fi. BushNet is one ISP that is very progressive.
simon
[1] the ancient Industrial, Scientific, and Medical (ISM) band definition didn't allow "carrier" use to carry any telecomm/internet traffic. Now there are no type-of-use restrictions AT ALL on 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz, but some countries still use the obsolete ISM definition by mistake.
Hardly ivory tower.
If you take some time to look at Longhaul Wireless Networks That Really Work(ed) you'll see that they are all ground up projects.
There's many "impose from above" technology in development, but Wi-Fi doesn't have to be one of them.
simon