Sun Solaris 10 is also based on SVR4. But you probably knew that.
Yes, I did. But what I don't know is what Sun's contract language with AT&T/Novell/SCO states they can and can't do with it. SCO specifically stated that Sun was in the clear, which implies that they have a different contract term from the other SVR4 licensees. NB: I am not speaking from knowledge here - just pure speculation.
It is true that the older systems like HP-UX, Tru64 and VMS aren't GPL'ed, but as I said in another post, it's probably very difficult to do so without either heavy recoding or relicensing of other codebases.
ObDisc: I work for HP, speaking here in a personal capacity, blah, blah, blah...
They have some nerve telling other companies to give out free licencing.
Be fair. Martin was simply saying that if IBM/Sun/HP/whoever is going to release software under a free license, then it would be preferable to release under a single, well known license - the GPL. HP's techies and lawyers tend to agree (in as much as techies ever agree about anything) that the GPL is the best way to give stuff to the free software community while protecting HP's intellectual investments. In other words, it will only give away stuff in the knowledge that some leech won't just take it and make the code non-free. And HP has released a lot of code under the GPL.
So he wasn't saying that Sun should open up everything including Java, or that IBM should free up AIX/Tivoli/etc or such things: just that the proliferation of licenses adds to market confusion.
Lastly, HP can't just open up HP-UX without a huge amount of work; there is code in there which is licensed under arrangements incompatible with the GPL. Case in point: HP licenses the SVR4 codebase, and I believe there is some ongoing litigation involving the contract conditions around that. Can't quite remember the company's name...
And they don't mind you posting with the nym of the ex-Info Minister of Iraq? Hooray! A little rose of humour blooms in the darkest depths of the Pentagon's labyrinths!
It's an honest to God library, which also means that Section 108 of the USC on Copyright applies. Public libraries in the US (and here in the UK) have some pertinent exemptions to the copyright restrictions that bind us mere mortals.
what is there to stop someone just creating a shell company transfering some assets and getting the shell company to bring suit?
I suppose that the shell company would have to have a list of directors at Companies House (otherwise it's not incorporated, and cannot bring suit). If someone brought suit while under declaration of being a vexatious litigant, then I strongly suspect they'd be looking at jail time. And any barrister/advocate who represented a company knowing the VL status would almost certainly be struck off by the Law Society or Faculty of Advocates.
And if the VL wasn't on the list of directors, then presumably the case would be dismissed (probably with costs awarded against plaintiff) because of a lack of standing. After all, you can't sue a person for someone else's losses. I seem to remember that there are words like barratry and champerty to describe such (illegal) actions.
In truth, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really know all of the ins and outs of the matter.
As far as I'm concerned, if I've paid (through my taxes) to produce it, then I should have access to it for free, whether it's a recording of a Beethoven symphony or a chart of the North Atlantic.
Well, you paid through your taxes for a nuclear strike force, but I don't think you should have access to that for free. Imagine the fine you'd have to pay when you got drunk and accidentally nuked Ireland.
You're still right though. Publicly funded scientific and cultural works should be made available to the population at large for free.
It's these sort of frivolous cases that make me believe that something stronger than tossing the case out is needed. This company should permanently be prevented from ever suing anybody for any reason, no matter the merits.
In the UK, (and many parts of the USA and elsewhere), this can actually happen. If you are declared a vexatious litigant (ie, someone who issues spurious lawsuits), you can not begin proceedings in a court without specifically applying to the High Court for permission (and you pay the costs of the application, whereas your potential defendant pays none).
Clearly, this is an extreme case. Denying or hindering someone's quick access to justice is not a step that the courts take lightly. Hence the relatively few people on the VL list. It's viewable here
1. To employers. If you abuse the human rights of your employees you will be held liable and will pay heavy consequences.
I'm not sure that it's wise to comment on a public forum about upcoming litigation.
However, since you started it, what human right do you feel to have been violated? The HRA has very little to say in terms of what private individuals or companies can do to one another. It's mostly about what a government can do (or not) to its population. No doubt your legal adviser will clarify such matters.
the revised severance was not an offer, I had no choice whether or not to accept it, I was told I WOULD be getting 3 month severance instead of the 1 week.
In that case, the Guardian article is wrong. It states that your erstwhile employers offered 1 week salary, then increased to 3 months. You might want to correct the misreport. The Guardian is pretty good about correcting mistakes.
Clearly, this is only a partially informed, non legal opinion, but the facts as presented so far look to me like you've got a legal mountain to climb. I'd have taken the money. But I'm not you.
The problem is, you went on TV and to all intents and purposes openly supported what is by current Law an illegal practice.
I'm sorry - was this a response to my post? I went on TV to offer my views on a (thankfully abandoned) government proposal to require all crypto keys to be surrendered to the UK government. I said it was a terrible idea, and many IT sector employers thought so too. (Note: I did not, and do not, speak for HP, my employer, in this instance). By the law then, and the law now there is no requirement to escrow cryptographic keys. Hence I was in no way advocating law breaking. However, it could be argued that HP employees expressing personal opinions on UK government IT policies could have harmed their chances of securing future contracts. HP's management took the opinion that my rights to free expression took precedence over any precautionary silence rule. If, on the other hand, they had asked me to withdraw from the programme, I would have done so, but it would have damaged my faith in HP. As it was, it reinforced my belief that HP was a good place to work.
The difference in this case from what I can gather is that your views on copyright infringement are in DIRECT contrast with the business objectives of the company you work(ed) for. It's not like you went on TV and expressed a view on cannabis legalisation. Your views as shown on the programme go against the principal business model of the company.
Honestly, I think there is a misunderstanding here. I think that current IP laws are being misused by patent trolls, trademark vultures, copyright abusers, but I don't believe in copyright, patent or trademark abolition. I've never said that I do, nor have I ever advocated widespread breaking of copyright laws. I think that the pendulum of IP holders interests versus the popular need for artistic and scientific freedom to share has swung too far to the copyright holders, but you do me wrong to ascribe to me a belief in wholesale abolition and disobedience of the law.
Was there some anonymous post in the middle here to which you were responding?
Employment contracts are infamous, being the only contract which one side can change the terms unilaterally (hence employment protection laws).
That's not true, at least not according to the legal advice I took when a new contract was being put together after my employer was bought out a few months back. There is no such thing as a contract that can automatically be changed by one party unilaterally, at least under UK law: one of the basic requirements of a legally binding contract is the understanding and consent of both parties.
Sorry, I was being too flippant when I made the original statement. I don't really mean that employment contracts can literally be rewritten, but I did mean that their terms often include statements like the one you highlight, where an employer has the right to alter the clauses unilaterally (Mine was altered twice - once to comply with the Data Protection Act, and once to comply with the Working Time Directive). Thus, in effect, an employer has far more weight in the contract than the employee. And if they don't have those, then the T&Cs often have catch all statements like "...and such other duties as management shall require". But how many employment contracts include text like "And these terms and conditions may be revised by the employee if he or she determines their strictures to be overly burdensome"? (Note to self: add this to next contract!)
That said, I do know of many cases where people have signed an employment contract but with clauses stricken from the standard text - and those amended contracts have been accepted by the employer
Nevertheless, you're quite right: the type of contract doesn't exempt you from the basic tenets of reasonability. Unfair contract terms will still be voided by a court, whether a party signed up to them or not.
Regardless of your personal stance on copyright/IPR anyone with half a brain must realise that disagreeing with it is a "negative viewpoint", particularly as exercising your beliefs in this context is actually illegal.
Again, it all depends on context and extremity of view. Hypothetically, if someone claims on their CV to be well known on the Internet, then I'd probably Google for them and see what turns up. In the case of Alex Hanff, this would have turned up boatloads of information. Now, the question: is that a reasonable expectation for an IT sector employer? I would argue, that in this day and age, yes it is. You might equally well argue (as you have) that you figure that no employer who places great stock in copyright would think that a bona-fide copyright enemy would want to apply for a job with them, and thus such a check would be superfluous. I mean, how many employers actually write to universities to check that someone actually has the degree they claim to have?
But what I don't know is what beliefs Alex Hanff actually holds. Does he believe that copyrights must be abolished, and that illegal means are justified to accomplish this? I wouldn't be happy employing someone with those beliefs. Does he believe that copyrights need to be redrafted because they've gone way too far and are being abused? Well, that's not quite firing material, in my book.
[Drifting OT here]As for the exercise of the view being illegal, that's not always true either. There are some perfectly valid defences under most legal systems which allow copyright infringement to take place (eg, fair use, expiry within another jurisdiction). Similarly, the notion of contributory copyright infringement is not always on solid legal ground in many jurisdictions.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to employ sophistry here - I don't think that dvdr-core was innocent of copyright violating intent. I'm just not a lawyer, and copyright law is very complex, so I don't like to comment on legality.
offering him a revised 3 month severance package when he had only been with the company a week kinda sounds like even they aren't sure whether what they've done is legal.
I think you're right. (Hence my advice to Hanff would be to take the money and run). However, as much lurking on Groklaw and IP-Wars has shown, the last place you want to end up in would be a courtroom (even an industrial tribunal style courtroom). Weird random crap happens there. So it may be that the company is simply saying "Look, we can either give this to him now, or pay possibly more to the lawyers tomorrow. Ah, screw it. Offer him the cash, and damn his eyes."
I'm no lawyer, so I can't say who is in the right legally, but I suspect that both parties have been a bit silly in this matter. Yeah, freedom of speech and all, but I don't think its unreasonable (especially as a new hire) to say to your employer that you're going to appear on Newsnight and speak on the following topics. And then they can't claim they were blindsided, or they can ask you not to appear. Similarly, I think that for an employer to be that paranoid about the political opinions of their employees and how they might play with potential customers is skirting the edge of reason.
I mean, I've appeared on TV, saying that the government's plans for key escrow sucked, but my employer (HP - but speaking in personal capacity here, etc, etc) was told beforehand. They might have thought that future government contracts were at risk, but they took the view that it was an acceptable risk for HP to employ people with more than one opinion. But the relative risks to HP versus a smaller operation are way different.
The mistake here, if there was one, was the employer giving a reason for dismissing the employee... they should have just thanked him for his time and sent him on his way.
Nah, that one doesn't fly either. If an employee can convince a tribunal that there was an implicit reason (and that a reasonable person could determine that reason), then it's the same as saying "We don't want you socialist/feminist/black/gay/Jewish (take your pick) types here. You're fired". I do note that they offered him 3 months wages as a settlement. Frankly, I think he should take it. Even if he wins at a tribunal, the chances that he'd get more than that are very, very slim. I mean, how do you prove that you would have worked for them like a good slave for 20+ years?
You're 99.9% correct about the probationary period though. The only protection you have is not be be fired for discriminatory reasons. And, frankly, that's a bitch to prove. In effect, you're asking a court to accept that what you think someone else thought is illegal. Unsurprisingly, employment tribunals don't take that course lightly.
while the UK does not have the concept of "at will" employment any employer is able to release an employee for any reason during the first 13 weeks of employment without a need to state a reason.
Up to a point, this is correct. However, you cannot terminate a person's employment (even within the probationary period) for reasons contrary to discrimination laws. You couldn't, for instance, terminate the contract of a person of Asian extraction because "we don't hire Pakis here", nor could you fire a woman because the company has an all-male employment policy (such a policy would be almost certainly illegal, except for some very well defined exceptions).
Now, here's the interesting bit - and I really don't know how this will turn out - Hanff has made no secret of his views (which is why the Beeb interviewed him!); and it's reasonable to suspect that his employer was aware (or could reasonably be expected to be aware) of said views, and hired him anyway. He's claiming that his termination violates the Human Rights Act (though that tends to bind governments acts against the people, rather than between private entities), and he will sue accordingly.
We'll see how this turns out. Should be interesting. At stake is just how much control an employer can exercise over an employee speaking in his own time. It's not really about the "right to a job", it's to do with the extension of a contract beyond its terms. Employment contracts are infamous, being the only contract which one side can change the terms unilaterally (hence employment protection laws).
Look, I don't want to get into a verbal sparring match here, but there are a few points I think you're missing.
I don't think I am, but I have expressed my points poorly. The original question was "Why is Sender-ID so particularly different from DNS RBL lookup"?
To which the answer was intended to be (a) RBL lookup is a trivial DNS A record lookup [for the email verifier, not the sender, obviously], and (b) Sender ID needs far more advanced parsing [again, for the verifier] than an RBL check.
Now, as to the friendliness aspect, the point wasn't that TXT records are harder than A records (although, of course, A records are very prescribed in format, whereas TXT records can be anything). It's just that the size of a TXT record for Sender-ID can be quite large, which tends to mean that it won't easily fit into a UDP packet, and we still do a lot of DNS over UDP these days. Now, I'll grant that a pack of A records could overflow a UDP packet as well, but generally they don't. The Sender-ID examples that I've looked at in MS's original papers would certainly overflow a ~1400 byte UDP packet
So yes, we're probably more in agreement than disagreement, but my position would be firstly that I don't want to stick stuff in my DNS records which is only useful for MS/Hotmail, and then another boatload of things for Yahoo, and another for SPF parsing entities; and secondly, if I were to implement sender verifier technology on my mail servers, then it wouldn't be Sender-ID, for fear of the patent nonsense.
And that's it. Sorry about the lack of clarity, but the original answer was simply supposed to be "RBL lookup is trivial to implement with standard tools; Sender-ID verification is not"
Umm, I really hate to break this to you, but if you RTFA you'll notice that Sender-ID is also based on DNS record lookups.
Oh, all right. Sheesh. Forgot this was/. where every omission counts as counterevidence. How's this instead:
Sender ID is based on using DNS records in a particular format (not a particularly DNS friendly one either) whereas RBLs are based on simple A record lookup from a simply derived zone construction. Adding RBL lookup is a trivial hack. Adding Sender-ID lookup and parsing isn't.
Apologies. I made the silly assumption that people would know that I meant that Sender-ID records need some pretty advanced parsing, whereas A records don't.
I've been thinking about going to a legal downloading service but I hang back because I fear that the restrictions and proprietary formats will prevent me from...
Burning unlimited audio CDs for the car
Burning unlimited mp3 CDs for work
Buying any third party hardware player for the files I get from the service
Why would allofmp3.com stop you doing these things? If you want, you can usually buy the albums/tracks in lossless format (flac, ape, or even wav if you've got too much money). You can then encode them to AAC, MP3, OGG Vorbis, or of course, cut them on to as many CD blanks as you like. No DRM, no proprietary crap - just standard formats, for about $0.50 a track. Seems like a good buy to me.
The People Payd for It, so the people should be allowed to use and share it!
Well, the British license payers paid for it, and unless the last 20 years have misinformed me, the Internet treats national boundaries as damage and routes around them. So it's not entirely clear that non-license payers have the right to the content (and that means most of the Internet population). The BBC makes a tidy pot of cash from syndicating their stuff to other broadcasters - P2P would be a serious threat to that revenue stream.
Apart from anything else, much of the BBC's content is sourced from independent producers (even down to cameramen for natural history productions) , who retain the copyrights - the BBC literally do not have the right to redistribute some of the stuff that they broadcast. Stupid? You betcha. Welcome to obsolete business models 101
If the BBC were allowed to work freely then we'd have torrents of their programmes available by now.
ObDisc: My wife works for the BBC, but I tend to trust her judgement, or she beats the shit out of me.
I wish the torrents stuff were true. Unfortunately, the BBC doesn't actually own the copyrights to much of the material they broadcast - and no-one has worked out a sufficiently robust compensation architecture for Internet replicated programming. Unfortunately the BBC management are clueless, and the relevant unions aren't helping much either, since they have to maximise their workers revenue. ISTR that they called in Larry Lessig to advise on such matters. Don't know what came of that.
So yes - if the BBC were free of copyright law, then we'd have torrents; but I don't think we can put this one down to Rupe.
Re: Murdoch. 100% agree. I'm a confirmed opponent of the death penalty for any human being - no matter how depraved or evil. Which means I'd happily see Murdoch and his minions burned alive in a steel furnace, and that broadcast on pre-watershed national TV - Sky included.
There is no such thing as Freedom of speech or press legally in the UK, get used to it.
Freedom of speech and expression is not something that the government grants you as a privilege - it's a basic civil right. In England and Wales (Scots law is different), that right is expressed in Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights Act.
But that is merely the legal expression of the right. It would still be there in the absence of such legal texts (for as long as the people and the courts wish it there). In the UK, something is legal unless there is a law saying otherwise. Since there is no law which generally curtails freedom of speech, there most certainly is such legal freedom of speech in the UK.
Please understand - liberty derives from the expressed democratic will of free peoples - not from any particular foundational construction of principles of liberty. There is more than one legitimate construction of political freedom than the constitutional architecture of the United States.
In other words, as much free speech as the government wants to allow you, but no more.
And can persuade a court to determine that the government's restrictions are essential. That's a pretty high hurdle to jump in a nation where the judiciary is independent of the executive (as it is in the UK - sometimes infuriatingly so).
Is it different anywhere else? The mere act of having an absolutely phrased set of rights is not enough. The USA has many restrictions of expression which are essential for a civil society, but in apparent contradiction to the phrasing of the First Amendment
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I did. But what I don't know is what Sun's contract language with AT&T/Novell/SCO states they can and can't do with it. SCO specifically stated that Sun was in the clear, which implies that they have a different contract term from the other SVR4 licensees. NB: I am not speaking from knowledge here - just pure speculation.
--Ng
The details of HP's contributions can be found on http://opensource.hp.com/.
It is true that the older systems like HP-UX, Tru64 and VMS aren't GPL'ed, but as I said in another post, it's probably very difficult to do so without either heavy recoding or relicensing of other codebases.
--Ng
Be fair. Martin was simply saying that if IBM/Sun/HP/whoever is going to release software under a free license, then it would be preferable to release under a single, well known license - the GPL. HP's techies and lawyers tend to agree (in as much as techies ever agree about anything) that the GPL is the best way to give stuff to the free software community while protecting HP's intellectual investments. In other words, it will only give away stuff in the knowledge that some leech won't just take it and make the code non-free. And HP has released a lot of code under the GPL.
So he wasn't saying that Sun should open up everything including Java, or that IBM should free up AIX/Tivoli/etc or such things: just that the proliferation of licenses adds to market confusion.
Lastly, HP can't just open up HP-UX without a huge amount of work; there is code in there which is licensed under arrangements incompatible with the GPL. Case in point: HP licenses the SVR4 codebase, and I believe there is some ongoing litigation involving the contract conditions around that. Can't quite remember the company's name...
Scoff? Scold? Squelch?
--Ng
Here in DoD where I work, this is the case.
And they don't mind you posting with the nym of the ex-Info Minister of Iraq? Hooray! A little rose of humour blooms in the darkest depths of the Pentagon's labyrinths!
--Ng
OK, you may look at WBM as a library, but IS it?
Yes. It really is. It's a registered member of the American Library Association. Details on http://www.archive.org/about/about.php
It's an honest to God library, which also means that Section 108 of the USC on Copyright applies. Public libraries in the US (and here in the UK) have some pertinent exemptions to the copyright restrictions that bind us mere mortals.
--Ng
what is there to stop someone just creating a shell company transfering some assets and getting the shell company to bring suit?
I suppose that the shell company would have to have a list of directors at Companies House (otherwise it's not incorporated, and cannot bring suit). If someone brought suit while under declaration of being a vexatious litigant, then I strongly suspect they'd be looking at jail time. And any barrister/advocate who represented a company knowing the VL status would almost certainly be struck off by the Law Society or Faculty of Advocates.
And if the VL wasn't on the list of directors, then presumably the case would be dismissed (probably with costs awarded against plaintiff) because of a lack of standing. After all, you can't sue a person for someone else's losses. I seem to remember that there are words like barratry and champerty to describe such (illegal) actions.
In truth, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really know all of the ins and outs of the matter.
--Ng
As far as I'm concerned, if I've paid (through my taxes) to produce it, then I should have access to it for free, whether it's a recording of a Beethoven symphony or a chart of the North Atlantic.
Well, you paid through your taxes for a nuclear strike force, but I don't think you should have access to that for free. Imagine the fine you'd have to pay when you got drunk and accidentally nuked Ireland.
You're still right though. Publicly funded scientific and cultural works should be made available to the population at large for free.
--Ng
It's these sort of frivolous cases that make me believe that something stronger than tossing the case out is needed. This company should permanently be prevented from ever suing anybody for any reason, no matter the merits.
In the UK, (and many parts of the USA and elsewhere), this can actually happen. If you are declared a vexatious litigant (ie, someone who issues spurious lawsuits), you can not begin proceedings in a court without specifically applying to the High Court for permission (and you pay the costs of the application, whereas your potential defendant pays none).
Clearly, this is an extreme case. Denying or hindering someone's quick access to justice is not a step that the courts take lightly. Hence the relatively few people on the VL list. It's viewable here
--Ng
1. To employers. If you abuse the human rights of your employees you will be held liable and will pay heavy consequences.
I'm not sure that it's wise to comment on a public forum about upcoming litigation.
However, since you started it, what human right do you feel to have been violated? The HRA has very little to say in terms of what private individuals or companies can do to one another. It's mostly about what a government can do (or not) to its population. No doubt your legal adviser will clarify such matters.
the revised severance was not an offer, I had no choice whether or not to accept it, I was told I WOULD be getting 3 month severance instead of the 1 week.
In that case, the Guardian article is wrong. It states that your erstwhile employers offered 1 week salary, then increased to 3 months. You might want to correct the misreport. The Guardian is pretty good about correcting mistakes.
Clearly, this is only a partially informed, non legal opinion, but the facts as presented so far look to me like you've got a legal mountain to climb. I'd have taken the money. But I'm not you.
--Ng
Was there some anonymous post in the middle here to which you were responding?
Deepest apologies - Just seen the Hanff post to which you were responding.
Mod the parent out of existence. It's a mistake.
Sorry, Durzel. My mistake.
--Ng
The problem is, you went on TV and to all intents and purposes openly supported what is by current Law an illegal practice.
I'm sorry - was this a response to my post? I went on TV to offer my views on a (thankfully abandoned) government proposal to require all crypto keys to be surrendered to the UK government. I said it was a terrible idea, and many IT sector employers thought so too. (Note: I did not, and do not, speak for HP, my employer, in this instance). By the law then, and the law now there is no requirement to escrow cryptographic keys. Hence I was in no way advocating law breaking. However, it could be argued that HP employees expressing personal opinions on UK government IT policies could have harmed their chances of securing future contracts. HP's management took the opinion that my rights to free expression took precedence over any precautionary silence rule. If, on the other hand, they had asked me to withdraw from the programme, I would have done so, but it would have damaged my faith in HP. As it was, it reinforced my belief that HP was a good place to work.
The difference in this case from what I can gather is that your views on copyright infringement are in DIRECT contrast with the business objectives of the company you work(ed) for. It's not like you went on TV and expressed a view on cannabis legalisation. Your views as shown on the programme go against the principal business model of the company.
Honestly, I think there is a misunderstanding here. I think that current IP laws are being misused by patent trolls, trademark vultures, copyright abusers, but I don't believe in copyright, patent or trademark abolition. I've never said that I do, nor have I ever advocated widespread breaking of copyright laws. I think that the pendulum of IP holders interests versus the popular need for artistic and scientific freedom to share has swung too far to the copyright holders, but you do me wrong to ascribe to me a belief in wholesale abolition and disobedience of the law.
Was there some anonymous post in the middle here to which you were responding?
--Ng
Employment contracts are infamous, being the only contract which one side can change the terms unilaterally (hence employment protection laws).
That's not true, at least not according to the legal advice I took when a new contract was being put together after my employer was bought out a few months back. There is no such thing as a contract that can automatically be changed by one party unilaterally, at least under UK law: one of the basic requirements of a legally binding contract is the understanding and consent of both parties.
Sorry, I was being too flippant when I made the original statement. I don't really mean that employment contracts can literally be rewritten, but I did mean that their terms often include statements like the one you highlight, where an employer has the right to alter the clauses unilaterally (Mine was altered twice - once to comply with the Data Protection Act, and once to comply with the Working Time Directive). Thus, in effect, an employer has far more weight in the contract than the employee. And if they don't have those, then the T&Cs often have catch all statements like "...and such other duties as management shall require". But how many employment contracts include text like "And these terms and conditions may be revised by the employee if he or she determines their strictures to be overly burdensome"? (Note to self: add this to next contract!)
That said, I do know of many cases where people have signed an employment contract but with clauses stricken from the standard text - and those amended contracts have been accepted by the employer
Nevertheless, you're quite right: the type of contract doesn't exempt you from the basic tenets of reasonability. Unfair contract terms will still be voided by a court, whether a party signed up to them or not.
--Ng
Regardless of your personal stance on copyright/IPR anyone with half a brain must realise that disagreeing with it is a "negative viewpoint", particularly as exercising your beliefs in this context is actually illegal.
Again, it all depends on context and extremity of view. Hypothetically, if someone claims on their CV to be well known on the Internet, then I'd probably Google for them and see what turns up. In the case of Alex Hanff, this would have turned up boatloads of information. Now, the question: is that a reasonable expectation for an IT sector employer? I would argue, that in this day and age, yes it is. You might equally well argue (as you have) that you figure that no employer who places great stock in copyright would think that a bona-fide copyright enemy would want to apply for a job with them, and thus such a check would be superfluous. I mean, how many employers actually write to universities to check that someone actually has the degree they claim to have?
But what I don't know is what beliefs Alex Hanff actually holds. Does he believe that copyrights must be abolished, and that illegal means are justified to accomplish this? I wouldn't be happy employing someone with those beliefs. Does he believe that copyrights need to be redrafted because they've gone way too far and are being abused? Well, that's not quite firing material, in my book.
[Drifting OT here]As for the exercise of the view being illegal, that's not always true either. There are some perfectly valid defences under most legal systems which allow copyright infringement to take place (eg, fair use, expiry within another jurisdiction). Similarly, the notion of contributory copyright infringement is not always on solid legal ground in many jurisdictions.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to employ sophistry here - I don't think that dvdr-core was innocent of copyright violating intent. I'm just not a lawyer, and copyright law is very complex, so I don't like to comment on legality.
--Ng
offering him a revised 3 month severance package when he had only been with the company a week kinda sounds like even they aren't sure whether what they've done is legal.
I think you're right. (Hence my advice to Hanff would be to take the money and run). However, as much lurking on Groklaw and IP-Wars has shown, the last place you want to end up in would be a courtroom (even an industrial tribunal style courtroom). Weird random crap happens there. So it may be that the company is simply saying "Look, we can either give this to him now, or pay possibly more to the lawyers tomorrow. Ah, screw it. Offer him the cash, and damn his eyes."
I'm no lawyer, so I can't say who is in the right legally, but I suspect that both parties have been a bit silly in this matter. Yeah, freedom of speech and all, but I don't think its unreasonable (especially as a new hire) to say to your employer that you're going to appear on Newsnight and speak on the following topics. And then they can't claim they were blindsided, or they can ask you not to appear. Similarly, I think that for an employer to be that paranoid about the political opinions of their employees and how they might play with potential customers is skirting the edge of reason.
I mean, I've appeared on TV, saying that the government's plans for key escrow sucked, but my employer (HP - but speaking in personal capacity here, etc, etc) was told beforehand. They might have thought that future government contracts were at risk, but they took the view that it was an acceptable risk for HP to employ people with more than one opinion. But the relative risks to HP versus a smaller operation are way different.
--Ng
The mistake here, if there was one, was the employer giving a reason for dismissing the employee... they should have just thanked him for his time and sent him on his way.
Nah, that one doesn't fly either. If an employee can convince a tribunal that there was an implicit reason (and that a reasonable person could determine that reason), then it's the same as saying "We don't want you socialist/feminist/black/gay/Jewish (take your pick) types here. You're fired". I do note that they offered him 3 months wages as a settlement. Frankly, I think he should take it. Even if he wins at a tribunal, the chances that he'd get more than that are very, very slim. I mean, how do you prove that you would have worked for them like a good slave for 20+ years?
You're 99.9% correct about the probationary period though. The only protection you have is not be be fired for discriminatory reasons. And, frankly, that's a bitch to prove. In effect, you're asking a court to accept that what you think someone else thought is illegal. Unsurprisingly, employment tribunals don't take that course lightly.
--Ng
while the UK does not have the concept of "at will" employment any employer is able to release an employee for any reason during the first 13 weeks of employment without a need to state a reason.
Up to a point, this is correct. However, you cannot terminate a person's employment (even within the probationary period) for reasons contrary to discrimination laws. You couldn't, for instance, terminate the contract of a person of Asian extraction because "we don't hire Pakis here", nor could you fire a woman because the company has an all-male employment policy (such a policy would be almost certainly illegal, except for some very well defined exceptions).
Now, here's the interesting bit - and I really don't know how this will turn out - Hanff has made no secret of his views (which is why the Beeb interviewed him!); and it's reasonable to suspect that his employer was aware (or could reasonably be expected to be aware) of said views, and hired him anyway. He's claiming that his termination violates the Human Rights Act (though that tends to bind governments acts against the people, rather than between private entities), and he will sue accordingly.
We'll see how this turns out. Should be interesting. At stake is just how much control an employer can exercise over an employee speaking in his own time. It's not really about the "right to a job", it's to do with the extension of a contract beyond its terms. Employment contracts are infamous, being the only contract which one side can change the terms unilaterally (hence employment protection laws).
--Ng
Look, I don't want to get into a verbal sparring match here, but there are a few points I think you're missing.
I don't think I am, but I have expressed my points poorly. The original question was "Why is Sender-ID so particularly different from DNS RBL lookup"?
To which the answer was intended to be (a) RBL lookup is a trivial DNS A record lookup [for the email verifier, not the sender, obviously], and (b) Sender ID needs far more advanced parsing [again, for the verifier] than an RBL check.
Now, as to the friendliness aspect, the point wasn't that TXT records are harder than A records (although, of course, A records are very prescribed in format, whereas TXT records can be anything). It's just that the size of a TXT record for Sender-ID can be quite large, which tends to mean that it won't easily fit into a UDP packet, and we still do a lot of DNS over UDP these days. Now, I'll grant that a pack of A records could overflow a UDP packet as well, but generally they don't. The Sender-ID examples that I've looked at in MS's original papers would certainly overflow a ~1400 byte UDP packet
So yes, we're probably more in agreement than disagreement, but my position would be firstly that I don't want to stick stuff in my DNS records which is only useful for MS/Hotmail, and then another boatload of things for Yahoo, and another for SPF parsing entities; and secondly, if I were to implement sender verifier technology on my mail servers, then it wouldn't be Sender-ID, for fear of the patent nonsense.
And that's it. Sorry about the lack of clarity, but the original answer was simply supposed to be "RBL lookup is trivial to implement with standard tools; Sender-ID verification is not"
--Ng
Umm, I really hate to break this to you, but if you RTFA you'll notice that Sender-ID is also based on DNS record lookups.
Oh, all right. Sheesh. Forgot this was /. where every omission counts as counterevidence. How's this instead:
Sender ID is based on using DNS records in a particular format (not a particularly DNS friendly one either) whereas RBLs are based on simple A record lookup from a simply derived zone construction. Adding RBL lookup is a trivial hack. Adding Sender-ID lookup and parsing isn't.
Apologies. I made the silly assumption that people would know that I meant that Sender-ID records need some pretty advanced parsing, whereas A records don't.
--Ng
How is this any different?
Because DNS record lookup is a standard adhered to by 99.999% of the internet, and Sender-ID isn't?
--NgI've been thinking about going to a legal downloading service but I hang back because I fear that the restrictions and proprietary formats will prevent me from...
Why would allofmp3.com stop you doing these things? If you want, you can usually buy the albums/tracks in lossless format (flac, ape, or even wav if you've got too much money). You can then encode them to AAC, MP3, OGG Vorbis, or of course, cut them on to as many CD blanks as you like. No DRM, no proprietary crap - just standard formats, for about $0.50 a track. Seems like a good buy to me.
Ng
The People Payd for It, so the people should be allowed to use and share it!
Well, the British license payers paid for it, and unless the last 20 years have misinformed me, the Internet treats national boundaries as damage and routes around them. So it's not entirely clear that non-license payers have the right to the content (and that means most of the Internet population). The BBC makes a tidy pot of cash from syndicating their stuff to other broadcasters - P2P would be a serious threat to that revenue stream.
Apart from anything else, much of the BBC's content is sourced from independent producers (even down to cameramen for natural history productions) , who retain the copyrights - the BBC literally do not have the right to redistribute some of the stuff that they broadcast. Stupid? You betcha. Welcome to obsolete business models 101
--NgIf the BBC were allowed to work freely then we'd have torrents of their programmes available by now.
ObDisc: My wife works for the BBC, but I tend to trust her judgement, or she beats the shit out of me.
I wish the torrents stuff were true. Unfortunately, the BBC doesn't actually own the copyrights to much of the material they broadcast - and no-one has worked out a sufficiently robust compensation architecture for Internet replicated programming. Unfortunately the BBC management are clueless, and the relevant unions aren't helping much either, since they have to maximise their workers revenue. ISTR that they called in Larry Lessig to advise on such matters. Don't know what came of that.
So yes - if the BBC were free of copyright law, then we'd have torrents; but I don't think we can put this one down to Rupe.
Re: Murdoch. 100% agree. I'm a confirmed opponent of the death penalty for any human being - no matter how depraved or evil. Which means I'd happily see Murdoch and his minions burned alive in a steel furnace, and that broadcast on pre-watershed national TV - Sky included.
--NgThere is no such thing as Freedom of speech or press legally in the UK, get used to it.
Freedom of speech and expression is not something that the government grants you as a privilege - it's a basic civil right. In England and Wales (Scots law is different), that right is expressed in Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights Act.
But that is merely the legal expression of the right. It would still be there in the absence of such legal texts (for as long as the people and the courts wish it there). In the UK, something is legal unless there is a law saying otherwise. Since there is no law which generally curtails freedom of speech, there most certainly is such legal freedom of speech in the UK.
Please understand - liberty derives from the expressed democratic will of free peoples - not from any particular foundational construction of principles of liberty. There is more than one legitimate construction of political freedom than the constitutional architecture of the United States.
--NgIn other words, as much free speech as the government wants to allow you, but no more.
And can persuade a court to determine that the government's restrictions are essential. That's a pretty high hurdle to jump in a nation where the judiciary is independent of the executive (as it is in the UK - sometimes infuriatingly so).
Is it different anywhere else? The mere act of having an absolutely phrased set of rights is not enough. The USA has many restrictions of expression which are essential for a civil society, but in apparent contradiction to the phrasing of the First Amendment
--NgFiorina got her Bachelor's degree in Medievel history and philosophy.
And yet I was at a talk when she called out the great Renaissance thinkers like Galileo, Michaelangelo and Aristotle.
Aristotle? If only I had had the guts to call her on that one. I guess History ain't what it used to be...
--Ng