Personally, I have two enabled on my home network (one on the router and one on the machine connected to the router). Professionally, I use them as a matter of course.
People tend to use them as a crutch instead of spending time to secure a system and may not realize when they fail or how they may be open to abuse. Less is more, especially in the case of security!
How do you expect to prove whether the requester has or does not have said binary? I suppose legally you're right, but there's no way to put that into practice.
Ask questions to prove it? In some situations, the binary might not have been intentionally distributed -- it could be gotten by tresspassing.
Keep in mind that licences are between people...individuals...not between everybody.
This section of the GPL doesn't mean what you think it means.
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
The written offer (real or implied to exist by the GPL) was not given to everyone, it was given specifically to the recipient of the original code or binary.
The recipient can do what they want with that written offer, including transfer it to a third party. At the time of transfer, the offer is then valid for that party as well.
That the written offer can be transfered does not mean much, though. If that phrase was not used, the recipient could still get the source from the distributor and hand it over to whoever the original recipient wants. Other sections of the GPL specifically allow for that.
The convention is to have the distributor automatically give these rights to any third party, not just the original recipient(s) -- though this convention is not required by the GPL and in some cases would be a real problem.
For example, the original recipient's control of this redistribution could be impacted. The GPL offers protections that most other licences do not, even on a mostly closed project.
The GPL helps keep the distributor honest;
The distributor must provide the source.
If things don't work out with them, the code can be forked.
The act of bringing in another developer/group/company/... can not be blocked.
Yet, the initial recipient may be the recipient of a unique version of code that they do not want shared with others.
Creation of new GPLed code would be reduced if anyone could legally demand the code that was distribued between any two people.
Why go through the potential hassle of the GPL if you could be liable for 3 years to anyone who asks? Best not use the GPL on any new projects...even if others could benifit from it!
If businesses feared that GPLed software as customized for them would go to a third party without them being able to block it, they would be compelled not to invest in GPLed software for internal use.
The ability to strip out private details that end up in the code would be a violation of the GPL if the recipient did not have this moderate level of control.
Even if you wrote 99% of the original code, you can't use the GPL to force me to hand back anything to you.
That depends on whether you distribute source with the binary or on request. If you only distribute source on request, you have to honor requests from anybody, not just those who received a binary.
That is *EXACTLY* what I was *NOT* saying. This is what it boils down to;
GPLed source code by convention is provided to anyone who asks for it.
There is no requirement in the GPL to provide source code to anyone except for the recipient.
If you can show otherwise, quote the section. I can't find it.
Transgaming sells specialized Wine binaries on a subscription basis, without the express consent of every contributor. This is perhaps the best example, as they also provide the source in a manner similar to what should (probably) be done with xchat.
Transgaming uses X11-licenced Wine source, not the GPLed branch; they aren't required to fork over code even though they do provide CVS access for most of what they ship commercially.
Codeweavers uses GPLed Wine source and adds helper programs that are not GPLed.
Overall, I like Codeweavers take on it since it compells them to share the critical code with a larger group. Transgaming doesn't have to and can be selective if they want (ex: no safedisc support in the public CVS repository code).
My understanding of the GPL says you can't just release the Linux version of the source if you release a Windows binary: You have to release the Windows source and the make files to build it or you are in violation.
You're close, and in this case it might not matter because he's distributing a binary that everyone is a potential recipient of. Who the distributor and recipient are matters alot, though. First, the more obvious ground rules;
If I distribute a program under the GPL that I and only I have created, I can (being the copyright holder) offer the same program under any other licence I wish. (This is not GPL-specific as it applies to all copyrightable works.)
If I work with others on the program, and they all agree to relicencing, any other licence we agree on can be used. (This also is not GPL-specific.)
If I take code that is GPLed and I did not create any of it, I can't relicence the GPLed parts. (This applies to most but not all other types of licences.)
Yet...it gets more complex. The GPL is an unusual licence because it has built-in to it the ability of the recipient to distribute to others. Optionally, the licence also grants the ability to also make changes and distribute that changed version to a limited set of recipients.
The GPL grants distribution rights; it does not impose any obligation on the recipient unless the recipient exercises those distribution rights.
Specifically, the GPL does not require that the recipient return any changes back to the distributor (though for practical reasons that is commonly done).
For example...
If I get the code for a GPLed program you made, make changes to it, the GPL does not require that I give you the changes -- as long as I do not make you a recipient by prioviding you with a binary.
Further, if I take the same program and pass it to one other individual or group...the GPL is enforceable between them and me. Even if you wrote 99% of the original code, you can't use the GPL to force me to hand back anything to you.
In this case, the Windows binary could be sold by anyone to anyone as long as the recipients were given the source for the GPLed parts when they ask for it. Hard to keep your list of recipients limited if it's offered as shareware!
The sticky details:
The Windows binary version of X-Chat may have additional parts that are not covered by the GPL (depending on linking and other issues). SuSE and Codeweavers are two companies that sell GPLed software with non-GPLed parts efectively making the package propriatory -- though even non-recipients can get the source from either company for the GPLed parts.
If the binaries are provided as a service, that service can be charged for though the GPLed source still has to be provided to anyone that recieves the sample shareware version (even if it is identical to the paid shareware version).
[Kevin Smith] "Regardless - I don't want folks running here with reports of what's being said about the idea of this film at other boards. Don't waste your/my time with the braying of the jackasses. There's not even a movie to bray about yet. Once there is, if you still still feel the need to tell me what some random, knuckle-headed Talk Backer has to say about the finished product, then God bless. But until then, leave it in the locker room."
Remember people, don't start rumors. Kevin Smith now has enough sweet movie cash to go personally kick your ass.
When I worked for a software company that made and sold packaged software, about 1/2 of our sales were bundled OEM sales -- usually with a computer though sometimes with other software (inc. MS Visual C).
Much of the remaing 1/2 of the sales were mostly to individuals immediately at the point of the system sale or within a few days/weeks/months of that initial sale.
Except for site licences and upgrades, we sold very few copies to customers after those few weeks/months.
Bill said that the OEMs are okay with the delay, so why the pressure?
Two words: Software Assurance.
Right now, the managers that took that bait are looking silly so they would like to show something for the expense. Unfortunately, Microsoft is still a few years away from making a difference for this group, and in the meantime there's quite a bit of room for them to look foolish.
Isn't anyone else feeling bad about how companies like sun and red hat make tons of cash while the open source developers do most of the real work for almost nothing?
No. I don't.
First, they're not making much if anything.
Second, much of the payback of open source is in collaboration; I craft a stick to scratch an itch, and you improve on it so we both benifit. If you sell that improved stick for a profit, I still get the improvements free.^
The amount of waste and rework involved in closed + propriatory software is amazing, so using that instead of OSS has a steep cost.
I don't feel bad about Microsoft or Corel loosing out when OpenOffice is used, let alone when FreeBSD or Linux are used instead of OSX or Windows.
So either it's my crappy disks (bought for about 44 cents a pop online in bulk) or it's dvdrecord.
It's the media (for sure) and the burner/settings/program (unlikely).
Why am I certian? The media failing after 6 months means that it is unstable. After all, if you burn the disk -- it works -- and it stops working later though you haven't dropped it back in the burner, how is the burner or the software to blame?
If the failures were always immediately detected during or just after burning -- no good disks turned bad later -- the drive or software would be the likely cause. Tweaking some settings or switching to compatable media would resolve those issues. That's not what you've described, so that's not likely the problem.
I've found that many generic brands or house brands (CompUSA btw) have very poor shelf life, lasting from days to a few months. They get clowdy or show visible defects as the days/months go by. Very annoying and the cause of some personal data loss not just video backups (I do not copy commercial movies I did not buy).
Search Video Help site and plug in the specific details for your drive and media;
http://www.videohelp.com
http://www.videohelp.com/dvdmedia
http://www.videohelp.com/dvdwriters
The site is invaluable for detecting all sorts of DVD and CD problems -- hardware, software, yet mostly media problems.
The fact is, nobody reads the license. I include the source and the GPL. The GPL only gives the user more freedom. But nobody reads the GPL! Most don't even know they're allowed to distribute it, or even resell it.
It's like the soldier who's ordered to commit war crimes. What do you do? It's in no way you're fault - but you're in a lose - lose situation.
Have them spell it out. Make it explicit. Usually, bad/evil/unethical ideas *poof* in a cloud of smoke if you shine some light on the subject.
That's why your former boss didn't say exactly what was wanted -- it was a bad idea to begin with! If it was a good idea (ethical or otherwise), he'd promote it and talk to others about what a great plan he had.
The best thing to do is refuse, and if you lose your job... there could be worse things. But still, it sucks.
No, don't refuse...at first...just make it clear what it is they are asking for. If they can't show the reason for the proposed action, they aren't likely to push it. If they do, even though it is wrong, the person is a psycho or up to something even worse they aren't telling you about. In either case, it's good to know so you can move on.
Remember: Even soldiers can transfer to different units.
The relevant binary code involved video codecs. These are often patented and licensed from 3rd parties. Even if Phillips had invented and created the technology, that doesn't mean it's in their economic advantage to do so.
There's no conflict with that, the kernel changes, and...
Move the driver to user space and out of the kernel.
There are debates like this on the Linux Kernel Mailing List frequently. Should binary modules be supported? If so, within what limits? The concensus seems to be;
Loading firmware to a target device is OK.
Loading a binary kernel module taints the kernel;
Idealistically: It's not open source!
Practically: Defects in that binary module can be debugged but the original source can't be fixed since it's not available -- so it's a waste of time.
A big annoyance: One bad module can cause non-obvious problems, so if the kernel is tainted it is entirely suspect.
Code clean up and improvement will impact the kernel interfaces; changes constantly happen in other kernel structures as well as user space tools.
The push over time is to place as much under the control of user space tools as possible and as little in kernel modules (within limits).
While the Philips binary seems to be stable, if an exception to it were made other binary modules could be argued for. In fact, that's what is happening now; more and more kernel patches are being made available with binary-only parts.
There are two solutions to this;
Move the driver to user space and out of the kernel.
Open the source for the binary part.
Converting USB kernel modules into user space tools happens regularly. Not as easily done as said, and it's less prestigious, though as a technical solution it does solve the kernel dispute.
Not having the source for these devices is silly, though. Do they intend to sell hardware or drivers? By releasing the source or the specs (at a minimum), Philips would gain much and loose little. Someone else can go on a rant to fill in the details...I'm done!
The three month chart is much more interesting. Note the level for months has wobbled around ~$5 -- and now it's hovering around ~$4 (and the last couple days lower). Why it hasn't cratered entirely is stunning.
What's your definition of uptime? Or do you not patch your Linux servers? Is this Service Uptime or Server Uptime? Just curious.
I can't speak for ArsonSmith, though if you carefully seperate the servers from each other at the router/vlan, you have limited services running and properly tuned, security is not as much of an issue.
If these systems are exposed to areas that can not be completely trusted, the need to patch them is increased. That said, I tend to trust nothing and update to cover known security defects very very often (on a test server first).
Gphoto is a library and does not require X. Early versions did have a GUI, though mostly as a practical demonstration.
Additionally, if the camera has USB mass storage support, and you can use a USB thumb drive, you can plug in your camera. Check the camera documentation for how to enable this mode.
The Kodak is probably one of them. If it is using another mode, or if one of them does not work well enough (typically PTP), switching to the other mode will fix the problem. This is a camera setting, not an OS setting.
This means; no special software for each specific camera. All PTP camera-aware tools work the same. All mass storage cameras work just like flash storage drives.
In addition, most distributions support linking known USB cameras to the/camera or/mnt/camera mount point automatically; plug it in and a camera shows up.
Does ANYONE think that this will reduce spam in the near future? I'm still getting flooded, and I'll bet anything that my spam filters won't get any kind of a breather just because of a few arrests.
My account has dropped from 100-150/day down to ~20/day over the span of the last few months. I can't say why, but I like it. Many many more viral messages spoofed to look like they come from my domain, though. (It's my domain...and I didn't send those messages to myself!)
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I have two enabled on my home network (one on the router and one on the machine connected to the router). Professionally, I use them as a matter of course.
People tend to use them as a crutch instead of spending time to secure a system and may not realize when they fail or how they may be open to abuse. Less is more, especially in the case of security!
Ask questions to prove it? In some situations, the binary might not have been intentionally distributed -- it could be gotten by tresspassing.
Keep in mind that licences are between people...individuals...not between everybody.
I agree. Nothing I wrote contradicts that.
This section of the GPL doesn't mean what you think it means.
The written offer (real or implied to exist by the GPL) was not given to everyone, it was given specifically to the recipient of the original code or binary.
The recipient can do what they want with that written offer, including transfer it to a third party. At the time of transfer, the offer is then valid for that party as well.
That the written offer can be transfered does not mean much, though. If that phrase was not used, the recipient could still get the source from the distributor and hand it over to whoever the original recipient wants. Other sections of the GPL specifically allow for that.
The convention is to have the distributor automatically give these rights to any third party, not just the original recipient(s) -- though this convention is not required by the GPL and in some cases would be a real problem.
For example, the original recipient's control of this redistribution could be impacted. The GPL offers protections that most other licences do not, even on a mostly closed project.
Yet, the initial recipient may be the recipient of a unique version of code that they do not want shared with others.
There are other issues, though I'll stop there.
If you can get an older laptop to do this to, you'll feel better about mucking it up.
That depends on whether you distribute source with the binary or on request. If you only distribute source on request, you have to honor requests from anybody, not just those who received a binary.
That is *EXACTLY* what I was *NOT* saying. This is what it boils down to;
GPLed source code by convention is provided to anyone who asks for it.
There is no requirement in the GPL to provide source code to anyone except for the recipient.
If you can show otherwise, quote the section. I can't find it.
Transgaming uses X11-licenced Wine source, not the GPLed branch; they aren't required to fork over code even though they do provide CVS access for most of what they ship commercially.
Codeweavers uses GPLed Wine source and adds helper programs that are not GPLed.
Overall, I like Codeweavers take on it since it compells them to share the critical code with a larger group. Transgaming doesn't have to and can be selective if they want (ex: no safedisc support in the public CVS repository code).
You're close, and in this case it might not matter because he's distributing a binary that everyone is a potential recipient of. Who the distributor and recipient are matters alot, though. First, the more obvious ground rules;
Yet...it gets more complex. The GPL is an unusual licence because it has built-in to it the ability of the recipient to distribute to others. Optionally, the licence also grants the ability to also make changes and distribute that changed version to a limited set of recipients.
The GPL grants distribution rights; it does not impose any obligation on the recipient unless the recipient exercises those distribution rights. Specifically, the GPL does not require that the recipient return any changes back to the distributor (though for practical reasons that is commonly done).
For example...
In this case, the Windows binary could be sold by anyone to anyone as long as the recipients were given the source for the GPLed parts when they ask for it. Hard to keep your list of recipients limited if it's offered as shareware!
The sticky details:
Remember people, don't start rumors. Kevin Smith now has enough sweet movie cash to go personally kick your ass.
To add to what you've said;
When I worked for a software company that made and sold packaged software, about 1/2 of our sales were bundled OEM sales -- usually with a computer though sometimes with other software (inc. MS Visual C).
Much of the remaing 1/2 of the sales were mostly to individuals immediately at the point of the system sale or within a few days/weeks/months of that initial sale.
Except for site licences and upgrades, we sold very few copies to customers after those few weeks/months.
Two words: Software Assurance.
Right now, the managers that took that bait are looking silly so they would like to show something for the expense. Unfortunately, Microsoft is still a few years away from making a difference for this group, and in the meantime there's quite a bit of room for them to look foolish.
Spice for the pot.
No. I don't.
First, they're not making much if anything.
Second, much of the payback of open source is in collaboration; I craft a stick to scratch an itch, and you improve on it so we both benifit. If you sell that improved stick for a profit, I still get the improvements free.^
The amount of waste and rework involved in closed + propriatory software is amazing, so using that instead of OSS has a steep cost.
I don't feel bad about Microsoft or Corel loosing out when OpenOffice is used, let alone when FreeBSD or Linux are used instead of OSX or Windows.
It's the media (for sure) and the burner/settings/program (unlikely).
Why am I certian? The media failing after 6 months means that it is unstable. After all, if you burn the disk -- it works -- and it stops working later though you haven't dropped it back in the burner, how is the burner or the software to blame?
If the failures were always immediately detected during or just after burning -- no good disks turned bad later -- the drive or software would be the likely cause. Tweaking some settings or switching to compatable media would resolve those issues. That's not what you've described, so that's not likely the problem.
I've found that many generic brands or house brands (CompUSA btw) have very poor shelf life, lasting from days to a few months. They get clowdy or show visible defects as the days/months go by. Very annoying and the cause of some personal data loss not just video backups (I do not copy commercial movies I did not buy).
Search Video Help site and plug in the specific details for your drive and media;
http://www.videohelp.com
http://www.videohelp.com/dvdmedia
http://www.videohelp.com/dvdwriters
The site is invaluable for detecting all sorts of DVD and CD problems -- hardware, software, yet mostly media problems.
The reason: I already keep my DVDs in a travel case. If this gadget can replace that, I'll gladly dump the movies to it and use that instead.
Yeah, isn't it great!
Have them spell it out. Make it explicit. Usually, bad/evil/unethical ideas *poof* in a cloud of smoke if you shine some light on the subject.
That's why your former boss didn't say exactly what was wanted -- it was a bad idea to begin with! If it was a good idea (ethical or otherwise), he'd promote it and talk to others about what a great plan he had.
No, don't refuse...at first...just make it clear what it is they are asking for. If they can't show the reason for the proposed action, they aren't likely to push it. If they do, even though it is wrong, the person is a psycho or up to something even worse they aren't telling you about. In either case, it's good to know so you can move on.
Remember: Even soldiers can transfer to different units.
There's no conflict with that, the kernel changes, and...
While the Philips binary seems to be stable, if an exception to it were made other binary modules could be argued for. In fact, that's what is happening now; more and more kernel patches are being made available with binary-only parts.
There are two solutions to this;
Converting USB kernel modules into user space tools happens regularly. Not as easily done as said, and it's less prestigious, though as a technical solution it does solve the kernel dispute.
Not having the source for these devices is silly, though. Do they intend to sell hardware or drivers? By releasing the source or the specs (at a minimum), Philips would gain much and loose little. Someone else can go on a rant to fill in the details...I'm done!
The three month chart is much more interesting. Note the level for months has wobbled around ~$5 -- and now it's hovering around ~$4 (and the last couple days lower). Why it hasn't cratered entirely is stunning.
Nope. Can't find it. I'd look more, but the site is now slasdoted.
I can't speak for ArsonSmith, though if you carefully seperate the servers from each other at the router/vlan, you have limited services running and properly tuned, security is not as much of an issue.
If these systems are exposed to areas that can not be completely trusted, the need to patch them is increased. That said, I tend to trust nothing and update to cover known security defects very very often (on a test server first).
Additionally, if the camera has USB mass storage support, and you can use a USB thumb drive, you can plug in your camera. Check the camera documentation for how to enable this mode.
Most digital cameras these days support both of these protocols;
The Kodak is probably one of them. If it is using another mode, or if one of them does not work well enough (typically PTP), switching to the other mode will fix the problem. This is a camera setting, not an OS setting.
This means; no special software for each specific camera. All PTP camera-aware tools work the same. All mass storage cameras work just like flash storage drives.
In addition, most distributions support linking known USB cameras to the /camera or /mnt/camera mount point automatically; plug it in and a camera shows up.
My account has dropped from 100-150/day down to ~20/day over the span of the last few months. I can't say why, but I like it. Many many more viral messages spoofed to look like they come from my domain, though. (It's my domain...and I didn't send those messages to myself!)
On a totally unrelated note, does anyone have an alloy baseball bat?