This argument gets put forth a lot -- that even though the contested code was released under a liberal free software license, it still cannot be included in the kernel because it is "incompatible" with the kernel's license.
The thing to remember is that when the Free Software Foundation states their opinion about a license, this is in their interpretation of the license, and, more importantly, how this relates to the inclusion of other software into GNU software. When the FSF speaks about something, they are usually referring to how the issue relates to them and the software they distribute.
Linus and the other copyright holders of Linux may decide that code covered by the BSD+Advertising license is not incompatible wth the GPL, and release the combination. Remember, too, that some people release software under two licenses, one the GPL, one which the FSF considers incompatible with the GPL. Of course, such combinations may not be legally valid, and may not hold up in court, but that question is for if and when it becomes an actual legal matter.
These are not the software licenses you are looking for. Move along. Move along.
Recently we've seen a number of laws that have encroached further upon what freedoms we have, both in how we use technology (the DMCA, and copyright legislation in general) and how our everyday lives are affected by technology (the PATRIOT act, surveillance, etc.); in this climate, then, do you think that hacking and general "technological disobedience" will serve to change these sorts of laws or merely strengthen them by "proving" that they are needed?
That is, is now the time to be more cautious with what we choose to explore, or should we, in protest, increasingly disregard these limits?
Actually, Diffie's greatest invention in the field of public-key cryptography -- the Diffie-Hellman key exchange -- does not require secrets to be kept for long periods of time, which is one of the coolest things about the algorithm.
Diffie-Hellman key exchange relies on two secrets between the two people who are communicating (or three for three people, and so on), and these secrets are nothing but large, random integers. Since these integers don't have to have any specific properties (such as the key pairs in RSA) they can be thrown away at the end of the session, changed every hour, and so on. In the context of cryptographic algorithms, Diffie's statement is backed up by his inventions.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not "ironic". It's "unfortunate".
But that still doesn't mean anything, since I still retain copyright over what I wrote. Not putting a notice on it doesn't make it public domain.
I don't care about the copyright, however. What I do care about are people passing off my words as their own.
That's a great quote, but I thought it was better the first time I read it, when I fucking wrote it.
This argument gets put forth a lot -- that even though the contested code was released under a liberal free software license, it still cannot be included in the kernel because it is "incompatible" with the kernel's license.
The thing to remember is that when the Free Software Foundation states their opinion about a license, this is in their interpretation of the license, and, more importantly, how this relates to the inclusion of other software into GNU software. When the FSF speaks about something, they are usually referring to how the issue relates to them and the software they distribute.
Linus and the other copyright holders of Linux may decide that code covered by the BSD+Advertising license is not incompatible wth the GPL, and release the combination. Remember, too, that some people release software under two licenses, one the GPL, one which the FSF considers incompatible with the GPL. Of course, such combinations may not be legally valid, and may not hold up in court, but that question is for if and when it becomes an actual legal matter.
These are not the software licenses you are looking for. Move along. Move along.
Recently we've seen a number of laws that have encroached further upon what freedoms we have, both in how we use technology (the DMCA, and copyright legislation in general) and how our everyday lives are affected by technology (the PATRIOT act, surveillance, etc.); in this climate, then, do you think that hacking and general "technological disobedience" will serve to change these sorts of laws or merely strengthen them by "proving" that they are needed?
That is, is now the time to be more cautious with what we choose to explore, or should we, in protest, increasingly disregard these limits?
Diffie-Hellman key exchange relies on two secrets between the two people who are communicating (or three for three people, and so on), and these secrets are nothing but large, random integers. Since these integers don't have to have any specific properties (such as the key pairs in RSA) they can be thrown away at the end of the session, changed every hour, and so on. In the context of cryptographic algorithms, Diffie's statement is backed up by his inventions.
See: http://www.apocalypse.org/pub/u/seven/diffie.html
I like the way RMS put it:
"A government of the people, by the flunkies, and for the corporations."