"My idea of the perfect living room would be the bridge on the Starship Enterprise. You know what I mean? Big chair, nice screen, remote control.. that's why Star Trek really was the ultimate male fantasy. Just hurling through space in your living room, watching TV. That's why all the aliens were always dropping in, because Kirk was the only one that had the big screen. They came over Friday nights, Klingon boxing, gotta be there."
But indies, as a group, release more and more often than the majors (that are just hammering the ears of the poor radio listeners with the same tracks over and over) and it's only logical that even if you are a hardcore.m4a buyer, once you bought all the pop you wanted to put in your iPod, you must start buying some real music (== indies) because iTMS ran out of pop;-)
Either they are guilty enough to still be in jail or they should be allowed to use internet communication websites freely.
For some people, there is this thing called parole. It means they let you out of jail early, if they think you'll behave.
When you get out on parole, you're assigned to a parole officer whose job it is to check that you are following the terms of your release. You stop following the rules, you go back to jail. But you should only be paroled if they think you'll behave. The problem, then, is that they are paroling anyone.:-) Now, seriously, the US Justice System has the concept of "punishment for life" and every sex offender AFAIK gets listed for life. One offense and you're out of the "normal society".
If they served their time they should be free. If they should not be free there is a problem with sentencing of the criminals and not how websites are monitored.
Maybe the problem is with the government's treatment of sexual offenders upon their release. And since government policy on sexual matters usually reflects society's viewpoint, maybe the problem you're complaining about lies with the people around you.
It's the Not In My Back Yard syndrome. Who wants a former rapist living next door? Oh, yeah, women sex offenders are normally a sore to the eye.:-)
Uhh, no. Paper trail != Paper ballots != ballot stuffing.
Paper trail (reciept) = I walk out of the building knowing that the vote I thought I hit was the vote that got counted. No, you don't. And even if you _do_ guarantee somehow cryptographically that your vote counted, you do _not_ guarantee that all absentee's votes weren't hijacked. But when you can cryptographically guarantee that your vote counted right, you now have a problem: you can show it to other people, and your boss can tell you: show me you voted for X or you're fired. And you don't know if your neighbour's vote got counted. My point is: rigging a big (secret-vote) election is normally viable. Paper trails don't do much to improve that. The solutions? Get rid of the secret vote (so you have _real_ accountability, but you have lots of room for other abuses) or make lots of smaller, easier-to-keep-in-check elections (that is the process we have down here -- and we don't even have paper trails, but every now and then the opposition candidate wins).
Why would someone take a receipt and go back and claim that it was wrong, if they were trying to rig the vote, when all they had to do was press the "other guy" in the first place? People trying to rig a vote make the machine emit the receipt correctly and count the vote incorrectly. Simple as that.
accountability in voting will be a joke for the foreseeable future because it costs too much? No, accountability in voting will be a joke in the foreseeable future because it always was a joke in the past. Go watch "Streets of New York". Paper ballots == ballot stuffing.
Your theory makes no sense at all.
The GPLv3 can be formulated in such a way as to be compatible with GPLv2. So, all you have to do is start incorporating some bits and pieces into the kernel under GPLv3. When you do _that_, then you are actually placing the GPLv3'd parts under GPLv2 (because the whole kernel _must_ be GPLv2)
As a result, people can still run the GPLv2 bits of the kernel under the provisions of the GPLv2, but that won't do them much good since they need the GPLv3 bits to have an entire, functioning kernel. If this is true, then the GPLv3 is not "compatible" with the GPLv2. There are two main ways a license is compatible with GPLv2:
1. It has less restrictive terms than the GPLv2. This is a case that happens everyday: the ppp driver in the kernel is licensed under 2-clause BSD license (IIRC). So, it can be distributed under the more restrictive terms of the GPLv2 (added restrictions).
1a. The opposite is false because the GPLv2 forbids distribution of the work and any derivative works under _any_ more restrictive terms than those of the GPLv2 itself.
2. It has a "conversion" clause, like the Perl license ("you may use this work, at your option, under the Artistict License v2 or the GPLv2") or the LGPL. In this case, you are also distributing the file (if you include it in the kernel) under the GPLv2.
So, getting the kernel "under GPLv3" is simple: just put some major pieces under GPLv3 and be done with it. You only need to convince Linus, and maybe one or two major contributors to do it and it's a done deal. Nope. If you read my comment above (#17030630) I explain in excruciating detail _why_ you can't even tell for sure what is the _valid_ license for a kernel file just by looking at its copyright notice. (hint, hint: the author may have put it under the 2-clause BSD, but it is a derivative work of a GPLv2-or-later work... which would forbid redistribution of this file under the terms of the 2-clause BSD)
Your Honor, I'm a musician, I sell my self-published CDs on the street (presents a copy of the CD and receipts for X blanks as evidence), and I would like, please:
1. the devolution of the levy tax on the CDs I used to record MY music; 2. X * 700 / total tax paid for everyone for MB of blank media, including iPods, etc.
Security Professionals are in the best position to create change and that is why we are responsible for this situation. If we lack certain laws then it is Security Professionals that can help politicians understand this and advocate for better laws. If software vendors are producing insecure products then it is Security Professionals that can assist (or pressure) them to improve their coding practices. If Universities lack security courses then it is Security Professionals that can raise awareness and promote security education at Universities.Security Professionals, as a class, are not really interested in create change that would be prejudicial to their bottom line. Period.
Most (or even all) of the new code will still be a derivative work of the old code (abstraction, filtration, comparison) and cannot be distributed under other terms than the GPLv2 (because the old code was GPLv2-licensed and that does not permit distribution under other terms). Got it?
Is my text above so boring/stupid/condescending, that you must attack me this way? And does it sound disrespectful? Because your answer sounds disrespectful to me, seeing that you call me a jerk and all, when I am only trying to help clear this discussion.
With that condescending tone, you had better at least be a copyright lawyer.
I was for two years a paralegal, so I have legal training, and I have a nice experience in half a dozen cases of legal research helping prosecuting copyright infringers, because I was a para in a D.A.'s office. Maybe that justifies my condencending tone. Maybe not. Anyway, I had no intention of sounding condescending, and I apologize if I did. But I am fairly confident in everything I write down here about this issue, because I've been there, done that.
But I already know that you aren't, because if you were, you'd know that the law isn't so straightforward that it would be reasonable to expect everyone to understand it in a way that would justify being such a jerk about it.
No, the law is pretty straightforward, even if its application is more difficult as it seems. The abstraction, filtration, comparison test is a test that can be applied with a very high certainty, even if it would a huge workload in the case of Linux. Again, I had -- and I have -- no intention of being a jerk. I am merely stating things here that I consider facts, and one of those things is that: (I would put some emphasis here but you scolded me for the use of bold and italics, so I won't) If people want to relicense the Linux tree, it's not enough to yank the GPLv2-only marked files; they would have to pay a lawyer to examine the other (GPLv2-or-later, BSD, etc) files and see if they effectively can be distributed by the license marked on the file, because there is a great chance that many of those are derivative works from the yanked ones and, if this is the case, they must be yanked also. Now, I am familiar with some parts of the kernel -- the USB drivers, the ppp driver, the scheduler, the initialization (2% of the kernel tree??). I know my sample is not wide enough to warrant any knowledge of the rest of the kernel, but from what I know I think that GPLv2-only code is quite central to the kernel, and that it will be quite incomplete without all the GPLv2-only and the GPLv2-only-derivatives.
Forking of mixed-license code has been done before. GNU started out as UNIX, and then the individual programs were replaced, one by one. Linux was written on using Minix, and FreeBSD is free because all of the copyright-protected AT&T UNIX code was replaced.
Your examples are horrible: 1. Each of the UNIX programs is a separate work; substituting UNIX ls for GNU ls does not make GNU ls a derivative work of UNIX ls nor makes it a derivative work of UNIX. There is no "mixed-licensed code". 2. Linux was written using Minix, but it only used Minix as a development platform; no source code of Minix was even peeked at to develop Linux; again, it's not a derivative work -- and this was well established in the course of the current IBM vs. SCO case. 3. FreeBSD was possible because of an agreement... this is a nice example of a "mixed-licensed" code, that was cleared up (licesing unifying) thru a judicial agreement, but still is not a good example of why "the law isn't so straightforward". Actually, all three are examples that the law is straightforward: in case 1 the filtration phase of the "abstraction, filtr
Even in your estimate (40% per year), in twenty-five years, we have 204.8 * 1.4 ^ 25 = 921,575.338 hours of video, approximately (ok, 20% less, but give it an aditional year if you must) all that is registered in IMDB:
362,959 movies released theatrically. (2h) 725,918 367,066 TV episodes. (.5 h) 183,533 57,071 made for TV movies. (1.5 h) 85,606.5 51,211 direct to video movies. (2h) 102,422 5,349 mini series. (3.5 h) 18,721.5
if you want, in 2020 you can buy an iPod with the capacity of all the other works and, as a free gift, you'll be given an iPod with all the 359 versions of Star Wars, even the one where Yoda shoots first!!!:-)
at 300MiB/42min video (my tipical xvid Lost episode), we have 400MiB/hour, or approximately 204.8 hours of video -- in a 80MiB G5.1 ipod. doing the same math you did, we have 6,553.6 hours of video on my Gen2016 ipod... 30 Simpsons seasons are, for comparison, 231 hours of video!!! This means you could have all seasons to 30 half-hour shows or 15 full-hour shows on your iPod... This is being VERY conservative, because since 1990, the growth of HDs has been "doubling each 14 months". Redoing the math to reflect that (not-so-conservative estimate): 10 years are almost 9 periods of 14 months, so I'll use 9 --> the capacity of the Gen2016 ipod would be 204.8 * 512 = 104,857.6 hours of video, or approximately 225 * 30 seasons * 22 episodes each for full-hour TV shows. OR 26,214 four-hour-long movies. How many movies were produced till the present day??
If Dwight just informed why he feels the site is about the exploitation of human beings, maybe I could step with a nice argument for him or for his boss...
Most (or even all) of the new code will still be a derivative work of the old code (abstraction, filtration, comparison) and cannot be distributed under other terms than the GPLv2 (because the old code was GPLv2-licensed and that does not permit distribution under other terms). Got it?
Mine are more like the full-fledged than like the one you call "freshly installed" etc. Maybe your "fresh" installs are from the CD and mine was from the DVD? You know, from the DVD we run tasksel during the install, and when you taskselect "development", "graphics", etc, the whole thing comes?
Interestingly, my old Archos GMini died without much dropping at all (in a strange coincidence, it died right after I bought my iPod...). Depends really.It died of sadness...
Changing the [Linux] licence... would require one of two extra things:
1) Everyone agreeing to a particular licence at the same time 2) Everyone agreeing to give someone (Linus? FSF?) the copyright to their submissions.
It's not really that hard. I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of the code was written by 20% of the contributors. Plus, some of the code in Linux is already GPLv3-compatible, since it's either taken from the BSDs, or it's licenced under GPLv2-or-later. Additionally, older code tends to be replaced over time. If a switch to GPLv3 became popular among today's kernel developers, and Linus imposed a policy of only accepting GPLv2-and-GPLv3-compatible patches, then I suspect that in 5 years, it would be fairly simple to replace the little bit of GPLv3-incompatible code that remains, and drop GPLv2 compatibility.
It could probably also be done in less time and/or without Linus' cooperation, but with substantially more work required.
Would it be a pain? Yes, but I'm very skeptical that it's the impossible task that you claim it to be.
You see, when you yank something from the kernel (because you couldn't find the original author of that thing and you want to relicense it, or because the original author "just said no") you also must find ANY code inside the kernel that is a derivative work of the yanked thing, and you must yank it too (because, even if the derivative work is by _other_ author, this other author must have authorization to distribute his derivative work under the new license -- and the original author only gave authorization to distribute the derivatives it under the GPLv2). You would have to pass a complete abstraction, filtration, comparison test on the whole kernel tree for each thing you want to get yanked from the kernel. I am pretty sure that _this_ alone is a lot of work. Think about it: even some of the GPLv2-or-later/BSD stuff that are in-tree today may not be distributable under non-GPLv2 terms because of that.
Yes, it's unfortunate that many of the more common distros are shipping Gnome as the default DE now. I think this is due to the perception that Gnome is "simpler" and thus more suitable for the "average" user. Even Kubuntu completely lobotomizes the default KDE install by removing the majority of entries from the K menu, replacing the control center with a dumbed down version, etc.
I think I have not installed my kubuntu properly, because I have the whole shebang here, not a dumbed-down version.
'nuff said. I agree with you -- most of _my_ posts stay in their +1 default moderation for ever. But I get really mad when I see someone posting something really funny and on-topic, and getting moderated down, normally "-1,OT". So, I do my part to protect those whenever I have mod points... something that isn't happening for a long time, for some reason -- maybe _you_ metamoded me down:-) Don't forget that karma is just that: the standing a person has in our community, affecting the default visibility of its posts.
Some people here in/. (including me, sometimes) mod funny comments as insightful, especially if the comment is already negatively moderated (as offtopic, for instance). This is because a "+1, funny" won't increment the karma of the poster, but a "-1, offtopic" will decrement it. So, these moderations are done to give a funny poster a premium. I, personally, think that to fix this, "funny" mods should increment the poster's karma...
Slashdot Mirror
but much less Simpsons :-)
"My idea of the perfect living room would be the bridge on the Starship Enterprise. You know what I mean? Big chair, nice screen, remote control.. that's why Star Trek really was the ultimate male fantasy. Just hurling through space in your living room, watching TV. That's why all the aliens were always dropping in, because Kirk was the only one that had the big screen. They came over Friday nights, Klingon boxing, gotta be there."
Alexander Jay Chase.
But indies, as a group, release more and more often than the majors (that are just hammering the ears of the poor radio listeners with the same tracks over and over) and it's only logical that even if you are a hardcore .m4a buyer, once you bought all the pop you wanted to put in your iPod, you must start buying some real music (== indies) because iTMS ran out of pop ;-)
When you get out on parole, you're assigned to a parole officer whose job it is to check that you are following the terms of your release. You stop following the rules, you go back to jail. But you should only be paroled if they think you'll behave. The problem, then, is that they are paroling anyone.
Now, seriously, the US Justice System has the concept of "punishment for life" and every sex offender AFAIK gets listed for life. One offense and you're out of the "normal society". Maybe the problem is with the government's treatment of sexual offenders upon their release. And since government policy on sexual matters usually reflects society's viewpoint, maybe the problem you're complaining about lies with the people around you.
It's the Not In My Back Yard syndrome. Who wants a former rapist living next door? Oh, yeah, women sex offenders are normally a sore to the eye.
Paper trail (reciept) = I walk out of the building knowing that the vote I thought I hit was the vote that got counted. No, you don't. And even if you _do_ guarantee somehow cryptographically that your vote counted, you do _not_ guarantee that all absentee's votes weren't hijacked. But when you can cryptographically guarantee that your vote counted right, you now have a problem: you can show it to other people, and your boss can tell you: show me you voted for X or you're fired. And you don't know if your neighbour's vote got counted. My point is: rigging a big (secret-vote) election is normally viable. Paper trails don't do much to improve that. The solutions? Get rid of the secret vote (so you have _real_ accountability, but you have lots of room for other abuses) or make lots of smaller, easier-to-keep-in-check elections (that is the process we have down here -- and we don't even have paper trails, but every now and then the opposition candidate wins). Why would someone take a receipt and go back and claim that it was wrong, if they were trying to rig the vote, when all they had to do was press the "other guy" in the first place? People trying to rig a vote make the machine emit the receipt correctly and count the vote incorrectly. Simple as that.
Paper ballots == ballot stuffing.
1. It has less restrictive terms than the GPLv2. This is a case that happens everyday: the ppp driver in the kernel is licensed under 2-clause BSD license (IIRC). So, it can be distributed under the more restrictive terms of the GPLv2 (added restrictions).
1a. The opposite is false because the GPLv2 forbids distribution of the work and any derivative works under _any_ more restrictive terms than those of the GPLv2 itself.
2. It has a "conversion" clause, like the Perl license ("you may use this work, at your option, under the Artistict License v2 or the GPLv2") or the LGPL. In this case, you are also distributing the file (if you include it in the kernel) under the GPLv2. So, getting the kernel "under GPLv3" is simple: just put some major pieces under GPLv3 and be done with it. You only need to convince Linus, and maybe one or two major contributors to do it and it's a done deal. Nope. If you read my comment above (#17030630) I explain in excruciating detail _why_ you can't even tell for sure what is the _valid_ license for a kernel file just by looking at its copyright notice. (hint, hint: the author may have put it under the 2-clause BSD, but it is a derivative work of a GPLv2-or-later work... which would forbid redistribution of this file under the terms of the 2-clause BSD)
Your Honor, I'm a musician, I sell my self-published CDs on the street (presents a copy of the CD and receipts for X blanks as evidence), and I would like, please:
1. the devolution of the levy tax on the CDs I used to record MY music;
2. X * 700 / total tax paid for everyone for MB of blank media, including iPods, etc.
Security Professionals are in the best position to create change and that is why we are responsible for this situation. If we lack certain laws then it is Security Professionals that can help politicians understand this and advocate for better laws. If software vendors are producing insecure products then it is Security Professionals that can assist (or pressure) them to improve their coding practices. If Universities lack security courses then it is Security Professionals that can raise awareness and promote security education at Universities.Security Professionals, as a class, are not really interested in create change that would be prejudicial to their bottom line. Period.
[blah blah blah boldface blah blah italics blah blah blah] Got it?
Ouch. That hurt. Let's put it here, entirely:
Most (or even all) of the new code will still be a derivative work of the old code (abstraction, filtration, comparison) and cannot be distributed under other terms than the GPLv2 (because the old code was GPLv2-licensed and that does not permit distribution under other terms). Got it?
Is my text above so boring/stupid/condescending, that you must attack me this way? And does it sound disrespectful? Because your answer sounds disrespectful to me, seeing that you call me a jerk and all, when I am only trying to help clear this discussion.
With that condescending tone, you had better at least be a copyright lawyer.
I was for two years a paralegal, so I have legal training, and I have a nice experience in half a dozen cases of legal research helping prosecuting copyright infringers, because I was a para in a D.A.'s office. Maybe that justifies my condencending tone. Maybe not. Anyway, I had no intention of sounding condescending, and I apologize if I did. But I am fairly confident in everything I write down here about this issue, because I've been there, done that.
But I already know that you aren't, because if you were, you'd know that the law isn't so straightforward that it would be reasonable to expect everyone to understand it in a way that would justify being such a jerk about it.
No, the law is pretty straightforward, even if its application is more difficult as it seems. The abstraction, filtration, comparison test is a test that can be applied with a very high certainty, even if it would a huge workload in the case of Linux. Again, I had -- and I have -- no intention of being a jerk. I am merely stating things here that I consider facts, and one of those things is that: (I would put some emphasis here but you scolded me for the use of bold and italics, so I won't)
If people want to relicense the Linux tree, it's not enough to yank the GPLv2-only marked files; they would have to pay a lawyer to examine the other (GPLv2-or-later, BSD, etc) files and see if they effectively can be distributed by the license marked on the file, because there is a great chance that many of those are derivative works from the yanked ones and, if this is the case, they must be yanked also.
Now, I am familiar with some parts of the kernel -- the USB drivers, the ppp driver, the scheduler, the initialization (2% of the kernel tree??). I know my sample is not wide enough to warrant any knowledge of the rest of the kernel, but from what I know I think that GPLv2-only code is quite central to the kernel, and that it will be quite incomplete without all the GPLv2-only and the GPLv2-only-derivatives.
Forking of mixed-license code has been done before. GNU started out as UNIX, and then the individual programs were replaced, one by one. Linux was written on using Minix, and FreeBSD is free because all of the copyright-protected AT&T UNIX code was replaced.
Your examples are horrible:
1. Each of the UNIX programs is a separate work; substituting UNIX ls for GNU ls does not make GNU ls a derivative work of UNIX ls nor makes it a derivative work of UNIX. There is no "mixed-licensed code".
2. Linux was written using Minix, but it only used Minix as a development platform; no source code of Minix was even peeked at to develop Linux; again, it's not a derivative work -- and this was well established in the course of the current IBM vs. SCO case.
3. FreeBSD was possible because of an agreement... this is a nice example of a "mixed-licensed" code, that was cleared up (licesing unifying) thru a judicial agreement, but still is not a good example of why "the law isn't so straightforward".
Actually, all three are examples that the law is straightforward: in case 1 the filtration phase of the "abstraction, filtr
if you want, in 2020 you can buy an iPod with the capacity of all the other works and, as a free gift, you'll be given an iPod with all the 359 versions of Star Wars, even the one where Yoda shoots first!!! :-)
its more than 200 hours of video!!! each hour of video, at 1000 bps, 30fps, 320x240 quality is 400MiB.
at 300MiB/42min video (my tipical xvid Lost episode), we have 400MiB/hour, or approximately 204.8 hours of video -- in a 80MiB G5.1 ipod. doing the same math you did, we have 6,553.6 hours of video on my Gen2016 ipod... 30 Simpsons seasons are, for comparison, 231 hours of video!!! This means you could have all seasons to 30 half-hour shows or 15 full-hour shows on your iPod...
This is being VERY conservative, because since 1990, the growth of HDs has been "doubling each 14 months". Redoing the math to reflect that (not-so-conservative estimate):
10 years are almost 9 periods of 14 months, so I'll use 9 --> the capacity of the Gen2016 ipod would be 204.8 * 512 = 104,857.6 hours of video, or approximately 225 * 30 seasons * 22 episodes each for full-hour TV shows. OR 26,214 four-hour-long movies. How many movies were produced till the present day??
It says DVD -- use the torrent link!!!!:
http://www.kubuntu.org/download.php#latest
If Dwight just informed why he feels the site is about the exploitation of human beings, maybe I could step with a nice argument for him or for his boss...
Most (or even all) of the new code will still be a derivative work of the old code (abstraction, filtration, comparison) and cannot be distributed under other terms than the GPLv2 (because the old code was GPLv2-licensed and that does not permit distribution under other terms). Got it?
Mine are more like the full-fledged than like the one you call "freshly installed" etc.
Maybe your "fresh" installs are from the CD and mine was from the DVD? You know, from the DVD we run tasksel during the install, and when you taskselect "development", "graphics", etc, the whole thing comes?
Interestingly, my old Archos GMini died without much dropping at all (in a strange coincidence, it died right after I bought my iPod...). Depends really.It died of sadness...
1) Everyone agreeing to a particular licence at the same time
2) Everyone agreeing to give someone (Linus? FSF?) the copyright to their submissions.
It's not really that hard. I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of the code was written by 20% of the contributors. Plus, some of the code in Linux is already GPLv3-compatible, since it's either taken from the BSDs, or it's licenced under GPLv2-or-later. Additionally, older code tends to be replaced over time. If a switch to GPLv3 became popular among today's kernel developers, and Linus imposed a policy of only accepting GPLv2-and-GPLv3-compatible patches, then I suspect that in 5 years, it would be fairly simple to replace the little bit of GPLv3-incompatible code that remains, and drop GPLv2 compatibility.
It could probably also be done in less time and/or without Linus' cooperation, but with substantially more work required.
Would it be a pain? Yes, but I'm very skeptical that it's the impossible task that you claim it to be.
You see, when you yank something from the kernel (because you couldn't find the original author of that thing and you want to relicense it, or because the original author "just said no") you also must find ANY code inside the kernel that is a derivative work of the yanked thing, and you must yank it too (because, even if the derivative work is by _other_ author, this other author must have authorization to distribute his derivative work under the new license -- and the original author only gave authorization to distribute the derivatives it under the GPLv2). You would have to pass a complete abstraction, filtration, comparison test on the whole kernel tree for each thing you want to get yanked from the kernel. I am pretty sure that _this_ alone is a lot of work.Think about it: even some of the GPLv2-or-later/BSD stuff that are in-tree today may not be distributable under non-GPLv2 terms because of that.
Yes, it's unfortunate that many of the more common distros are shipping Gnome as the default DE now. I think this is due to the perception that Gnome is "simpler" and thus more suitable for the "average" user. Even Kubuntu completely lobotomizes the default KDE install by removing the majority of entries from the K menu, replacing the control center with a dumbed down version, etc.
I think I have not installed my kubuntu properly, because I have the whole shebang here, not a dumbed-down version.now, only if Taco would read this ... ;-)
'nuff said. :-) Don't forget that karma is just that: the standing a person has in our community, affecting the default visibility of its posts.
I agree with you -- most of _my_ posts stay in their +1 default moderation for ever. But I get really mad when I see someone posting something really funny and on-topic, and getting moderated down, normally "-1,OT". So, I do my part to protect those whenever I have mod points... something that isn't happening for a long time, for some reason -- maybe _you_ metamoded me down