You could then have a policy on your MTA of:
1) if sender is an authenticated user of this MTA, accept mail
2) if sending MTA is the MX for the FROM address, and if the sending MTA has a key in the domain, accept.
3) If the sending MTA is the MX, but has no key, accept but tag as possible spam.
4) If the sending MTA isn't the MX, reject with a redirect to a webmail bypass URL.
OK, pick it apart guys. Maybe we all can hash together an RFC?
How stupid. I recieve mail @myisp.com and that's my From: address but I send mail using IP services provided by a number of ISPs depending on where I am when I'm sending. When I'm attached to airbridge.net, I use their SMTP servers. When I'm attached to oponline.com, I use their SMTP servers. I *don't* use myisp.com's servers (unless I've telnnetted into my shell account) becuase I'm not using their IP servces. My mail is legit, but my From: address does not match the SMTP server I'm using.
If the canadian program said "Free internet for life", then they are obligated to fufill that contract for as long as both parties to that contract exist.
"Free Internet for Life" does not a contract make. A contract requires consideration in order to be a contract. A promise to maintain a service without consideration is just not enforcable.
Why were they going to charge me $300 for something that's essentially garbage?
Because it's worth $300 to them if you *don't* send it back. Ten dollars of packing material and a prepaid label (which they probably don't have to pay for if you don't return it) is a small investment if one out of 10 dosn't bother to return it.
The GPL does not require that code be given back to the origional developers. It requires that it be given to the people to whom you distribute the software.
Basically, they've forked the projects. Big deal.
Get over it. It's time to move on.
Suppose I, as the sole author of a piece of software, distribute it under the GPL. This does mean that anyone who licenses it under the terms of the GPL, must also make any derivative works available under the GPL.
Sorry. Reread the GPL. Everyone has the right to make derivative works of GPLed software. You only have to release source if you distribute the derivative works and then only to the people you distribute it to.
I can make a derivative work out of your software, sell a single copy for <quote voice=Dr.Evil>One Million Dollars.<\quote> and I only have to release the source to my one licensee. I don't have to give it to you.
I'm sure Linux will talk just fine to Linux, but other platforms might not be tuned the same. (2.4 kernels were having trouble because of this recently. Linux implemented some feature that lots of routers didn't, and performance was hosed somtimes.)
You don't seem to understand ECN. ECN is now (as of June 12) an internet standard. It will improve the performance of the Internet by allowing ECN-aware stacks to note congestion and respond appropriately instead of waiting for packets to fail to be acked and backing off one the transmission speeds. (Ever got a 'stalled' message loading a/. page? ECN is supposed to help avoid that.)
Buggy routers responded incorrectly to ECN packets by terminating the connection. It appears as if the other computer isn't even on the net. Cisco has released bug fixes to correct this bug. They have not been applied by all of the admins.
Yes, Linux 2.4 shipped with ECN enabled. The distribution packagers generally (all?) included a command in the start-up scripts to disable the feature.
Because TCP/IP is a standard, there should not be performance differences between stacks whereas a stack performs better speaking to another stack of the same design. TCP/IP should be completely interoperable.
A few weeks ago, HUD added some new houses to its listing of mortgage foreclosures that would be coming available. An error had them list my address as available for sale at about 1/2 the market price for this area. I had tons of people coming up to the house wanting to see inside and looking around the outside of the house. Many of them didn't believe me when I said that they had the wrong address.
The Internet is a good way of getting information out to a lot of people, but the accuracy of that information is often wanting.
Some people will only take one or two programming courses in their college careers. These people need a course which teaching them what programming is about. Java has some very nice features which can give people an introduction to programming.
CS majors will take other programming classes. C and C++ are appropriate for more advanced work. Introductory students shouldn't need to know about pointers in order to write programs. There is plently of opportunity to learn about the internals of computers in more advanced CS classes for those with the inclination.
Many of the points raised in the other posts just don't matter in an introductory class: inefficient, know more about the hardware, used more often. Jave lets people write basic programs that tell people how to make a computer (in fact many different kinds of computer) do something -- anything -- in a language that has some real world applications and is not just a theoretical exercise. That's all that counts. And Java fits that bill.
Designed at Transmeta for the embedded market, it lets you design a cramfs image intended to be installed in a flash device. Flashing the device might be the toughest part of the project.
Re:How do they Use a propietary File System...
on
TiVo Upgrade Isn't
·
· Score: 2
It's a module. Linus has specifically allowed the distribution and use of closed source, binary kernel modules.
don't you have to sign a contract to make it legally binding?
No. That's a basic principle of contract law. As long as the four elements of a contract exist, (a meeting of the minds or an agreement, consideration, mutual performance and an offer an acceptance) there is a contract. An example would be if your neighbor says that he would pay you $1,000 if you mowed his lawn and you got out your lawn mower and cut his grass, there would be a legally enforcable contract even though you signed no paper. There was an agreement (as to the work and the consideration), consideration ($1,000), mutual performance (each side has a responsibility to fufill -- you cut, him pay $1,000) and offer and acceptance (your behavior in performing the requested work is evidence of acceptance).
The copyright in the cache data, if any, is restricted to the selection and arrangment of the data. The facts themselves can not be copyrighted.
Feist says that an alphabetical listing of phone numbers carries no copyright protection. The implication is that an alphabetical arrangement is not sufficient original expression to gain copyright protection and a listing of all phone numbers (excluding those who ask to be unlisted) carries no copyright for selection. By analogy, I suspect that a chronological arrangement or any other type of arrangement sugegsted by the facts themselves would not qualify for copyright protection.
I routinely leave it completely off. There are a few sites, such as my banking site, which use JS and the pages will not work without them. For those opages, if I decide they are worthwhile enough, I turn JS on and then disable it again later. My enjoyment of the web has only increased.
And considering that the US Government can not under law copyright anything, anything they do really is PD. But that dosn't mean that if the US GOvernment contributes to a GPL project that the entire work becomes PD. Only the government contribution.
What if the government-funded TCP/IP development had been released under a license which prevented its use in any product which wasn't released as GPL'd code?
Reverse engineering for interoperability is still very legal.
But you've also managed to confuse the issue by applying a software license (the GPL) to a technology (which might be patented rather than licensed under copyright laws). So, yes, a reference implementation might be licensed under the GPL, but that dosn't stop anyone from developing a compatable implementation from scratch.
I've been using it for years. The internal pockets hold my PDA, cellphone, leatherman, checkbook, bible and prayer book. The train schedules go in the outside pocket so I can reach them quickly while walking towards the commuter train station and I even carry a mini-notebook and newspaper or book to read on the train.
It's not as stuffy or heavy as a hard sided briefcase and the sholder strap makes it easy to carry.
If they haven't distributed the software, they are under no object to release the code. Since this is an internal R&D effort and has not been distributed, you don't get to see the code.
NASA seems so intent on debunking the face (which is already thoroughly debunked in my mind) that they've given us a weird camera angle here. To compare it to the 1976 photo, it's like looking down the "forehead" toward the chin. The areas that showed up in 1976 as an eye and a mouth are still visible on the right side of the photo. The shot seems to be designed to pick up the very unfacelike other side of the mesa which was in shadow in the '76 shot.
The Difference Between a Contract and a License
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 2
A contract has to have several elements in order to be a contract. These are (a) a 'meeting of the minds' or an agreement, (b) consideration (c) offer and acceptance and (d) mutuality of obligations.
From the FindLaw Legal Dictionary Contract: an agreement between two or more parties that creates in each party a duty to do or not do something and a right to performance of the other's duty or a remedy for the breach of the other's duty.
License: a grant by the holder of a copyright or patent to another of any of the rights embodied in the copyright or patent short of an assignment of all rights.
A license is different from a contract. It is a grant of rights which dosn't need to be made for consideration. Implicit in a license is that the rights granted are rights reserved to to grantor.
The GPL is a license and not a contract. There is no consideration, the rights granted are gratis even though they come with limitations.
Sure, a 'method of operation' may be a trade secret, but then you have to take measures to ensure it remains secret. Once the secret is out, trade secret protection often ends.
MS realized that they had a losing case against Slashdot and they've done nothing about it since then.
The header files describing the libraries had to be used to produce the application linked (dynamically) to it and so their application forms a derivative work.
This is certainly the point of view in the GPL community, but it if far from clear whether the courts will endorse this view. Header files describe an API. An API is arguably a 'method of operation' in the context of copyright law and 'methods of operation' are not protected by copyright.
Unfortunately this case, if it ever gets heard, will go up against one of the areas that the GPL is weakest -- dynamic linking.
The question of what constitutes a "derivative work" in the case of software has not ben litigated to my knowledge. The GPL gets its strength from copyright law. Copyright law reserves several rights to the copyright holder among these are the creation of "derivative works".
But Copyright law does not cover anything which is a "method of operation". It could be argued that an API exposed by a DLL or other dynamically linked object is a method of operation and not protected by copyright. Thus merely using a library routine might not be viewed as creating a derivative work.
If this were not the case, we would be in a worse situation. Then MS, for example, could claim that any piece of software using services provided by a MS DLL is a derivative work. Similarly for any platform where routines are exposed through an API and where there isn't license text specifically allowing the use.
The questions are evidence that the judges are taking the First Amendment challenge very seriously. It's even possible that they will schedule additional oral arguments after these longer briefs are due. I reproduce the questions and my answers.
1. Are the anti-trafficking provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act content-neutral? See 111 F. Supp. 2d 294, 328-29 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
No. It bans speech specifically because of its content.
2. Does DeCSS have both speech and non-speech elements?
I suppose it does.
3. Does the dissemination of DeCSS have both speech and non-speech elements?
Probably not.
4. Does the use of DeCSS to decrypt an encrypted DVD have both speech and non-speech elements?
Using DeCSS in order to exercise one's Fair Use rights is a speech-like element. Fair Use exists as a judicial compromise between copyright and the First Amendment.
5. Does the existence of non-speech elements, along with speech elements, in an activity sought to be regulated alone justify intermediate level scrutiny?
No.
6. If DeCSS or its dissemination or its use to decrypt has both speech and non-speech elements and is not subject to intermediate level scrutiny simply because of the non-speech elements, is intermediate level scrutiny appropriate because of the close causal link between dissemination of DeCSS and its improper use? See 111 F. Supp. 2d at 331-32.
No. The presence of significant non-infringing uses trumps the possibility of improper use as per the Betamax decision.
7. If the District Court is correct that the dissemination of DeCSS "carries very substantial risk of imminent harm," 111 F. Supp. 2d at 332, does that risk alone justify the injunction? In other words, does that risk satisfy the requirements for regulating speech under Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), thereby rendering unnecessary an inquiry as to whether non-speech elements of DeCSS or its dissemination or its use (if such exists) may be regulated under United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)?
?
8. Are the three criteria identified at 111 F. Supp. 2d 333 the correct criteria for determining the validity, under intermediate level scrutiny, of the use of DeCSS that has been enjoined?
We've gone way past my limited legal knowledge by this point. I'll have to leave the remainder to other legal scholars.
9. If not, what modification or supplementation would be required to conform to First Amendment requirements?
10. Are the three criteria identified at 111 F. Supp. 2d 341 and the "clear and convincing evidence" standard the correct criteria and the correct standard of proof for testing the validity of the injunction's prohibition of posting on the defendant's website and of linking?
11. If not, what modification or supplementation would be required to conform to First Amendment requirements?
Slashdot Mirror
You could then have a policy on your MTA of:
1) if sender is an authenticated user of this MTA, accept mail
2) if sending MTA is the MX for the FROM address, and if the sending MTA has a key in the domain, accept.
3) If the sending MTA is the MX, but has no key, accept but tag as possible spam.
4) If the sending MTA isn't the MX, reject with a redirect to a webmail bypass URL.
OK, pick it apart guys. Maybe we all can hash together an RFC?
How stupid. I recieve mail @myisp.com and that's my From: address but I send mail using IP services provided by a number of ISPs depending on where I am when I'm sending. When I'm attached to airbridge.net, I use their SMTP servers. When I'm attached to oponline.com, I use their SMTP servers. I *don't* use myisp.com's servers (unless I've telnnetted into my shell account) becuase I'm not using their IP servces. My mail is legit, but my From: address does not match the SMTP server I'm using.
If the canadian program said "Free internet for life", then they are obligated to fufill that contract for as long as both parties to that contract exist.
"Free Internet for Life" does not a contract make. A contract requires consideration in order to be a contract. A promise to maintain a service without consideration is just not enforcable.
Why were they going to charge me $300 for something that's essentially garbage?
Because it's worth $300 to them if you *don't* send it back. Ten dollars of packing material and a prepaid label (which they probably don't have to pay for if you don't return it) is a small investment if one out of 10 dosn't bother to return it.
Read the friggin' license, folks.
The GPL does not require that code be given back to the origional developers. It requires that it be given to the people to whom you distribute the software.
Basically, they've forked the projects. Big deal.
Get over it. It's time to move on.
Sorry. Reread the GPL. Everyone has the right to make derivative works of GPLed software. You only have to release source if you distribute the derivative works and then only to the people you distribute it to.
I can make a derivative work out of your software, sell a single copy for <quote voice=Dr.Evil>One Million Dollars.<\quote> and I only have to release the source to my one licensee. I don't have to give it to you.
I'm sure Linux will talk just fine to Linux, but other platforms might not be tuned the same. (2.4 kernels were having trouble because of this recently. Linux implemented some feature that lots of routers didn't, and performance was hosed somtimes.)
/. page? ECN is supposed to help avoid that.)
You don't seem to understand ECN. ECN is now (as of June 12) an internet standard. It will improve the performance of the Internet by allowing ECN-aware stacks to note congestion and respond appropriately instead of waiting for packets to fail to be acked and backing off one the transmission speeds. (Ever got a 'stalled' message loading a
Buggy routers responded incorrectly to ECN packets by terminating the connection. It appears as if the other computer isn't even on the net. Cisco has released bug fixes to correct this bug. They have not been applied by all of the admins.
Yes, Linux 2.4 shipped with ECN enabled. The distribution packagers generally (all?) included a command in the start-up scripts to disable the feature.
Because TCP/IP is a standard, there should not be performance differences between stacks whereas a stack performs better speaking to another stack of the same design. TCP/IP should be completely interoperable.
"It must be true, I read it on the Internet!"
A few weeks ago, HUD added some new houses to its listing of mortgage foreclosures that would be coming available. An error had them list my address as available for sale at about 1/2 the market price for this area. I had tons of people coming up to the house wanting to see inside and looking around the outside of the house. Many of them didn't believe me when I said that they had the wrong address.
The Internet is a good way of getting information out to a lot of people, but the accuracy of that information is often wanting.
Some people will only take one or two programming courses in their college careers. These people need a course which teaching them what programming is about. Java has some very nice features which can give people an introduction to programming.
CS majors will take other programming classes. C and C++ are appropriate for more advanced work. Introductory students shouldn't need to know about pointers in order to write programs. There is plently of opportunity to learn about the internals of computers in more advanced CS classes for those with the inclination.
Many of the points raised in the other posts just don't matter in an introductory class: inefficient, know more about the hardware, used more often. Jave lets people write basic programs that tell people how to make a computer (in fact many different kinds of computer) do something -- anything -- in a language that has some real world applications and is not just a theoretical exercise. That's all that counts. And Java fits that bill.
Designed at Transmeta for the embedded market, it lets you design a cramfs image intended to be installed in a flash device. Flashing the device might be the toughest part of the project.
It's a module. Linus has specifically allowed the distribution and use of closed source, binary kernel modules.
don't you have to sign a contract to make it legally binding?
No. That's a basic principle of contract law. As long as the four elements of a contract exist, (a meeting of the minds or an agreement, consideration, mutual performance and an offer an acceptance) there is a contract. An example would be if your neighbor says that he would pay you $1,000 if you mowed his lawn and you got out your lawn mower and cut his grass, there would be a legally enforcable contract even though you signed no paper. There was an agreement (as to the work and the consideration), consideration ($1,000), mutual performance (each side has a responsibility to fufill -- you cut, him pay $1,000) and offer and acceptance (your behavior in performing the requested work is evidence of acceptance).
The copyright in the cache data, if any, is restricted to the selection and arrangment of the data. The facts themselves can not be copyrighted.
Feist says that an alphabetical listing of phone numbers carries no copyright protection. The implication is that an alphabetical arrangement is not sufficient original expression to gain copyright protection and a listing of all phone numbers (excluding those who ask to be unlisted) carries no copyright for selection. By analogy, I suspect that a chronological arrangement or any other type of arrangement sugegsted by the facts themselves would not qualify for copyright protection.
I routinely leave it completely off. There are a few sites, such as my banking site, which use JS and the pages will not work without them. For those opages, if I decide they are worthwhile enough, I turn JS on and then disable it again later. My enjoyment of the web has only increased.
And considering that the US Government can not under law copyright anything, anything they do really is PD. But that dosn't mean that if the US GOvernment contributes to a GPL project that the entire work becomes PD. Only the government contribution.
What if the government-funded TCP/IP development had been released under a license which prevented its use in any product which wasn't released as GPL'd code?
Reverse engineering for interoperability is still very legal.
But you've also managed to confuse the issue by applying a software license (the GPL) to a technology (which might be patented rather than licensed under copyright laws). So, yes, a reference implementation might be licensed under the GPL, but that dosn't stop anyone from developing a compatable implementation from scratch.
I've been using it for years. The internal pockets hold my PDA, cellphone, leatherman, checkbook, bible and prayer book. The train schedules go in the outside pocket so I can reach them quickly while walking towards the commuter train station and I even carry a mini-notebook and newspaper or book to read on the train.
It's not as stuffy or heavy as a hard sided briefcase and the sholder strap makes it easy to carry.
...is like doing your own brain surgery.
The money you invest in a lawyer will pay for itself many times over if you actually have to defend that NDA in court.
If they haven't distributed the software, they are under no object to release the code. Since this is an internal R&D effort and has not been distributed, you don't get to see the code.
NASA seems so intent on debunking the face (which is already thoroughly debunked in my mind) that they've given us a weird camera angle here. To compare it to the 1976 photo, it's like looking down the "forehead" toward the chin. The areas that showed up in 1976 as an eye and a mouth are still visible on the right side of the photo. The shot seems to be designed to pick up the very unfacelike other side of the mesa which was in shadow in the '76 shot.
A contract has to have several elements in order to be a contract. These are (a) a 'meeting of the minds' or an agreement, (b) consideration (c) offer and acceptance and (d) mutuality of obligations.
From the FindLaw Legal Dictionary
Contract: an agreement between two or more parties that creates in each party a duty to do or not do something and a right to performance of the other's duty or a remedy for the breach of the other's duty.
License: a grant by the holder of a copyright or patent to another of any of the rights embodied in the copyright or patent short of an assignment of all rights.
A license is different from a contract. It is a grant of rights which dosn't need to be made for consideration. Implicit in a license is that the rights granted are rights reserved to to grantor.
The GPL is a license and not a contract. There is no consideration, the rights granted are gratis even though they come with limitations.
Sure, a 'method of operation' may be a trade secret, but then you have to take measures to ensure it remains secret. Once the secret is out, trade secret protection often ends.
MS realized that they had a losing case against Slashdot and they've done nothing about it since then.
The header files describing the libraries had to be used to produce the application linked (dynamically) to it and so their application forms a derivative work.
This is certainly the point of view in the GPL community, but it if far from clear whether the courts will endorse this view. Header files describe an API. An API is arguably a 'method of operation' in the context of copyright law and 'methods of operation' are not protected by copyright.
Unfortunately this case, if it ever gets heard, will go up against one of the areas that the GPL is weakest -- dynamic linking.
The question of what constitutes a "derivative work" in the case of software has not ben litigated to my knowledge. The GPL gets its strength from copyright law. Copyright law reserves several rights to the copyright holder among these are the creation of "derivative works".
But Copyright law does not cover anything which is a "method of operation". It could be argued that an API exposed by a DLL or other dynamically linked object is a method of operation and not protected by copyright. Thus merely using a library routine might not be viewed as creating a derivative work.
If this were not the case, we would be in a worse situation. Then MS, for example, could claim that any piece of software using services provided by a MS DLL is a derivative work. Similarly for any platform where routines are exposed through an API and where there isn't license text specifically allowing the use.
Thank you, Mr. Troll. But in this case, you're way too late. Try a story nearer the top of the front page.
The questions are evidence that the judges are taking the First Amendment challenge very seriously. It's even possible that they will schedule additional oral arguments after these longer briefs are due. I reproduce the questions and my answers.
1. Are the anti-trafficking provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act content-neutral? See 111 F. Supp. 2d 294, 328-29 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
No. It bans speech specifically because of its content.
2. Does DeCSS have both speech and non-speech elements?
I suppose it does.
3. Does the dissemination of DeCSS have both speech and non-speech elements?
Probably not.
4. Does the use of DeCSS to decrypt an encrypted DVD have both speech and non-speech elements?
Using DeCSS in order to exercise one's Fair Use rights is a speech-like element. Fair Use exists as a judicial compromise between copyright and the First Amendment.
5. Does the existence of non-speech elements, along with speech elements, in an activity sought to be regulated alone justify intermediate level scrutiny?
No.
6. If DeCSS or its dissemination or its use to decrypt has both speech and non-speech elements and is not subject to intermediate level scrutiny simply because of the non-speech elements, is intermediate level scrutiny appropriate because of the close causal link between dissemination of DeCSS and its improper use? See 111 F. Supp. 2d at 331-32.
No. The presence of significant non-infringing uses trumps the possibility of improper use as per the Betamax decision.
7. If the District Court is correct that the dissemination of DeCSS "carries very substantial risk of imminent harm," 111 F. Supp. 2d at 332, does that risk alone justify the injunction? In other words, does that risk satisfy the requirements for regulating speech under Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), thereby rendering unnecessary an inquiry as to whether non-speech elements of DeCSS or its dissemination or its use (if such exists) may be regulated under United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)?
?
8. Are the three criteria identified at 111 F. Supp. 2d 333 the correct criteria for determining the validity, under intermediate level scrutiny, of the use of DeCSS that has been enjoined?
We've gone way past my limited legal knowledge by this point. I'll have to leave the remainder to other legal scholars.
9. If not, what modification or supplementation would be required to conform to First Amendment requirements?
10. Are the three criteria identified at 111 F. Supp. 2d 341 and the "clear and convincing evidence" standard the correct criteria and the correct standard of proof for testing the validity of the injunction's prohibition of posting on the defendant's website and of linking?
11. If not, what modification or supplementation would be required to conform to First Amendment requirements?