>> do *SO* NOT agree. A virus is a challenge to the system. It tests the system. If there were no virusses written, security would simply NOT exist.
The values expressed by this post are so backward I don't know where to begin.
Virus writers waste resources that could be put to other uses.
Virus writers cause business interruptions.
Virus writers contribute to the flood of spam.
These are real, large costs. And they aren't even countered by "increased security". There's no such thing as absolute security. There's only "enough security". Virus raise the bar for everyone and all they are doing is fighting the viruses. It dosn't serve to block other security problems -- like confidential information beiung passed in plaintext.
Reexamine the costs and benefits of virus writers. This kid brought real costs onto other people. That it was relatively easy to do dosen't exculpate him.
Your data is not in your sim. Your data (your email, address book, web bookmarks) is on Danger's servers and, while you can easily move it from one Hiptop to another, YOU CAN'T GET IT OUT OF THE SIDEKICK.
Now I have a RSI on my right thump from pressing that stupid wheel and I want to move all my saved email to a laptop AND I CAN"T DO IT.
DOn't tell me that *foreign brokers* are evading SEC rules *which don't apply to them* by *trading in their own countries*! What fiends!
Now, if we can only link them to terrorists, we can torture them.
Who Needs History With a Good Conspiracy Theory?
on
Is Caps Lock Dead?
·
· Score: 1
The true history is that IBM changed the "standard" keyboard to the 101 key design with the introduction of the IBM AT in '84 or thereabouts. The "inverted T" with the pad of motion keys above it was added. Prior to that, the number pad doubled as the motion keys.
The reason for this was to standardize keyboards across IBM on the Selectric design. The Selectric, a typewriter, had no control key and it had a large caps lock key right where you find it today. 3270 mainframe terminals and 5280 ACSII terminals all begain to use this keyboard design at around this time.
When Compaq and the other cloners introduced their models, they slavishly copied IBM's design. No Jobs/Gates conspiracy. Windows was still vaporware in 1984.
Someone told Brown that he would find lots of copied code. This is a very Darl-like kind of lie. Brown believed him and wrote his paper probably having the code comparison done was an afterthought. Here is a "researcher" who is used to having people give him the results he paid for.
Plus, I think that once MS was exposed as a funder of AdTI, they probably cut Brown off dry. I don't think they like their sock puppets exposed like that.
Invoking Toutatis during battle was supposed to bring about certain victory for the pre-Christian French warriors.
Surely you mean the pre-Christian Celts. The Gauls were a celtic tribe who were later kicked out of present day France by the Franks and pushed to the margins of Europe: Ireland, pre-Saxon Britain, Brittany and Gallicia in Spain.
Linus is very probably correct that some drivers are so intimately tailored to the kernel that they are legallyt derivative works of the kernel. The Nvidia drive is *clearly* not one such driver as the binary part is the same binary blob as the Windows driver uses. The glue layer which merges the blob to the kernel *is* licensed under the GPL.
The eventual result -- use this interface and you're OK but use that function and you're not -- grossly misstates that which makes a module a derivative work.
Not so different. Copyright law (in the US) disclaims any protection for "methods of operation". Trademark Law dosn't. The case should be even easier to make in a COpyright context than in a Trademark context.
The point is that by making it a requirement to access certain functionality, they have ruined it's use as a license marker. You certainly don't get standing to sue a module distributor based on your claim that it should be covered under the GPL.
As has been pointed out above, non-GPL modeules have a reduced number of kernel functions they can use.
Certain interfaces which have been marked GPL-only are not available to modules which do not have a GPL Module License string. The GPL string is absolutely necessary if you wish to use certain functions. The kernel developers argue that anything which uses those interfaces is a derived work of the kernel and most be GPLed. But it's certainly not clear to me that that is the correct legal reasoning.
In a similar case, the maker of a game console had copyprotection code which had to be invoked before a game played. Someone who wrote a game, but didn't want to pay licensing fees, invoked the same code becuase it was the only way to get their game to run. They were sued under the Lanham Act. The plaintiffs claimed that their display of their trademark could make someone think that the console manufacturer was the source of the game causing consumer confusion.
The court rightly ruled that the console designer caused the code to display the trademark and that they were responsible for any confusion that resulted.
Putting MODULE_LICENSE("GPL\0... in their code could be viewed by the courts as using a method of operation to accomplish a module load. It is very unlikely that they would view it as a grant of a GP License to someone who received the code.
It's actual motorized scooters with small, 2-stroke engines. On my walk from the train stration to the building, I pass three storefronts selling these things for around $100-300. If you look around you'll see
The Segway is just getting caught in the crossfire and there probably some people who want to ban them as well, but the real problem is these scooters.
You *can* sue a government to enforce rights granted to you by statute. If an official is responsible for implementing a statute and their policies do not properly implement the intent of a statute, you certainly always have standing to sue to enforce performance or to challange an adverse ruling. But only if you follow all administrative review and appeal procedures before filing your suit.
But that does not extend to having standing to sue the USPTO under some kind of tort theory.
How does someone diagnose "severe brain damage" in bass? Do they flop in a flamenco rhythm when pulled out of water? Do they play hooky from the rest of the school?
Nah. REXX was great back when I was using CMS on a 3270 terminal connected to a System 360 at least 5 years before the appearance of OS/2. It was my first scripting language and very few since have held a candle to it.
Unfortunately, I've forggen practically everything I ever learned about it.
Every large company has an asset management department. Their job is to make sure that stuff like this dosn't fall under the cracks. There isn't one single person who is charged with making sure that the domain name is renewed, there is a friggin department charged with making sure that company assets are appropriately inventoried and maintained. Any large company should list their asset management group or their purchasing department as the billing contacts for domain names.
exist to illustrate similarrities and differences. It is less useful to argue whether this definition of a planet or that definition of a planet should rule but rather we should be discussing what is a useful classification system.
Pluto has more in common with a whole class of objects which spend most of their time out past the orbit of Neptune. Sedna is another such large object but there are hundreds more identified.
That Neptune and Pluto's orbits cross is, I think, a major blot on our current classification.
I can not concede that SCO has a case aginst IBM. Not for a moment.
You are falling into an intellectual trap by using the term "Intellectual Property". You are failing to think clearly.
There are four kinds of "Intellectual Property": Patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret. Each kind has its particular rules.
SCO has no patents pertinant to this case. Novell didn't transfer any patents to them.
SCO has no trade secrets. They've dropped the trade secret components.
SCO has no trademarks. Unix and Unixware are trademarks of the Open Group. SCO hasn't made trademark claims.
SCO's only remaining copyright claim against IBM is contributing to distribute AIX after SCO "terminated" their irrevocable linense. Even though SCO can't terminate IBM's license and even though Novell who, acting within their rights in the asset transfer, told SCO to waive any purported violations.
SCO has got nothing left. Their contract claims are not IP claims. Their "derivative works must be kept secret" contract claim will fail. The technologies they are claiming violate their "IP" do not meet Copyright Law's definition of derivative works. AT&T publically said that code licensees add to Unix belongs to them and that estopps SCO from claiming otherwise today. SCO has no rights to the JFS, NUMA and SMP technologies IBM donated to Linux. None.
SCO literally has no case. Every legal theory they've put forth is fundamentally flawed.
Their other suits seems just as flawed, but they haven't yet been analysed in detail as the IBM and Novell cases have. Autozone seems to be a straightforward copyright case except that SCO admitted that there was no SysV code in Linux before Judge Wells. Oops! No more case there.
They are also attempting to assert patent-like use rights on copyright whioch does not reserve "use" to the rightsholder as an exclusive right. Oops! No more case.
Daimler-Chrysler seems to be a complaint that DC hasn't responded to their Unix letter. Gee. I'd hate to be a former SCO customer. Apparently you can never get out of their stupid annual reporting requirement.
Read up on Maintenance and Champerty. These are legal torts involving funding lawsuits, especially frivilous lawsuits.
I don't happen to believe that the email is genuine, emails are too easy to forge, but no one should be so sanguine about this being in any way appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
>> do *SO* NOT agree. A virus is a challenge to the system. It tests the system. If there were no virusses written, security would simply NOT exist.
The values expressed by this post are so backward I don't know where to begin.
Virus writers waste resources that could be put to other uses.
Virus writers cause business interruptions.
Virus writers contribute to the flood of spam.
These are real, large costs. And they aren't even countered by "increased security". There's no such thing as absolute security. There's only "enough security". Virus raise the bar for everyone and all they are doing is fighting the viruses. It dosn't serve to block other security problems -- like confidential information beiung passed in plaintext.
Reexamine the costs and benefits of virus writers. This kid brought real costs onto other people. That it was relatively easy to do dosen't exculpate him.
Your data is not in your sim. Your data (your email, address book, web bookmarks) is on Danger's servers and, while you can easily move it from one Hiptop to another, YOU CAN'T GET IT OUT OF THE SIDEKICK.
Now I have a RSI on my right thump from pressing that stupid wheel and I want to move all my saved email to a laptop AND I CAN"T DO IT.
DOn't tell me that *foreign brokers* are evading SEC rules *which don't apply to them* by *trading in their own countries*! What fiends!
Now, if we can only link them to terrorists, we can torture them.
The true history is that IBM changed the "standard" keyboard to the 101 key design with the introduction of the IBM AT in '84 or thereabouts. The "inverted T" with the pad of motion keys above it was added. Prior to that, the number pad doubled as the motion keys.
The reason for this was to standardize keyboards across IBM on the Selectric design. The Selectric, a typewriter, had no control key and it had a large caps lock key right where you find it today. 3270 mainframe terminals and 5280 ACSII terminals all begain to use this keyboard design at around this time.
When Compaq and the other cloners introduced their models, they slavishly copied IBM's design. No Jobs/Gates conspiracy. Windows was still vaporware in 1984.
Someone told Brown that he would find lots of copied code. This is a very Darl-like kind of lie. Brown believed him and wrote his paper probably having the code comparison done was an afterthought. Here is a "researcher" who is used to having people give him the results he paid for.
Plus, I think that once MS was exposed as a funder of AdTI, they probably cut Brown off dry. I don't think they like their sock puppets exposed like that.
My money is on SCO as the funder.
...can I use it to club my grandfather to death before he fathers my father?
Now my head hurts.
...that *way* too much thought went into the Metric system.
Invoking Toutatis during battle was supposed to bring about certain victory for the pre-Christian French warriors.
Surely you mean the pre-Christian Celts. The Gauls were a celtic tribe who were later kicked out of present day France by the Franks and pushed to the margins of Europe: Ireland, pre-Saxon Britain, Brittany and Gallicia in Spain.
Linus is very probably correct that some drivers are so intimately tailored to the kernel that they are legallyt derivative works of the kernel. The Nvidia drive is *clearly* not one such driver as the binary part is the same binary blob as the Windows driver uses. The glue layer which merges the blob to the kernel *is* licensed under the GPL.
The eventual result -- use this interface and you're OK but use that function and you're not -- grossly misstates that which makes a module a derivative work.
RMI mechanisms are a "method of operation" and as such are not copyrightable. Thus the DMCA is not an issue.
Not so different. Copyright law (in the US) disclaims any protection for "methods of operation". Trademark Law dosn't. The case should be even easier to make in a COpyright context than in a Trademark context.
The point is that by making it a requirement to access certain functionality, they have ruined it's use as a license marker. You certainly don't get standing to sue a module distributor based on your claim that it should be covered under the GPL.
As has been pointed out above, non-GPL modeules have a reduced number of kernel functions they can use.
Certain interfaces which have been marked GPL-only are not available to modules which do not have a GPL Module License string. The GPL string is absolutely necessary if you wish to use certain functions. The kernel developers argue that anything which uses those interfaces is a derived work of the kernel and most be GPLed. But it's certainly not clear to me that that is the correct legal reasoning.
The main purposes of the Module string are twofold:
- to "taint" the kernel so that anyone posting an oops to the lkml will get ignored.
- to deny certain interfaces marked as GPL-only to the module.
In a similar case, the maker of a game console had copyprotection code which had to be invoked before a game played. Someone who wrote a game, but didn't want to pay licensing fees, invoked the same code becuase it was the only way to get their game to run. They were sued under the Lanham Act. The plaintiffs claimed that their display of their trademark could make someone think that the console manufacturer was the source of the game causing consumer confusion.
The court rightly ruled that the console designer caused the code to display the trademark and that they were responsible for any confusion that resulted.
Putting MODULE_LICENSE("GPL\0... in their code could be viewed by the courts as using a method of operation to accomplish a module load. It is very unlikely that they would view it as a grant of a GP License to someone who received the code.
It's an excellent example of people letting ideology get in the way of decent hardware support.
Binary firmware updates are not the biggest problem that we have facing Free Software. In fact, blobware allows manufacturers to support Linux easily.
It's actual motorized scooters with small, 2-stroke engines. On my walk from the train stration to the building, I pass three storefronts selling these things for around $100-300. If you look around you'll see
The Segway is just getting caught in the crossfire and there probably some people who want to ban them as well, but the real problem is these scooters.
These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by filing groundless lawsuits.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
You *can* sue a government to enforce rights granted to you by statute. If an official is responsible for implementing a statute and their policies do not properly implement the intent of a statute, you certainly always have standing to sue to enforce performance or to challange an adverse ruling. But only if you follow all administrative review and appeal procedures before filing your suit.
But that does not extend to having standing to sue the USPTO under some kind of tort theory.
How does someone diagnose "severe brain damage" in bass? Do they flop in a flamenco rhythm when pulled out of water? Do they play hooky from the rest of the school?
Nah. REXX was great back when I was using CMS on a 3270 terminal connected to a System 360 at least 5 years before the appearance of OS/2. It was my first scripting language and very few since have held a candle to it.
Unfortunately, I've forggen practically everything I ever learned about it.
Every large company has an asset management department. Their job is to make sure that stuff like this dosn't fall under the cracks. There isn't one single person who is charged with making sure that the domain name is renewed, there is a friggin department charged with making sure that company assets are appropriately inventoried and maintained. Any large company should list their asset management group or their purchasing department as the billing contacts for domain names.
exist to illustrate similarrities and differences. It is less useful to argue whether this definition of a planet or that definition of a planet should rule but rather we should be discussing what is a useful classification system.
Pluto has more in common with a whole class of objects which spend most of their time out past the orbit of Neptune. Sedna is another such large object but there are hundreds more identified.
That Neptune and Pluto's orbits cross is, I think, a major blot on our current classification.
Remove sooper sekret SCO IP?
I can not concede that SCO has a case aginst IBM. Not for a moment.
You are falling into an intellectual trap by using the term "Intellectual Property". You are failing to think clearly.
There are four kinds of "Intellectual Property": Patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret. Each kind has its particular rules.
SCO has no patents pertinant to this case. Novell didn't transfer any patents to them.
SCO has no trade secrets. They've dropped the trade secret components.
SCO has no trademarks. Unix and Unixware are trademarks of the Open Group. SCO hasn't made trademark claims.
SCO's only remaining copyright claim against IBM is contributing to distribute AIX after SCO "terminated" their irrevocable linense. Even though SCO can't terminate IBM's license and even though Novell who, acting within their rights in the asset transfer, told SCO to waive any purported violations.
SCO has got nothing left. Their contract claims are not IP claims. Their "derivative works must be kept secret" contract claim will fail. The technologies they are claiming violate their "IP" do not meet Copyright Law's definition of derivative works. AT&T publically said that code licensees add to Unix belongs to them and that estopps SCO from claiming otherwise today. SCO has no rights to the JFS, NUMA and SMP technologies IBM donated to Linux. None.
SCO literally has no case. Every legal theory they've put forth is fundamentally flawed.
Their other suits seems just as flawed, but they haven't yet been analysed in detail as the IBM and Novell cases have. Autozone seems to be a straightforward copyright case except that SCO admitted that there was no SysV code in Linux before Judge Wells. Oops! No more case there.
They are also attempting to assert patent-like use rights on copyright whioch does not reserve "use" to the rightsholder as an exclusive right. Oops! No more case.
Daimler-Chrysler seems to be a complaint that DC hasn't responded to their Unix letter. Gee. I'd hate to be a former SCO customer. Apparently you can never get out of their stupid annual reporting requirement.
Read up on Maintenance and Champerty. These are legal torts involving funding lawsuits, especially frivilous lawsuits.
I don't happen to believe that the email is genuine, emails are too easy to forge, but no one should be so sanguine about this being in any way appropriate.