Right and then you would not be able to write OSS to use on that PDA and take advantage of the card. This isn't about getting the specs for the card this is about being able to legally write drivers and software that use the card.
The correct anlogy would be a microwave that would only work with food from certain vendors and I not, for example, with my own pouches
Of course the one feature that SD is lacking is the ability to develop OSS for it. To me this is a deal breaker. Although I'm really curious in what applicaitons size is so important that you are willing to make the tradeoff in freedom for it.
Here on planet Earth bittorrent makes up almost half of thr traffic on the internet and isos of OSS software doesn't even come close to accounting for that.
No they don't have to shut it down but there is no way to prevent you from being able to communicate with as many people as you want. As the whole p2p thing proves.
There are *always* ways to get out. You just have to think outside the box. Now granted I don't even recall what the box looks like but there are always ways to be heard. The whole system is just too well built they can *not* shut it down.
I don't and I do install binaries. The point is that with OSS if I suspect that there is a problem or if I just want to know I have the *option* of finding out by auditing or having the code audited.
For example I run OpenBSD on a lot of my boxes and am moving more and more of my cloud facing boxes over to it every day. Granted I don't read every line of code but I know the reps of the people who have and I have the choice to do so.
Now tell me how to get that same sense of well being out of *any* closed source OS/application.
Mostly they are with Oracle because the other product has a huge image database and I guess the licenses work out. The only reason I would like to see the switch is because I would love to work for a place that does everything on a OSS infrastructre.
WTF does revenue have to do with choosing a database?
No. Because they bought it from the guy who wrote it. He *owns* it and then licenses it to you. Since he *owns* it there is no license for him. Becuase he *owns* it and did not license it from himself. The General Public *License* clearly only applies to code that you license from someone else and not code that you *own*.
Now he can't take away your license but he can do whatever he wants with code that he *owns*. As others have pointed out there might be problems with code that other people have put into the project but one has to assume that as the *owner* he has sorted those.
Right. So they put in the 2nd amendment so that future generations would have a easier time to do what they did.
What makes you think that they expected the gov't they were founding to last forever or that made them think that future revolutions would not be needed?
Everything I've read indicated that they felt that revolutions would be needed and were good things.
I've had the same thing happen. Switching away from IIS, AD, and Windows. To Apache, Tomcat, and Linux. Now if only we could ditch Oracle. In any case yes. Free(dom), like that spelling BTW, is *good* for business.
You clearly have never tried to probe anything. WTF would you get a "friend with a license". That would clearly move you out of the realm of clean room reverse engineering. Just probe the damn thing if you want to revers engineer it. As near as I can tell the BK servers in question were cloud facing a publicy available so accessing the services it offers via whatever "client" you want is still, thank god, legal. Although people like you would like to see that change.
Now point me at a single instance of wiretap laws being used against somebody using a sniffer on a network that they have legal access to. And no email doesn't count cause they don't sniff that in the cases you are going to point at that involve email. And yes the difference is *very* important.
He wasn't even reverse engineering the client. He was reverse engineering the file format so that 3rd party clients could be made to read it specificaly for the use of people who have said it would be a cold day in hell before they used a BK client but were forced to access a server for *one* project.
No possible way this could have resulted in revenue loss and playing nice could have resulted in considerable good will.
Slashdot Mirror
God was it that long ago? /me gets on his rascal and goes to yell at the kids down at the park.
I feel old.
No no you are not. We are legion.
Right and then you would not be able to write OSS to use on that PDA and take advantage of the card. This isn't about getting the specs for the card this is about being able to legally write drivers and software that use the card.
The correct anlogy would be a microwave that would only work with food from certain vendors and I not, for example, with my own pouches
Of course the one feature that SD is lacking is the ability to develop OSS for it. To me this is a deal breaker. Although I'm really curious in what applicaitons size is so important that you are willing to make the tradeoff in freedom for it.
apt-get install sense-of-humour
More importantly why are you both pushing cards that are very non-friendly to OSS?
Guess some people just don't like freedom. I just don't grok it myself though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XD-Picture_Card
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital_Card
They have a really good reputation and a record of one remote hole in over 8 years?
They give your dad full access to the source so that he can have anybody he wants to audit it?
What company are we talking about? I'd like to do business with them.
You were over 10 years late. http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/
What world do you live on?
Here on planet Earth bittorrent makes up almost half of thr traffic on the internet and isos of OSS software doesn't even come close to accounting for that.
No they don't have to shut it down but there is no way to prevent you from being able to communicate with as many people as you want. As the whole p2p thing proves.
There are *always* ways to get out. You just have to think outside the box. Now granted I don't even recall what the box looks like but there are always ways to be heard. The whole system is just too well built they can *not* shut it down.
Klingons morphed into a Japanese type warrior culture but keep in mind that in TOS they were a military dictatorship very much based on the Russians.
I don't and I do install binaries. The point is that with OSS if I suspect that there is a problem or if I just want to know I have the *option* of finding out by auditing or having the code audited.
For example I run OpenBSD on a lot of my boxes and am moving more and more of my cloud facing boxes over to it every day. Granted I don't read every line of code but I know the reps of the people who have and I have the choice to do so.
Now tell me how to get that same sense of well being out of *any* closed source OS/application.
Hm. If I'm a troll somebody please explain to me what true paranoid would use something that he can't get the source for?
Really doesn't make any sense to me that he trusts MS over himself.
I'm just a net admin watching from the outside.
Mostly they are with Oracle because the other product has a huge image database and I guess the licenses work out. The only reason I would like to see the switch is because I would love to work for a place that does everything on a OSS infrastructre.
WTF does revenue have to do with choosing a database?
Beat me to it. I was just about to post "He runs Windows, the fucking pouser."
Nuff' said.
I'm not switching from Speakeasy, but that is the *best* ad ever.
No. Because they bought it from the guy who wrote it. He *owns* it and then licenses it to you. Since he *owns* it there is no license for him. Becuase he *owns* it and did not license it from himself. The General Public *License* clearly only applies to code that you license from someone else and not code that you *own*.
Now he can't take away your license but he can do whatever he wants with code that he *owns*. As others have pointed out there might be problems with code that other people have put into the project but one has to assume that as the *owner* he has sorted those.
Clear enough?
Right. So they put in the 2nd amendment so that future generations would have a easier time to do what they did.
What makes you think that they expected the gov't they were founding to last forever or that made them think that future revolutions would not be needed?
Everything I've read indicated that they felt that revolutions would be needed and were good things.
I've had the same thing happen. Switching away from IIS, AD, and Windows. To Apache, Tomcat, and Linux. Now if only we could ditch Oracle. In any case yes. Free(dom), like that spelling BTW, is *good* for business.
You clearly have never tried to probe anything. WTF would you get a "friend with a license". That would clearly move you out of the realm of clean room reverse engineering. Just probe the damn thing if you want to revers engineer it. As near as I can tell the BK servers in question were cloud facing a publicy available so accessing the services it offers via whatever "client" you want is still, thank god, legal. Although people like you would like to see that change.
Now point me at a single instance of wiretap laws being used against somebody using a sniffer on a network that they have legal access to. And no email doesn't count cause they don't sniff that in the cases you are going to point at that involve email. And yes the difference is *very* important.
He wasn't even reverse engineering the client. He was reverse engineering the file format so that 3rd party clients could be made to read it specificaly for the use of people who have said it would be a cold day in hell before they used a BK client but were forced to access a server for *one* project.
No possible way this could have resulted in revenue loss and playing nice could have resulted in considerable good will.
So you think Samba and Wine are morally wrong?
It would look something like this.
HTF could that have been a contract violation?
I can't even think of any scanarios to dispute so please spell out your logic.
No. In this case intelligent != smart/clever intelligent == sentient.