MOST of the time, ads are targetted in this way (these days). If you go to a gaming review site, the ads on there are about games. If you go to a sex site, the ads on there are about... sex sites. Ads targetting the content you're viewing is a very old idea. What's unique about Google ads is that they are on the search engine, so if you search about games, there are ads about games. I don't see how having a google ad on every webpage you visit would be much different from those very webpages offering targetted advertising, except MAYBE that you're helping Google get a little extra spending money (didn't read the article, not sure if they benefit from this plugin or not.)
Actually, I've often wondered myself where the randomness comes from. A PRNG based on the millisecond of the day would be sufficiently random to prevent the player from being able to abuse the system. Even if the initial seed were run for hours at a time, you'd have to watch the machine and count the number of plays..and then the person playing the machine would have to stop playing a short time before the winning number came up for you to make a profit--the payout would have to be greater than the number of times you have to play in order to get to the payoff. And even at that, the profit is likely to be too small to be worth your time. And if you stopped and stared at a machine for too long, security would very likely escort you out.
As for legal constraints on where the entropy comes from, all that really matters is that the random number sequence was randomly generated in the first place and that the random numbers are exhausted before moving on to a new seed (to prevent the casino from stopping short of a few winning numbers). That the pattern was pregenerated shouldn't make a statistical difference, though it could SEEM like cheating. If there's a pattern, as you say, it can only hurt the casino (though it's very unlikely to do so), assuming the payoff ratio is maintained.
They're not rigged, they just don't work like everyone thinks they do.
Originally, slot machines had spinning reels with pictures painted on the outside. A winner was determined by whether or not the pictures on the reels lined up (obviously there were internal mechanics to all of it, but that's how they were designed). Pulls were random based upon when the lever was released after the pull. As such, the player had some amount of influence over where the reels stopped, but there was clearly no way to control this influence and so the game was purely luck--no skill involved. The odds were determined by how the reels stop and where.
Later, as electronic slots were developed, things changed. Rather than the player having any influence whatsoever on the slots, a computer chip determined whether the next pull would be a winner before the money was even put into the machine. The reels were then controlled by the computer chip inside the machine, so they showed matching symbols when the machine decided it was a winner, rather than the winner being determined by where the reels stopped. It's a subtle but distinct difference. So now the chip determines randomly whether there's a win. You could emulate this system to an extent, but I'm not sure anyone ever bothered.
Move on to completely computerized machines. Even the reels now are just pictures on a screen, and you can emulate the entire system rather easily. The chip determines whether or not you win (again, before you even put your money in) and then it displays pictures showing you an outcome that matches the predetermined outcome. Statistically, this is no different than the original reels. Logistically, the odds can be changed by the owner, but many places where there is legal gambling require a certain payoff, so it's unlikely that the odds would be lower than the minimum. But a side effect of all of this is precisely what you linked to--in emulation when you can reset the computer to a previous state and pick a different input, the computer necessarily must adjust the displayed output to match the predetermined outcome. It's still random, it's almost certainly legit (with regards to the posted odds), but it LOOKS like cheating if you don't know how the internals work. If the people who had written that webpage had bothered to find the "you will win the next pull" variable, they probably would have found that saving state then, then going back and choosing a different option still would have led to a win.
Correct. For awhile, I was on a real video capturing kick..and I liked to capture raw AVIs in full DVD resolution. One drive (not my system drive) was unable to keep up, however striping two drives was able to do it just fine. RAID 0 is definitely faster than a single drive, however it's almost certainly not twice as fast.
The 9100 actually has support for the Radeon 9700 or the new mobility Radeon 9800 (which just screams) although the latter will delay your shipment by about a week.
I actually had the opposite experience. My laptop a few years ago was an Inspiron 8100 with a GeForce2 Go card in it. It performed just fine for the games of the era, but where our stories divurge even more is that Dell actually put out fairly regular driver updates. I checked their website about every 3 months, and it seems like nearly every time I went there, there was an update.
Now I never benchmarked, and I never noticed a huge difference in framerates, but there were distinct improvements in artifacting and such. I was so pleased that I'm looking at Dell for my next notebook--I'd absolutely love to get a small, portable notebook, but they simply don't put those out with a decent graphics card (except for the Sony Vaio S series, but damn, I don't want to buy a Vaio). The Dell 9100 looks like a nice brick to play games on, and can be configured with ATI's latest graphics offerings.
The primary purpose of port knocking is to hide the fact that you have open ports to begin with. You don't want to have those ports unprotected once the right knock sequence is in place. You want both password/challenge AND port knocking so no active scanner detects your open ports.
What if the choices are between not running a server and running a portknocking server?
I have a private server I use for e-mail, irc, and as a convenient, central location to store files. I have no interest in making this server public--it's only on the Internet because to set up a dedicated line to it would be prohibitively expensive. I don't even want people to know the server is there, and if they do find out it's there, I want security to be as tight as possible. Port knocking, in a way, helps to meet my goals. If I was required to let anyone onto my server, I would take it down, which would be the loss of a private asset.
But that doesn't mean you're not right, in a way. The problem with the world today is that it runs on money. Very little is free. Even some HTTP is pay-per, and that's just the way it is until someone finds a way to pay the bills without milking the customer.
Then you run right back into the privacy implications of having RFID at all. I want to be able to overwrite RFID so that I don't have that damn tracking device everywhere I go.
I don't know, maybe security cameras? With RFID, it's likely possible to do all this without ever displaying any out-of-the-ordinary behavior. If you've got the re-pricer in your pocket, just getting near the item would be enough to rebrand it, while simultaneously rebranding items you happen to walk close to. Of course, people will probably start looking at things funny when the stores oversells all their $5 DVDs while having enormous shrinkage on new releases....
Case 1: Completely valid. Case 2: What would be the point? If the "White Knight" wanted to open a backdoor, it could just spread like the virus it's patching against and not even ask for user input. I suppose the writer might get some perverse gratification out of the social aspect of getting users to click on "Ok" but let's face it--these worms are spreading because of a hole in the target system. There's little use in installing a backdoor along with the patch when you could just install the backdoor.
He never saw this, I guess. This project ALMOST looks fake, but there's a similar one that Lik-Sang sold awhile back that let you connect a GBA to a TV, but without an external controller.
Mimicking me doesn't make your point true. We're discussing whether or not this is an instance of violating the GPL by restricting your rights under the GPL. As such, you have not presented an argument in your favor (you can't just state the argument in a circular way based on one of my statements and have it hold water).
It's moot anyway. Glance through the Slashdot postings...the FSF apparently agreed that Sveasoft isn't violating the GPL. Since they're pretty much the experts, I'm going to assume that Sveasoft isn't violating the GPL.
Looks like you're at least correct for the third party bit. From the GPL faq: In section 6, the GPL says, "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." Revoking the right they bought to get updates does this if you do it *because* they redistributed the program. They could cancel it for any number of other reasons, but not for redistribution of code.
I'm not at all convinced of the other part, though. Since the GPL says nothing about whether or not you get access to their servers, I don't see how they're restricting your redistribution rights. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
Under the GPL, a company is never ever EVER obligated to give you a binary copy. That's where your argument breaks down. Since you can give extra rights over and above what the GPL grants, then you can say "Here, I'm giving you the rights to B, C, and D versions of the software." But along with that, you could restrict those rights, as long as you don't add any restrictions to the GPL. So the above-and-beyond rights are restricted, saying, "You lose the right to versions B, C, and D if you redistribute." They aren't restricting GPL rights here. And since you never receive binary copies of B, C, and D, they are under no obligation to provide the source to B, C, and D. At least, not to you.
Ah, but throwing you in jail is unlawfully depriving you of liberty, clearly against the law. A more realistic example is a store owner saying, "You have the right to call the president an idiot, but you can't do it in my store." Which, I think you'll find, is legal.
In section 6, the GPL says, "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." Revoking the right they bought to get updates does this if you do it *because* they redistributed the program. They could cancel it for any number of other reasons, but not for redistribution of code.
I disagree with this, but maybe we're coming from different directions.
Your original post said that they could not penalize you for redistributing under the GPL. I don't believe that's true one bit. They may not impose further RESTRICTIONS on your redistribution as per section 6 of the GPL, but that does not mean that they can't take measures to prevent you from accessing their servers if you choose to redistribute. As per the GPL, however, they are still obligated to provide the source code to you if you download and redistribute.
The $20 you pay to Sveasoft gives you 6 months of being able to download the binary firmware. It is not a cost of the firmware itself. Think of it as being given access to a premium ftp server. The code is still GPL'd, but for $20, you get access to the server for 6 months. Now under the terms of the license for access to the server they can cancel your server account if you redistribute. Nothing is preventing you from redistributing. They can't sue you for redistributing. They can't refuse to give you the source code, either. But they can control who accesses their server. As far as I can see, there is no GPL conflict here. They are NOT infringing on your GPL granted distribution rights. They are also NOT adding further restrictions onto their software. All they're saying is that if you choose to redistribute, they reserve the right to cancel your account. No rights are being infringed upon so far. Now...if you read the DSLreports thread, it looks like the source they give you does not compile to the precise binary firmware they distribute. This is because they use a bit of stenography in order to mark which users a receive a specific download. It appears that this is how they track redistribution (and thus can cancel accounts). If you redistribute and they get ahold of the firmware, they can check for the stenographic signature and match it up in a database of subscribers. Then POOF, your account is gone. AT first glance this doesn't appear to be a problem, but since they are clearly providing a binary and not the exact source that produces that binary, there may be issues.
If they do not provide the source with the binary (which is what 3a covers) and modified the original source code (section 3c covers unmodified binaries for non-commercial use; they would also get caught on the non-commercial use), then they must do b (and they currently do not seem to be). Note the "any third party" clause. That is the same as "anyone," which is what I said.
Interesting. I never noticed the "any third party" bit before. However I have to wonder if the offer is only good once or if it's good for (as per the GPL) three years. Clearly you have up to 3 years to make use of the offer, but my understanding is that once you've asked for the source using this offer, then the distributor's obligation has been fulfilled and they never have to offer you the source again (unless you download it again). Any legal insight from lawyers on this one?
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
That only means that if you distribute it binary-only, you have to provide a written offer to produce the source code, and said offer must be valid for 3 years. You use the written offer as your claim to the source, they give it to you. You ask again, they have no obligation to provide it again.
You MAY have been referring to section 3c:
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
However as is made clear within the terms of 3c, this applies only to non-commercial distribution. It isn't clear to me whether the non-commercial distribution is on me as redistributing it or on the person I got it from. Fleh.
For starters,: TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION under Section 1: You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
That covers their ass for charging for the media. It's legal.
As for having to give the source to ANYONE who requests it, that's simply untrue. If they don't provide the source in the first place, they only have to give it to people THEY have distributed it to. Not anyone in the world. That's the point of the GPL. You can still charge for the software--but why would you when anyone you sell it to can turn around and give it to the rest of the world for free. Sveasoft found a bit of a loophole in that they then prevent you from receiving updated versions from Sveasoft, but it's still legal as far as I can tell.
Sveasoft may not penalize you in *any* way for redistributing the source (or binary). Even though the login info had nothing to do with the GPL previously, revoking it for redistributing the source is a violation of the GPL (you can revoke for any number of other reasons freely, just not for redistributing the source).
Mind pointing out to me where in the GPL this clause exists? I couldn't find it, myself. They aren't imposing extra restrictions on the subscriber in the least. They're simply letting you know that should you choose to exercise your right to redistribute, you will lose access to future versions of the software.
It's kinda like free speech. You can say anything you want in America (barring a very limited set of examples like screaming fire in a movie theater). But if you are in a private business and you choose to exercise your right to free speech, they can kick you out. They can even tell you that ahead of time. If I own a gas station, I can post a sign saying, "I reserve the right to eject any customer who says anything bad about the president of the United States." Completely legal. Only way it would be illegal is if I only enforced the regulation for protected minorities, such as African Americans or Women.
So basically, your post holds no water whatsoever. However I welcome you to prove me wrong with actual citations from the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
That's kind of interesting...
... sex sites. Ads targetting the content you're viewing is a very old idea. What's unique about Google ads is that they are on the search engine, so if you search about games, there are ads about games. I don't see how having a google ad on every webpage you visit would be much different from those very webpages offering targetted advertising, except MAYBE that you're helping Google get a little extra spending money (didn't read the article, not sure if they benefit from this plugin or not.)
MOST of the time, ads are targetted in this way (these days). If you go to a gaming review site, the ads on there are about games. If you go to a sex site, the ads on there are about
Bah, MOST people use webmail these days... Certainly most people who will be using XPSE probably will be.
That's funny, because there have been exploits that popped up for the UT2k4 engine ;)
Actually, I've often wondered myself where the randomness comes from. A PRNG based on the millisecond of the day would be sufficiently random to prevent the player from being able to abuse the system. Even if the initial seed were run for hours at a time, you'd have to watch the machine and count the number of plays..and then the person playing the machine would have to stop playing a short time before the winning number came up for you to make a profit--the payout would have to be greater than the number of times you have to play in order to get to the payoff. And even at that, the profit is likely to be too small to be worth your time. And if you stopped and stared at a machine for too long, security would very likely escort you out.
As for legal constraints on where the entropy comes from, all that really matters is that the random number sequence was randomly generated in the first place and that the random numbers are exhausted before moving on to a new seed (to prevent the casino from stopping short of a few winning numbers). That the pattern was pregenerated shouldn't make a statistical difference, though it could SEEM like cheating. If there's a pattern, as you say, it can only hurt the casino (though it's very unlikely to do so), assuming the payoff ratio is maintained.
They're not rigged, they just don't work like everyone thinks they do.
Originally, slot machines had spinning reels with pictures painted on the outside. A winner was determined by whether or not the pictures on the reels lined up (obviously there were internal mechanics to all of it, but that's how they were designed). Pulls were random based upon when the lever was released after the pull. As such, the player had some amount of influence over where the reels stopped, but there was clearly no way to control this influence and so the game was purely luck--no skill involved. The odds were determined by how the reels stop and where.
Later, as electronic slots were developed, things changed. Rather than the player having any influence whatsoever on the slots, a computer chip determined whether the next pull would be a winner before the money was even put into the machine. The reels were then controlled by the computer chip inside the machine, so they showed matching symbols when the machine decided it was a winner, rather than the winner being determined by where the reels stopped. It's a subtle but distinct difference. So now the chip determines randomly whether there's a win. You could emulate this system to an extent, but I'm not sure anyone ever bothered.
Move on to completely computerized machines. Even the reels now are just pictures on a screen, and you can emulate the entire system rather easily. The chip determines whether or not you win (again, before you even put your money in) and then it displays pictures showing you an outcome that matches the predetermined outcome. Statistically, this is no different than the original reels. Logistically, the odds can be changed by the owner, but many places where there is legal gambling require a certain payoff, so it's unlikely that the odds would be lower than the minimum. But a side effect of all of this is precisely what you linked to--in emulation when you can reset the computer to a previous state and pick a different input, the computer necessarily must adjust the displayed output to match the predetermined outcome. It's still random, it's almost certainly legit (with regards to the posted odds), but it LOOKS like cheating if you don't know how the internals work. If the people who had written that webpage had bothered to find the "you will win the next pull" variable, they probably would have found that saving state then, then going back and choosing a different option still would have led to a win.
Porn is still copyrighted, and unless you get redistribution rights, it's illegal to send to someone else.
You missed the point... the parent poster's company would own IP he created for two years AFTER HE LEFT the company, which is bullshit, to me.
:(
It's why I really hate private-sector work
I thought the same thing, but leaked alphas have been out for much longer, I guess.
Correct.
For awhile, I was on a real video capturing kick..and I liked to capture raw AVIs in full DVD resolution. One drive (not my system drive) was unable to keep up, however striping two drives was able to do it just fine. RAID 0 is definitely faster than a single drive, however it's almost certainly not twice as fast.
The 9100 actually has support for the Radeon 9700 or the new mobility Radeon 9800 (which just screams) although the latter will delay your shipment by about a week.
I actually had the opposite experience. My laptop a few years ago was an Inspiron 8100 with a GeForce2 Go card in it. It performed just fine for the games of the era, but where our stories divurge even more is that Dell actually put out fairly regular driver updates. I checked their website about every 3 months, and it seems like nearly every time I went there, there was an update.
Now I never benchmarked, and I never noticed a huge difference in framerates, but there were distinct improvements in artifacting and such. I was so pleased that I'm looking at Dell for my next notebook--I'd absolutely love to get a small, portable notebook, but they simply don't put those out with a decent graphics card (except for the Sony Vaio S series, but damn, I don't want to buy a Vaio). The Dell 9100 looks like a nice brick to play games on, and can be configured with ATI's latest graphics offerings.
It's not.. I almost suspect you of trolling.
The primary purpose of port knocking is to hide the fact that you have open ports to begin with. You don't want to have those ports unprotected once the right knock sequence is in place. You want both password/challenge AND port knocking so no active scanner detects your open ports.
What if the choices are between not running a server and running a portknocking server?
I have a private server I use for e-mail, irc, and as a convenient, central location to store files. I have no interest in making this server public--it's only on the Internet because to set up a dedicated line to it would be prohibitively expensive. I don't even want people to know the server is there, and if they do find out it's there, I want security to be as tight as possible. Port knocking, in a way, helps to meet my goals. If I was required to let anyone onto my server, I would take it down, which would be the loss of a private asset.
But that doesn't mean you're not right, in a way. The problem with the world today is that it runs on money. Very little is free. Even some HTTP is pay-per, and that's just the way it is until someone finds a way to pay the bills without milking the customer.
Not with the Tabextensions module. You can make EVERYTHING go to tabs..
Then you run right back into the privacy implications of having RFID at all. I want to be able to overwrite RFID so that I don't have that damn tracking device everywhere I go.
I don't know, maybe security cameras?
With RFID, it's likely possible to do all this without ever displaying any out-of-the-ordinary behavior. If you've got the re-pricer in your pocket, just getting near the item would be enough to rebrand it, while simultaneously rebranding items you happen to walk close to. Of course, people will probably start looking at things funny when the stores oversells all their $5 DVDs while having enormous shrinkage on new releases....
Case 1: Completely valid.
Case 2: What would be the point? If the "White Knight" wanted to open a backdoor, it could just spread like the virus it's patching against and not even ask for user input. I suppose the writer might get some perverse gratification out of the social aspect of getting users to click on "Ok" but let's face it--these worms are spreading because of a hole in the target system. There's little use in installing a backdoor along with the patch when you could just install the backdoor.
He never saw this, I guess. This project ALMOST looks fake, but there's a similar one that Lik-Sang sold awhile back that let you connect a GBA to a TV, but without an external controller.
Mimicking me doesn't make your point true. We're discussing whether or not this is an instance of violating the GPL by restricting your rights under the GPL. As such, you have not presented an argument in your favor (you can't just state the argument in a circular way based on one of my statements and have it hold water).
It's moot anyway. Glance through the Slashdot postings...the FSF apparently agreed that Sveasoft isn't violating the GPL. Since they're pretty much the experts, I'm going to assume that Sveasoft isn't violating the GPL.
In other words, sorry, you're wrong.
Looks like you're at least correct for the third party bit. From the GPL faq:
In section 6, the GPL says, "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." Revoking the right they bought to get updates does this if you do it *because* they redistributed the program. They could cancel it for any number of other reasons, but not for redistribution of code.
I'm not at all convinced of the other part, though. Since the GPL says nothing about whether or not you get access to their servers, I don't see how they're restricting your redistribution rights. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
Under the GPL, a company is never ever EVER obligated to give you a binary copy. That's where your argument breaks down. Since you can give extra rights over and above what the GPL grants, then you can say "Here, I'm giving you the rights to B, C, and D versions of the software." But along with that, you could restrict those rights, as long as you don't add any restrictions to the GPL. So the above-and-beyond rights are restricted, saying, "You lose the right to versions B, C, and D if you redistribute." They aren't restricting GPL rights here. And since you never receive binary copies of B, C, and D, they are under no obligation to provide the source to B, C, and D. At least, not to you.
Ah, but throwing you in jail is unlawfully depriving you of liberty, clearly against the law. A more realistic example is a store owner saying, "You have the right to call the president an idiot, but you can't do it in my store." Which, I think you'll find, is legal.
In section 6, the GPL says, "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." Revoking the right they bought to get updates does this if you do it *because* they redistributed the program. They could cancel it for any number of other reasons, but not for redistribution of code.
I disagree with this, but maybe we're coming from different directions.
Your original post said that they could not penalize you for redistributing under the GPL. I don't believe that's true one bit. They may not impose further RESTRICTIONS on your redistribution as per section 6 of the GPL, but that does not mean that they can't take measures to prevent you from accessing their servers if you choose to redistribute. As per the GPL, however, they are still obligated to provide the source code to you if you download and redistribute.
The $20 you pay to Sveasoft gives you 6 months of being able to download the binary firmware. It is not a cost of the firmware itself. Think of it as being given access to a premium ftp server. The code is still GPL'd, but for $20, you get access to the server for 6 months. Now under the terms of the license for access to the server they can cancel your server account if you redistribute. Nothing is preventing you from redistributing. They can't sue you for redistributing. They can't refuse to give you the source code, either. But they can control who accesses their server. As far as I can see, there is no GPL conflict here. They are NOT infringing on your GPL granted distribution rights. They are also NOT adding further restrictions onto their software. All they're saying is that if you choose to redistribute, they reserve the right to cancel your account. No rights are being infringed upon so far.
Now...if you read the DSLreports thread, it looks like the source they give you does not compile to the precise binary firmware they distribute. This is because they use a bit of stenography in order to mark which users a receive a specific download. It appears that this is how they track redistribution (and thus can cancel accounts). If you redistribute and they get ahold of the firmware, they can check for the stenographic signature and match it up in a database of subscribers. Then POOF, your account is gone. AT first glance this doesn't appear to be a problem, but since they are clearly providing a binary and not the exact source that produces that binary, there may be issues.
If they do not provide the source with the binary (which is what 3a covers) and modified the original source code (section 3c covers unmodified binaries for non-commercial use; they would also get caught on the non-commercial use), then they must do b (and they currently do not seem to be). Note the "any third party" clause. That is the same as "anyone," which is what I said.
Interesting. I never noticed the "any third party" bit before. However I have to wonder if the offer is only good once or if it's good for (as per the GPL) three years. Clearly you have up to 3 years to make use of the offer, but my understanding is that once you've asked for the source using this offer, then the distributor's obligation has been fulfilled and they never have to offer you the source again (unless you download it again). Any legal insight from lawyers on this one?
I think you're mistaken, but I'm not a lawyer.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
That only means that if you distribute it binary-only, you have to provide a written offer to produce the source code, and said offer must be valid for 3 years. You use the written offer as your claim to the source, they give it to you. You ask again, they have no obligation to provide it again.
You MAY have been referring to section 3c:
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
However as is made clear within the terms of 3c, this applies only to non-commercial distribution. It isn't clear to me whether the non-commercial distribution is on me as redistributing it or on the person I got it from. Fleh.
Which GPL are you reading?
:
For starters,
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
under Section 1:
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
That covers their ass for charging for the media. It's legal.
As for having to give the source to ANYONE who requests it, that's simply untrue. If they don't provide the source in the first place, they only have to give it to people THEY have distributed it to. Not anyone in the world. That's the point of the GPL. You can still charge for the software--but why would you when anyone you sell it to can turn around and give it to the rest of the world for free. Sveasoft found a bit of a loophole in that they then prevent you from receiving updated versions from Sveasoft, but it's still legal as far as I can tell.
Sveasoft may not penalize you in *any* way for redistributing the source (or binary). Even though the login info had nothing to do with the GPL previously, revoking it for redistributing the source is a violation of the GPL (you can revoke for any number of other reasons freely, just not for redistributing the source).
Mind pointing out to me where in the GPL this clause exists? I couldn't find it, myself. They aren't imposing extra restrictions on the subscriber in the least. They're simply letting you know that should you choose to exercise your right to redistribute, you will lose access to future versions of the software.
It's kinda like free speech. You can say anything you want in America (barring a very limited set of examples like screaming fire in a movie theater). But if you are in a private business and you choose to exercise your right to free speech, they can kick you out. They can even tell you that ahead of time. If I own a gas station, I can post a sign saying, "I reserve the right to eject any customer who says anything bad about the president of the United States." Completely legal. Only way it would be illegal is if I only enforced the regulation for protected minorities, such as African Americans or Women.
So basically, your post holds no water whatsoever. However I welcome you to prove me wrong with actual citations from the GPL.