It says a lot when the country a company is headquartered in tells them their stuff stinks.
Obama wants his Call of Duty...see what happens when PSN goes down, he recreates the 'Castro's Compound' level as 'Osama's Compound', right down to where he uses his wife as a human shield!!!
I'm not telling you any such thing. I have no data on dropbox and would never give them any anyway.
Then how can you say they were claiming to do something that they so obviously weren't doing? They weren't specific about how it works so it isn't safe to assume anything and obviously if they didn't give you an encryption key then they must have it.
Dropbox was unfairly competing by claiming to do more expensive B when it really did cheaper A.
Oh come on, you're telling me you believed the key was your responsibility even though you had no key? You didn't even have any non-volatile private data that could be used as an encryption key, the only private data is your password, which can be reset, so obviously you can't use that.
Then who would you think has them? You know you don't and you're assuming they don't, so who does?
The fact that the FTC is investigating this now rather than any number of other companies previously is a pretty good indication that it's a reasonable expectation to have.
I think it's clear you either don't know enough about this story or don't know what a 'fact' is. A complaint to the FTC is not an FTC investigation.
If they claim to do X when in fact they do not do X, or claim not to do X when in fact they do do X then you have deceptive trade practices.
But they already addressed the issues in the language describing their services over a month ago. I'll admit their old language may have been a bit confusing but it's obvious that if you haven't been given the encryption keys then dropbox has them.
Personally i wouldn't trust the security of any 'cloud' provider with sensitive data, if you're going to use such a service encrypt it yourself and then upload it.
But then your generosity can be subsumed by somebody for commercial gain, ending the paying forward nature of the initial offering.
So? Why would i care how they benefit from it? I released it as free code to be used by anyone however they want. I'm not going to force restrictions on them.
In my opinion anyone using the BSD license is really just stupid and screwing themselves and the rest of us for no reason.
They aren't screwing anyone, the code is there and it is always free. I'm not releasing something as free just to get something in return.
If you use the GPLv3 you are protecting the project indefinitely and and ensuring it will be useful for all future generations.
The project is always free, the BSD license doesn't mean a project can suddenly become non-free, just that anyone can benefit from free code whether they have the same world view or not. I'm not about to start only helping those who think like i do.
Sorry, do you have the slightest real world evidence to back this theory up?
Why are you apologising? It's basic business sense, if the PSN downtime is costing them millions then that has to be covered by profit from the time that PSN is up since they aren't standing down their workforce while PSN is down.
Because in fact I work at a company experiencing this exact situation, and while we are pissed at the situation there is NO WAY IN HELL we will drop the PS3 platform or PSN once it's back up.
And what company would that be anyway? No-one is going to drop the PS3 platform, that's an idiotic suggestion. A loss of potentially millions is going to affect strategic decisions given that those millions are a large percentage of a game budget.
After you said "most profitable divisions" nothing else about your statement really mattered
why is that?
and as I already said, a month is a blip on the long term revenue chart.
And it's likely a huge percentage of their profit that goes out the window because they have to pay for these potentially millions in operating costs that isn't covered by revenue.
NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE LICENSE. The issue is the lack of a source code release. The contract that they are breaking is not a source code license, but rather their own promise to users and handset makers that they were buying into an open source platform.
It's only this one version, the latest version of Android for smartphones is available and you can download it if you want.
continuing to use Apple's open source WebKit code
And Apple is using Google, Nokia, KDE and many others' WebKit code.
Secondarily, the issue is Google's hypocrisy for bragging that they are open, calling Apple closed, and then not only not releasing their own source
you don't seem capable of comprehending the simple fact that the idea of 'open' is more than code. The Android kernel is open, the latest version of Android for smartphones is open and even the Honeycomb code is open, it just hasn't been released yet but they have given a time for when it will be released, which of course seems to be when the smartphone version and tablet version converge.
Apple didn't do this when WE wanted it so they are bad but Google is good..
Apple was breaking the license terms of the software it was using by not releasing the code, Google is acting within the license with their code.
Today its just the opposite and Google is bad.
Because the additions google have made to the existing free code aren't open source and many people don't like that. However Google can make additions to the existing free code and not release their additions until they deem it appropriate and that is entirely within the scope of the license.
So the general idea is that google may not be 'in the spirit of open source' but that's still better than the way apple was violating the terms of open source licenses.
in my view, it's less likely that they are being purely altruistic, because they are using a license that they know will curry them favour with their commercial partners.
To what end though?
On the flip side, those releasing code under copyleft licenses are doing so in the hope that it will encourage others to give the same gift as a result.
It's just a different world view i suppose, I've always seen the BSD-style licenses as more altruistic because it's just giving code away freely to be used by anyone for anything without placing any restrictions on what others can do with it. Forcing others to do things my way isn't my idea of freedom.
Absolutely nothing. My whole point was one month of downtime is a revenue blip and is going to make no difference in strategic decisions as hypothesized in the article...
if one of your most profitable divisions suddenly not only ceases to make a profit but swings to a significant loss for a month that most certainly will affect strategic decisions.
The whole statement doesn't make sense on the face of it. If they are "losing millions" from being down for one month, then clearly they are making millions when it's up.
Steam already works on PS3 -- no more porting needed.
I'm not sure you know what Steam is, that or you don't know what porting is. Steam isn't a runtime, just because it runs on PS3 doesn't automatically mean every game available through Steam magically runs on the PS3 hardware now.
As for not using PSN, that's a bit overreactive, don't you think? I'm not a PS3 developer, but I imagine leveraging PSN for online play cuts down on dev time significantly.
Why would you think that? What you do you imagine they save time on?
It's not FUD. Release the source, or you're not an open source contributor
You mean not an open source contributor to that particular version of that particular product. They've stated that they are going to release that code and given a time for when it will be done, this is entirely fine for ASL licensed code.
you're an asshole taking advantage of other people's work and contributing nothing back.
If that's how you feel then you wouldn't be so fucking stupid as to release code under a permissive Open Source license now would you? People who release code under that type of license are altruistic, they don't care what's done with that code and it's free to be used by anyone however they wish. If you care about how that code is used or how derived works are licensed in the future then use a restrictive license, it's pretty simple.
'How the heck can they do this, given that Honeycomb is licensed under the Apache Software License v2?"
Can't they do this specifically because they chose the Apache License v2?
Yes that's exactly right. Their kernel code must be released - and has been - obviously because it uses the linux kernel which is licensed under the GPL. But the rest of the code is under ASL which - as you say - allows them to determine whether or not they release the code.
If import of unclassified films and video games isn't banned, then why are films and video games classified in the first place?
Classification is for decision making for the end user and of course they can't go through and classify every single piece of material every created, same way that you can sell games in mobile app stores without them needing to be classified. I'm not an expert on this but anyway now we're so far off topic the point is pretty much moot, it's gone from format availability, to region coding and now to classifications (which of course would apply to any streaming service too) so this line of discussion is irrelevant anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Possibly, but according to one of the press releases I saw, people were complaining about a lack of encryption
The personal data wasn't encrypted but the credit card data was.
and they explained that the passwords were not encrypted, but they were hashed.
Well yes, hashing is a safer and better method for passwords anyway.
Would encryption of the credit card data even be any use if they compromised the whole system, and therefore probably had access to the keys too?
Good point, i guess that depends on their system architecture and whether it was just the database that was compromised or the entire system.
If this isn't the obvious way to do it then what is?
I wonder how happy Apple would be about you running Linux on your iPhone browser.
It says a lot when the country a company is headquartered in tells them their stuff stinks.
Obama wants his Call of Duty...see what happens when PSN goes down, he recreates the 'Castro's Compound' level as 'Osama's Compound', right down to where he uses his wife as a human shield!!!
They didn't "encrypt", but they did hash.
I thought they did encrypt the credit card data. They would only hash passwords.
I'm not telling you any such thing. I have no data on dropbox and would never give them any anyway.
Then how can you say they were claiming to do something that they so obviously weren't doing? They weren't specific about how it works so it isn't safe to assume anything and obviously if they didn't give you an encryption key then they must have it.
Dropbox was unfairly competing by claiming to do more expensive B when it really did cheaper A.
Oh come on, you're telling me you believed the key was your responsibility even though you had no key? You didn't even have any non-volatile private data that could be used as an encryption key, the only private data is your password, which can be reset, so obviously you can't use that.
Then who would you think has them? You know you don't and you're assuming they don't, so who does?
The Encryption Key Fairy?
she can't be trusted.
I do have one key - the password; that could be used to encrypt the file before syncing them.
LastPass seems decent in that regard.
You mean the password that can be reset if you forget it? Great idea.
No, it's not obvious that they have them
Then who would you think has them? You know you don't and you're assuming they don't, so who does?
The fact that the FTC is investigating this now rather than any number of other companies previously is a pretty good indication that it's a reasonable expectation to have.
I think it's clear you either don't know enough about this story or don't know what a 'fact' is. A complaint to the FTC is not an FTC investigation.
If they claim to do X when in fact they do not do X, or claim not to do X when in fact they do do X then you have deceptive trade practices.
But they already addressed the issues in the language describing their services over a month ago. I'll admit their old language may have been a bit confusing but it's obvious that if you haven't been given the encryption keys then dropbox has them.
Personally i wouldn't trust the security of any 'cloud' provider with sensitive data, if you're going to use such a service encrypt it yourself and then upload it.
But then your generosity can be subsumed by somebody for commercial gain, ending the paying forward nature of the initial offering.
So? Why would i care how they benefit from it? I released it as free code to be used by anyone however they want. I'm not going to force restrictions on them.
In my opinion anyone using the BSD license is really just stupid and screwing themselves and the rest of us for no reason.
They aren't screwing anyone, the code is there and it is always free. I'm not releasing something as free just to get something in return.
If you use the GPLv3 you are protecting the project indefinitely and and ensuring it will be useful for all future generations.
The project is always free, the BSD license doesn't mean a project can suddenly become non-free, just that anyone can benefit from free code whether they have the same world view or not. I'm not about to start only helping those who think like i do.
Sorry, do you have the slightest real world evidence to back this theory up?
Why are you apologising? It's basic business sense, if the PSN downtime is costing them millions then that has to be covered by profit from the time that PSN is up since they aren't standing down their workforce while PSN is down.
Because in fact I work at a company experiencing this exact situation, and while we are pissed at the situation there is NO WAY IN HELL we will drop the PS3 platform or PSN once it's back up.
And what company would that be anyway? No-one is going to drop the PS3 platform, that's an idiotic suggestion. A loss of potentially millions is going to affect strategic decisions given that those millions are a large percentage of a game budget.
After you said "most profitable divisions" nothing else about your statement really mattered
why is that?
and as I already said, a month is a blip on the long term revenue chart.
And it's likely a huge percentage of their profit that goes out the window because they have to pay for these potentially millions in operating costs that isn't covered by revenue.
NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE LICENSE. The issue is the lack of a source code release. The contract that they are breaking is not a source code license, but rather their own promise to users and handset makers that they were buying into an open source platform.
It's only this one version, the latest version of Android for smartphones is available and you can download it if you want.
continuing to use Apple's open source WebKit code
And Apple is using Google, Nokia, KDE and many others' WebKit code.
Secondarily, the issue is Google's hypocrisy for bragging that they are open, calling Apple closed, and then not only not releasing their own source
you don't seem capable of comprehending the simple fact that the idea of 'open' is more than code. The Android kernel is open, the latest version of Android for smartphones is open and even the Honeycomb code is open, it just hasn't been released yet but they have given a time for when it will be released, which of course seems to be when the smartphone version and tablet version converge.
Apple didn't do this when WE wanted it so they are bad but Google is good..
Apple was breaking the license terms of the software it was using by not releasing the code, Google is acting within the license with their code.
Today its just the opposite and Google is bad.
Because the additions google have made to the existing free code aren't open source and many people don't like that. However Google can make additions to the existing free code and not release their additions until they deem it appropriate and that is entirely within the scope of the license.
So the general idea is that google may not be 'in the spirit of open source' but that's still better than the way apple was violating the terms of open source licenses.
in my view, it's less likely that they are being purely altruistic, because they are using a license that they know will curry them favour with their commercial partners.
To what end though?
On the flip side, those releasing code under copyleft licenses are doing so in the hope that it will encourage others to give the same gift as a result.
It's just a different world view i suppose, I've always seen the BSD-style licenses as more altruistic because it's just giving code away freely to be used by anyone for anything without placing any restrictions on what others can do with it. Forcing others to do things my way isn't my idea of freedom.
Absolutely nothing. My whole point was one month of downtime is a revenue blip and is going to make no difference in strategic decisions as hypothesized in the article...
if one of your most profitable divisions suddenly not only ceases to make a profit but swings to a significant loss for a month that most certainly will affect strategic decisions.
The whole statement doesn't make sense on the face of it. If they are "losing millions" from being down for one month, then clearly they are making millions when it's up.
And what's so wrong about that?
Steam already works on PS3 -- no more porting needed.
I'm not sure you know what Steam is, that or you don't know what porting is. Steam isn't a runtime, just because it runs on PS3 doesn't automatically mean every game available through Steam magically runs on the PS3 hardware now.
From what I hear, Xbox live went down for about 2 weeks round Christmas 2007.
There was an intermittent outage of some services, not a full service blackout.
As for not using PSN, that's a bit overreactive, don't you think? I'm not a PS3 developer, but I imagine leveraging PSN for online play cuts down on dev time significantly.
Why would you think that? What you do you imagine they save time on?
It's not FUD. Release the source, or you're not an open source contributor
You mean not an open source contributor to that particular version of that particular product. They've stated that they are going to release that code and given a time for when it will be done, this is entirely fine for ASL licensed code.
you're an asshole taking advantage of other people's work and contributing nothing back.
If that's how you feel then you wouldn't be so fucking stupid as to release code under a permissive Open Source license now would you? People who release code under that type of license are altruistic, they don't care what's done with that code and it's free to be used by anyone however they wish. If you care about how that code is used or how derived works are licensed in the future then use a restrictive license, it's pretty simple.
'How the heck can they do this, given that Honeycomb is licensed under the Apache Software License v2?"
Can't they do this specifically because they chose the Apache License v2?
Yes that's exactly right. Their kernel code must be released - and has been - obviously because it uses the linux kernel which is licensed under the GPL. But the rest of the code is under ASL which - as you say - allows them to determine whether or not they release the code.
If import of unclassified films and video games isn't banned, then why are films and video games classified in the first place?
Classification is for decision making for the end user and of course they can't go through and classify every single piece of material every created, same way that you can sell games in mobile app stores without them needing to be classified. I'm not an expert on this but anyway now we're so far off topic the point is pretty much moot, it's gone from format availability, to region coding and now to classifications (which of course would apply to any streaming service too) so this line of discussion is irrelevant anyway.
"This malicious device," says Stallman
It's this sort of rubbish that detracts from the real issues, he would have much more respect if he didn't resort to this kind of childish shit.