If the original license predates the trademark, and the trademark has not been protected, and he has an IETF standard with the name, well, I don't see how he has a leg to stand on. Certainly no moral leg.
Also, I think the OpenSSH developers deserve to feel agrieved by his tactics; their name has a reputation all of it's own, entirely unrelated to the reputation of this guys company.
It seems to me he must have hoped for a lot of glory when he introduced the protocol and the IETF standard. Now this is just sour grapes that a free implementation could be competing with him so strongly.
The problem is that the old physical world still hasn't come to terms with the inevitable onward march of the new digital one.
Efficiency
Downloading mp3's is simply a more efficient use of resources than having music pressed onto CDs which must be located, purchased then stored.
The law is not always right
The law says the current use of Napster is wrong. I wouldn't want to appear a criminal, but sometimes the law is an ass. I can't accept "it's against the law" as a valid argument for not doing something; try morals or pragmatics on me instead.
The Music Industry
The system as it stands brainwashes (most of) us as youths into accepting the force-feeding of mindless drivel under the guise of music so the industry can satisfy their greedy shareholders. The use of Napster and other P2P networks is simply part of the people's struggle for freedom from consumerist slavery. (oops that sounded a bit communist).
The Artists
I always thought that music was something spiritual, not about money. And an artist who values money above the benefit their music brings to their listeners is just as bad, to me, as the recording industry who exploit them. Hey, I wouldn't even want to download their music, let alone buy it, because it must be so cheap.
The site says that one of the problems with reverse engineering the protocol is that the firmware is updatable, and therefore the protocol might change in a new firmware version.
So... why not rewrite the firmware and make it all GPL?
OK, probably quite a lot of work involved. I don't know, I don't even have one of these.
And I suppose companies might eventually implement locks on who can and cannot update firmware.
Miller also said there is already definite evidence of Microsoft's predicted slowdown in the Linux marketplace, with "Corel getting out of Linux, (and) VA Linux not meeting the expectations. "For a so-called exploding market, this should not happen. Sales of actual products are relatively flat.
That's funny, I thought that was something to do with this.
Now that Microsoft are getting into the coffee business perhaps we need to re-evaluate the purpose of the GPL. Free Speech, now Free Coffee. I suppose Free Beer *will* be next. Make mine a Hurdweiser.
I got the impression your antagonist feels that it's OK to do whatever we want because we are so insignificant in the long-term we can't affect anything.
Something I happen to disagree with quite strongly. This is the kind of argument entusiasts of the internal combustion engine use to justify there fun, despite the obvious harm it causes.
Not so sure about the lack of relativism: if I prefer one kind of tea over someone else I don't think either of us is "wrong" in any meaningful sense - it truly is relative. I believe the same holds for less trivial examples of differing opinion.
On the contrary. If you say you "prefer one kind of tea over someone else" then you are undeniably right, and so is the other person: you both prefer different kinds of tea. But there has been no contradiction, merely expressions of preference.
If you say, on the other hand, "This kind of tea is better than that kind", you can only be judged to be wrong, because there is no universal standard for tea, or any other kind of subjective preference. Alternatively you can do the sensible thing and interpret "better" as "suits me".
A statement is either right or wrong in the same way that it is either a fact or it is not. There is no in between. Some people might like to state that even scientific knowledge is subject to revision, but this is a fact that science freely acknowledges.
In short, the it's only confused semantics that allows for gray areas.
I don't know about fictional work, but as I understand it, an idea doesn't need to be patented to be prior art, it just needs to be expressed and known about.
I presume there's no patent for the wheel; it's still prior art.
Slashdot Mirror
No you don't.
/cygnus/netrel/src/binutils-20001221-1/bfd/coffcod e.h line 765 in styp_to_sec_flags
You get:
$ strings TCPIP.SYS
BFD: BFD internal error, aborting at
BFD: Please report this bug.
Could be wrong but that just looks like strings generated an error.
No-one seems to be asking, what exactly is the point of running linux binaries on the SCO kernel?
Most free software will build on SCO, I'm sure. And SCO has been round long enough to have it's own proprietary market.
OK, I've not seen Quake III for SCO. But, apart from games, what is the point of this? I don't get it.
Couldn't agree more, I mean just take nuclear weapons.
There is no faster way to kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people, animals and vegetation.
And you get your money worth because the results last for years.
:p
My point is, some things DO benefit from slowing down.
If the original license predates the trademark, and the trademark has not been protected, and he has an IETF standard with the name, well, I don't see how he has a leg to stand on. Certainly no moral leg.
Also, I think the OpenSSH developers deserve to feel agrieved by his tactics; their name has a reputation all of it's own, entirely unrelated to the reputation of this guys company.
It seems to me he must have hoped for a lot of glory when he introduced the protocol and the IETF standard. Now this is just sour grapes that a free implementation could be competing with him so strongly.
Go OpenSSH!
Efficiency
Downloading mp3's is simply a more efficient use of resources than having music pressed onto CDs which must be located, purchased then stored.
The law is not always right
The law says the current use of Napster is wrong. I wouldn't want to appear a criminal, but sometimes the law is an ass. I can't accept "it's against the law" as a valid argument for not doing something; try morals or pragmatics on me instead.
The Music Industry
The system as it stands brainwashes (most of) us as youths into accepting the force-feeding of mindless drivel under the guise of music so the industry can satisfy their greedy shareholders. The use of Napster and other P2P networks is simply part of the people's struggle for freedom from consumerist slavery. (oops that sounded a bit communist).
The Artists
I always thought that music was something spiritual, not about money. And an artist who values money above the benefit their music brings to their listeners is just as bad, to me, as the recording industry who exploit them. Hey, I wouldn't even want to download their music, let alone buy it, because it must be so cheap.
No it's not, I'm sure this wasn't caused by wishing.
The site says that one of the problems with reverse engineering the protocol is that the firmware is updatable, and therefore the protocol might change in a new firmware version.
So... why not rewrite the firmware and make it all GPL?
OK, probably quite a lot of work involved. I don't know, I don't even have one of these.
And I suppose companies might eventually implement locks on who can and cannot update firmware.
Just a though.
Normal German usage for fat meaning plump is 'dick' (same etymology as English 'thick').
/. one :)
However "Dick Lightning" would probably be more suited as a porn handle rather than a
That's funny, I thought that was something to do with this.
You lot don't need Russians to elect a dumb president for you. You are quite capable yourselves.
Now that Microsoft are getting into the coffee business perhaps we need to re-evaluate the purpose of the GPL. Free Speech, now Free Coffee. I suppose Free Beer *will* be next. Make mine a Hurdweiser.
The moon is, unfortunately, prior art.
I got the impression your antagonist feels that it's OK to do whatever we want because we are so insignificant in the long-term we can't affect anything.
Something I happen to disagree with quite strongly. This is the kind of argument entusiasts of the internal combustion engine use to justify there fun, despite the obvious harm it causes.
I don't know, I do sweet f**k all and get paid sweeties.
There's not many banner ads for maternity wear on the web as far as I can see. I hope you don't think tampax is for pregnant women...
On the contrary. If you say you "prefer one kind of tea over someone else" then you are undeniably right, and so is the other person: you both prefer different kinds of tea. But there has been no contradiction, merely expressions of preference.
If you say, on the other hand, "This kind of tea is better than that kind", you can only be judged to be wrong, because there is no universal standard for tea, or any other kind of subjective preference. Alternatively you can do the sensible thing and interpret "better" as "suits me".
A statement is either right or wrong in the same way that it is either a fact or it is not. There is no in between. Some people might like to state that even scientific knowledge is subject to revision, but this is a fact that science freely acknowledges.
In short, the it's only confused semantics that allows for gray areas.
I don't know about fictional work, but as I understand it, an idea doesn't need to be patented to be prior art, it just needs to be expressed and known about.
I presume there's no patent for the wheel; it's still prior art.