I think the GPLv3 should deal with online applications (webapps).
This has already been brought up, and there was a possibility that GPLv3 would include this. I think it would have been a stake in the heart of the GPL.
GPLv2 predated the modern Internet, but it didn't predate online services, and it did deal with similar situations.
First, back in the '70s and even most of the '80s, remote access to someone else's computer was a very common way of using software. The GPL didn't require service bureaux or bulletin board systems to release their source.
Second, if I compile an application with GCC, or print a document with groff, edit an image with the Gimp, or use a GPL-ed application to write a document, compose or play music, I can use that of the GPL-ed application in a way that does not enforce Freedom.
This is not a new issue, you shouldn't act surprised that this hasn't been added to the GPL in this version.
One good thing in the GPL v3 is that it states explicitly that the user has the right to bypass the DRM in software covered by the GPL. I don't know that there is actualy an avenue of attack whereby the DMCA could be used to bypass the GPL, but it's amazing what lawyers can read into contracts so it's a good thing to head it off at the pass.
The rest of the DRM section is redundant, or worrisome, but this is a useful clause.
Well, if you're just going to use the iPod as a media storage device, why not just sell the music on DVD-R... which will cost you about $10.00... instead of throwing in an iPod?
Perhaps because you can't argue that it's "fair use" then?
So, what difference does bundling an iPod with the unlicensed copies of the content make?
This is like the slave traders who tried to get around the law by selling coconuts with a slave throw in.
The major part of the DRM clause that seems iffy is this one:
to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy,
The important remaining parts:
Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given [...] for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.
I believe this bit is redundant, because this right is already guaranteed by the definition of "complete corresponding source": The "Complete Corresponding Source Code" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to understand, adapt, modify, compile, link, install, and run the work, excluding general-purpose tools used in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. [...] Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications.
And:
distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data
This bit is interesting, and while it is complementary to the corresponding part of the definition of Complete Corresponding Source, it does not actually prevent the use of GPLed software in DRM applications: Complete Corresponding Source Code [...] also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has it.
The definition of Complete Corresponding Source means that the recipient has to have access to the keys. It doesn't mean that the keys need to be included with the software, if they are available in a repository on the user's computer. It *does* however mean:
* First, if the user modifies the DRM software to save the protected material in an unencryted form, they're allowed to do so.
* Second, that the user can't be prosecuted under the DMCA for reading the DRM software to find out how to save the protected material in an unencrypted form, or otherwise bypassing it.
So for "honor system" quality DRM equivalent to (say) the DRM in iTunes, which explicitly provides for saving the material in an unencrypted format, you could actually use GPLed software in the DRM component. You could also prosecute people for distributing any material they had saved in unencrypted format in ways that went beyond "fair use" exceptions.
Given the rest of this section, I don't think there's any point to to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy, since I believe anyone who was actually doing that effectively using GPLed software would be violating other aspects of the GPL already.
EXISTING customers who are ALREADY paying for documentation on the Windows server networking protocols will now be allowed to see the source code to the protocols for no additional charge.
They won't be able to modify, extend, or redistribute the code, even in closed applications.
This is only by the most liberal interpretation "opening" the code, and it's really not licensing the code except as reference material.
we just want to listen to music. and we will continue to do things exactly like this eBay case for all time.
So you buy the iPod, take it home, sync it up to your computer... and...
FOOM
All the music's gone.
You don't get to listen to it.
Unless you're just going to use the iPod standalone, and never (even accidentally) sync it up, you're spending $300 for a time bomb. Even then, you're going to lose all the music when the hard drive dies.
If cars were enough like computers to make that kind of analogy meaningful, you'd be able to buy a car at Walmart for about fifty bucks, it'd go Mach 3 at ground level and be capable of reaching any point in sublunar space on a cupful of gas. And every few days it would just stop working for no reason, sometimes to the accompaniment of gouts of livid flames from the engine compartment, and occasionally fall apart and need to be rebuilt from scratch... and people would consider that normal.
But since they're not, you get zero points and have to leave the island.
We could get everything we need to get done on a standard Windows PC, but instead we buy Macintoshes because we *want* to, not because we need to.
I have tried hard to do this, using Interix to give me as close as you can get to a real UNIX environment on Windows, but I was still unable to get a real UNIX networking environment even by restricting myself to POSIX. The software I use wouldn't run, and would require more work than I have time for to port to Windows... even UNIX-under-Windows. I pretty much had to have a UNIX box for real work and a Windows box for games (at home) or pointy-haired-management software (at work).
When I was able to switch to a Mac running a real UNIX with a real supported commercial GUI and applications, I could quit having to use two computers at home. Still got two at work, because of pointy-haired-management software that doesn't run on OS X, but it's so close...
I'd rather run XP under virtualisation, than boot to it, though.
No, not from Solaris, it's strictly for the embedded market. In order to support this you need special libraries, and support for it in the operating system.
Ah, so, it's irrelevant for our purposes and any actual Sparc code on a general purpose computer still has the overhead of a large register file and the register contention problems of a small one.
In the V8E there is another optional ABI that basically gives each process one window. The workings of this ABI basically gives you 32 registers to work with, just like the PPC and the MIPS.
HALLELULIAH! THERE IS A GOD!
Can you actually use this ABI from applications in Solaris, and call regular libraries from it? or at least are there "flat register" versions of them?
And... does teh compiler make good use of it? What's the performance difference in practice?
The SPARC V8 is quite clean and nice to work with, and is farley sane, with the exception of tagged arthmetics, the trap model and the visible pipeline, and missing standard interface to the MMU (yes I know of the ref-mmu).
And only 7 registers available for the compiler to generate code for. That's as bad as the 386.
Why did they remove Firewire 800? To you this may sound silly, but to somebody who has to move digital pictures here and there, this was kinda useful. Most of my pictures are either in RAW or TIFF; therefore, I did benefit from Firewire 800.
From the article:
The disappearance of FW800 has also been discussed: Apple said it would have required them toi build a specific FW800 card (Intel does not support it), and that they had no plans for it [moose: well, down the drain goes Apple's autonomy to innovate.]
The internal pictures of the new iMacs aren't encouraging, either. They look more like a bunch of bits jammed in a box than Apple's usual bespoke engineering.
I was being cynical: it seems like HP under Carly systematically looked at their product line... and got rid of all the best products. So anything they decided to dump must have been the good one.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, rather, $49. If you can afford a 'book you can afford that, and it's small enough that you can leave it connected to your phone cable.
I think the GPLv3 should deal with online applications (webapps).
This has already been brought up, and there was a possibility that GPLv3 would include this. I think it would have been a stake in the heart of the GPL.
GPLv2 predated the modern Internet, but it didn't predate online services, and it did deal with similar situations.
First, back in the '70s and even most of the '80s, remote access to someone else's computer was a very common way of using software. The GPL didn't require service bureaux or bulletin board systems to release their source.
Second, if I compile an application with GCC, or print a document with groff, edit an image with the Gimp, or use a GPL-ed application to write a document, compose or play music, I can use that of the GPL-ed application in a way that does not enforce Freedom.
This is not a new issue, you shouldn't act surprised that this hasn't been added to the GPL in this version.
One good thing in the GPL v3 is that it states explicitly that the user has the right to bypass the DRM in software covered by the GPL. I don't know that there is actualy an avenue of attack whereby the DMCA could be used to bypass the GPL, but it's amazing what lawyers can read into contracts so it's a good thing to head it off at the pass.
The rest of the DRM section is redundant, or worrisome, but this is a useful clause.
Well, if you're just going to use the iPod as a media storage device, why not just sell the music on DVD-R... which will cost you about $10.00... instead of throwing in an iPod?
Perhaps because you can't argue that it's "fair use" then?
So, what difference does bundling an iPod with the unlicensed copies of the content make?
This is like the slave traders who tried to get around the law by selling coconuts with a slave throw in.
The major part of the DRM clause that seems iffy is this one:
to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy,
The important remaining parts:
Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given [...] for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.
I believe this bit is redundant, because this right is already guaranteed by the definition of "complete corresponding source": The "Complete Corresponding Source Code" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to understand, adapt, modify, compile, link, install, and run the work, excluding general-purpose tools used in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. [...] Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications.
And:
distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data
This bit is interesting, and while it is complementary to the corresponding part of the definition of Complete Corresponding Source, it does not actually prevent the use of GPLed software in DRM applications: Complete Corresponding Source Code [...] also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has it.
The definition of Complete Corresponding Source means that the recipient has to have access to the keys. It doesn't mean that the keys need to be included with the software, if they are available in a repository on the user's computer. It *does* however mean:
* First, if the user modifies the DRM software to save the protected material in an unencryted form, they're allowed to do so.
* Second, that the user can't be prosecuted under the DMCA for reading the DRM software to find out how to save the protected material in an unencrypted form, or otherwise bypassing it.
So for "honor system" quality DRM equivalent to (say) the DRM in iTunes, which explicitly provides for saving the material in an unencrypted format, you could actually use GPLed software in the DRM component. You could also prosecute people for distributing any material they had saved in unencrypted format in ways that went beyond "fair use" exceptions.
Given the rest of this section, I don't think there's any point to to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy, since I believe anyone who was actually doing that effectively using GPLed software would be violating other aspects of the GPL already.
So, I guess you can (or the company you work for) have a version of Carnivore
Or Google.
You're kidding, right? Slashdot? Wait? That's crazy talk!
(Slow down, Cowboy!)
I know the new Macs are fast, but does that mean the new CPUs are smoking
No, no, Intel has ABSOLUTELY no heat problems. Steve Jobs said that was IBM's fault!
If gravity is manifest as a particle, why can't we shield against it?
Bounding box is too small so it gets culled before the physics engine gets a chance to do the intercept calculations.
EXISTING customers who are ALREADY paying for documentation on the Windows server networking protocols will now be allowed to see the source code to the protocols for no additional charge.
They won't be able to modify, extend, or redistribute the code, even in closed applications.
This is only by the most liberal interpretation "opening" the code, and it's really not licensing the code except as reference material.
The FlashBlock plugin for Firefox lets you turn all your Flash animations into Flash logos that you can run (if you want) by clicking them.
OK, you don't nee Vista to run it. It's cross platform: it'll run on more than one version of Windows. Har bloody har.
we just want to listen to music. and we will continue to do things exactly like this eBay case for all time.
So you buy the iPod, take it home, sync it up to your computer... and...
FOOM
All the music's gone.
You don't get to listen to it.
Unless you're just going to use the iPod standalone, and never (even accidentally) sync it up, you're spending $300 for a time bomb. Even then, you're going to lose all the music when the hard drive dies.
This isn't fair use, it's a scam.
This is coming from the company that gave IDE a fighting chance against SCSI when it introduced IDE busmastering on it's 430 series chipset.
I'm waiting for this to seem like a good thing. It's not happening.
If cars were enough like computers to make that kind of analogy meaningful, you'd be able to buy a car at Walmart for about fifty bucks, it'd go Mach 3 at ground level and be capable of reaching any point in sublunar space on a cupful of gas. And every few days it would just stop working for no reason, sometimes to the accompaniment of gouts of livid flames from the engine compartment, and occasionally fall apart and need to be rebuilt from scratch... and people would consider that normal.
But since they're not, you get zero points and have to leave the island.
We could get everything we need to get done on a standard Windows PC, but instead we buy Macintoshes because we *want* to, not because we need to.
I have tried hard to do this, using Interix to give me as close as you can get to a real UNIX environment on Windows, but I was still unable to get a real UNIX networking environment even by restricting myself to POSIX. The software I use wouldn't run, and would require more work than I have time for to port to Windows... even UNIX-under-Windows. I pretty much had to have a UNIX box for real work and a Windows box for games (at home) or pointy-haired-management software (at work).
When I was able to switch to a Mac running a real UNIX with a real supported commercial GUI and applications, I could quit having to use two computers at home. Still got two at work, because of pointy-haired-management software that doesn't run on OS X, but it's so close...
I'd rather run XP under virtualisation, than boot to it, though.
No, not from Solaris, it's strictly for the embedded market. In order to support this you need special libraries, and support for it in the operating system.
Ah, so, it's irrelevant for our purposes and any actual Sparc code on a general purpose computer still has the overhead of a large register file and the register contention problems of a small one.
And the iMac internals have barely changed since the last round (G5 with iSight).
(shock and horror)
Damn, I guess the G5 with iSight was pretesting the ugly internals.
In the V8E there is another optional ABI that basically gives each process one window. The workings of this ABI basically gives you 32 registers to work with, just like the PPC and the MIPS.
HALLELULIAH! THERE IS A GOD!
Can you actually use this ABI from applications in Solaris, and call regular libraries from it? or at least are there "flat register" versions of them?
And... does teh compiler make good use of it? What's the performance difference in practice?
The SPARC V8 is quite clean and nice to work with, and is farley sane, with the exception of tagged arthmetics, the trap model and the visible pipeline, and missing standard interface to the MMU (yes I know of the ref-mmu).
And only 7 registers available for the compiler to generate code for. That's as bad as the 386.
Sun went through three bad in-house window systems before finally giving up and going with X-Windows.
I know about Sunwindows, and NeWS, so what were the other two?
From the article:The internal pictures of the new iMacs aren't encouraging, either. They look more like a bunch of bits jammed in a box than Apple's usual bespoke engineering.
Interesting. That would explain why the first G3 Macs were slower than the last 604e-based ones.
I was being cynical: it seems like HP under Carly systematically looked at their product line... and got rid of all the best products. So anything they decided to dump must have been the good one.
Ah, that's probably the discrepancy in the 6xx, too, because I got 4 rather than 6.