Casinos don't like to lose. Casinos are setup on the premise that you are basically stupid, that you basically are going to spend wayy more money than you win. The odds in every game except for one favor the house: blackjack. That's where you get the most card counters because that's where counting cards makes the most sense. And card counters tip the odds further in favor of the player. If casinos can't eliminate card counters they will simply eliminate blackjack.
They already do this to an extent with the video cameras. Video cameras are placed to watch every card that is dealt. They can see it on the monitors if they suspect someone of card counting. An experienced pit boss knows the difference between someone who is card counting and someone who isn't.
The problem with automating this system is what about false positives? There's a difference between patterns being identified by humans and patterns being identified by computers.
The software author gets the promise from the user of the GPL (i.e., someone who makes a derivitive work) to release all of THEIR work under the GPL. It's a contract. (Now, there is no contractual relationship between the developer and the mere user of the software who does not use the GPL.)
Nope. THe user has no right to distribute the software. The user cannot give the author something that the author is giving to them that they wouldn't otherwise have in the first place. It's like "I'll loan you my gun if you promise not to shoot me," isn't a contract either because the person doesn't have the right to shoot you. That was a simple giving of permission, which is what the GPL is -- a list of restricted permissions the author is granting you.
No consideration, no contract.
(Consideration doesn't need to be of real value--a classic example is a father making a contract with his son to pay moneies/give property if the son abandons vice.)
But that *is* consideration, because the father is doing something -- paying money, in exchange for an action the son is taking, giving up a vice. Which is a service, if you will. Distributing stuff via GPL isn't a service you are providing the author (or anyone else). The author is granting you PERMISSION to distribute. That's the difference.
Ah ha! Who owns Linux? Linus Torvalds owns Linux. See that? Copyright (C) 1994 Linus Torvalds.
Who, at this point, without looking at anything else like licenses, has the right to distribute Linux or derivative works thereof?
Well, if we look at the exclusive rights of copyright holders, the owner of the copyright. So, without the GPL, only Linus Torvalds can distribute Linux and all derivative works. Period.
Now, Linus slaps COPYING in their, notes that the kernle is licensed under the terms of the GPL, etc. Who has the right to distribute and make derivative works of Linux now?
Everyone? Bzzzt. Wrong answer. Linus Torvalds can -- under any terms he wishes. He owns the copyright. And actually, NO ONE ELSE CAN EITHER, unless they have accepted the terms of the GNU General Public License and do so under its terms.
Ownership hasn't changed. Linus Torvalds still owns Linux and all derivative works under the terms of international copyright laws. This has zero to do with the GPL and everything to do with "traditional technology licensing means as constructed by the government" (i.e., in this case, copyright law).
These laws have not been circumvented and GPL code cannot be stripped of its ownership, as the ownership of the code has zero to do with GPL, and everything to do with copyright. Copyrights cannot be revoked (but they can be held to be invalid by a court, but only in cases where they either fail to pass the originality test or some other requirement of copyright. Note that George Harrison still owns the rights to "My Sweet Lord", even though it infringes on "He's So Fine")
This is a contract. Each party gets something, each party agrees to something. Given that this is a contract, and that the GPL is the very first contract of its kind, it very well may be tossed out in court. Toss out Point 2, above, and leave the rest of the GPL standing, and you've almost got a public domain declaration.
The software author gets exactly what? Where is the consideration? There is none. Therefore, a software license is not a contract. No consideration, no contract. (This is a change from my previous stance, in which I was proved wrong by this very point.)
(And while I'm rambling--there are derivitive works you can make off of copywritten works. This is what's known as "Fair Use.")
Fair use laws would not apply to making derivative works of software, in general. I can debate this point if you like, but it's out of the scope of the discussion.
You don't understand what a license is, do you? A license is not a contract. Software licenses are and have been held to be enforceable.
The GPL is eminently enforceable because it doesn't take away any rights. It only grants rights.
An author licensing you his software under GPL is basically saying: "I'm giving you the right to distribute (and/or modify) my code (something you CAN'T do with ANY copyrighted material) under the condition that you make the source available and that you make the copies available under the same license I'm providing you with."
By distributing the code in ANY form, you, yes you, agree to the restrictions, because otherwise what you are doing is illegal. Period.
There are patches in it. The patches contain, among other things a NUMA fix. NUMA is one of the technologies specifically that SCO claims in their original lawsuit as being infringing.
2.4.19. They're claiming 2.4.18 and later is infringeing.
NcFTP 3.1.5 (Oct 13, 2002) by Mike Gleason (ncftp@ncftp.com). ncftp> o ftp.sco.com Connecting to 216.250.140.126... ftp.caldera.com Ready. Logging in...
Welcome to SCO's FTP site!
This site hosts UNIX software patches, device drivers and supplements
from SCO.
To access Skunkware and Supplemental Open Source Packages, please
connect to ftp2.caldera.com.
** Please read the following export notice **
Please note that the electronic transfer of this data to a destination
outside of the United States constitutes an export (as defined by the
U.S. Bureau of Export Administration) and is authorized ONLY to the end
user. Any subsequent re-exportation of this data requires that the end
user obtain an additional export license. Also note that it is illegal
to re-route Caldera product to Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea,
Sudan or Syria and that you must file a special license if you intend
to re-route goods to the embargoed regions of Serbia or the Taliban
controlled areas of Afghanistan. Placement of this order constitutes
an agreement to comply with these stipulations. Anonymous access granted, restrictions apply. Logged in to ftp.sco.com. ncftp / > cd/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/updates/SRPMS/ ncftp...rver/4.0/updates/SRPMS > ls kern* kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-106.nosrc.rpm ke rnel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-133.nosrc.rpm kernel-sour ce-2.4.19.SuSE-152.nosrc.rpm kernel-source-2.4.19 .SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm ncftp...rver/4.0/updates/SRPMS >
Which means that regardless of whether or not "SCO feels that the GPL is too weak to stand up in court," is moot. They have accepted and continue to accept it's terms by having this Linux kernel source code on their FTP server.
Any code in kernel 2.4.19 that is 'infringing' is actuall not, because SCO knows about so-called 'infringing' code in there, yet they continue to distribute it, meaning they have effectively GPLed whatever code is in there, regardless of who actually put it in there (most likely, according to various sources, a Caldera employee!)
all in all its just as easy as with windows, eventhough it feels unfamiliar
No, it isn't. I've been using Linux for more than 10 years. THat's right, more than 10 years.
And I've run into my fair share of problems. Even with recent installs of new versions of Linux distros. It's not always plug and play, it's not always that easy, and people saying stuff like this just makes it worse, but it shades in rose-coloured glasses and contributes nothing to fixing the very real hardware issues that still persist on Linux to this day.
I did it yesterday. You just plugged it in and it worked (*). No special modules, no kernel recompile, no boot parameters. Apparently, the whole ide-scsi mess isn't necessary anymore. Just plug in and launch xcdroast. Dead simple.
That's gotta be a relatively new thing. When I first set up by brand new Plextor ATAPI CD burner with kernel 2.4.18 and the most current version of cdrtools at the time, (this was still fairly recently, mind you), I had to do the ide-scsi thing. It was a pain. Maybe that's no longer the case, but at that point it was.
And I had to reconfigure and recompile my kernel to get my nVidia drivers working right. Apparently there are a few default settings that the nVidia driver doesn't like, nor does it change them or give you the option of changing them. If you don't know that APIC support in the kernel doesn't play well with nVidia's drivers on AGP 4X running on AMD Athlons, well, too bad for you. At the time, it wasn't very well documented either. Do you even know what APIC support is? Do you know where to turn it off? Unless you have an nVidia card, I'd wager no.
Have you ever installed an ATAPI CD burner? Not exactly plug-and-play. nVidia GeForce card? Not bad, but if you happen to have an AMD Athlon with the AGP problem, um, have fun.:) Scanner? Web cam? These things generally aren't all that easy to install.
When I get a webcam or CD burner and install it on Window, I pop the CD in, click 'Next >' a whole bunch of times and bammo, working hardware, software and all.
On Linux, heh. If you don't know much about configuring and compiling the kernel, kernel modules, etc., forget it.:)
Other than a ruling from a conservative-majority Supreme Court, exactly how is this case not constitutionally-protected? Ever read the First Amendment?
So if 99% of the population are cannibals, and they decide to eat you, part of the 1% of the population that isn't...? Is it okay that you are now lunch?
It's ok that they choose to do that, but I'd really have to question that 1% that is stupid enough to live there.
No, it's not okay, and it's the reason that we do *not* live in a democracy, X. It's called the tyranny of the majority. We live in a constitutionally-limited republic, the so-called 'representative democracy'.
If we lived in an actual democracy (democracy==mob rule), there would be no such things as taxes or anything else equally unpopular, but perhaps necessary.
The community does. If 99% of the population says 1% can't do something they like that does effect the rest, even in a very minor way, that 1% loses out.
So if 99% of the population are cannibals, and they decide to eat you, part of the 1% of the population that isn't...? Is it okay that you are now lunch?
IBM can't use the patents against the Linux kernel anymore than SCO can
Who said anything about the Linux kernel? Go back and read what I wrote. Go ahead, I'll wait.;) I said open source software.
One of the patents they are saying SCO violated, for instance, uses a graphical tree representation of a menu system. That means that any OSS that implements a graphical tree menu is in violation of that patent, and IBM can sue, if it so chooses.
Before we go "Yay, GO IBM!" realize that IBMs patents are potentially as harmful to Open Source Software as they are to SCO. Fortunately, IBM pays a bit more than lip service to open source at this point, so it's not like they necessarily will use their patent repetoire against OSS, but just keep in mind that they *could*.
On the other hand, part of my really is saying:
"FSCK DARL MCBRIDE AND SCO! KICK 'EM WEAR IT COUNTS, IBM!"
Pretty good actually. Many IT departments don't do installs from original CDs, but from burned copies. This is perfectly legimitate, because you are allowed to make copies of your software for archival purposes, at least in the U.S., pursuant to the Software Act of 1980. So you have no way of knowing whether the software is legimitate or not.
If anybody's breaking the law here, it's XYZ Computers. You *could* be found liable for breaking the law, too, if you knew that the burned CD was not a legit archival copy. But chances are they're not going to go after you. Chances are if the place *did* get busted for infringement, they're more likely to ask you to be a *witness* against XYZ Computers then they are to bust you for infringement.
Note that I am not a lawyer and that this does NOT constitute legal advice.
So if Joe Blow posts Windows Server 2000 (or whatever) on Kazaa, and I download it, am I free to use it in a production environment?
No, but not for the reason you're probably thinking. It is not illegal to use unlicensed software per se. The copyright holder has the exclusive right to copy and distribute the software. You violated the law when you downloaded the copy, because *you* made a copy in violation of the copyright holders' rights (as did Joe Blow on Kazaa)
However, if you didn't actually make the copy, then you are not breaking any laws by using the unlicensed software. Example:
You buy a computer from an OEM, XYZ Computers. XYZ Computers installed Windows 2000 Server on the computer, and it is unlicensed. You actually haven't broken any laws and aren't liable for direct copyright infringement, XYZ Computers is. Whether you are responsible for *contributory* infringement depends on whether or not you knew about and/or authorized XYZ Computers to install the unlicensed copy of Windows 2000 Server.
Another, clearer example: you are using a computer at your place of employment, one that is assigned to you and is placed in your cube/office. The company you work for has an unlicensed copy of Windows XP installed on the computer. You are using the unlicensed OS, sure, but you aren't responsible for copyright infringement, your employer is, because they made the illegal copy.
I do graphic design work (used to do it more regularly, now it's only a side thing) and actually *need* prepress stuff, hence I own a fully licensed copy of Photoshop 6.:)
That being said, I use the GIMP about 85% of the time, and only when I *need* Photoshop do I take my files in there. I find I can work faster in GIMP than I can in Photoshop in most cases.
Slashdot Mirror
~4.4 million. They're saying at least 1/4 of the code is Unix System V. Yeah, whatever.
As I stated to daddypants, who IGNORED ME ahem, Michael, Wininformant has the real story. Due out in Q1-Q2 2004, not Q3-Q4.
Casinos don't like to lose. Casinos are setup on the premise that you are basically stupid, that you basically are going to spend wayy more money than you win. The odds in every game except for one favor the house: blackjack. That's where you get the most card counters because that's where counting cards makes the most sense. And card counters tip the odds further in favor of the player. If casinos can't eliminate card counters they will simply eliminate blackjack.
They already do this to an extent with the video cameras. Video cameras are placed to watch every card that is dealt. They can see it on the monitors if they suspect someone of card counting. An experienced pit boss knows the difference between someone who is card counting and someone who isn't.
The problem with automating this system is what about false positives? There's a difference between patterns being identified by humans and patterns being identified by computers.
The software author gets the promise from the user of the GPL (i.e., someone who makes a derivitive work) to release all of THEIR work under the GPL. It's a contract. (Now, there is no contractual relationship between the developer and the mere user of the software who does not use the GPL.)
Nope. THe user has no right to distribute the software. The user cannot give the author something that the author is giving to them that they wouldn't otherwise have in the first place. It's like "I'll loan you my gun if you promise not to shoot me," isn't a contract either because the person doesn't have the right to shoot you. That was a simple giving of permission, which is what the GPL is -- a list of restricted permissions the author is granting you.
No consideration, no contract.
(Consideration doesn't need to be of real value--a classic example is a father making a contract with his son to pay moneies/give property if the son abandons vice.)
But that *is* consideration, because the father is doing something -- paying money, in exchange for an action the son is taking, giving up a vice. Which is a service, if you will. Distributing stuff via GPL isn't a service you are providing the author (or anyone else). The author is granting you PERMISSION to distribute. That's the difference.
How does the GPL supercede government authority. Let's take a look at somethings shall we?
/*
Forget the GPL a minute. Let's look at the Linux source, shall we?
* linux/kernel/vm86.c
*
* Copyright (C) 1994 Linus Torvalds
Ah ha! Who owns Linux? Linus Torvalds owns Linux. See that? Copyright (C) 1994 Linus Torvalds.
Who, at this point, without looking at anything else like licenses, has the right to distribute Linux or derivative works thereof?
Well, if we look at the exclusive rights of copyright holders, the owner of the copyright. So, without the GPL, only Linus Torvalds can distribute Linux and all derivative works. Period.
Now, Linus slaps COPYING in their, notes that the kernle is licensed under the terms of the GPL, etc. Who has the right to distribute and make derivative works of Linux now?
Everyone? Bzzzt. Wrong answer. Linus Torvalds can -- under any terms he wishes. He owns the copyright. And actually, NO ONE ELSE CAN EITHER, unless they have accepted the terms of the GNU General Public License and do so under its terms.
Ownership hasn't changed. Linus Torvalds still owns Linux and all derivative works under the terms of international copyright laws. This has zero to do with the GPL and everything to do with "traditional technology licensing means as constructed by the government" (i.e., in this case, copyright law).
These laws have not been circumvented and GPL code cannot be stripped of its ownership, as the ownership of the code has zero to do with GPL, and everything to do with copyright. Copyrights cannot be revoked (but they can be held to be invalid by a court, but only in cases where they either fail to pass the originality test or some other requirement of copyright. Note that George Harrison still owns the rights to "My Sweet Lord", even though it infringes on "He's So Fine")
This is a contract. Each party gets something, each party agrees to something. Given that this is a contract, and that the GPL is the very first contract of its kind, it very well may be tossed out in court. Toss out Point 2, above, and leave the rest of the GPL standing, and you've almost got a public domain declaration.
The software author gets exactly what? Where is the consideration? There is none. Therefore, a software license is not a contract. No consideration, no contract. (This is a change from my previous stance, in which I was proved wrong by this very point.)
(And while I'm rambling--there are derivitive works you can make off of copywritten works. This is what's known as "Fair Use.")
Fair use laws would not apply to making derivative works of software, in general. I can debate this point if you like, but it's out of the scope of the discussion.
You don't understand what a license is, do you? A license is not a contract. Software licenses are and have been held to be enforceable.
The GPL is eminently enforceable because it doesn't take away any rights. It only grants rights.
An author licensing you his software under GPL is basically saying: "I'm giving you the right to distribute (and/or modify) my code (something you CAN'T do with ANY copyrighted material) under the condition that you make the source available and that you make the copies available under the same license I'm providing you with."
By distributing the code in ANY form, you, yes you, agree to the restrictions, because otherwise what you are doing is illegal. Period.
There are patches in it. The patches contain, among other things a NUMA fix. NUMA is one of the technologies specifically that SCO claims in their original lawsuit as being infringing.
2.4.19. They're claiming 2.4.18 and later is infringeing.
/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/updates/SRPMS/ ...rver/4.0/updates/SRPMS > ls kern*e rnel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-133.nosrc.rpmr ce-2.4.19.SuSE-152.nosrc.rpm9 .SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm ...rver/4.0/updates/SRPMS >
NcFTP 3.1.5 (Oct 13, 2002) by Mike Gleason (ncftp@ncftp.com).
ncftp> o ftp.sco.com
Connecting to 216.250.140.126...
ftp.caldera.com Ready.
Logging in...
Welcome to SCO's FTP site!
This site hosts UNIX software patches, device drivers and supplements
from SCO.
To access Skunkware and Supplemental Open Source Packages, please
connect to ftp2.caldera.com.
** Please read the following export notice **
Please note that the electronic transfer of this data to a destination
outside of the United States constitutes an export (as defined by the
U.S. Bureau of Export Administration) and is authorized ONLY to the end
user. Any subsequent re-exportation of this data requires that the end
user obtain an additional export license. Also note that it is illegal
to re-route Caldera product to Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea,
Sudan or Syria and that you must file a special license if you intend
to re-route goods to the embargoed regions of Serbia or the Taliban
controlled areas of Afghanistan. Placement of this order constitutes
an agreement to comply with these stipulations.
Anonymous access granted, restrictions apply.
Logged in to ftp.sco.com.
ncftp / > cd
ncftp
kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-106.nosrc.rpm
k
kernel-sou
kernel-source-2.4.1
ncftp
Which means that regardless of whether or not "SCO feels that the GPL is too weak to stand up in court," is moot. They have accepted and continue to accept it's terms by having this Linux kernel source code on their FTP server.
Any code in kernel 2.4.19 that is 'infringing' is actuall not, because SCO knows about so-called 'infringing' code in there, yet they continue to distribute it, meaning they have effectively GPLed whatever code is in there, regardless of who actually put it in there (most likely, according to various sources, a Caldera employee!)
all in all its just as easy as with windows, eventhough it feels unfamiliar
No, it isn't. I've been using Linux for more than 10 years. THat's right, more than 10 years.
And I've run into my fair share of problems. Even with recent installs of new versions of Linux distros. It's not always plug and play, it's not always that easy, and people saying stuff like this just makes it worse, but it shades in rose-coloured glasses and contributes nothing to fixing the very real hardware issues that still persist on Linux to this day.
Have you ever installed an ATAPI CD burner?
I did it yesterday. You just plugged it in and it worked (*). No special modules, no kernel recompile, no boot parameters. Apparently, the whole ide-scsi mess isn't necessary anymore. Just plug in and launch xcdroast. Dead simple.
That's gotta be a relatively new thing. When I first set up by brand new Plextor ATAPI CD burner with kernel 2.4.18 and the most current version of cdrtools at the time, (this was still fairly recently, mind you), I had to do the ide-scsi thing. It was a pain. Maybe that's no longer the case, but at that point it was.
And I had to reconfigure and recompile my kernel to get my nVidia drivers working right. Apparently there are a few default settings that the nVidia driver doesn't like, nor does it change them or give you the option of changing them. If you don't know that APIC support in the kernel doesn't play well with nVidia's drivers on AGP 4X running on AMD Athlons, well, too bad for you. At the time, it wasn't very well documented either. Do you even know what APIC support is? Do you know where to turn it off? Unless you have an nVidia card, I'd wager no.
Still not going away after 10+ years. :)
:) Scanner? Web cam? These things generally aren't all that easy to install.
:)
Have you ever installed an ATAPI CD burner? Not exactly plug-and-play. nVidia GeForce card? Not bad, but if you happen to have an AMD Athlon with the AGP problem, um, have fun.
When I get a webcam or CD burner and install it on Window, I pop the CD in, click 'Next >' a whole bunch of times and bammo, working hardware, software and all.
On Linux, heh. If you don't know much about configuring and compiling the kernel, kernel modules, etc., forget it.
Other than a ruling from a conservative-majority Supreme Court, exactly how is this case not constitutionally-protected? Ever read the First Amendment?
It's ok that they choose to do that, but I'd really have to question that 1% that is stupid enough to live there.
No, it's not okay, and it's the reason that we do *not* live in a democracy, X. It's called the tyranny of the majority. We live in a constitutionally-limited republic, the so-called 'representative democracy'.
If we lived in an actual democracy (democracy==mob rule), there would be no such things as taxes or anything else equally unpopular, but perhaps necessary.
That, sir, is why we do NOT live in a democracy. We live in a constitutionally-limited republic.
Yep. Exactly. Keep in mind that I'm a libertarian. :)
Mice already do this.
:)
Hold down the ctrl key in Mozilla Firebird and scroll up and down. Watch the fonts zoom in and out.
The community does. If 99% of the population says 1% can't do something they like that does effect the rest, even in a very minor way, that 1% loses out.
So if 99% of the population are cannibals, and they decide to eat you, part of the 1% of the population that isn't...? Is it okay that you are now lunch?
IBM can't use the patents against the Linux kernel anymore than SCO can
;) I said open source software.
Who said anything about the Linux kernel? Go back and read what I wrote. Go ahead, I'll wait.
One of the patents they are saying SCO violated, for instance, uses a graphical tree representation of a menu system. That means that any OSS that implements a graphical tree menu is in violation of that patent, and IBM can sue, if it so chooses.
Before we go "Yay, GO IBM!" realize that IBMs patents are potentially as harmful to Open Source Software as they are to SCO. Fortunately, IBM pays a bit more than lip service to open source at this point, so it's not like they necessarily will use their patent repetoire against OSS, but just keep in mind that they *could*.
On the other hand, part of my really is saying:
"FSCK DARL MCBRIDE AND SCO! KICK 'EM WEAR IT COUNTS, IBM!"
I couldn't move a single bit of data between two WinXP Home systems sitting RIGHT NEXT to each other! The damn thing doesn't support netwroking...
Errrmmm...yes, actually it DOES support networking.
Pretty good actually. Many IT departments don't do installs from original CDs, but from burned copies. This is perfectly legimitate, because you are allowed to make copies of your software for archival purposes, at least in the U.S., pursuant to the Software Act of 1980. So you have no way of knowing whether the software is legimitate or not.
If anybody's breaking the law here, it's XYZ Computers. You *could* be found liable for breaking the law, too, if you knew that the burned CD was not a legit archival copy. But chances are they're not going to go after you. Chances are if the place *did* get busted for infringement, they're more likely to ask you to be a *witness* against XYZ Computers then they are to bust you for infringement.
Note that I am not a lawyer and that this does NOT constitute legal advice.
So if Joe Blow posts Windows Server 2000 (or whatever) on Kazaa, and I download it, am I free to use it in a production environment?
No, but not for the reason you're probably thinking. It is not illegal to use unlicensed software per se. The copyright holder has the exclusive right to copy and distribute the software. You violated the law when you downloaded the copy, because *you* made a copy in violation of the copyright holders' rights (as did Joe Blow on Kazaa)
However, if you didn't actually make the copy, then you are not breaking any laws by using the unlicensed software. Example:
You buy a computer from an OEM, XYZ Computers. XYZ Computers installed Windows 2000 Server on the computer, and it is unlicensed. You actually haven't broken any laws and aren't liable for direct copyright infringement, XYZ Computers is. Whether you are responsible for *contributory* infringement depends on whether or not you knew about and/or authorized XYZ Computers to install the unlicensed copy of Windows 2000 Server.
Another, clearer example: you are using a computer at your place of employment, one that is assigned to you and is placed in your cube/office. The company you work for has an unlicensed copy of Windows XP installed on the computer. You are using the unlicensed OS, sure, but you aren't responsible for copyright infringement, your employer is, because they made the illegal copy.
See what I mean?
I do graphic design work (used to do it more regularly, now it's only a side thing) and actually *need* prepress stuff, hence I own a fully licensed copy of Photoshop 6. :)
That being said, I use the GIMP about 85% of the time, and only when I *need* Photoshop do I take my files in there. I find I can work faster in GIMP than I can in Photoshop in most cases.