Does this mean that when MS decides to release a "security patch" for one of its releases, and explains why this patch is necessary and how it might be exploited, that they are in breach of the DMCA?
I would definitely think so. Imagine this hypothetical scenario:
I own and operate a local network using MS Win2k and their DRM. This network is not connected to the Internet at large, in fact, has nothing to do with the Internet. It's just a closed down local network. I use this network to serve my customers my copyrighted digital content; customers download the content, if they have paid for the right to view the content they do so, if not they are asked to pay for such right. Customer may or may not choose to proceed. This content can be documents, music, movies, etc.
After couple of months of using this system, MS gets its head out of the dumpster and declares that there is a security vulnerability in their Win2k/DRM software that allows anyone to get access to DRM-ed content by triple-clicking on the file icon (instead of double-clicking) from Windows explorer. That means all my customers who have downloaded but not paid for their content can potentially get access to that content without me being able to do anything about it.
In this case MS would have been engaged in trafficking the information that would aid in circumventing the protection mechanism (DRM), and that would allow my customers to view copyrighted, protected digital content. This would be in direct violation of the DMCA.
Now, I don't know how far this can reach; the example I gave states triple-clicking which is easy to understand by anyone. What if it's a buffer overflow? Then most of the users won't understand how the circumvention may work; but it would allow crackers to use the buffer overflow to free the content. In other words, how selective, or vague does one have to be in describing this type of vulnerability without breaking the DMCA? The law is just too broad; but I do know the answer - it will not be enforced against MS, RIAA, MPAA, it will be only enforced against people who these "special interests" don't like.
---------------------- Server Error in '/' Application. Runtime Error Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine.
Details: To enable the details of this specific error message to be viewable on remote machines, please create a tag within a "web.config" configuration file located in the root directory of the current web application. This tag should then have its "mode" attribute set to "Off".
Notes: The current error page you are seeing can be replaced by a custom error page by modifying the "defaultRedirect" attribute of the application's configuration tag to point to a custom error page URL.
----------------------
Am I the only one getting this error on gotdotnet.com? Past this, I was actually able to look at the message board where they posted the license update. To me, it sounded ridiculous.
First of all, the original terms were totally out of whack. Here's the quote:
By posting Your Stuff, You grant to Microsoft, under all of Your intellectual property and proprietary rights the following worldwide, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty free, fully paid up rights: (1) to make, use, copy, modify and create derivative works of Your Stuff; (2) to publicly perform or display, import, broadcast, transmit, distribute, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease, and lend copies of Your Stuff (and derivative works thereof); (3) to sublicense to third parties, including the right to sublicense to further third parties; and (ii) You agree You won't commence any legal action against Microsoft or any Participant or Visitor for exercising any of these rights.
In short, all your base are belong to us!!! Huh? If I do post my project on gotdotnet, I will have to give up all IP rights to anything I create under that project to MS. I have to give them the right to unconditionally modify, redistribute, relicense for a fee, etc. and I won't have any rights to what I create. I have to imagine that someone actually sat down and thought that this was a fair deal! No shit they got a huge backlash from developers. Then there is the modified version of the license:
By posting Your Stuff to a Workspace, You understand and agree that you're giving a license under your intellectual property rights to all authorized users of the Workspace, including the rights to download, copy, modify, distribute and repost. In addition, you're giving Microsoft all the necessary rights to make Your Stuff available as part of the Project.
This has less legalese obviously, but all the details are now gone! There are no clear conditions that I am agreeing to; too generalized which makes me think that it eventually gives more power to MS to work out the details. These include and are not limited to:
- can I use my own license terms for use, distribution, modification, copyright notice? - am I effectively giving up copyright when I agree to give everyone rights to download, copy, modify, redistribute and repost? - can any user sublicense my work on their terms with their license for either commercial or non-commercial uses? - what if there are patents involved? Am I giving up rights to my patents too? - etc., etc., etc.
My understanding is that as one of the comments said in the reply to the above copyright change notice,
Why don't you just specify that you accept that the other authorized members of the workspaces will be able to work on the stuff in the workspace under the Licence the project owner defines... There is no need to give anybody a special licence... The wks owner tells that his project is under bsd licence for example, then, the only special right I will grant to MS is that I accept that MS will provide my files to others under the licence I defined. what is complicated here ? Why should they require something different ? If MS wants to use the file sin the project thay should also be bound to the defined licence, not the other way...
I think I have an answer why this is not going to happen; because MS is afraid developers will start using GPL for their works. With recent MS stances toward GPL apps, such as licenses that prohibit running or interfacing with GPL apps, I don't think they will allow developers to choose their own license. Rather, MS does want to force their terms on the developers. I am wondering how all this will play out.
1. The technology sector will start recovering in a different form that is divided into smaller parts and tailor to specific needs rather than generalized solutions.
2. Growing dominance and more technological power to big businesses is going to be a dominant theme on/.
4. Mr. Cringely will be hired at/. and will continue his career as an editor for a new/. section called "SIR" - Semi-Interesting Read at sir.slashdot.org. Slashdot has successfully debuted such an idea recently with an astounding success!
Re:They're still alive?
on
The Aging Gamer
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Unbelievable, they have been playing computer games for over 20 years and it hasn't killed them yet?
It's weird. I thought they should be out on the street killing people or imprisoned for life. Isn't that what happens from computer games?
My cable company told me I couldn't modify my box to get free pay-per-view.
Just to make this clear, it is completely legal to modify your cable box. It is also completely legal to sell modified cable boxes. It is illegal to use that modified box to watch the programming for which you have not obtained authorization from your cable company, i.e. haven't paid for it.
You can, if you so wish, obtain a modified cable box, pay the cable company for the channels or programming that you will watch and then watch them. There's nothing illegal in this. In my opinion, that is what should apply to any hardware including satellite dishes, XBox, cell phones, etc.
the DMCA will survive... because YOU wont do anything as well as the rest of the population that bitches about it.
I disagree with this statement and with Mr Cringely. DMCA will survive because it is supported by the special interests who paid for the law. Period.
Now, Mr Cringely argues that if 10 million people downloaded a song or a movie off of a P2P and told their representatives about it, it would prompt those representatives to change the law. He goes on to give an example of the speed limit law.
First of all, as a point of order, there is no such thing as a "speed limit law". The posted speed limits on streets are *suggested* safe speeds on those streets. If you are caught exceeding the posted *speed limit*, and even if you admit you did, you still have a right to argue in front of the judge that the speed limit was set too low, and you were actually driving completely safe exceeding the speed limit. But, perhaps, he is talking about the law that sets the *maximum speed*; in CA, it's 70 mph right now (65 on most feeways); however, some states still don't have maximum speed legally defined.
On with the argument. Few years ago, maximum speed in CA was 60 (55 on most freeways); and most people were "speeding" on the freeway driving about 75-80 and above. Everybody knew this including the CHP. So, if you were simply breaking the law driving 60-65 (which is considered pretty slow) past a CHP car they wouldn't bother to pull you over because, with almost all certainty, there would be others driving by faster than you that would catch their eye. Now, they increased the maximum speed to 65 (on most freeways), but guess what - most people are still breaking the law driving 70 and above. Not all violators are caught or prosecuted. CHP knows and most of the times does nothing about this, nor do they have resources to prosecute majority (maybe 99.9%) of violators. In other words, this maximum speed law is just there to serve one purpose - help state agencies meet their budgets. Nobody changed, or even attempted to change the law just because "a lot of people were breaking or disobeying the law". And, somehow, I don't think writing to my representative and telling him/her about my speed violations will help that system either. The reason behind this is that if state is deprived of a significant source of funding such as speed violations, they would have to increase taxes, and no elected representative wants to run on - "hey! I will raise your taxes as soon as you elect me! But I will set your maximum speed at 80 mph!" Most people would take this person for nuts.
Now, when it comes to DMCA, there is more at stake, and that's money from special interests, or legal bribery as they call it. This is what wins elections, or at least contributes in a very significant manner. No representative will refuse money from the entertainment industry that's trying to enforce their copyrights. They may object to *how* the enforcement is done, but not that it should be done. As you've seen from various reports, DMCA was enacted in a way to strike a balance between the various special interests, between centralized control of the content and offering mass technology that controls the content; and, no, you the public were not a special or any other interest in this case.
But this balance is delicate. I am of the opinion that if what Mr Cringely suggests happens, that is 10 million people write to their elected reps about their activities on P2P, it will tilt that balance towards the entertainment industry even more. Then, congress will finally "see" the problem first-hand; they will determine that it is too easy to break the law and commit copyright violations with the current legislature; they will have strong numbers to support their claim; they will disregard the public (as they always do) in favor of special interests. They will feel more pressure from RIAA and MPAA to require the standard encryption scheme on every electronic device produced; and we will most definitely end up with something like SSSCA on our hands! Good job! That's what we're fighting for! And, guess what - most people won't give a damn - they will think or being marketed to as SSSCA guaranteeing security and privacy for them, encrypted to keep hackers away.
I would say, if someone would write a single control panel-type interface, where the important things could be configured in a centralized locations (e.g. network, software packages, display, keyboard, mouse, etc) and make it blatantly obvious that it should be used (links on the desktop, and in an obviously labeled menu) then I would put Linux up against Windows.
Just an FYI, SuSE did this at least a year ago with their YaST2 modules being integrated into KDE Control Center, which makes that Control Center tool able to configure KDE, desktop, windows, look & feel, sounds, etc. as well as hardware, network, routing, internet connection, firewall, NFS, NIS, you name it.
That said, I still think more could be done with OpenBSD than Linux. Since it detects all hardware at startup, and loads drivers for hardware automatically, you would only need a very simple program that parses dmesg, then automatically reconfigures XFree86, and put up any messages, like "A new NIC was found, please type the IP address".
Again, most major distros that I am aware of (Redhat, MDK, SuSE) are able to detect new hardware on boot and configure it.
These arguments were very valid ones couple of years ago. Not so anymore. My experience has been that hardware setup is much easier on major Linux distros than Windows any version.
If you would use MySQL for a job, then you would never have chosen DB2, because it's overkill. Likewise, if you use DB2, then MySQL could never have met your needs in the first place. There's really no overlap between DB2 and MySQL at all.
Would you consider DB2 to be an overkill for Yahoo Finance? Hell, a lot of companies that I consulted at ran DB2, and they had much less traffic than Slashdot. The truth is, DB2 and Oracle are not marketed at high end servers only anymore; they are in tough competition at mid-level. Same is true for MSSQL, although they started at relatively lower level and now are trying to move up to high-end.
I suspect that if it weren't for slashdot running mysql, it would have long since died off, especially, amongst the free software zealot crowd.
You mean if it weren't for/. and Yahoo finance site also (and 100s of other companies). But, Yahoo, after all, is not as big as Slashdot; so no biggie.
Without onunload(), it'd be impossible to write a non-trivial, resilient web application.
What a load of crap! Nothing personal but I've been designing and developing web applications since Hector was a Pope (tribute to Chick) and this statement just doesn't sit well with me. Now, I don't know what your developers have been telling you on what is possible and what is not, but here is my reaction:
First of all, you need to understand that the protocol over which most web applications operate, namely HTTP, was not specifically made for a mostly session-centric web applications. Hence, the web apps that need to track user sessions to accomplish their tasks need to implement their own session management, or use existing ones such as the implementation in ASP (from MS) or in PHP, or any other.
Now, an implementation of a session management that is to operate over a non-session based protocol does present some issues. One of them being, the server, which assigns a unique session ID to clients and tracks the client sessions, has no way of knowing whether the client session is still "active" or not. This is usually resolved by either (a) having a logout link/button for a user to tell the server the session is over, or (b) a server-side session timer, i.e. if a client does not perform any action on the server for X period of time, the session is closed or deleted by the server, the impact being forcing the client to reestablish or create a new session. This system works fairly well for most web apps out there.
The problem occurs in cases where session holds an expensive load (memory or processor time) for each session on the server and/or the sessions are licensed to you in a limited quantity by your proprietary software supplier. These sessions are so expensive on the server that users are often asked/required to logout when they are done with their tasks, mostly because it is extremely expensive to wait for the session to time out. Let me first tell you - this is a wrong way to implement a web application, the problem lies right there in the design. So, to hide this problem and make the web app with such design slightly less expensive to run, the requirements state that the "onunload" event be implemented to close the session on the server. But this is only a partial way of covering up the design problem at the root. In fact, users do a lot more than close the browser or go to some other site after they are done with their tasks with your web app. 1. They just leave the browser running; 2. they open a new window and browse somewhere else; 3. they minimize the window and play solitaire; 4. they lock the workstation and go to lunch; 5. browser or OS crashes, etc. These are the events that nobody can do anything about. Again, because (1) HTTP protocol is not session-centric, and (2) your web app design is flawed.
So, back to your original statement: Yes, it is possible as well as customary to write a very complex web application without using the onunload event! Correct the root of the problem - create non-expensive sessions, store the data properly if you need to recreate sessions, set the reasonable timeout on sessions, and, do not limit your app functionality by purchasing or licensing a limited number of "sessions" (as that term is defined by your proprietary vendor) when possible.
I for one like to see the DMCA used against companies that could possibly aid in its downfall.
3 quick points:
1. I don't know how much the tech companies are in control of the DMCA - I don't think it's a lot. Remember that a lot of tech companies, ISPs, telecoms were against the DMCA as proposed by the entertainment industry - they had to negotiate the middle ground before purchasing the legislature.
2. The unwritten common law practice in the U.S. is that laws are not enfoced against "special interests" (read companies) who paid for those laws in the first place. So, the question is: did Adobe pay for the DMCA?
3. Finally, we don't know enough about the ITC and Agfa complaint; it may be more of a contractual dispute than a DMCA issue. DMCA could be one of the cards played by them to get some leverage.
I am surprised they aren't going for something more compatible with Microsoft Office like Star Office.
I completely agree. I use all 3 OpenOffice, WordPerfect Office, and MS Office and I do find OpenOffice more compatible with Word and Excel. But then again, MS may get way too upset if they use SO based on GPLed OO; who knows.
3: Patent issue: If I am correct Fraunhofer's patents are on the frequency, balancing, and general psycho-(hearing) relationships. MP3 just trims what people aren't supposed to hear. OGG uses the similar formulas too, so it could be "in violation". In my opinion, it's not a big deal (offshore server with anonymizing developer emails).
Any software program "could" or "might" be subject to one or more of the numerous software patents outstanding without anybody's knowledge. What's your point?
As a last note, FLAC is a great codec...
This is like comparing JPEG to PNG. Sure their uses overlap, but mostly uses are different.
1. This is an open standard. It's just patented. Patents expire. Nobody is trying to prevent you from writing decoders - they just want to get paid for (I hope) work that they did in developing the technology, which is pretty cool, and which I don't think I could have invented on my own. I am not fond of software patents, but a patent on MP3 is not the same as a patent on one-click or xor cursors.
Couple of points here: 1a. Patents expire in 20 years with an option to renew; in practical terms they don't expire especially when it comes to software. 1b. Patent on MP3 is the same as a patent on one-click in that they are both patents on software. They both claim patents on logic, algorithm, functions, whatever you want to call it.
2. The royalty is quite reasonable. If you had to pay $0.75 for your copy of WinAMP, would that really seem unfair to you? That's the price of a can of coke, for Pete's sake! It it really that unfair?
This is purely subjective. I'm sure if the patent license is enforced winamp will come up with a free version that's ad-bloated (plays an ad mp3 after each of your selected mp3s, popups, unders, etc), or paid subscription model like Real did awhile ago. Now, this may be completely reasonable to you, but others who have been playing their mp3s without having to pay for patent royalties or get annoyed by advertizers will not appreciate the change. So they will switch to Windows Media Player which will include the patent payment in the OS price (antitrust?), which will also force them to listen to and encode in WMA.
3. Like it or not, this is not going to kill MP3, because most MP3 players are commercial, licensed products, and there are a ton of them out there, and they don't support Vorbis. So you don't have to do anything to keep using your MP3s, but if you want to use Vorbis in protest, it's going to be very difficult.
I don't think it's going to be MP3 vs OGG, it's going to be MP3 vs WMA and good luck beating MS in this game. Just like I said above. Also, consider MS requiring you to use their DRM with WMAs when or as they get a hold of some market share. This will bring up so many issues it's a topic of several separate discussions.
4. I have a large library of audio files that need to get published on the net. They're free, noncommercial, non-revenue-generating. I'll publish them at least in MP3 format, and maybe Ogg if I can get a good encoder. I have a feeling that if I publish Ogg, it's not going to get downloaded very much, but it'll be interesting to see.
At least help advertize Ogg. Can't hurt. BTW what is wrong with the xiph.org's ogg encoder?
Chris Riggall, a spokesman for the secretary of state's office, attributed the problems to errors by poll workers, a glitch in the Windows operating system that runs the machines and problems with electronic cards that replace paper ballots and ballot boxes.
I wonder if they got some BSODs on those Windows boxes. I bet they are just locked up e-Machines running IE connected to IIS/ASP in the back room. Gimme a break. Maybe we need to have a vote on how to vote.
Sweet time? Indeed, saying that the Konquerer team fixed it in 90 minutes makes them sound very irresponsible, not proactive : Every change like that can have hundreds of ramifications...
I think if you are going to call KDE team "very irresponsible" you should state at least some of the "hundreds of ramifications" that KDE's fix has caused. If you have no such data, then you have no grounds to criticize them, and calling negative names in that manner is simply FUD.
It is a piracy tool.
It's also a tool with legitimate usage.
The question is wether the law still counts when the tool has a reasonably legitimate use.
If they follow this logic he's not guilty. Wine, wine bottles, cigarettes, hammers, knives all have legal and illegal uses. E.g. cut your bread with the knife, don't kill your neighbor. Moreover, in most cases, it's the use that's illegal, not the tool.
1. whether they will be able to point to any DVDs that have been pirated from the use of his code and his code only, not somebody else's; and how they will be able to prove that it was his code.
2. if they do find his code used for piracy why would they not find VCRs, analog cables, DVD drives, and computers to be piracy tools also.
2a. if they find pirated material created with his code, and are able to prove it, why wouldn't they go after the actual pirates rather than going after him. Because his code does have other non-pirate uses.
Couldn't agree more. As much as I don't like MS, they are _mostly_ right in this case. VirusScan (or any other service) needs to be installed with more privileges than a regular user (e.g. Guest) would have for one reason or another. It is also needed that Guest user be allowed to use the service.
Is there a better case for a client/server solution?
Microsoft has laid the ground rule and said the desktop is the security boundary. While you may not agree with it, this system is not inherently insecure. I found this paragraph from MS' response very clear and telling:
I've been talking with the technical folks about this and they are saying that we have, for a long time now, recommended against interactive services. We also advise that all windows are peers on the desktop, regardless of privilege level of the processes that own the windows--the desktop is the security boundary for windows messages.
VirusScan needs to be designed in such a way that will take Windows security model in the consideration. Again, you may not agree with the security model, but it is there in this case, and software providers need to be aware of it.
Nice to see a lot of Europeans coming in with "what's wrong with this? We've had this for years"; or "you've got nothing to hide to your government"; or simply "get real!"
I do not see anything in your Belgian mandatory ID card system that is not covered by a simple state driver's license or a state ID card in the U.S. The only difference between dictatorship and freedom is that you have a choice (which gives at least an illusion of freedom) - it is not required in the U.S. in any state to have a state ID or a driver's license, but having and using it does make similar things you listed above easier.
Now, most Europeans may choose to say that this national ID system is _good_ (in caps), or again, to _get_real_ (in caps), or that they have nothing personally against it; good for you then. I have nothing against people who praise dictatorship and lack of privacy. But I guess to understand that you have to look beyond the boundaries of your personal life because dictatorship is the system, not just your personal "oh so cute" card in your wallet.
Do you remember the story of that wife who kept being arrested because she shared the same name as a wanted criminal? That could never happen with a national ID card, because all she'd have to do was present it and be left alone.
What an example! First, I don't know how they arrest people in Belgium but if police just have the name of a criminal, and then go out and jail everybody by that name then there's lot more problems than you realize. And second, why don't you give people a choice if you are so kind-hearted with good will. Why don't you make any kind of ID system voluntary?
One of the oldest arcade puzzle games; still a lot of fun, aka Lode Runner. Check out here for scavenger for X; and here for Lode Runner. Not sure about Mac support though.
Redhat also announced its complex innerworkings of its business plan regarding their multimedia distribution. The general outline of the plan is as follows:
1. Make Redhat Multimedia Distribution. 2. ??? 3. Profit
All I can think of is that the click-through might be required for the disclaimer of warranty in some UCITA states.
I am thinking: Why does GPL or any similar license need a disclaimer of warranty? Since warranty covers use and GPL covers distribution, you don't have to read or accept GPL and still use the software. Doesn't this present a problem? IANAL, but wouldn't in almost every state the GPL software, lacking any other warranty disclaimers, be subject to implied warranties? In contrast, commercial licenses cover use of the software, hence disclaimer of warranty is more appropriate there. Shouldn't a disclaimer of warranty be separate from the redistribution license?
Slashdot Mirror
Does this mean that when MS decides to release a "security patch" for one of its releases, and explains why this patch is necessary and how it might be exploited, that they are in breach of the DMCA?
I would definitely think so. Imagine this hypothetical scenario:
I own and operate a local network using MS Win2k and their DRM. This network is not connected to the Internet at large, in fact, has nothing to do with the Internet. It's just a closed down local network. I use this network to serve my customers my copyrighted digital content; customers download the content, if they have paid for the right to view the content they do so, if not they are asked to pay for such right. Customer may or may not choose to proceed. This content can be documents, music, movies, etc.
After couple of months of using this system, MS gets its head out of the dumpster and declares that there is a security vulnerability in their Win2k/DRM software that allows anyone to get access to DRM-ed content by triple-clicking on the file icon (instead of double-clicking) from Windows explorer. That means all my customers who have downloaded but not paid for their content can potentially get access to that content without me being able to do anything about it.
In this case MS would have been engaged in trafficking the information that would aid in circumventing the protection mechanism (DRM), and that would allow my customers to view copyrighted, protected digital content. This would be in direct violation of the DMCA.
Now, I don't know how far this can reach; the example I gave states triple-clicking which is easy to understand by anyone. What if it's a buffer overflow? Then most of the users won't understand how the circumvention may work; but it would allow crackers to use the buffer overflow to free the content. In other words, how selective, or vague does one have to be in describing this type of vulnerability without breaking the DMCA? The law is just too broad; but I do know the answer - it will not be enforced against MS, RIAA, MPAA, it will be only enforced against people who these "special interests" don't like.
----------------------
Server Error in '/' Application.
Runtime Error
Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine.
Details: To enable the details of this specific error message to be viewable on remote machines, please create a tag within a "web.config" configuration file located in the root directory of the current web application. This tag should then have its "mode" attribute set to "Off".
Notes: The current error page you are seeing can be replaced by a custom error page by modifying the "defaultRedirect" attribute of the application's configuration tag to point to a custom error page URL.
----------------------
Am I the only one getting this error on gotdotnet.com? Past this, I was actually able to look at the message board where they posted the license update. To me, it sounded ridiculous.
First of all, the original terms were totally out of whack. Here's the quote:
By posting Your Stuff, You grant to Microsoft, under all of Your intellectual property and proprietary rights the following worldwide, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty free, fully paid up rights: (1) to make, use, copy, modify and create derivative works of Your Stuff; (2) to publicly perform or display, import, broadcast, transmit, distribute, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease, and lend copies of Your Stuff (and derivative works thereof); (3) to sublicense to third parties, including the right to sublicense to further third parties; and (ii) You agree You won't commence any legal action against Microsoft or any Participant or Visitor for exercising any of these rights.
In short, all your base are belong to us!!! Huh? If I do post my project on gotdotnet, I will have to give up all IP rights to anything I create under that project to MS. I have to give them the right to unconditionally modify, redistribute, relicense for a fee, etc. and I won't have any rights to what I create. I have to imagine that someone actually sat down and thought that this was a fair deal! No shit they got a huge backlash from developers. Then there is the modified version of the license:
By posting Your Stuff to a Workspace, You understand and agree that you're giving a license under your intellectual property rights to all authorized users of the Workspace, including the rights to download, copy, modify, distribute and repost. In addition, you're giving Microsoft all the necessary rights to make Your Stuff available as part of the Project.
This has less legalese obviously, but all the details are now gone! There are no clear conditions that I am agreeing to; too generalized which makes me think that it eventually gives more power to MS to work out the details. These include and are not limited to:
- can I use my own license terms for use, distribution, modification, copyright notice?
- am I effectively giving up copyright when I agree to give everyone rights to download, copy, modify, redistribute and repost?
- can any user sublicense my work on their terms with their license for either commercial or non-commercial uses?
- what if there are patents involved? Am I giving up rights to my patents too?
- etc., etc., etc.
My understanding is that as one of the comments said in the reply to the above copyright change notice,
Why don't you just specify that you accept that the other authorized members of the workspaces will be able to work on the stuff in the workspace under the Licence the project owner defines... There is no need to give anybody a special licence... The wks owner tells that his project is under bsd licence for example, then, the only special right I will grant to MS is that I accept that MS will provide my files to others under the licence I defined. what is complicated here ? Why should they require something different ? If MS wants to use the file sin the project thay should also be bound to the defined licence, not the other way...
I think I have an answer why this is not going to happen; because MS is afraid developers will start using GPL for their works. With recent MS stances toward GPL apps, such as licenses that prohibit running or interfacing with GPL apps, I don't think they will allow developers to choose their own license. Rather, MS does want to force their terms on the developers. I am wondering how all this will play out.
I'm still waiting for my Flying Car from the year 2000..
/.
/. will try its best for some reason.
/. and will continue his career as an editor for a new /. section called "SIR" - Semi-Interesting Read at sir.slashdot.org. Slashdot has successfully debuted such an idea recently with an astounding success!
It's coming.
As far as predictions
1. The technology sector will start recovering in a different form that is divided into smaller parts and tailor to specific needs rather than generalized solutions.
2. Growing dominance and more technological power to big businesses is going to be a dominant theme on
3. Mr. Cringely's column will be cancelled from pbs.org, as it will finally equal to the Book Review section in popularity, even though
4. Mr. Cringely will be hired at
Unbelievable, they have been playing computer games for over 20 years and it hasn't killed them yet?
It's weird. I thought they should be out on the street killing people or imprisoned for life. Isn't that what happens from computer games?
My cable company told me I couldn't modify my box to get free pay-per-view.
Just to make this clear, it is completely legal to modify your cable box. It is also completely legal to sell modified cable boxes. It is illegal to use that modified box to watch the programming for which you have not obtained authorization from your cable company, i.e. haven't paid for it.
You can, if you so wish, obtain a modified cable box, pay the cable company for the channels or programming that you will watch and then watch them. There's nothing illegal in this. In my opinion, that is what should apply to any hardware including satellite dishes, XBox, cell phones, etc.
the DMCA will survive... because YOU wont do anything as well as the rest of the population that bitches about it.
I disagree with this statement and with Mr Cringely. DMCA will survive because it is supported by the special interests who paid for the law. Period.
Now, Mr Cringely argues that if 10 million people downloaded a song or a movie off of a P2P and told their representatives about it, it would prompt those representatives to change the law. He goes on to give an example of the speed limit law.
First of all, as a point of order, there is no such thing as a "speed limit law". The posted speed limits on streets are *suggested* safe speeds on those streets. If you are caught exceeding the posted *speed limit*, and even if you admit you did, you still have a right to argue in front of the judge that the speed limit was set too low, and you were actually driving completely safe exceeding the speed limit. But, perhaps, he is talking about the law that sets the *maximum speed*; in CA, it's 70 mph right now (65 on most feeways); however, some states still don't have maximum speed legally defined.
On with the argument. Few years ago, maximum speed in CA was 60 (55 on most freeways); and most people were "speeding" on the freeway driving about 75-80 and above. Everybody knew this including the CHP. So, if you were simply breaking the law driving 60-65 (which is considered pretty slow) past a CHP car they wouldn't bother to pull you over because, with almost all certainty, there would be others driving by faster than you that would catch their eye. Now, they increased the maximum speed to 65 (on most freeways), but guess what - most people are still breaking the law driving 70 and above. Not all violators are caught or prosecuted. CHP knows and most of the times does nothing about this, nor do they have resources to prosecute majority (maybe 99.9%) of violators. In other words, this maximum speed law is just there to serve one purpose - help state agencies meet their budgets. Nobody changed, or even attempted to change the law just because "a lot of people were breaking or disobeying the law". And, somehow, I don't think writing to my representative and telling him/her about my speed violations will help that system either. The reason behind this is that if state is deprived of a significant source of funding such as speed violations, they would have to increase taxes, and no elected representative wants to run on - "hey! I will raise your taxes as soon as you elect me! But I will set your maximum speed at 80 mph!" Most people would take this person for nuts.
Now, when it comes to DMCA, there is more at stake, and that's money from special interests, or legal bribery as they call it. This is what wins elections, or at least contributes in a very significant manner. No representative will refuse money from the entertainment industry that's trying to enforce their copyrights. They may object to *how* the enforcement is done, but not that it should be done. As you've seen from various reports, DMCA was enacted in a way to strike a balance between the various special interests, between centralized control of the content and offering mass technology that controls the content; and, no, you the public were not a special or any other interest in this case.
But this balance is delicate. I am of the opinion that if what Mr Cringely suggests happens, that is 10 million people write to their elected reps about their activities on P2P, it will tilt that balance towards the entertainment industry even more. Then, congress will finally "see" the problem first-hand; they will determine that it is too easy to break the law and commit copyright violations with the current legislature; they will have strong numbers to support their claim; they will disregard the public (as they always do) in favor of special interests. They will feel more pressure from RIAA and MPAA to require the standard encryption scheme on every electronic device produced; and we will most definitely end up with something like SSSCA on our hands! Good job! That's what we're fighting for! And, guess what - most people won't give a damn - they will think or being marketed to as SSSCA guaranteeing security and privacy for them, encrypted to keep hackers away.
And, your next move, Mr Cringely?
I would say, if someone would write a single control panel-type interface, where the important things could be configured in a centralized locations (e.g. network, software packages, display, keyboard, mouse, etc) and make it blatantly obvious that it should be used (links on the desktop, and in an obviously labeled menu) then I would put Linux up against Windows.
Just an FYI, SuSE did this at least a year ago with their YaST2 modules being integrated into KDE Control Center, which makes that Control Center tool able to configure KDE, desktop, windows, look & feel, sounds, etc. as well as hardware, network, routing, internet connection, firewall, NFS, NIS, you name it.
That said, I still think more could be done with OpenBSD than Linux. Since it detects all hardware at startup, and loads drivers for hardware automatically, you would only need a very simple program that parses dmesg, then automatically reconfigures XFree86, and put up any messages, like "A new NIC was found, please type the IP address".
Again, most major distros that I am aware of (Redhat, MDK, SuSE) are able to detect new hardware on boot and configure it.
These arguments were very valid ones couple of years ago. Not so anymore. My experience has been that hardware setup is much easier on major Linux distros than Windows any version.
If you would use MySQL for a job, then you would never have chosen DB2, because it's overkill. Likewise, if you use DB2, then MySQL could never have met your needs in the first place. There's really no overlap between DB2 and MySQL at all.
Would you consider DB2 to be an overkill for Yahoo Finance? Hell, a lot of companies that I consulted at ran DB2, and they had much less traffic than Slashdot. The truth is, DB2 and Oracle are not marketed at high end servers only anymore; they are in tough competition at mid-level. Same is true for MSSQL, although they started at relatively lower level and now are trying to move up to high-end.
I suspect that if it weren't for slashdot running mysql, it would have long since died off, especially, amongst the free software zealot crowd.
/. and Yahoo finance site also (and 100s of other companies). But, Yahoo, after all, is not as big as Slashdot; so no biggie.
You mean if it weren't for
Without onunload(), it'd be impossible to write a non-trivial, resilient web application.
What a load of crap! Nothing personal but I've been designing and developing web applications since Hector was a Pope (tribute to Chick) and this statement just doesn't sit well with me. Now, I don't know what your developers have been telling you on what is possible and what is not, but here is my reaction:
First of all, you need to understand that the protocol over which most web applications operate, namely HTTP, was not specifically made for a mostly session-centric web applications. Hence, the web apps that need to track user sessions to accomplish their tasks need to implement their own session management, or use existing ones such as the implementation in ASP (from MS) or in PHP, or any other.
Now, an implementation of a session management that is to operate over a non-session based protocol does present some issues. One of them being, the server, which assigns a unique session ID to clients and tracks the client sessions, has no way of knowing whether the client session is still "active" or not. This is usually resolved by either (a) having a logout link/button for a user to tell the server the session is over, or (b) a server-side session timer, i.e. if a client does not perform any action on the server for X period of time, the session is closed or deleted by the server, the impact being forcing the client to reestablish or create a new session. This system works fairly well for most web apps out there.
The problem occurs in cases where session holds an expensive load (memory or processor time) for each session on the server and/or the sessions are licensed to you in a limited quantity by your proprietary software supplier. These sessions are so expensive on the server that users are often asked/required to logout when they are done with their tasks, mostly because it is extremely expensive to wait for the session to time out. Let me first tell you - this is a wrong way to implement a web application, the problem lies right there in the design. So, to hide this problem and make the web app with such design slightly less expensive to run, the requirements state that the "onunload" event be implemented to close the session on the server. But this is only a partial way of covering up the design problem at the root. In fact, users do a lot more than close the browser or go to some other site after they are done with their tasks with your web app. 1. They just leave the browser running; 2. they open a new window and browse somewhere else; 3. they minimize the window and play solitaire; 4. they lock the workstation and go to lunch; 5. browser or OS crashes, etc. These are the events that nobody can do anything about. Again, because (1) HTTP protocol is not session-centric, and (2) your web app design is flawed.
So, back to your original statement: Yes, it is possible as well as customary to write a very complex web application without using the onunload event! Correct the root of the problem - create non-expensive sessions, store the data properly if you need to recreate sessions, set the reasonable timeout on sessions, and, do not limit your app functionality by purchasing or licensing a limited number of "sessions" (as that term is defined by your proprietary vendor) when possible.
I for one like to see the DMCA used against companies that could possibly aid in its downfall.
3 quick points:
1. I don't know how much the tech companies are in control of the DMCA - I don't think it's a lot. Remember that a lot of tech companies, ISPs, telecoms were against the DMCA as proposed by the entertainment industry - they had to negotiate the middle ground before purchasing the legislature.
2. The unwritten common law practice in the U.S. is that laws are not enfoced against "special interests" (read companies) who paid for those laws in the first place. So, the question is: did Adobe pay for the DMCA?
3. Finally, we don't know enough about the ITC and Agfa complaint; it may be more of a contractual dispute than a DMCA issue. DMCA could be one of the cards played by them to get some leverage.
I am surprised they aren't going for something more compatible with Microsoft Office like Star Office.
I completely agree. I use all 3 OpenOffice, WordPerfect Office, and MS Office and I do find OpenOffice more compatible with Word and Excel. But then again, MS may get way too upset if they use SO based on GPLed OO; who knows.
You may not agree with lossy Ogg compression or not like it but don't spread FUD dude:
/ www.thekompany.com/embedded/tkcplayer/
...
1: No integer decoder (eg: no handheld support)
http://www.vorbis.com/faq.psp#fpsupport
http:/
I don't think a lot of people complain about licensing the hardware decoder which has been done by portable mp3 player manufacturers for a long time.
2: The Vorbis standard has NOT been solidified yet. So any developments made now would be useless
You mean this?
3: Patent issue: If I am correct Fraunhofer's patents are on the frequency, balancing, and general psycho-(hearing) relationships. MP3 just trims what people aren't supposed to hear. OGG uses the similar formulas too, so it could be "in violation". In my opinion, it's not a big deal (offshore server with anonymizing developer emails).
Any software program "could" or "might" be subject to one or more of the numerous software patents outstanding without anybody's knowledge. What's your point?
As a last note, FLAC is a great codec
This is like comparing JPEG to PNG. Sure their uses overlap, but mostly uses are different.
1. This is an open standard. It's just patented. Patents expire. Nobody is trying to prevent you from writing decoders - they just want to get paid for (I hope) work that they did in developing the technology, which is pretty cool, and which I don't think I could have invented on my own. I am not fond of software patents, but a patent on MP3 is not the same as a patent on one-click or xor cursors.
Couple of points here: 1a. Patents expire in 20 years with an option to renew; in practical terms they don't expire especially when it comes to software. 1b. Patent on MP3 is the same as a patent on one-click in that they are both patents on software. They both claim patents on logic, algorithm, functions, whatever you want to call it.
2. The royalty is quite reasonable. If you had to pay $0.75 for your copy of WinAMP, would that really seem unfair to you? That's the price of a can of coke, for Pete's sake! It it really that unfair?
This is purely subjective. I'm sure if the patent license is enforced winamp will come up with a free version that's ad-bloated (plays an ad mp3 after each of your selected mp3s, popups, unders, etc), or paid subscription model like Real did awhile ago. Now, this may be completely reasonable to you, but others who have been playing their mp3s without having to pay for patent royalties or get annoyed by advertizers will not appreciate the change. So they will switch to Windows Media Player which will include the patent payment in the OS price (antitrust?), which will also force them to listen to and encode in WMA.
3. Like it or not, this is not going to kill MP3, because most MP3 players are commercial, licensed products, and there are a ton of them out there, and they don't support Vorbis. So you don't have to do anything to keep using your MP3s, but if you want to use Vorbis in protest, it's going to be very difficult.
I don't think it's going to be MP3 vs OGG, it's going to be MP3 vs WMA and good luck beating MS in this game. Just like I said above. Also, consider MS requiring you to use their DRM with WMAs when or as they get a hold of some market share. This will bring up so many issues it's a topic of several separate discussions.
4. I have a large library of audio files that need to get published on the net. They're free, noncommercial, non-revenue-generating. I'll publish them at least in MP3 format, and maybe Ogg if I can get a good encoder. I have a feeling that if I publish Ogg, it's not going to get downloaded very much, but it'll be interesting to see.
At least help advertize Ogg. Can't hurt. BTW what is wrong with the xiph.org's ogg encoder?
Chris Riggall, a spokesman for the secretary of state's office, attributed the problems to errors by poll workers, a glitch in the Windows operating system that runs the machines and problems with electronic cards that replace paper ballots and ballot boxes.
I wonder if they got some BSODs on those Windows boxes. I bet they are just locked up e-Machines running IE connected to IIS/ASP in the back room. Gimme a break. Maybe we need to have a vote on how to vote.
Sweet time? Indeed, saying that the Konquerer team fixed it in 90 minutes makes them sound very irresponsible, not proactive : Every change like that can have hundreds of ramifications...
I think if you are going to call KDE team "very irresponsible" you should state at least some of the "hundreds of ramifications" that KDE's fix has caused. If you have no such data, then you have no grounds to criticize them, and calling negative names in that manner is simply FUD.
True. The naming "zilla" is present in different plants as well as spiders.
because its illegal to make digital copies not analog
I don't believe he's charged with making any copies of anything, is he?
It is a piracy tool. It's also a tool with legitimate usage. The question is wether the law still counts when the tool has a reasonably legitimate use.
If they follow this logic he's not guilty. Wine, wine bottles, cigarettes, hammers, knives all have legal and illegal uses. E.g. cut your bread with the knife, don't kill your neighbor. Moreover, in most cases, it's the use that's illegal, not the tool.
1. whether they will be able to point to any DVDs that have been pirated from the use of his code and his code only, not somebody else's; and how they will be able to prove that it was his code.
2. if they do find his code used for piracy why would they not find VCRs, analog cables, DVD drives, and computers to be piracy tools also.
2a. if they find pirated material created with his code, and are able to prove it, why wouldn't they go after the actual pirates rather than going after him. Because his code does have other non-pirate uses.
Couldn't agree more. As much as I don't like MS, they are _mostly_ right in this case. VirusScan (or any other service) needs to be installed with more privileges than a regular user (e.g. Guest) would have for one reason or another. It is also needed that Guest user be allowed to use the service.
Is there a better case for a client/server solution?
Microsoft has laid the ground rule and said the desktop is the security boundary. While you may not agree with it, this system is not inherently insecure. I found this paragraph from MS' response very clear and telling:
I've been talking with the technical folks about this and they are saying that we have, for a long time now, recommended against interactive services. We also advise that all windows are peers on the desktop, regardless of privilege level of the processes that own the windows--the desktop is the security boundary for windows messages.
VirusScan needs to be designed in such a way that will take Windows security model in the consideration. Again, you may not agree with the security model, but it is there in this case, and software providers need to be aware of it.
Nice to see a lot of Europeans coming in with "what's wrong with this? We've had this for years"; or "you've got nothing to hide to your government"; or simply "get real!"
I do not see anything in your Belgian mandatory ID card system that is not covered by a simple state driver's license or a state ID card in the U.S. The only difference between dictatorship and freedom is that you have a choice (which gives at least an illusion of freedom) - it is not required in the U.S. in any state to have a state ID or a driver's license, but having and using it does make similar things you listed above easier.
Now, most Europeans may choose to say that this national ID system is _good_ (in caps), or again, to _get_real_ (in caps), or that they have nothing personally against it; good for you then. I have nothing against people who praise dictatorship and lack of privacy. But I guess to understand that you have to look beyond the boundaries of your personal life because dictatorship is the system, not just your personal "oh so cute" card in your wallet.
Do you remember the story of that wife who kept being arrested because she shared the same name as a wanted criminal? That could never happen with a national ID card, because all she'd have to do was present it and be left alone.
What an example! First, I don't know how they arrest people in Belgium but if police just have the name of a criminal, and then go out and jail everybody by that name then there's lot more problems than you realize. And second, why don't you give people a choice if you are so kind-hearted with good will. Why don't you make any kind of ID system voluntary?
One of the oldest arcade puzzle games; still a lot of fun, aka Lode Runner. Check out here for scavenger for X; and here for Lode Runner. Not sure about Mac support though.
Redhat also announced its complex innerworkings of its business plan regarding their multimedia distribution. The general outline of the plan is as follows:
1. Make Redhat Multimedia Distribution.
2. ???
3. Profit
All I can think of is that the click-through might be required for the disclaimer of warranty in some UCITA states.
I am thinking: Why does GPL or any similar license need a disclaimer of warranty? Since warranty covers use and GPL covers distribution, you don't have to read or accept GPL and still use the software. Doesn't this present a problem? IANAL, but wouldn't in almost every state the GPL software, lacking any other warranty disclaimers, be subject to implied warranties? In contrast, commercial licenses cover use of the software, hence disclaimer of warranty is more appropriate there. Shouldn't a disclaimer of warranty be separate from the redistribution license?