Sites with real login pages should change their design, so that when a window with a login page displayed loses focus, the login page disappears, and the user is directed to type the URL of the front page into their address bar again, in order to login.
This can also be considered a security feature...
the user might have typed their username/password in and accidentally left the page that way.
By forcing the user to go back to the login page URL, they are guaranteed a fresh login form every time, and can't accidentally leave credentials partially typed.
They are not regulating what tweets other people can send by this.
They are regulating tools using the twitter API that display tweets.
Such as a Twitter iPhone client (for example), that allows you to search for tweets, without using the website.
The new rule means that if the client uses the Twitter API, they cannot inject paid Tweets into the Tweet stream that they display.
These "paid tweets" are essentially ads created locally by the client and made to look like real Tweets from someone else.
The point is to make sure that every time someone messes with you they go away from it with a black eye, a broken nose or some other painful or slow to heal injury.
That only works if the target of bullying can actually inflict significant damage and mount a sufficient offense to stay alive long enough for help (in the form of a teacher) to eventually become aware of the situation.
Inflicting damage on the bully may deter them (or encourage them), depending on the person.
In any case, physical damage inflicted on the target of the bullying may make any deterrance done to the bully not worth it.
critical to the core experience = critical to our pocketbooks real-time introductions and information protected for the user = Marketing content limited to what we are paid for, for our monetary benefit long-term success for all advertisers = Advertisers that pay us are the only ones whose ads show up Twitter Ecosystem = The users who visit the site and click on our ads inject paid tweets = Ads introduced by third party software makers / web sites syndicating tweets, by displaying on the same page as the tweets. timeline = Twitter's facility for displaying multiple tweets about a subject or from a person, over a period of time Twitter API = An interface to their proprietary system provided for third-party access, to display and send tweets
Study fails the acid test. What's an Adult bully? A mugger/robber/assailant. Is standing up to robbers/assailants/masked figures making demands or taunting @, good for you? The answer should be sometimes. Sometimes it is essential, sometimes it is suicidal. Sometimes it is just smart, that would be when the bully is bluffing, and you are the one with the gun.
Back to children... Its good for you, only if the bully's response to you standing up is something other than engaging you in a fight you can't win, knocking you down on your feet, beating you to a pulp, until ribs are broken, give you black eyes, knock out all your teeth, and stomp groin until it is guaranteed child will not have children later in life.
Maybe study should show standing up to bullies can sometimes be good for them, as long as child knows when to surrender, or makes sure they are actually physically capable of mounting a reasonable defense / in the superior position to physically resist bully / make it not fun for bully to mess with them.
That's not true at all. If what you say were true, then installing GPL software on a Windows machine means NTFS is suddenly GPL too. That's stupid, of course it isn't.
False premise. A windows machine knows how to store its data using the NTFS format, and Windows is not GPL'ed.
You do not need information about the proprietary NTFS file format in order to successfully load software onto a Windows machine.
The installation of software on Windows does not require NTFS code, so you do not need a NTFS implementation or NTFS internal details distributed with Windows software.
Once the GPL'd code is compiled it's a separate entity. You can wrap it up however you like, it doesn't magically GPL code that has nothing to do with the GPL'd code.
You can wrap it up however you want, provided you provide all details required to satisfy the 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms requirements under the GPL.
“Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information.
The GPL has a whole paragraph dedicated to the hardware probelm and additional restrictions in Section 6:
A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be included in conveying the object code work....
“Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work
in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).
Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented (and with an implementation available to the public in source code form), and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying.
Is it a license violation to use GPL code in a Windows program that's built with Visual Studio, given the author is unlikely to provide a copy of Visual Studio on request?
There is a special exemption for Standard system libraries, compilers, general-purpose third party tools, and any generally available free tools.
Yeah... it seems like they can make it really inconvenient though.
By soldering down the EEPROM, breaking the erase pin, dipping the whole chip in EPOXY, Urethane, or applying ceramic coating the board, which are normally used to prevent tampering or modification.
Then the instructions to install your code involve remove coating, desolder EEPROM chip, program new EEPROM chip, mount in place.
In fact, Redhat might be violating the GPL, then.
Providing more examples of potential violations doesn't change other people's violations into non-vios.
See.. the GPL needs to include a clause assigning the end user a license to pursue action on the copyright owner's behalf, regarding unlawful distribution to that user, providing they return proceeds to the copyright owner [minus attorney costs]:)
Per the GPL, all build scripts must be distributed. It doesn't matter whether you call them "general purpose or not";
the term general purpose has a specific meaning, and build scripts have a specific purpose, not a general purpose.
If you don't want to distribute your build scripts, then you cannot further distribute the software, without committing copyright infringement.
The only legal thing you can do is not distribute the software at all, or rewrite the build scripts so you can distribute them.
nobody saw it as a problem that end-users could not rebuild it without also purchasing the compiler.
The fact nobody saw it as a problem did not mean it wasn't a GPL violation, and doesn't mean any rights were surrendered by allowing that situation to exist without complaint.
You see, your software is not mine... my software wasn't even written at the time someone considered that acceptable.
Also, they may have allowed technical slight GPL violations at the time, without much complaint, because they were actually beneficial, and would be addressed, once GNU had a decent compiler suite.
A 'firmware loader' is a perfect example of a special-purpose tool, that has exactly one use: to load special firmware on a certain kind of device.
By definition, a general purpose tool is one Designed for or suitable for more than one use; broadly useful (definition from: American Heritage Dictionary, 2000)
An example of a general purpose tool would be: cat, grep, tac.
These are not specially designed for use in their build environment.
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3
Free Software Foundation,
Section 1, "Source Code.":
The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all
the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
control those activities. However, it does not include the work's
System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free
programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but
which are not part of the work.
The GPL does not allow authors to hide or refrain from distributing any build scripts or information required to build/install the binaries.
They cannot have a "secret" build environment, the GPL requires that they reveal all scripts and information about the build environment.
I don't understand why the FSF would not
pursue this with full vigor.
Obviously you cannot exercise your freedom to modify code, if the vendor does not distribute the pieces required to build and install a binary.
Corporate IT will no longer be able to monitor Google search activity merely by intercepting port 80 traffic.
They also cannot implement a webfilter that simply monitors port 80 traffic, and denies your ability to search, based on keyword.
They can't block SSL either, since Google requires SSL for certain things (login to Google accounts, google webmaster tools, google checkout) that Enterprise users may require.
No, they are following the license as long as they do not use the software to develop a product intended to cause harm.
Did you actually read the part of the term they added to the BSD license where it says....
to develop, modify or improve products with an intended
purpose of causing bodily harm to humans, without their consent,
or of causing grievous bodily harm to any other animal from the phylum
Chordata (including, but not limited to, all mammals, fishes and birds)
Note it (1) does not say anything about harm not caused by the software or not intended by the software.
And (2) it doesn't say anything about how the software itself can be used, other than develop, modify or improve products
Ok, Euthanizing animals at a shelter is not developing or improving a product.
It seems that however you use the software is fine, as long as you do not modify the software or put the code in a product intended to harm humans or animals.
If you Euthanize them, the software itself doesn't cause any harm.
Just for the same reason a cutting laser isn't a product designed to harm humans or animals.
You could use software licensed under the HPL to develop a cutting laser.
You could then use the cutting laser to harm animals, even though it is not the purpose of the product. You don't violate the HPL, because you commit the harm, not the device.
There are lots of things not intended to cause harm, but can... such as knives, flamethrowers,
shovels...
Licensing an electronic shovel under the HPL doesn't restrict what its user can do with it (as long as they don't modify and use the code in or as part of another product)
A stock is x% of that company. If the company is worth more the stock is worth more.
Not necessarily. A company can be worth $0, but the stock doesn't reflect it yet.
Stock is worth as much as you can successfully sell it for, right now.
How much the company is worth is much more elusive than how much a stock is worth -- you can't get calculate or get a market quote on company value.
Due to its highly subjective nature,
you can only get analyst opinion.
Companies do not have a specific intrinsic value, they are not commodities, they have a value that depends on the buyer and seller, and the reason for the sale / pressure on each.
For example, a company might be worth a lot more, if the buyer is Microsoft, and they have product lines that could be combined to create a new monopoly.
Stock valuations are not based on just the current assets and liabilities of a company.
They are also based on highly subjective predictions of the future, and future earnings.
And there are a lot of things that effect the value of stocks that do not directly effect the company's business (unless the company itself is involved in stock trade / has large stock investments).
Slashdot Mirror
Hm.. suggested fix.
Sites with real login pages should change their design, so that when a window with a login page displayed loses focus, the login page disappears, and the user is directed to type the URL of the front page into their address bar again, in order to login.
This can also be considered a security feature... the user might have typed their username/password in and accidentally left the page that way.
By forcing the user to go back to the login page URL, they are guaranteed a fresh login form every time, and can't accidentally leave credentials partially typed.
Not talking about the page something takes you to.
I'm talking about the page you start on.
An exploit page loaded later should have no control of what is displayed in the body of a legitimate page in another tab.
So, if a legitimate page is loaded in a tab, how is a new DIV painted on top of it by an outside source?
Doesn't that violate the same origin policy, with regards to the scripting?
Slashdot is about news, not driving traffic to someone's website.
And 'getting traffic' is not some kind of exchange or reward offered for submitting an article.
If a different link is editorially better, then it is expected that the editors will swap it.
I'm sure NoSCRIPT will help also. Why does Firefox even allow a script to manipulate tabs other than ones it opened?
They are not regulating what tweets other people can send by this. They are regulating tools using the twitter API that display tweets. Such as a Twitter iPhone client (for example), that allows you to search for tweets, without using the website.
The new rule means that if the client uses the Twitter API, they cannot inject paid Tweets into the Tweet stream that they display.
These "paid tweets" are essentially ads created locally by the client and made to look like real Tweets from someone else.
The point is to make sure that every time someone messes with you they go away from it with a black eye, a broken nose or some other painful or slow to heal injury.
That only works if the target of bullying can actually inflict significant damage and mount a sufficient offense to stay alive long enough for help (in the form of a teacher) to eventually become aware of the situation.
Inflicting damage on the bully may deter them (or encourage them), depending on the person. In any case, physical damage inflicted on the target of the bullying may make any deterrance done to the bully not worth it.
Handy Translation guide:
critical to the core experience = critical to our pocketbooks
real-time introductions and information protected for the user = Marketing content limited to what we are paid for, for our monetary benefit
long-term success for all advertisers = Advertisers that pay us are the only ones whose ads show up
Twitter Ecosystem = The users who visit the site and click on our ads
inject paid tweets = Ads introduced by third party software makers / web sites syndicating tweets, by displaying on the same page as the tweets.
timeline = Twitter's facility for displaying multiple tweets about a subject or from a person, over a period of time
Twitter API = An interface to their proprietary system provided for third-party access, to display and send tweets
Study fails the acid test. What's an Adult bully? A mugger/robber/assailant. Is standing up to robbers/assailants/masked figures making demands or taunting @, good for you? The answer should be sometimes. Sometimes it is essential, sometimes it is suicidal. Sometimes it is just smart, that would be when the bully is bluffing, and you are the one with the gun.
Back to children... Its good for you, only if the bully's response to you standing up is something other than engaging you in a fight you can't win, knocking you down on your feet, beating you to a pulp, until ribs are broken, give you black eyes, knock out all your teeth, and stomp groin until it is guaranteed child will not have children later in life.
Maybe study should show standing up to bullies can sometimes be good for them, as long as child knows when to surrender, or makes sure they are actually physically capable of mounting a reasonable defense / in the superior position to physically resist bully / make it not fun for bully to mess with them.
That's not true at all. If what you say were true, then installing GPL software on a Windows machine means NTFS is suddenly GPL too. That's stupid, of course it isn't.
False premise. A windows machine knows how to store its data using the NTFS format, and Windows is not GPL'ed. You do not need information about the proprietary NTFS file format in order to successfully load software onto a Windows machine.
The installation of software on Windows does not require NTFS code, so you do not need a NTFS implementation or NTFS internal details distributed with Windows software.
Once the GPL'd code is compiled it's a separate entity. You can wrap it up however you like, it doesn't magically GPL code that has nothing to do with the GPL'd code.
You can wrap it up however you want, provided you provide all details required to satisfy the 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms requirements under the GPL.
"
The GPL has a whole paragraph dedicated to the hardware probelm and additional restrictions in Section 6:
Is it a license violation to use GPL code in a Windows program that's built with Visual Studio, given the author is unlikely to provide a copy of Visual Studio on request?
There is a special exemption for Standard system libraries, compilers, general-purpose third party tools, and any generally available free tools.
Yeah... it seems like they can make it really inconvenient though. By soldering down the EEPROM, breaking the erase pin, dipping the whole chip in EPOXY, Urethane, or applying ceramic coating the board, which are normally used to prevent tampering or modification.
Then the instructions to install your code involve remove coating, desolder EEPROM chip, program new EEPROM chip, mount in place.
In fact, Redhat might be violating the GPL, then. Providing more examples of potential violations doesn't change other people's violations into non-vios.
See.. the GPL needs to include a clause assigning the end user a license to pursue action on the copyright owner's behalf, regarding unlawful distribution to that user, providing they return proceeds to the copyright owner [minus attorney costs] :)
Personally, I want a GPL++ license that doesn't have exemptions for the compiler and other tools in the build environment.
Nowadays it should be possible to build a stack that is free software from the ground up.
Per the GPL, all build scripts must be distributed. It doesn't matter whether you call them "general purpose or not"; the term general purpose has a specific meaning, and build scripts have a specific purpose, not a general purpose.
If you don't want to distribute your build scripts, then you cannot further distribute the software, without committing copyright infringement.
The only legal thing you can do is not distribute the software at all, or rewrite the build scripts so you can distribute them.
No. It is fine as long as you provide all source and details required to burn a new ROM with modified code.
nobody saw it as a problem that end-users could not rebuild it without also purchasing the compiler.
The fact nobody saw it as a problem did not mean it wasn't a GPL violation, and doesn't mean any rights were surrendered by allowing that situation to exist without complaint.
You see, your software is not mine... my software wasn't even written at the time someone considered that acceptable.
Also, they may have allowed technical slight GPL violations at the time, without much complaint, because they were actually beneficial, and would be addressed, once GNU had a decent compiler suite.
A 'firmware loader' is a perfect example of a special-purpose tool, that has exactly one use: to load special firmware on a certain kind of device.
By definition, a general purpose tool is one Designed for or suitable for more than one use; broadly useful (definition from: American Heritage Dictionary, 2000)
An example of a general purpose tool would be: cat, grep, tac.
These are not specially designed for use in their build environment.
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3 Free Software Foundation, Section 1, "Source Code.": The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work.
The GPL does not allow authors to hide or refrain from distributing any build scripts or information required to build/install the binaries.
They cannot have a "secret" build environment, the GPL requires that they reveal all scripts and information about the build environment.
I don't understand why the FSF would not pursue this with full vigor. Obviously you cannot exercise your freedom to modify code, if the vendor does not distribute the pieces required to build and install a binary.
Corporate IT will no longer be able to monitor Google search activity merely by intercepting port 80 traffic.
They also cannot implement a webfilter that simply monitors port 80 traffic, and denies your ability to search, based on keyword.
They can't block SSL either, since Google requires SSL for certain things (login to Google accounts, google webmaster tools, google checkout) that Enterprise users may require.
No, they are following the license as long as they do not use the software to develop a product intended to cause harm.
Did you actually read the part of the term they added to the BSD license where it says....
Note it (1) does not say anything about harm not caused by the software or not intended by the software.
And (2) it doesn't say anything about how the software itself can be used, other than develop, modify or improve products
Ok, Euthanizing animals at a shelter is not developing or improving a product.
It seems that however you use the software is fine, as long as you do not modify the software or put the code in a product intended to harm humans or animals.
If you Euthanize them, the software itself doesn't cause any harm.
Just for the same reason a cutting laser isn't a product designed to harm humans or animals.
You could use software licensed under the HPL to develop a cutting laser.
You could then use the cutting laser to harm animals, even though it is not the purpose of the product. You don't violate the HPL, because you commit the harm, not the device.
There are lots of things not intended to cause harm, but can... such as knives, flamethrowers, shovels...
Licensing an electronic shovel under the HPL doesn't restrict what its user can do with it (as long as they don't modify and use the code in or as part of another product)
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Cursing infidels is one thing, but forkbombing is kind of extreme, don't you think? That sort of jihad really crosses the line.
A stock is x% of that company. If the company is worth more the stock is worth more.
Not necessarily. A company can be worth $0, but the stock doesn't reflect it yet. Stock is worth as much as you can successfully sell it for, right now.
How much the company is worth is much more elusive than how much a stock is worth -- you can't get calculate or get a market quote on company value. Due to its highly subjective nature, you can only get analyst opinion.
Companies do not have a specific intrinsic value, they are not commodities, they have a value that depends on the buyer and seller, and the reason for the sale / pressure on each.
For example, a company might be worth a lot more, if the buyer is Microsoft, and they have product lines that could be combined to create a new monopoly.
Stock valuations are not based on just the current assets and liabilities of a company.
They are also based on highly subjective predictions of the future, and future earnings.
And there are a lot of things that effect the value of stocks that do not directly effect the company's business (unless the company itself is involved in stock trade / has large stock investments).