Well, the text of the BSD license itself is subject to copyright.
The text of the BSD license doesn't grant permission for some licenser to remove conditions.
Or the author could write a separate permission letter to grant the additional rights.
You could use a similar license without the terms, yes, but it wouldn't be the BSD license that provided rights to use the code then, and the author said he was using the BSD license...
You can roll a closed-source version just for them, and provide them source code under NDA (identical code to the open source version), with a royalty free license to use the code in compiled binaries under their own license terms.
It doesn't matter that you also release an open source project.
The code they received is under NDA, which is not open source conditions.
The 3-clause BSD license still requires you to be credited.. it just doesn't require all advertising material mentioning the software to advertise your involvement (probably you don't want that anyways... it could make you look bad, if the final software product is crappy, and they advertise it contains code made by you):
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
It's possible... but by the time it starts to happen, the RIAA begins to realize they're trying to sell fire in a world that has Fluorescent, Incandescent, and LED lightning, and cooks its food using Inductive/Infrared heating.
And that's why they're revenue is dropping.
So maybe they finally move to another business.. selling lights to smokers....
Err.. Your 1st class mail is protected in that way, against random strangers going through it.
Something sent through FEDEX is not 1st class mail, and it's not a federal offense, if someone rifles through it. Instead it's a civil matter and (possibly) local criminal matter, in the form of trespassing on your property to mess with it, (or theft, if they steal the item).
The word 'mail' can only be used by the USPS.
Fedex _could_ [in theory] be required to check for pirated materials, and include a term to that effect in the agreement you sign to send something.
Your first class mail, sent through the USPS is the only thing you have (reasonably) strong assurances about.
And under FISA/Patriot Act, even those can be snooped on (by the government).
A key difference here is the government is providing the service in the case of mail, and almost all correspondence is a private message.
With internet traffic, most of the data transmitted is going to be public.
I doubt that. It's more likely they intercept the TCP request and pass it through a HTTP proxy farm (transparent connection hijacking)
I think many don't use NAT at all...
Remember the iPhone SSH vulnerability?
Can you explain how it is that jailbroken iPhones are being compromised by an SSH vulnerability, if carriers are using NAT?
The source port number field is only 16-bits: so there are only a certain number of connections that can be NAT'ed behind one IP address.
Basically, 30k source ports per IP.
Whenever a TCP connection is made, a new source port is required. Also, the source port is required for the duration of 1 MSL (approximately 5 minutes) after the connection is closed.
So that means, if I browse the web on my phone for 20 minutes, and visit google and 20 web sites, a minimum of 17 source port numbers will be required by my activity, after considering things like images, AJAX, multitasking, e-mail and other apps, it's more like 50 or 60 source ports needed.
So only a few hundred phones can NAT to the same IP without being at high risk of using up TCP port slots, anyways.
On carrier grade networking gear, NAT'ing is very expensive, due to the state keeping requirements, and creates new possible failure modes for their network.
Every outbound connection requires a NAT translation entry, kept for the duration of the connection, and again, a MSL after the shutdown of the socket. And then there's DNS, which generates even more translations....
No, it still doesn't make any sense.
If you made a port 80 request to the web site, your phone has to pick a SOURCE PORT to establish the TCP socket.
Someone else requesting a page would have a different Source IP Address and a different source port.
So if you suddenly got their IP address, your phone's TCP stack should drop the packet.
Something is amiss... I think they're intercepting your request with a transparent HTTP proxy (or something like that), and a bug in the proxy server sent the response to the wrong user.
Oh, and by the way.. how session cookies work....
a new cookie gets sent to the browser with every HTTP request, most likely, to extend their session (e.g. time-out idle period extended by issuing a new cookie).
It doesn't share all data with all people.
Only people who have joined the tracker can see it.
Just like only the people who have joined an IRC channel or private mailing list can see posts to the list.
It makes sense that a participant is capable of recording everything (if they want); however, a random person off the street cannot simply record, without joining or asking for permission to join the list.
It would be inappropriate for an ISP to record or specifically seek to intercept that traffic, unless someone from that ISP is actually a member.
Many peer to peer networks are closed, require a password, or invitation to gain access, and are used for legal file transfers, anyways.
Each peer can't really see what bytes are being exchanged between two other peers.
They can only assume since they are nodes in the same swarm, they are transferring similar blocks that correspond to the files they know about.
There's hardly ever such a thing as a request 'broadcast' onto the internet. Requests are generally unicast, there is a difference.
When a unicast message is transmitted, only the peer whose IP address is the destination IP receives the packet.
Actually, the internet is not a broadcast medium or the transmission medium.
There is no public space called "the internet" that a request passes through.
You buy a connection from an ISP.
That ISP sends your packet to the destination who also has a connection with the ISP.
OR: Your ISP forwards your packet to their transit provider (the ISP's ISP), who ultimately has a contractual relationship with your ISP and the recipient's ISP, to forward your packet to the destination ISP.
OR: Your ISP forwards your packet to a peer, who has a contractual relationship with them, and your destination has purchased an internet connection from the peer (or IS the peer).
The result is, that the internet is not owned by the government.
Anymore than the government would own the path, or be able to control what you were allowed to transport, if all your neighbors got together, and built underground tunnels between the basements of houses in your subdivision that did not cross public land, and were large enough for people to bring things through.
The government could not forbid you from using the private tunnels to share playboy magazines with your neighbors; as long as you all obeyed the contracts with each other, there would not be a legal issue.
The FCC demanding some participants filter what can be carried through the tunnels, would essentially be an abridgement of private property rights.
Because just about every part of the internet is private property, including the easements on which private fiber is laid (rights that have to be purchased, when any company or person needs to buy certain rights land that is otherwise public or belongs to someone else).
It's probably just that the US hasn't caught up yet.
In a 5-6 I wouldn't be too surprised to see an
extension of FCC regulations to include bad language in SMS as well as over the air.
Need a new 'communications decency act' first though. One that's worded to avoid being struck down by the courts.
I'm sure they send you to a "rehabilitation" camp.
Where you will undergo treatment... possibly Electro-shock therapy, if the condition is serious enough.
Although China stopped/banned use of ECT for use with internet addiction.
More serious disorders such as discontent with government, may require more radical treatments, such as the previous, and including various age-old techniques used to re-program confused/distorted people, so they can properly re-integrate with society, and properly love their government.
It is a federal offense to riffle through someone else's mail.
Bad analogy. The postal inspectors are free to open (and re-seal) any mail or message they deem suspicious.
And when packages are sent via media mail or other restricted mail service, that is only supposed to be used for books and certain other specifically allowed items, they commonly do open items, inspect, and re-seal.
Actually.. maybe it's even worse than that... the RIAA is using pointy sticks and honed rocks as weapons in the atomic age.
They discovered fire, which was a great source of revenue for a long time, charging admission for folks to come feel its warmth, cook food, and have some protection against the wolves... but then, unfortunately, someone invented the torch.
And ever since then, it's been a non-stop battle fighting illegal fire-traders, who offer their torch as a source to light others'.
Mostly by sending cease and extinguish letters, but those kept getting returned as a ball of charcoal, so the next step was to send lawyers...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Note that at no point does the ammendment state that the restriction applies only to governmental entities or actions of the government.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Yes, but the constitutional ammendments also apply to the government using private entities.
For example, the government can't require all janitors to search for certain violations and report them directly to the government.
The government can't legally make an end-run around the first ammendment by hiring private companies to silence a person, jam their signal, or hack into their web host and delete their blog.
I'm suggesting the FCC requiring or encouraging ISPs to 'monitor' users activities (to determine if they were doing anything illegal) and report to the government, would be equivalent to the government itself participating in that activity...
I think it does.. for years, they have kept their formats locked out by keeping them secret or requiring licensing for them.....
and now they find themselves in a situation where they don't want the next generation open web standard to lock them out:)
(from the Ancient Greek eirneía, meaning hypocrisy, deception, or feigned ignorance) is a situation, literary technique, or rhetorical device, in which there is an incongruity, discordance, or unintended connection with truth, that goes strikingly beyond the most simple and evident meaning of words or actions. [...]
In certain kinds of situational or historical irony, which occur outside works of fiction, a certain factual truth is highlighted by some person's complete ignorance of it, or belief in the opposite of it--...
such ironies are often more evident, or more striking, when viewed retrospectively in the light of later developments which make the truth of past situations obvious to all.
Irony of fate (cosmic irony)
The expression “irony of fate” stems from the notion that the gods (or the Fates) are amusing themselves by toying with the minds of mortals with deliberate ironic intent....
In history:
n 1974 the US Consumer Product Safety Commission had to recall 80,000 of its own lapel buttons promoting "toy safety", because the buttons had sharp edges, used lead paint, and had small clips that could be broken off and subsequently swallowed.
Importing cane toads to Australia to protect the environment created worse environmental problems for Australia.....
What if you want to capture your target for questioning, or imprisonment / ransom, rather than blowing them up?
So you blow a hole in their tank and then hit them with nerve gas to temporarily stun them, so you can slap the cuffs on and haul them to the tortur^H^H^H^H^H^H interrogation chamber.
Engineering challenges can be solved easily.. building a space tug is a funding challenge... the funds and resources have not been allocated to pay engineers to work on it, and buy everything available they need:)
Yeah I know about interrupt coalescing and PCIE.
That speed is still unrealistic, it's quite obviously manufactured by marketing in non-real-world conditions, if it refers to desktop hardware.
Can you get that speed when you have a full routing table with several peers, and must send the packet to the right destination, and implement ACLs as well?
No way..
Keep in mind, you have a table with 500,000 entries (the full BGP table), plus all your local routes, and have to perform a lookup within 300 nanoseconds, to be able to reach a 300 million pps forwarding rate.
The very best DDR3 RAM (DDR3-1600) has a minimum best-case cycle time of 5ns.
You get no more than 1 RAM access to check your routing table, before you have spent much more than 300ns in memory access time alone.
With such a large table, and access lists to process a well, it's inconceivable that a desktop meets the 300ns latency requirement.
Routing tables and ACLs are much larger than anything that will fit in your 1MB CPU cache.
Nope.
Not even close. 3 million pps is 4 orders of magnitude greater than the best possible forwarding performance than you get in real-world conditions, using the best commodity hardware possible.
Not even server-grade platforms based on Nehalem / Intel 5400 and 5500 architecture can pull that off.
BCD works great, and is efficient, when you have 16 digits to encode.
Every bit as efficient as other binary encodings.
More efficient than ASCII or unicode.
0-9, A-F.
Or... 0-9 A, B, C, D, *, #
Packed BCD commonly used by standard record structures such as Bellcore AMA formats
There are plenty of good reasons to use BCD for storage in certain situations.
Depending on the nature of the ISP... most will want multi-homing, and that ultimately means taking full routing tables.
So forwarding at a max of 400,000pps alone is not enough.
There's also a need to take and have full routing tables at the same time as forwarding at that rate, at the same time as providing things like redundancy.
If taking the table alone brings CPU to 100%, on an ISP border router (not that Cisco gear is entirely free of that either -- esp. when it comes to old/low-end), then.. houston we have a problem...
Slashdot Mirror
On a Mac: F15, F14, and F13 map to Pause/Break, Scroll lock, and Prt Scrn, respectively.
Well, the text of the BSD license itself is subject to copyright. The text of the BSD license doesn't grant permission for some licenser to remove conditions.
Or the author could write a separate permission letter to grant the additional rights.
You could use a similar license without the terms, yes, but it wouldn't be the BSD license that provided rights to use the code then, and the author said he was using the BSD license...
The recipient can't alter license terms..
And if the copyright notice requirements weren't there, then (by definition) it would not be a BSD license.
You can roll a closed-source version just for them, and provide them source code under NDA (identical code to the open source version), with a royalty free license to use the code in compiled binaries under their own license terms.
It doesn't matter that you also release an open source project.
The code they received is under NDA, which is not open source conditions.
The 3-clause BSD license still requires you to be credited.. it just doesn't require all advertising material mentioning the software to advertise your involvement (probably you don't want that anyways... it could make you look bad, if the final software product is crappy, and they advertise it contains code made by you):
It's possible... but by the time it starts to happen, the RIAA begins to realize they're trying to sell fire in a world that has Fluorescent, Incandescent, and LED lightning, and cooks its food using Inductive/Infrared heating.
And that's why they're revenue is dropping.
So maybe they finally move to another business.. selling lights to smokers....
Err.. Your 1st class mail is protected in that way, against random strangers going through it.
Something sent through FEDEX is not 1st class mail, and it's not a federal offense, if someone rifles through it. Instead it's a civil matter and (possibly) local criminal matter, in the form of trespassing on your property to mess with it, (or theft, if they steal the item).
The word 'mail' can only be used by the USPS. Fedex _could_ [in theory] be required to check for pirated materials, and include a term to that effect in the agreement you sign to send something.
Your first class mail, sent through the USPS is the only thing you have (reasonably) strong assurances about.
And under FISA/Patriot Act, even those can be snooped on (by the government).
A key difference here is the government is providing the service in the case of mail, and almost all correspondence is a private message.
With internet traffic, most of the data transmitted is going to be public.
I doubt that. It's more likely they intercept the TCP request and pass it through a HTTP proxy farm (transparent connection hijacking)
I think many don't use NAT at all... Remember the iPhone SSH vulnerability? Can you explain how it is that jailbroken iPhones are being compromised by an SSH vulnerability, if carriers are using NAT?
The source port number field is only 16-bits: so there are only a certain number of connections that can be NAT'ed behind one IP address. Basically, 30k source ports per IP.
Whenever a TCP connection is made, a new source port is required. Also, the source port is required for the duration of 1 MSL (approximately 5 minutes) after the connection is closed. So that means, if I browse the web on my phone for 20 minutes, and visit google and 20 web sites, a minimum of 17 source port numbers will be required by my activity, after considering things like images, AJAX, multitasking, e-mail and other apps, it's more like 50 or 60 source ports needed.
So only a few hundred phones can NAT to the same IP without being at high risk of using up TCP port slots, anyways.
On carrier grade networking gear, NAT'ing is very expensive, due to the state keeping requirements, and creates new possible failure modes for their network.
Every outbound connection requires a NAT translation entry, kept for the duration of the connection, and again, a MSL after the shutdown of the socket. And then there's DNS, which generates even more translations....
No, it still doesn't make any sense. If you made a port 80 request to the web site, your phone has to pick a SOURCE PORT to establish the TCP socket.
Someone else requesting a page would have a different Source IP Address and a different source port.
So if you suddenly got their IP address, your phone's TCP stack should drop the packet.
Something is amiss... I think they're intercepting your request with a transparent HTTP proxy (or something like that), and a bug in the proxy server sent the response to the wrong user.
Oh, and by the way.. how session cookies work.... a new cookie gets sent to the browser with every HTTP request, most likely, to extend their session (e.g. time-out idle period extended by issuing a new cookie).
It shares some data with some people.
It doesn't share all data with all people. Only people who have joined the tracker can see it.
Just like only the people who have joined an IRC channel or private mailing list can see posts to the list.
It makes sense that a participant is capable of recording everything (if they want); however, a random person off the street cannot simply record, without joining or asking for permission to join the list.
It would be inappropriate for an ISP to record or specifically seek to intercept that traffic, unless someone from that ISP is actually a member.
Many peer to peer networks are closed, require a password, or invitation to gain access, and are used for legal file transfers, anyways.
Each peer can't really see what bytes are being exchanged between two other peers.
They can only assume since they are nodes in the same swarm, they are transferring similar blocks that correspond to the files they know about.
There's hardly ever such a thing as a request 'broadcast' onto the internet. Requests are generally unicast, there is a difference.
When a unicast message is transmitted, only the peer whose IP address is the destination IP receives the packet.
Actually, the internet is not a broadcast medium or the transmission medium. There is no public space called "the internet" that a request passes through.
You buy a connection from an ISP.
That ISP sends your packet to the destination who also has a connection with the ISP.
OR: Your ISP forwards your packet to their transit provider (the ISP's ISP), who ultimately has a contractual relationship with your ISP and the recipient's ISP, to forward your packet to the destination ISP.
OR: Your ISP forwards your packet to a peer, who has a contractual relationship with them, and your destination has purchased an internet connection from the peer (or IS the peer).
The result is, that the internet is not owned by the government.
Anymore than the government would own the path, or be able to control what you were allowed to transport, if all your neighbors got together, and built underground tunnels between the basements of houses in your subdivision that did not cross public land, and were large enough for people to bring things through.
The government could not forbid you from using the private tunnels to share playboy magazines with your neighbors; as long as you all obeyed the contracts with each other, there would not be a legal issue.
The FCC demanding some participants filter what can be carried through the tunnels, would essentially be an abridgement of private property rights.
Because just about every part of the internet is private property, including the easements on which private fiber is laid (rights that have to be purchased, when any company or person needs to buy certain rights land that is otherwise public or belongs to someone else).
Indeed. Monitoring us universal.
But censorship (currently) is unique.
It's probably just that the US hasn't caught up yet. In a 5-6 I wouldn't be too surprised to see an extension of FCC regulations to include bad language in SMS as well as over the air.
Need a new 'communications decency act' first though. One that's worded to avoid being struck down by the courts.
No... China's civilized now.
I'm sure they send you to a "rehabilitation" camp.
Where you will undergo treatment... possibly Electro-shock therapy, if the condition is serious enough.
Although China stopped/banned use of ECT for use with internet addiction.
More serious disorders such as discontent with government, may require more radical treatments, such as the previous, and including various age-old techniques used to re-program confused/distorted people, so they can properly re-integrate with society, and properly love their government.
China and the US both need to upgrade to Constitution v2.0
Remember all those laws the US passed? Communications Decency Act....
With the right party in power (unfortunately), I could see the US having gone down the same path.
There's already much precedent in this area.. think FCC regulations and TV/radio broadcasters, talk shows, etc.
The reason would be the same as usual.... think of the children!
It is a federal offense to riffle through someone else's mail.
Bad analogy. The postal inspectors are free to open (and re-seal) any mail or message they deem suspicious.
And when packages are sent via media mail or other restricted mail service, that is only supposed to be used for books and certain other specifically allowed items, they commonly do open items, inspect, and re-seal.
Actually.. maybe it's even worse than that... the RIAA is using pointy sticks and honed rocks as weapons in the atomic age.
They discovered fire, which was a great source of revenue for a long time, charging admission for folks to come feel its warmth, cook food, and have some protection against the wolves... but then, unfortunately, someone invented the torch.
And ever since then, it's been a non-stop battle fighting illegal fire-traders, who offer their torch as a source to light others'.
Mostly by sending cease and extinguish letters, but those kept getting returned as a ball of charcoal, so the next step was to send lawyers...
The 4th ammendment says:
Note that at no point does the ammendment state that the restriction applies only to governmental entities or actions of the government.
Yes, but the constitutional ammendments also apply to the government using private entities.
For example, the government can't require all janitors to search for certain violations and report them directly to the government.
The government can't legally make an end-run around the first ammendment by hiring private companies to silence a person, jam their signal, or hack into their web host and delete their blog.
I'm suggesting the FCC requiring or encouraging ISPs to 'monitor' users activities (to determine if they were doing anything illegal) and report to the government, would be equivalent to the government itself participating in that activity...
I think it does.. for years, they have kept their formats locked out by keeping them secret or requiring licensing for them.. ...
and now they find themselves in a situation where they don't want the next generation open web standard to lock them out :)
Irony, according to WP:
What if you want to capture your target for questioning, or imprisonment / ransom, rather than blowing them up?
So you blow a hole in their tank and then hit them with nerve gas to temporarily stun them, so you can slap the cuffs on and haul them to the tortur^H^H^H^H^H^H interrogation chamber.
How about disabling their vehicle, or punching a hole in their tank to facilitate an ambush or use of other weapons?
Engineering challenges can be solved easily.. building a space tug is a funding challenge... the funds and resources have not been allocated to pay engineers to work on it, and buy everything available they need :)
Yeah I know about interrupt coalescing and PCIE. That speed is still unrealistic, it's quite obviously manufactured by marketing in non-real-world conditions, if it refers to desktop hardware.
Can you get that speed when you have a full routing table with several peers, and must send the packet to the right destination, and implement ACLs as well?
No way.. Keep in mind, you have a table with 500,000 entries (the full BGP table), plus all your local routes, and have to perform a lookup within 300 nanoseconds, to be able to reach a 300 million pps forwarding rate. The very best DDR3 RAM (DDR3-1600) has a minimum best-case cycle time of 5ns. You get no more than 1 RAM access to check your routing table, before you have spent much more than 300ns in memory access time alone.
With such a large table, and access lists to process a well, it's inconceivable that a desktop meets the 300ns latency requirement.
Routing tables and ACLs are much larger than anything that will fit in your 1MB CPU cache. Nope.
Not even close. 3 million pps is 4 orders of magnitude greater than the best possible forwarding performance than you get in real-world conditions, using the best commodity hardware possible.
Not even server-grade platforms based on Nehalem / Intel 5400 and 5500 architecture can pull that off.
BCD works great, and is efficient, when you have 16 digits to encode. Every bit as efficient as other binary encodings. More efficient than ASCII or unicode.
0-9, A-F.
Or... 0-9 A, B, C, D, *, #
Packed BCD commonly used by standard record structures such as Bellcore AMA formats
There are plenty of good reasons to use BCD for storage in certain situations.
If you just need to point default, a few routes for your networks and go, then great.. otherwise...
quite a bit better than using commodity desktop components..
However not without issues
Depending on the nature of the ISP... most will want multi-homing, and that ultimately means taking full routing tables.
So forwarding at a max of 400,000pps alone is not enough.
There's also a need to take and have full routing tables at the same time as forwarding at that rate, at the same time as providing things like redundancy.
If taking the table alone brings CPU to 100%, on an ISP border router (not that Cisco gear is entirely free of that either -- esp. when it comes to old/low-end), then.. houston we have a problem...