What if part of the process of "hacking" the iPhone causes the mechanism that fetches the checksum to fail? Fail so bad that it bricks the phone? How can apple code for something they did not do and may not be able to detect?
The point of this post is not that someone -inside- can/cannot exploit our setup, it's that the other 5 billion people on the planet can't get to it. The same cannot be said of GMail.
Or the "Unlimited" storage, or multi-terabyte storage, offered by budget hosts for $3.00 / mth?
It will only take a few thousand users to store their mp3/movie collection on this thing to make the provider cry uncle. The last time I checked, storage costs $$$$$$$$.
Wrong. They tased him BEFORE they got the cuffs on. He was squirming so much they were unable to cuff him.
Wait wait... so now it's okay to taze a prone suspect because he makes it difficult for you to put on the cuffs? IOW, it's okay for fucking lazy cops to use a tazer in lieu of proper arrest procedure? Well... that's just awesome. Yes - it has always been ok. They spent the better part of 60 seconds trying to get him into cuffs. Would you rather they break his arm trying to get the cuffs on?!?!?!
They followed proper procedure:
-They asked him to leave, he refused. -He created a public disturbance, he was placed under arrest. -He refused arrest, physically, and disobeyed commands from a police officer. -The police spent more time then they should have, IMO, trying to force him to comply. Their methods did not work so they decided to use another....
You have to do what police say. If they are in the wrong, that is for a judge to decide, not you.
Your account is wrong and taken out of context. You are missing the part where he bullied his way in front of the mic. He was tased becuase he would not comply and allow the officers to cuff him.
They finally got him to the ground and had him cuffed and then they decided they needed to electrocute him. He wasn't a threat to anyone. He was under control. But they electrocuted him because they are fascist pigs. Wrong. They tased him BEFORE they got the cuffs on. He was squirming so much they were unable to cuff him.
The police handled things appropriately. A man swinging his arms at police as they are trying to escort him out of a venue is a threat to the police. He wasn't, until he resisted beyond reason, under arrest. Maybe he will learn where that line is now.
He was handcuffed, on the ground, with six cops kneeling on him when he was tasered. How was that appropriate? He was NOT in cuffs. You cannot tell that in the video. You made an assumption to back-up your position. Please refrain from doing that in the future.
So much pessimism. Just because some people have the URGE to buy wma-encoded music doesn't mean that companies should have the URGE to take it away at some point. It's not like URGE ever could really explain the unified theory in any clear and concise.......URGE
As much as I like RMS it looks like BSD just got their own with Theo. And he has followers. We prefer the term Zealots.
And it's not that we are upset at
the GPL community for regularly 'stealing' BSD code. it's the fact that people that contribute to the Linux repos continually strip the BSD license off the work and then slap the GPL on it. It's not so much that a contribution back is necessary to make us feel all warm and fuzzy - just credit the original author as the license requires. There was a reason we chose the BSD license in the first place: just honor it.
No, the context of this discussion is with a piece of code that was dual-licensed BSD and GPL. I would disagree. This thread is about TdR's comment regarding BSD-licensed code that was taken and comited to Linux tree's under the guise of GPL. It is straight-forward:
-code was used that was released under a BSD license -changes were made, the BSD license removed and the GPL applied
The author's comments and credit were removed, violating copyright law.
The BSD license forbids removing the BSD license. If you wish to get the right to redistribute via the BSD license, then you must comply with the terms of the BSD license, and therefore you cannot remove the BSD license.
Ok. First you say I'm wrong, then reiterate my comment as being correct. Nice going AC...
However, in the case of dual-licensed code, there are other ways of getting the right to redistribute the code. If you obtain the right to redistribute the code from another license, there is no need to comply with the terms of the BSD license, and therefore there is no restriction on removing the BSD license, unless the other license also restricts this (the GPL does not).
Licenses aren't some magical property that copyright holders immutably glue to their creations. Licenses are agreements between parties, nothing more. Making an agreement with one license does not mean that you are bound by the terms of other licenses.
The whole context of this discussion is with a piece of code that has a BSD license, then someone takes all or some of that licensed code and applies the GPL to it.
1) The BSD licensed guys are pissed because someone took some code and locked them out of it, despite being rabidly pro the freedom to do exactly this. WRONG!
THE BSD LICENSE CANNOT BE REMOVED!!!!
You can do what you want with the source code, PROVIDED you leave the BSD license in place. The issue is when someone wraps the code, with the BSD license, in a GPL or other incompatible license.
Also, IMO, but my understanding is that copyright law trumps all. The BSD license does not dissolve the copyright.
Theo de Raat killed a goat with his bare hands then gorged himself in its blood, all the while with a modest smirk.
The daemon[BSD] will rise again.... Say what you will of our license and operating systems. While the Linux community is squabbling about who has the larger junk, the BSD people are busy working on getting solid products out the door.
shhh! How dare you bring real-word experiences and solutions to slashdot! Next you'll be telling us that Java really does run identical bytecode on multiple platforms!!!?@?!@1111**OMG!!!
Slashdot Mirror
What if part of the process of "hacking" the iPhone causes the mechanism that fetches the checksum to fail? Fail so bad that it bricks the phone? How can apple code for something they did not do and may not be able to detect?
Just wondering.
Exchange server behind 3 firewalls and a DMZ.You'll never be safe.
Good luck.
The point of this post is not that someone -inside- can/cannot exploit our setup, it's that the other 5 billion people on the planet can't get to it. The same cannot be said of GMail.
What are you talking about? What do images have to do with this?
What, you mean like S3 was?
Or the "Unlimited" storage, or multi-terabyte storage, offered by budget hosts for $3.00 / mth?
It will only take a few thousand users to store their mp3/movie collection on this thing to make the provider cry uncle. The last time I checked, storage costs $$$$$$$$.
please mod parent down. This video is from a different year, not to mention different event.
Wait wait... so now it's okay to taze a prone suspect because he makes it difficult for you to put on the cuffs? IOW, it's okay for fucking lazy cops to use a tazer in lieu of proper arrest procedure? Well... that's just awesome. Yes - it has always been ok. They spent the better part of 60 seconds trying to get him into cuffs. Would you rather they break his arm trying to get the cuffs on?!?!?!
They followed proper procedure:
-They asked him to leave, he refused.
-He created a public disturbance, he was placed under arrest.
-He refused arrest, physically, and disobeyed commands from a police officer.
-The police spent more time then they should have, IMO, trying to force him to comply. Their methods did not work so they decided to use another....
You have to do what police say. If they are in the wrong, that is for a judge to decide, not you.
Your account is wrong and taken out of context. You are missing the part where he bullied his way in front of the mic. He was tased becuase he would not comply and allow the officers to cuff him.
again,
HE WAS NOT IN CUFFS!!!!
changes things, eh?
He was handcuffed, on the ground, with six cops kneeling on him when he was tasered. How was that appropriate? He was NOT in cuffs. You cannot tell that in the video. You made an assumption to back-up your position. Please refrain from doing that in the future.
So much pessimism. Just because some people have the URGE to buy wma-encoded music doesn't mean that companies should have the URGE to take it away at some point. It's not like URGE ever could really explain the unified theory in any clear and concise.. .....URGE
Rayden Wins.
*scary lightening*
OOOGEEEBAAAAGEEWAAA!!!!!!!!11
And it's not that we are upset at the GPL community for regularly 'stealing' BSD code. it's the fact that people that contribute to the Linux repos continually strip the BSD license off the work and then slap the GPL on it. It's not so much that a contribution back is necessary to make us feel all warm and fuzzy - just credit the original author as the license requires. There was a reason we chose the BSD license in the first place: just honor it.
Regards,
No worries - my syntactic sugar got nitpicked a lot in this thread. =)
-code was used that was released under a BSD license
-changes were made, the BSD license removed and the GPL applied
The author's comments and credit were removed, violating copyright law.
This is the issue at hand.
TdR is technically correct and, after all, that is the best KIND of correct.
THE BSD LICENSE CANNOT BE REMOVED!!!!
Wrong. And don't shout.
Ok. First you say I'm wrong, then reiterate my comment as being correct. Nice going AC...The BSD license forbids removing the BSD license. If you wish to get the right to redistribute via the BSD license, then you must comply with the terms of the BSD license, and therefore you cannot remove the BSD license.
However, in the case of dual-licensed code, there are other ways of getting the right to redistribute the code. If you obtain the right to redistribute the code from another license, there is no need to comply with the terms of the BSD license, and therefore there is no restriction on removing the BSD license, unless the other license also restricts this (the GPL does not).
The whole context of this discussion is with a piece of code that has a BSD license, then someone takes all or some of that licensed code and applies the GPL to it.Licenses aren't some magical property that copyright holders immutably glue to their creations. Licenses are agreements between parties, nothing more. Making an agreement with one license does not mean that you are bound by the terms of other licenses.
THE BSD LICENSE CANNOT BE REMOVED!!!!
You can do what you want with the source code, PROVIDED you leave the BSD license in place.
The issue is when someone wraps the code, with the BSD license, in a GPL or other incompatible license.
Also, IMO, but my understanding is that copyright law trumps all. The BSD license does not dissolve the copyright.
The BSD licnese header and author's comments must remain in place. That's all. The only reason to remove it is to pass it off as your own.
Your comment is useless and trollesque without a link.
Theo de Raat killed a goat with his bare hands then gorged himself in its blood, all the while with a modest smirk.
The daemon[BSD] will rise again.... Say what you will of our license and operating systems. While the Linux community is squabbling about who has the larger junk, the BSD people are busy working on getting solid products out the door.
This comment is meaningless without a reference.
shhh! How dare you bring real-word experiences and solutions to slashdot! Next you'll be telling us that Java really does run identical bytecode on multiple platforms!!!?@?!@1111**OMG!!!
Workbench 1.2 - 720k
agreed. original-flavor vi.
vim can go get bent. frankly, the colors hurt my eyes.