They can release it under whatever license they want (or simply not release it at all). They cannot, no matter what, revoke the GPL rights that have been granted by previous distributions. Those who have received GPL rights have the software licened to them under GPL. This cannot be revoked, period.
Umm. "Withdraw" it's GPL status? They can release future versions under non-GPL if they wish. As the sole copyright holder, they can release (or not) under whatever terms they want. They cannot, however, take away my right to distribute the GPL copy I have, as those rights have ALREADY been bestowed upon me, and they cannot be taken away.
Why do you think we, the users, are scrwed? We have our GPL version, the cat's out of the bag, the message has been sent, there are plenty of poeple to continue the work, and nobody is going to jail, or paying fines. Sounds to me like we WON.
No. A makefile containing that is not a virus. It's a trojan, at best. How exactly, does it spread?
I believe you see a contradiction where there is none. The way Word, for example, handles macros is the problem. Mainly, it masks the presence of the macro. Unless you go specifically looking for that macro, you won't notice it.
This won't happen with our C source these days. Certainly, you could have a virus that scanned for source, programmed itslef in, and waited to be compiled, but this would still present a rather hostile environment. IT still requires manual intervention in order to propagate.
Now, perhaps if we all used a high-level IDE for our programming and builds, that was automated with numerous build-macros and such, a virus would have a chance.. but we don't.
The key, I think, is automated process. IF a process can be automated, it is a good environment for a virus. If it's manual, it's not.
Cisco is a monopoly? Well.. if everyone DOES use cisco hardware. The difference between Cisco and MS is the reasons WHY they use cisco hardware.
Building a network out of cisco equipemnt (and yes, I've built many), nothing prevents you from using competitors equipment mixed in with it. NOTHING. Cisco is completely open about their protocols and standards. Cisco gear WORKS. I have never had cisco break interoperability, in fact, I find their routers and switches MORE flexible and configurable than anyone elses. And no, I don't work for Cisco.
Can you cite some examples of cisco breaking interoperability? As far as I can tell, cisco has always been forthcoming with their standards. They succeed because their products rock.
Even the allmighty LINUX cannot hold a candle to cisco when it comes to internetworking. Sorry.
Uhh. Notice it said it CLOSED at more valuable than Microsoft. I MS had a bit of a boost in after-hours trading.. so what? The point was, at nasdaq close on friday, cisco was the leader. Do research? That was a direct quote from several news srouces.
One could view it as a harmless prank. On the other hand.. a) you wanted network access b) You admittedly trespassed and broke into a locked equipment cage c) You used their network services without permission, knowingly.
Hmm. Let's see. a) They apparently had NO contract or other written or verbal agreement giving them the right ot use the universities PRIVATELY owned network (it's not a public right, you know..). So.. instead of paying the appropriate fees to the university, they used a connection they had no business using. What's the problem here? They WERE stealing.
Now... as for the punishment.. the U should go lightly on them. This is rather similar to other college type pranks.
Actually, napster IS enabling something. To you and I, it adds nothing for us. We already already highly proficient at moving data around the internet ( and other ways ) and can do it much more efficiently.
Napster enables those who don't have these skills to do it anyway. You only have to look at the fact that SO many people use napster now to see that it is true. Napster provides a user interface to people that they can comprehend and use to share mp3.
And as to an 'underground'.. you are bang on. We don't NEED the web. we can do many other things, in different ways.
Well.. at fisrt, this kind of made sense to me. I used to think this way. Look at this picture:
I have a computer. It's mine. I own it. I have an internet connection. I put software on my computer to allow anyone on the internet to use it as a platform to, say, put up software. Now... am I not responsible for what my computer does, within reasonable limits? If I am knowingly hosting something illegal, it *IS* my problem.
This ruling goes farther than that, saying that even if I wasn't aware of it, if I cannot identify the person who is responsible, then it is as if I am directly responsible.
The problem is.. what is the 'web' ? Usenet? Web sites? what about when protocols change? I think this can be looked at in a fairly simple manner.
1) It is your computer. Ultimately, it is your responbility what that computer does, within reason. 2) If you are knowingly allowing your computer to be used for a criminal purpose, then you are guilty by association, and are contributing to the crime. 3) If you are participating in a large distributed system, of which a small part is being used for an illegal purpose, you should be required to take reasonable measures to prevent this use, if possible. in other words, if you run an NNTP server, why should you be able to carry alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pedophilia? Certainly, if you didn't know the group existed, you are not at fault, but if you know it's there, are you not reasonably guilty?
IN short, no, there is nothing illegal about this. At least, not in North America. In the UK, and from what I hear, much of europe, there are strong anti-tying laws. There are none here, however.
It's strange. My account at Royal Bank of Canada provides me with an online banking site that's rather nice. I can see all my accounts, pay all my bills, my visa, at no charge. They initially were going to charge $3/month for the service, but I believe it's now free. Apparently, other banks up here are just the same.
As for refusing to use it.. well.. even for the $3 a month. That's $3 I don't have to spend on gas going to the bank to pay the bills. I can look at my balance before I head to the bar. I know if a cheque was deposited or not. I can check my visa balance whenever I want. All from my desk, from work, or from home. And it is VERY convenient. for the first time in my life, I pay all my bills on time.
Actually, the reason people could get away with this in the Microsoft fiasco was because the MS contract explicitly allowed it. IT did *NOT* have to, it turned out. The issue revolved around whether a cash rebate was a 'loan' or not. ie: we'll give you $200 if you sign up, but you have to sign up for a year. This could have been considered a loan. It turns out it was NOT, and that the law MS thought it was protecting itself from had to do with businesses forcing you to get loans from them in order to do business with them, or some such thing.
Penalty contracts are enforcable, completely. If you sign a service contract, it *IS* enforcable.
As far as it goes, they cannot prevent you from modifying the i-opener. If they lease you the hardware, or rent-to-own the hardware, they retain ownership of it, and can dictate what you do with it. If they sell it to you, as in, transfer ownership, you can do what you want with it.
This is similar to a cellphone contract. Once you sign up, you OWN The phone, but you are obligated to pay for your 2 years service or a cancellation fee if you quit. They cannot prevent you from smashing the phone to bits or modifying it, though, they simply prevent you from squirming out of your contract.
Let's face it. Certification only means something when those who do the hiring use it as criteria.
When I put on the job description that linux experience is a plus, and the resume says the guy is an RHCE, I'm going to do a quick assessment of whether RHCE is for real, and say 'okay, I'm reasonably satisfied that if he has his RHCE, he has some linux experience'. The same goes for MCSE. Increasingly, I've seen companies stating they want 'experience with x and x and x MS products' and not 'MCSE required'. If you have MCSE, it may indicate that you have that experience. As many employers have found out, it also may not. See, it's not that MCSE is bad, or evil, or anything like that.. you learn quite a bit about MS and how their products are supposed to work. The problem is that far too many people come out of the course thinking 'okay, now I'm at the top of the hill, time to go take over some company's network'. MCSE is a good requirement for a junior/intermediate admin position, for those who want a foot in the door in the IT field. It's far from the be-all-end-all of IT education. It's barely a beginning.
People need to understand how patents work. If you have an invention (doesn't have to actually exist.), an idea, whatever, that you can put down on paper, and file a patent, it goes through several steps. This is far from exact, but as long as it is 1) Not too similar to an existing patent 2) Not something that has mucho prior art. 3) Is unique Then you can have your patent. It's NOT a problem, not like the software/business model patents. Look at it this way. If this guys inventions DO work, does he not deserve the patent for coming up with it in the first place? What if 20 years later he is RIGHT. The world used to be flat, remember. If he's NOT right, and it's bullshit.. who cares? who's rights is hegoing to infringe on? some other guy who wants to build one too;)
with this, and of course, I may be misunderstanding, is one of perception.
Yes, we say that to observe is to modify (and indeed, it is). The theory is that until one of the pair is observed, the particles exist in a superposition of states. When we observe one, we 'cause' it to collapse into the appropriate state. This also, as the particles are entangled, causes the other particle to assume it's state. This is largely an exercise in abstract thought. THe real issue is that we do not KNOW the state of the other particle in the pair, and by observing it, we screw with the process.
In short, the only way real information can be transmitted using this method is to also transmit initial state information via a conventional method, which defeats the purpose altogether.
No. You miss the concept. An object CAN NOT travel faster than light. It may be able change it's location from point a to point b as if it were travelling faster (space folding, wormhole, etc..), but it cannot actually travel faster. If you look at the appropriate graphs, something travelling faster than the speed of light is travelling backwards in time. If you sent the signal at twice the speed of light (if you could, say) it would actually be something on the order of an anti-signal reaching you the instant you sent it. See, it travelled backwards in time from the receiver(s) to the transmitter at the speed of light (in reverse).
There is theory to suggest that when a photon turns into an electron-positron pair and back into a photon that this is actually an over-light speed effect; the positron is just the same electron, but travelling backwards in time (which we would still view as forwards.... but with some properties reversed.. get it?)
Now. If we COULD get a signal to something 8 light minutes away in 4 minutes, we have definately made information (which is not strictly matter or energy, but an effect related to the two) travel faster than light; as for something arriving before it was sent.. no... though in theory through a telescope those at the probe near the sun could observe us sending it several minutes after they received it;)
If you really could move something faster than light (I don't mean as IF it were faster than light, but actually generate the beyond-infinite energy to do so, or whatever.... which you can't..), you would actually receive your answer before you asked the question. Hmm.. so the answer may be meaningless, and you would have to spend time figuring out the question.. hey.. this sounds familiar..
The copyright holders can license under any terms they like. If there are mutliple holders, agreement would be needed between them.
Of course, rights granted to others based on previous licensing cannot be taken away.. but the license for future versions could be changed. This is perfectly within the rights of the copyright holders themselves.
I doubt it applies. The physical world and software EULA's are a world apart. When you buy something, at circuit city, for example, you exchange cash for the object. The implied contract is that you now OWN the object, outright and completely. You can do *whatever* you want with it. This may be a grey area when it comes to the software supplied on the device, but it's very clearn with the device itself. That is true if the purchase is cash-and-carry. If the purchase is like those 'free' or $1 cellphones, where you also must sign a contract, it's different. Then you are signing a legal document, requiring you to abide by it's terms.
The bottom line is, when you purchase something, you can do anything you like with it.
Regardless of my stance on patent issues, this goes contrary to what the internet is about. IF this kind of attitude was used in previous years, we would be nowhere right now. The Internet would not have happened.
Nobody patented the use of putting stateful information in the path portion of a URL, why should they be able to do it in the host portion?
NO PATENTS! PATENTS should be for REAL RESEARCH, that costs REAL DOLLARS.
One could argue that this is no different than a web server differentiating between virtual websites based on the hostname. The 'state' that is stored in the hostname is the one that determines which site is being visited, (as opposed to a simple IP lookup). This is not something patentable, and should not be patented.
Slashdot Mirror
They can release it under whatever license they want (or simply not release it at all).
They cannot, no matter what, revoke the GPL rights that have been granted by previous distributions. Those who have received GPL rights have the software licened to them under GPL. This cannot be revoked, period.
Umm.
"Withdraw" it's GPL status? They can release future versions under non-GPL if they wish. As the sole copyright holder, they can release (or not) under whatever terms they want.
They cannot, however, take away my right to distribute the GPL copy I have, as those rights have ALREADY been bestowed upon me, and they cannot be taken away.
Why do you think we, the users, are scrwed? We have our GPL version, the cat's out of the bag, the message has been sent, there are plenty of poeple to continue the work, and nobody is going to jail, or paying fines. Sounds to me like we WON.
No. A makefile containing that is not a virus. It's a trojan, at best. How exactly, does it spread?
I believe you see a contradiction where there is none.
The way Word, for example, handles macros is the problem. Mainly, it masks the presence of the macro. Unless you go specifically looking for that macro, you won't notice it.
This won't happen with our C source these days. Certainly, you could have a virus that scanned for source, programmed itslef in, and waited to be compiled, but this would still present a rather hostile environment. IT still requires manual intervention in order to propagate.
Now, perhaps if we all used a high-level IDE for our programming and builds, that was automated with numerous build-macros and such, a virus would have a chance.. but we don't.
The key, I think, is automated process. IF a process can be automated, it is a good environment for a virus. If it's manual, it's not.
Cisco is a monopoly? Well.. if everyone DOES use cisco hardware. The difference between Cisco and MS is the reasons WHY they use cisco hardware.
Building a network out of cisco equipemnt (and yes, I've built many), nothing prevents you from using competitors equipment mixed in with it. NOTHING. Cisco is completely open about their protocols and standards. Cisco gear WORKS.
I have never had cisco break interoperability, in fact, I find their routers and switches MORE flexible and configurable than anyone elses.
And no, I don't work for Cisco.
Can you cite some examples of cisco breaking interoperability? As far as I can tell, cisco has always been forthcoming with their standards. They succeed because their products rock.
Even the allmighty LINUX cannot hold a candle to cisco when it comes to internetworking. Sorry.
Uhh. Notice it said it CLOSED at more valuable than Microsoft. I MS had a bit of a boost in after-hours trading.. so what? The point was, at nasdaq close on friday, cisco was the leader.
Do research? That was a direct quote from several news srouces.
Wow. What breaking news. IT's what.. Sunday?
Anyone who watches any of the stocks KNOWS that this happened last week. Wow. What great news.
One could view it as a harmless prank.
On the other hand..
a) you wanted network access
b) You admittedly trespassed and broke into a locked equipment cage
c) You used their network services without permission, knowingly.
Sounds like theft of services to me.
No. THey didn't.
Is true BOFH style. This is definately the appropriate response in this situation.
Hmm. Let's see.
a) They apparently had NO contract or other written or verbal agreement giving them the right ot use the universities PRIVATELY owned network (it's not a public right, you know..). So.. instead of paying the appropriate fees to the university, they used a connection they had no business using. What's the problem here? They WERE stealing.
Now... as for the punishment.. the U should go lightly on them. This is rather similar to other college type pranks.
with proper rights can call it unix. Unix is a trademark, I believe.
As to something being written for one unix being 'difficult' to port.. this is not really true. Most things these days port rather easily.
Actually, napster IS enabling something.
To you and I, it adds nothing for us. We already already highly proficient at moving data around the internet ( and other ways ) and can do it much more efficiently.
Napster enables those who don't have these skills to do it anyway. You only have to look at the fact that SO many people use napster now to see that it is true. Napster provides a user interface to people that they can comprehend and use to share mp3.
And as to an 'underground'.. you are bang on. We don't NEED the web. we can do many other things, in different ways.
Well.. at fisrt, this kind of made sense to me. I used to think this way. Look at this picture:
I have a computer. It's mine. I own it. I have an internet connection. I put software on my computer to allow anyone on the internet to use it as a platform to, say, put up software. Now... am I not responsible for what my computer does, within reasonable limits? If I am knowingly hosting something illegal, it *IS* my problem.
This ruling goes farther than that, saying that even if I wasn't aware of it, if I cannot identify the person who is responsible, then it is as if I am directly responsible.
The problem is.. what is the 'web' ? Usenet? Web sites? what about when protocols change? I think this can be looked at in a fairly simple manner.
1) It is your computer. Ultimately, it is your responbility what that computer does, within reason.
2) If you are knowingly allowing your computer to be used for a criminal purpose, then you are guilty by association, and are contributing to the crime.
3) If you are participating in a large distributed system, of which a small part is being used for an illegal purpose, you should be required to take reasonable measures to prevent this use, if possible. in other words, if you run an NNTP server, why should you be able to carry alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pedophilia? Certainly, if you didn't know the group existed, you are not at fault, but if you know it's there, are you not reasonably guilty?
IN short, no, there is nothing illegal about this. At least, not in North America. In the UK, and from what I hear, much of europe, there are strong anti-tying laws.
There are none here, however.
It's strange. My account at Royal Bank of Canada provides me with an online banking site that's rather nice. I can see all my accounts, pay all my bills, my visa, at no charge.
They initially were going to charge $3/month for the service, but I believe it's now free.
Apparently, other banks up here are just the same.
As for refusing to use it.. well.. even for the $3 a month. That's $3 I don't have to spend on gas going to the bank to pay the bills. I can look at my balance before I head to the bar. I know if a cheque was deposited or not. I can check my visa balance whenever I want. All from my desk, from work, or from home.
And it is VERY convenient. for the first time in my life, I pay all my bills on time.
Actually, the reason people could get away with this in the Microsoft fiasco was because the MS contract explicitly allowed it. IT did *NOT* have to, it turned out.
The issue revolved around whether a cash rebate was a 'loan' or not. ie: we'll give you $200 if you sign up, but you have to sign up for a year. This could have been considered a loan.
It turns out it was NOT, and that the law MS thought it was protecting itself from had to do with businesses forcing you to get loans from them in order to do business with them, or some such thing.
Penalty contracts are enforcable, completely. If you sign a service contract, it *IS* enforcable.
As far as it goes, they cannot prevent you from modifying the i-opener. If they lease you the hardware, or rent-to-own the hardware, they retain ownership of it, and can dictate what you do with it. If they sell it to you, as in, transfer ownership, you can do what you want with it.
This is similar to a cellphone contract. Once you sign up, you OWN The phone, but you are obligated to pay for your 2 years service or a cancellation fee if you quit. They cannot prevent you from smashing the phone to bits or modifying it, though, they simply prevent you from squirming out of your contract.
Let's face it. Certification only means something when those who do the hiring use it as criteria.
When I put on the job description that linux experience is a plus, and the resume says the guy is an RHCE, I'm going to do a quick assessment of whether RHCE is for real, and say 'okay, I'm reasonably satisfied that if he has his RHCE, he has some linux experience'.
The same goes for MCSE. Increasingly, I've seen companies stating they want 'experience with x and x and x MS products' and not 'MCSE required'. If you have MCSE, it may indicate that you have that experience. As many employers have found out, it also may not.
See, it's not that MCSE is bad, or evil, or anything like that.. you learn quite a bit about MS and how their products are supposed to work.
The problem is that far too many people come out of the course thinking 'okay, now I'm at the top of the hill, time to go take over some company's network'.
MCSE is a good requirement for a junior/intermediate admin position, for those who want a foot in the door in the IT field. It's far from the be-all-end-all of IT education. It's barely a beginning.
People need to understand how patents work. ;)
If you have an invention (doesn't have to actually exist.), an idea, whatever, that you can put down on paper, and file a patent, it goes through several steps.
This is far from exact, but as long as it is
1) Not too similar to an existing patent
2) Not something that has mucho prior art.
3) Is unique
Then you can have your patent. It's NOT a problem, not like the software/business model patents.
Look at it this way.
If this guys inventions DO work, does he not deserve the patent for coming up with it in the first place? What if 20 years later he is RIGHT. The world used to be flat, remember.
If he's NOT right, and it's bullshit.. who cares? who's rights is hegoing to infringe on? some other guy who wants to build one too
But.. before and after are very relative terms ;)
with this, and of course, I may be misunderstanding, is one of perception.
Yes, we say that to observe is to modify (and indeed, it is).
The theory is that until one of the pair is observed, the particles exist in a superposition of states. When we observe one, we 'cause' it to collapse into the appropriate state. This also, as the particles are entangled, causes the other particle to assume it's state.
This is largely an exercise in abstract thought. THe real issue is that we do not KNOW the state of the other particle in the pair, and by observing it, we screw with the process.
In short, the only way real information can be transmitted using this method is to also transmit initial state information via a conventional method, which defeats the purpose altogether.
No. You miss the concept.
;)
An object CAN NOT travel faster than light.
It may be able change it's location from point a to point b as if it were travelling faster (space folding, wormhole, etc..), but it cannot actually travel faster.
If you look at the appropriate graphs, something travelling faster than the speed of light is travelling backwards in time.
If you sent the signal at twice the speed of light (if you could, say) it would actually be something on the order of an anti-signal reaching you the instant you sent it. See, it travelled backwards in time from the receiver(s) to the transmitter at the speed of light (in reverse).
There is theory to suggest that when a photon turns into an electron-positron pair and back into a photon that this is actually an over-light speed effect; the positron is just the same electron, but travelling backwards in time (which we would still view as forwards.... but with some properties reversed.. get it?)
Now. If we COULD get a signal to something 8 light minutes away in 4 minutes, we have definately made information (which is not strictly matter or energy, but an effect related to the two) travel faster than light; as for something arriving before it was sent.. no... though in theory through a telescope those at the probe near the sun could observe us sending it several minutes after they received it
If you really could move something faster than light (I don't mean as IF it were faster than light, but actually generate the beyond-infinite energy to do so, or whatever.... which you can't..), you would actually receive your answer before you asked the question. Hmm.. so the answer may be meaningless, and you would have to spend time figuring out the question.. hey.. this sounds familiar..
The copyright holders can license under any terms they like. If there are mutliple holders, agreement would be needed between them.
Of course, rights granted to others based on previous licensing cannot be taken away.. but the license for future versions could be changed. This is perfectly within the rights of the copyright holders themselves.
I doubt it applies.
The physical world and software EULA's are a world apart.
When you buy something, at circuit city, for example, you exchange cash for the object. The implied contract is that you now OWN the object, outright and completely. You can do *whatever* you want with it. This may be a grey area when it comes to the software supplied on the device, but it's very clearn with the device itself.
That is true if the purchase is cash-and-carry. If the purchase is like those 'free' or $1 cellphones, where you also must sign a contract, it's different. Then you are signing a legal document, requiring you to abide by it's terms.
The bottom line is, when you purchase something, you can do anything you like with it.
Regardless of my stance on patent issues, this goes contrary to what the internet is about.
IF this kind of attitude was used in previous years, we would be nowhere right now. The Internet would not have happened.
Nobody patented the use of putting stateful information in the path portion of a URL, why should they be able to do it in the host portion?
NO PATENTS! PATENTS should be for REAL RESEARCH, that costs REAL DOLLARS.
One could argue that this is no different than a web server differentiating between virtual websites based on the hostname. The 'state' that is stored in the hostname is the one that determines which site is being visited, (as opposed to a simple IP lookup). This is not something patentable, and should not be patented.