Let's be clear. The GPL does not confuse the issue at all.. it's just another license.
All authors who contributed a significant enough piece would be copyright holders. What constitutes 'significant' would be one for the lawyers, but a small bugfix or one-liner doesn't necessarily let you have a claim to copyright.
Many projects require copyright of submitted work to be assigned to the original copyright holder.
The GPL doesn't do anything to assign or negate copyright in any way, it just passes on some rights that would normally be restricted to just the copyright holder.
The linux kernel does not have a policy of rights assignment I don't believe, but any author who's work is being used without license would be able to sue.
"GPL violation" is a bit of a misnomer. A company distributing code that is available under the GPL without following the terms of hte gpl is simply distributing code without license to do so. The copyright author can say "Who gave you permission to distribute my code?". The answer is either "The GPL it was distributed under" if they are following it, or "Nobody", in which case it's lawyer time.
Because in Canada, subjective rules like this seem to work quite well. Perhaps our courts are simply more reasonable about understanding modern english, I don't know, but they can't simply say "Well we thought it was important enough".. they potentially have to demonstrate WHY it was important enough, to the satisfaction of an impartial judge who would be more than happy to rule against them. That subjectivism works BOTH ways.
Apple follows the license agreements on the open source software it builds on.. and that's all Apple is required to do.
This fairy-tale "You must give back to the community" is just that, a fairy tale.
Apple HAS given code back to the community. Just because you work with open source doesn't mean you have to run a not-for-profit business and give all your goodies back to the public.
They are a regulated telephone company, and under the direct jurisdiction of the FCC.
They were using leverage in one aspect of their business to prevent competition in another aspect of their business (voice calls). The FCC does not like this, and neither should you.
If this was a private ISP, and this was in the Terms of Service, that's an entirely different matter.
Except that many years of case law disagree with you. Journalists have some level of responsibility. Just becasue you call something "Journalism" does not mean you get to ignore other laws. What's next "oh well, the reporter shot someone while he was out getting a story, but we can't throw him in jail because of freedom of the press". No, sorry.
You know what? If the NDA you signed is trying to keep you from disclosing something ILLEGAL, that's another story.
There is clear law that requires journalists to exercise some caution, and not disclose trade secrets. If you disagree with that law, that's one thing, but don't pretend this is unheard of. journalists can and have been jailed for contempt of court for not revealing information the court wants.
Again, the first ammendment protects the right to speak and publish, not the right to be immunte from responsibility for your actions.
Respectfully, if you view the constitution as absolute, and feel that any speech and any sort of publishing should be completely protected, I can see your point. That's not how things currently work, though, so is the topic for a different discussion.
Getting scooped on your product launch is being part of a free society, yes, but we are also a society of laws. What good are NDAs if employees merely have to drop a note to any journalist who is free to publish it, and never say who leaked it? Any sort of secrecy would become impossible.
Every type of protection has exceptions. You can't scream "fire" in a crowded room and claim freedom of speech. We have laws against slander and libel. You are free to speak, but responsible for your actions.
Soliciting someone to break the law is illegal. If the journalist knew that the source was breaking the law by telling him this, he has a moral and legal responsibility to society to behave correctly.
Contracts are a matter of law. Unless you claim the NDA was invalid or something (which you could do), this is fairly clear.
Now, if the greater public good were at stake, if this were about pollution or other threats to people's lives, or livelihood, I can see a need to protect, however, leaking confidential product releases isn't one of them.
This man wont be ruined, this man could simply give up his source.
- There is no blanket shield law for journalists in the US. Nothing along the lines of doctor-patient or lawyer-client privelege. There are some laws for more specific cases, but nothing generic. - This is not about "freedom of the press". You are free to publish (ie: the government can't sell publishing licenses), but you are still responsible for your actions, just as with speech. - There is a federal trade secrets act that says publishers can be found liable if they knew, or should have known, that information was a trade-secret being leaked.
Second: It's not at all impoverished, in fact it's flourishing.
For many years, the state owned infrstructure did benefit society. Cellular and telephone rates are affordable at local prices, if you can obtain them. Now, it's a make-work project, inefficient, top-heavy, and on the edge of being privatised.
I can appreciate where you are going with that, but as someone who has lived in Costa Rica for several years, and had to deal with all of it's communication monpolies and other government services, this is completely teh wrong way to look at it.
That's NOT the reason they want to do it. The national phone company monopoly has been doing badly for years, they employee too many people, are a national make-work project, and are on the verge of being privatized. This is just one more death-cry from a dying company that NEEDS to die.
I'm not against government-run communication services, when it serves a need... but at the moment, there is so much competition waiting to move into the country, it's not funny, and before you say "Oh but then prices will go up".. the government woiuld still be free to set the rules. Nobody says privatizing means deregulating.
CR has no military, great tourism, and some greate exports. The reason it's economically bad is mainly due to corruption. The reason there are only a couple hundred thousand new cellular phone lines per year is because of people stuffing their pockets, holding up paperwork until they get paid off. It's not totally corrupt, totally evil corruption, but it's enough to make dealing with the government a real pain in the ass.
There is no reason for the national ISP to offer such crappy, NAT-based, slow cable access. (their dialup is fine).
I don't get how a country should stay in the stone-age to keep profits up. This won't make a hair of difference to profits.. those companies who use VOIP now will continue to use it, covertly, and those people at home will continue to use it at home.
Think of how electric charges moving around create EM waves. You don't feel the electric field of the electron, for instance, but it does produce EM waves which carry energy away.
Similarly, this isn't about feeling the direct gravity of some distant object, but about detecting a wave that was created by that object moving. Just like light, or x-rays.
Similarly, gravitational waves aren't just fluctuations in gravity as if some large mass moved past you, but waves thrown off by that, similar to light, for instance.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting lowering expectations...
Technology should enable people. The alternative in this case, though, is NOT to talk to anyone, and just wait until you get back to a 1st world country.
voip here is incidental, and not relevant. Satellite phone communications with more traditional methods are not really distinguishable from voip... so the issue is one of satellite phones.
Secondly, I would consider the ability to phone home from halfway around the world in a 3rd world wartorn country, despite the total lack of local infrastructure, and the ability to surf the net, send email. photos, and TALK to people at length, clearly, with a less than 1 second delay a DEFINITE case of technology enabling people, and not the other way around.
Yeah, screw those developing nations without stable economies, just let them rot.
Some nations can't afford the changes requried, they would be *devastating* to their already fragile situations. They need time for their economies to grow and stabilize before they can make such changes.
The US, and the rest of the 1st world nations, on the other hand, CAN afford to make some changes without collapsing their entire economic system.
Like it or not, China is still a developing nation, even if has 5x the population of the US.
Again, this delay is not as bad as everyone seems to think. Crappy consumer satellite services with really bad latency have given people a bad taste of this.
Using the internet and voice over a 550ms delay is no big deal, it doens't make talking painful. the parties just have to slightly adjust. After a minute or two, you don't even notice.
People are used to thinking that higher latency == no bandiwdth. This isnt' the case.
Satellite latency is not a big obstacle to VOIP, no more so than it is to traditional phone communications. Yes, it adds a lot of latency, but so do many long distance calls from less develoepd nations, or bad cellular providers. It's not an issue, just a fact you have to accept.
I use 8kbps per call, and the quality is acceptable.
Second: QoS - not as necessary as you might think. If the bandwidth is reasonable, it should work fine. As long as the latency isn't fluctuating like mad, and you aren't dropping packets, you should be good.
Re:Not a problem (yet)
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yes, there will always be collisions, a great many collisions, in any hashing scheme. That's not the issue.
The issue is that you are not supposed to be able to deterministically generate collisions whenever you want. Previously, the only way to find a collision was by brute-force.
If someone finds a way to generate two streams of data that generate to the same value, that's a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's be clear. The GPL does not confuse the issue at all.. it's just another license.
All authors who contributed a significant enough piece would be copyright holders. What constitutes 'significant' would be one for the lawyers, but a small bugfix or one-liner doesn't necessarily let you have a claim to copyright.
Many projects require copyright of submitted work to be assigned to the original copyright holder.
The GPL doesn't do anything to assign or negate copyright in any way, it just passes on some rights that would normally be restricted to just the copyright holder.
The linux kernel does not have a policy of rights assignment I don't believe, but any author who's work is being used without license would be able to sue.
"GPL violation" is a bit of a misnomer. A company distributing code that is available under the GPL without following the terms of hte gpl is simply distributing code without license to do so. The copyright author can say "Who gave you permission to distribute my code?". The answer is either "The GPL it was distributed under" if they are following it, or "Nobody", in which case it's lawyer time.
An embedded images IS an attachment.. as opposed to a link to a remote server.
Maybe the image was an attachment?
Because in Canada, subjective rules like this seem to work quite well. Perhaps our courts are simply more reasonable about understanding modern english, I don't know, but they can't simply say "Well we thought it was important enough".. they potentially have to demonstrate WHY it was important enough, to the satisfaction of an impartial judge who would be more than happy to rule against them. That subjectivism works BOTH ways.
Why is this a problem?
Apple follows the license agreements on the open source software it builds on.. and that's all Apple is required to do.
This fairy-tale "You must give back to the community" is just that, a fairy tale.
Apple HAS given code back to the community. Just because you work with open source doesn't mean you have to run a not-for-profit business and give all your goodies back to the public.
Because society expects parents to be responsible to a large degree for the actions of their children until they become legal adults?
They are a regulated telephone company, and under the direct jurisdiction of the FCC.
They were using leverage in one aspect of their business to prevent competition in another aspect of their business (voice calls). The FCC does not like this, and neither should you.
If this was a private ISP, and this was in the Terms of Service, that's an entirely different matter.
Except that many years of case law disagree with you. Journalists have some level of responsibility. Just becasue you call something "Journalism" does not mean you get to ignore other laws. What's next "oh well, the reporter shot someone while he was out getting a story, but we can't throw him in jail because of freedom of the press". No, sorry.
You know what? If the NDA you signed is trying to keep you from disclosing something ILLEGAL, that's another story.
There is clear law that requires journalists to exercise some caution, and not disclose trade secrets. If you disagree with that law, that's one thing, but don't pretend this is unheard of.
journalists can and have been jailed for contempt of court for not revealing information the court wants.
Again, the first ammendment protects the right to speak and publish, not the right to be immunte from responsibility for your actions.
Respectfully, if you view the constitution as absolute, and feel that any speech and any sort of publishing should be completely protected, I can see your point. That's not how things currently work, though, so is the topic for a different discussion.
Getting scooped on your product launch is being part of a free society, yes, but we are also a society of laws. What good are NDAs if employees merely have to drop a note to any journalist who is free to publish it, and never say who leaked it? Any sort of secrecy would become impossible.
Every type of protection has exceptions. You can't scream "fire" in a crowded room and claim freedom of speech. We have laws against slander and libel. You are free to speak, but responsible for your actions.
Soliciting someone to break the law is illegal. If the journalist knew that the source was breaking the law by telling him this, he has a moral and legal responsibility to society to behave correctly.
Contracts are a matter of law. Unless you claim the NDA was invalid or something (which you could do), this is fairly clear.
Now, if the greater public good were at stake, if this were about pollution or other threats to people's lives, or livelihood, I can see a need to protect, however, leaking confidential product releases isn't one of them.
This man wont be ruined, this man could simply give up his source.
- There is no blanket shield law for journalists in the US. Nothing along the lines of doctor-patient or lawyer-client privelege. There are some laws for more specific cases, but nothing generic.
- This is not about "freedom of the press". You are free to publish (ie: the government can't sell publishing licenses), but you are still responsible for your actions, just as with speech.
- There is a federal trade secrets act that says publishers can be found liable if they knew, or should have known, that information was a trade-secret being leaked.
If they felt that the NYT reporter KNEW the person was violating an NDA by giving them the information, then yes, the NYT could be sued.
There is no absolute protection of confidentiality just because it's related to journalism of some kind, sorry.
That would add up to about 120kbps, far less than even a quarter of a t1.
voip is not a bandwidth hog by any means, in the space of ONE user listening to a 128kbps streaming mp3 station you can cram 15 calls.
Okay, first:
Costa Rica is NOT an island.
Second: It's not at all impoverished, in fact it's flourishing.
For many years, the state owned infrstructure did benefit society. Cellular and telephone rates are affordable at local prices, if you can obtain them. Now, it's a make-work project, inefficient, top-heavy, and on the edge of being privatised.
And uhh, what pray tell is this "army" that's not called an army, called?
I can appreciate where you are going with that, but as someone who has lived in Costa Rica for several years, and had to deal with all of it's communication monpolies and other government services, this is completely teh wrong way to look at it.
That's NOT the reason they want to do it. The national phone company monopoly has been doing badly for years, they employee too many people, are a national make-work project, and are on the verge of being privatized. This is just one more death-cry from a dying company that NEEDS to die.
I'm not against government-run communication services, when it serves a need... but at the moment, there is so much competition waiting to move into the country, it's not funny, and before you say "Oh but then prices will go up".. the government woiuld still be free to set the rules. Nobody says privatizing means deregulating.
CR has no military, great tourism, and some greate exports. The reason it's economically bad is mainly due to corruption. The reason there are only a couple hundred thousand new cellular phone lines per year is because of people stuffing their pockets, holding up paperwork until they get paid off. It's not totally corrupt, totally evil corruption, but it's enough to make dealing with the government a real pain in the ass.
There is no reason for the national ISP to offer such crappy, NAT-based, slow cable access. (their dialup is fine).
I don't get how a country should stay in the stone-age to keep profits up. This won't make a hair of difference to profits.. those companies who use VOIP now will continue to use it, covertly, and those people at home will continue to use it at home.
Now they just have to quit messing with the ipods, and offer a high-resolution screen on the 17" powerbook, so I can go buy one.
C2 certification only applies to a specific version of NT 3.5 with specific patches installed. Any deviation from that would not be certified.
C2 is a security specification for standalone, non-networked, non-distributed computing environments.
Linux didn't achieve it.. a specific distribution by SUSE did. The documentation and implmenetation designs are by suse.
The certification doesn't require documenting all the code.... it's more about overall system design,the security model, user authentication, etc.
That's not quite it I don't think.
Think of how electric charges moving around create EM waves. You don't feel the electric field of the electron, for instance, but it does produce EM waves which carry energy away.
Similarly, this isn't about feeling the direct gravity of some distant object, but about detecting a wave that was created by that object moving. Just like light, or x-rays.
Similarly, gravitational waves aren't just fluctuations in gravity as if some large mass moved past you, but waves thrown off by that, similar to light, for instance.
Don't forget einstein. Energy and mass are the same thing, remember? Gravity is proportional to energy density.
A spinning thing has more mass than a non spinning thing (more energy in the system)
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting lowering expectations...
Technology should enable people. The alternative in this case, though, is NOT to talk to anyone, and just wait until you get back to a 1st world country.
voip here is incidental, and not relevant. Satellite phone communications with more traditional methods are not really distinguishable from voip... so the issue is one of satellite phones.
Secondly, I would consider the ability to phone home from halfway around the world in a 3rd world wartorn country, despite the total lack of local infrastructure, and the ability to surf the net, send email. photos, and TALK to people at length, clearly, with a less than 1 second delay a DEFINITE case of technology enabling people, and not the other way around.
Yeah, screw those developing nations without stable economies, just let them rot.
Some nations can't afford the changes requried, they would be *devastating* to their already fragile situations. They need time for their economies to grow and stabilize before they can make such changes.
The US, and the rest of the 1st world nations, on the other hand, CAN afford to make some changes without collapsing their entire economic system.
Like it or not, China is still a developing nation, even if has 5x the population of the US.
Again, this delay is not as bad as everyone seems to think. Crappy consumer satellite services with really bad latency have given people a bad taste of this.
Using the internet and voice over a 550ms delay is no big deal, it doens't make talking painful. the parties just have to slightly adjust. After a minute or two, you don't even notice.
People are used to thinking that higher latency == no bandiwdth. This isnt' the case.
Satellite latency is not a big obstacle to VOIP, no more so than it is to traditional phone communications. Yes, it adds a lot of latency, but so do many long distance calls from less develoepd nations, or bad cellular providers. It's not an issue, just a fact you have to accept.
I use 8kbps per call, and the quality is acceptable.
Second: QoS - not as necessary as you might think. If the bandwidth is reasonable, it should work fine. As long as the latency isn't fluctuating like mad, and you aren't dropping packets, you should be good.
Yes, there will always be collisions, a great many collisions, in any hashing scheme. That's not the issue.
The issue is that you are not supposed to be able to deterministically generate collisions whenever you want. Previously, the only way to find a collision was by brute-force.
If someone finds a way to generate two streams of data that generate to the same value, that's a problem.