You have cables running hidden in the walls of your house, cables that CAN catch on fire. Are they the right kind, that won't burn up and toxically kill your family in a fire? What if some bunk gear sets them on fire? Are they too close to power lines? What are the code regulations regarding this? Are they installed in the right places?
Sure, it's not nearly as important as installing power or other utilities... and I would bet you don't need a contractor to put in cat5... it's not a utility... but there ARE reasons to have someone professional do it.. especially for resale of your house. Or insurance.. what if your house burns down due to some electrical problem, and there was amateur wiring installed? Who's fault is that? You can bet the insurance company wil leverage it.
I think you are confused about the state of the law in Canada. IT's very much illegal for you to decrypt satellite signals.. the reason you can get away with pirating DirecTV is becuase DirecTV has no broadcast license in Canada, and therefore, no *right* to broadcast in Canada.. so it follows that: a) They can't sue anyone for theft of service, because they can't offer that service in the first place. Court would toss it. b) They can't sell to Canada *anyway* so even the fat execs can see that no market is being lost.. it was not available to them in the first place.
Also, it's never been completely legal.. it's just a grey area, and one we aren't into enforcing.
However, in the US, it is VERY illegal, and everyone knows you can get in deep shit.
When Mitnick was tracked down by the FBI, the big famous when-kevin-was-arrested-and-held-for-years-without -a-hearing.............
In 1987, his lawyer knocked a felony charge down to a misdimeanour.. penalty, 3 years probation. (For breaking into something at SCO). In 1988, a colleague ratted him out for breaking into DEC. He got a year in prison. They were so paranoid about him, he spent most of his time in solitary confinement.
In 1989, the FBI was starting to try to pin something on him again, and he knew he'd get no fair trial this time.. so he ran. THIS is where all the normal stuff you hear about Kevin Mitnick starts... when they caught him later... he ran while still on parole. (If I'm not mistaken).. which lands you back in jail immediately. Furthermore, he had no bail hearing because he was a huge flight risk (considering they barely caught him, and he evaded them easily for years, despite a huge effort to catch him).
Don't get me wrong.. Mitnick got royally fucked over, he deserved a slap on the wrist, or maybe a punch in the face... not spending years in prison treated like you have the plague. He never did anyhting that harmful to society.
I guess you aren't aware that many countries don't have a wired infrastructure to begin with, and that putting in wireless technologies is FAR cheaper than wiring a country? See the popularity of celluar in many developing nations.. it's not because they wanna be modern or some image thing.. it's because it's cheaper and faster to saturate an area with cellular coverage than it is to wire it, by a HUGE margin. It also takes less organisation, with cable, you need right of ways, etc, and systems to make sure cables aren't cut, and just a LOT more manpower.
I can't believe it made it to the NYT either.. cause it's a really shitty sensationalist article.
Verisign operates "much of the internet's infrastructure?". The hell it does. 9 billion domain requests a day? I doubt that too.
That America has to be careful because the internet lets like minded people who hate the US get together more easily? Man, if anything shows the collective fear of attack the US has always had, this is it. Is that the only thing you guys can think of? That someone is going to attack you?
Move to Mexico. Finish the device there. Sell it to the black market satellite world for a huge amount, as originally planned. Move to some latin american country with no extradition treaty. (Brazil?)
Okay... For the record, I think Mr. Mitnick got fucked over, and it was totally wrong... HOWEVER...
He was held without trial for years because.. he was a parole violator. When you violate your parole, they can just toss you back in the slam... you are not a *free* person until your sentence is completed. Second, it was delayed not just by the prosecution, but by mitnick himself.. waiting for evidence, granted, evidence the government delayed in giving.
His "damages" were made up by the prosecution, not by what the code might have been worth, but by what it cost to write. Remember, they didn't KNOW much about this kind of crime... they asked Sun and friends how much the stolen (copied) code cost to develop, then used that number for damages. The companies involved never claimed such damages... they just answered questions.
That's totally different than what's going on here (though no less evil)
according to the FSF. But to many of us who have been using linux longer than the FSF has even had an opinion on the issue, we just call it Linux, and don't care to call it "GNU/Linux" because really, it has a LOT more than just GNU in it.
Everyone knows and respects the GNU tools.. they don't need to whine about it every chance they get, as if they aren't getting enough credit.
I mean, hey, GNU.. maybe if the HURD hadn't been vapor for 10 years, you would have beat linux to the punch, eh?
It's not so much about the merits of the lawsuit itself, but about the public opinion statements SCO has been making, trying to affect the free software world in a really negative way, based on vague statement sabout the ramifications of this lawsuit.
As everyone knows, they went from "Trade secret" to "license violation" to "copyright violation" to alleging "patent" almost.
They went from talking about their secrets making it into linux, to pointing out it was actually code that was NOT their secret, but that they technically may have an exclusive license to, due to some wording in IBM's Unix license.
They are saying many confusing things, and backing it up with little.
Sco -vs- IBM is between SCO and IBM. Hopefully the rest of the world is smart enough to realize that the free software world is more than happy to obey the law, if only someone would tell them what they are doing wrong.
So it's good for people, lawyers, and organisations to put forward their own researched opinions as to what the ramifications of SCO's actions are, because the public needs both sides.
But, the law is not the computer, and it's not pure logic.
You can say "Well I sent a request for an IP address, and it gave me one, therefore it authorized me to look at all information available on their network". Yeah right.
Judge: Sir, were you aware these were school records, things that are usually confidential? (by virtue of the fact that you reported it as newsworthy, obviously you were).
Reporter: Yes, your honor, I was aware of this..
Judge: Therefore you admit you accessed confidential records without authorization.
Access to information is not everything. If I forget to lock the door to my office, and you come in and rifle through all my files, are you going to tell the judge that because the door opened when you turned the knob, that authorized you to read all my files? That, because you knew the door technically should be locked, then obviously if someone left it unlocked, it was meant as permission? I doubt anyone is going to buy it.
I am not talking about GETTING it in some other format, I'm talking about GIVING it in some format.
Yes, it's considered fair use for you to make copies of music for your own personal use.
That, however, has nothing to do with your right to give ME copies of music.. that is copyright violation.
If you want a case, see the big mp3.com fiasco from a year or so back... that was a perfect example.
They bought & ripped tons of music. They offered an online download service.. all you had to do was use their application, which looked at the CD and verified that you already had a legitimite fair use right to the music, and then could get copies from them whenever. What did the court say? They said "that's nice, but, sorry mp3.com, that doesn't mean you are authorized to distribute copies of these copyrighted works"
They absolutely should be held accountable for their own mismanagement.
However...
That doesn't make it okay for someone to access the information in this manner without authorization.
Yes, it was broadcast over public airwaves... but that doesn't automatically make it public property. Intent plays a large part, ie: if you KNOW they don't realize it's set up that way, and you KNOW the data is not for you, then you are doing something wrong.. if not legally then morally.
Because the "exploit" they are releasing isn't illegal. Therefore, it's not blackmail.. it's "We are going to do X unless you do Y, either way it's your choice"
this isn't terrorism. It's probably not even illegal. It's just asking microsoft to do the right thing, or we'll do it for them. It's being nice, and giving them the opportunity.
That's toeing the line between "security" and "protection racket"
If you know the data isn't for you, and it's not advertised for you to get, then you can reasonably assume it's private.
Surfing student records over a wireless connection is one of those things that falls under "We knew it was not public information, and that we were accessing information we were not supposed to be"
ANYONE who accesses my network through some kind of security breach does not deserve any kind of protection.
It sounds like fair use, sure, but courts have already shown it's not permitted.
The reason being: Fair use is not about whatever you think is fair. Remember what mp3.com did? They lost that case, even though it was fair.
You can come up with theoretical logical rasons why file sharing is okay, or impossible to gather evidence about, but really, cant' we same the same for many crimes?
A guy is on kazaa. He's sharing 100,000 songs. Many tens or hundreds of gigabytes of music are shared out, and he talks about it pubilcly on chat cahnnels, offering to trade and whatnot with others. He was breaking the law, clearly.
Should you be able to get cpies of music you already paid for? I think that's fair, but the law currently does not agree. I'd LOVE to be able to approach all the record companies and get back all the music I've lost. The problem isn't my getting that music, it's the righ tof someone else to give it to me. If I tell yuo I had a copie of some old beastie boys album, and I want a copy, it's not your right to decide to give me a copy based on that... you do not have that right under copyright law. If you do give it to me, it's unlikely tehy will sue ME, because it would be awfully hard to prove damages, especially if I can prove I bought the album.
Furthermore, they won't come and sue you for just HAVING a big collection of mp3s, beause THEY would have to prove that you violated copyright to get it... and not the other way around. If you were offering them up for download, that's a different matter.
But you don't have a reasonable expectation that nobody will access you work if you leave it up on a publicly accessible, non password protected web page.
Sure, if you could show you really DID only use it for yourself, and had no idea that everyone was pirating it, you would have a defence, i suppose...
but it would be fairly easy to show that many thousands of file sharers KNOW what they are doing, and are NOT simply doing something for their own benefit.
And I came to the conclusion that the whole point of a "written offer" probably boils down, in legal terms, to just meaning "You have to let them know the source is available to them for the cost of media and shipping".
WITHOUT this clause, they woudln't have to tell you.
It's sort of like how you have to give notice that you are vacating your apartment in writing.. it's just so it's clear the message has been given. I do not believe it's intended as a one time offer.
There is also a clause that allows you to avoid the source provision requirement if you are redistributing in the same form you received teh binaries, and in a non commercial way: you can just pass along the written offer you were given.
In this case, as you both can keep copies of the binaries, you would both be entitled to source from the original distributor who had the written offer.
Also, it does say they have to provide a written offer valid for any party to get the source for no more than the cost of shipping. Turning in the written offer could constitute an additional unrelated cost.
At any rate, the best bet , and easiest way to stay out of a source provision mess is to either always provide the source along with the binaries (if it's on cd) or provide equivalent access (if downloading on the net). This way you are not obligated to leave the source available for any length of time, only while you are still distributing binaries.
ie: You can put up a binary for download, and the source in a separate tarball, and take both down a week later, and you are not obliged to provide the source to those who didnt' bother to download it while it was available... because it was available to them at the time you were distributing the binaries.
But having dealt with "support" for a variety of packages.. yes, sometimes you get help.
The thing is, In all the OSS I've used in a commercial setting (usually corporate), I've never once come across anything where I could not get my answers as fast, or faster, than for any product we had a commercial support agreement for... I guess that's my point.
So the assertion that "support is not available" Is just not true, although you may not be able to easily define where that support comes from, in practice, it's not an issue.
The whole point is a) it's been stated as common knowledge by many and b) I recall reading it at one point. And c) There are lot sof binary only drivers.
Did you miss the part where I said I couldn't find it?
I'm *sure* something was in there at one point.. there was a specific rule about binary drivers..
The only reason NVIDIAs drivers are not covered by the GPL is because binary only kernel modules using existing kernel interfaces were expressly permitted from the beginning by Linus, as an EXCEPTION to the GPL. This means these drivers can be under any license NVIDIA wants. The only reason you can't distribute thsoe drivers with the OS is because NVIDIA says so, not ebcause of the GPL.
Note - I'm trying to find the clause that allowed it, I'm sure I've seen it before, and it's common knowledge.. but I can't find it, anyone know where it is?
The license on the linux Kernel itself is not just the GPL, it has an additional clause.
You quoted Section 7 of the GPL.. let's look at more of it:
"For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. "
That's pretty self explanatory.. if SCO cannot distribute copies that allow ANYONE to redistribute in the same manner, they cannot distribute at all.. Therefore, they cannot just license their version of linux to their users only, and impose restrictions on others.
And how should they get more clarifications.. I mean
- Linus knows where HE got contributions from - Those people know where THEY got them from - The code is available for the WHOLE WORLD to see, and let Linus et-al know if something isn't right.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not hard. But consider this.
You have cables running hidden in the walls of your house, cables that CAN catch on fire. Are they the right kind, that won't burn up and toxically kill your family in a fire? What if some bunk gear sets them on fire?
Are they too close to power lines? What are the code regulations regarding this?
Are they installed in the right places?
Sure, it's not nearly as important as installing power or other utilities... and I would bet you don't need a contractor to put in cat5... it's not a utility... but there ARE reasons to have someone professional do it.. especially for resale of your house. Or insurance.. what if your house burns down due to some electrical problem, and there was amateur wiring installed? Who's fault is that? You can bet the insurance company wil leverage it.
I think you are confused about the state of the law in Canada. IT's very much illegal for you to decrypt satellite signals.. the reason you can get away with pirating DirecTV is becuase DirecTV has no broadcast license in Canada, and therefore, no *right* to broadcast in Canada.. so it follows that:
a) They can't sue anyone for theft of service, because they can't offer that service in the first place. Court would toss it.
b) They can't sell to Canada *anyway* so even the fat execs can see that no market is being lost.. it was not available to them in the first place.
Also, it's never been completely legal.. it's just a grey area, and one we aren't into enforcing.
However, in the US, it is VERY illegal, and everyone knows you can get in deep shit.
When Mitnick was tracked down by the FBI, the big famous when-kevin-was-arrested-and-held-for-years-without -a-hearing.............
In 1987, his lawyer knocked a felony charge down to a misdimeanour.. penalty, 3 years probation. (For breaking into something at SCO).
In 1988, a colleague ratted him out for breaking into DEC. He got a year in prison. They were so paranoid about him, he spent most of his time in solitary confinement.
In 1989, the FBI was starting to try to pin something on him again, and he knew he'd get no fair trial this time.. so he ran.
THIS is where all the normal stuff you hear about Kevin Mitnick starts... when they caught him later... he ran while still on parole. (If I'm not mistaken).. which lands you back in jail immediately.
Furthermore, he had no bail hearing because he was a huge flight risk (considering they barely caught him, and he evaded them easily for years, despite a huge effort to catch him).
Don't get me wrong.. Mitnick got royally fucked over, he deserved a slap on the wrist, or maybe a punch in the face... not spending years in prison treated like you have the plague. He never did anyhting that harmful to society.
I guess you aren't aware that many countries don't have a wired infrastructure to begin with, and that putting in wireless technologies is FAR cheaper than wiring a country? See the popularity of celluar in many developing nations.. it's not because they wanna be modern or some image thing.. it's because it's cheaper and faster to saturate an area with cellular coverage than it is to wire it, by a HUGE margin. It also takes less organisation, with cable, you need right of ways, etc, and systems to make sure cables aren't cut, and just a LOT more manpower.
I can't believe it made it to the NYT either.. cause it's a really shitty sensationalist article.
Verisign operates "much of the internet's infrastructure?". The hell it does. 9 billion domain requests a day? I doubt that too.
That America has to be careful because the internet lets like minded people who hate the US get together more easily? Man, if anything shows the collective fear of attack the US has always had, this is it. Is that the only thing you guys can think of? That someone is going to attack you?
Move to Mexico. Finish the device there. Sell it to the black market satellite world for a huge amount, as originally planned. Move to some latin american country with no extradition treaty. (Brazil?)
Okay...
For the record, I think Mr. Mitnick got fucked over, and it was totally wrong... HOWEVER...
He was held without trial for years because.. he was a parole violator. When you violate your parole, they can just toss you back in the slam... you are not a *free* person until your sentence is completed. Second, it was delayed not just by the prosecution, but by mitnick himself.. waiting for evidence, granted, evidence the government delayed in giving.
His "damages" were made up by the prosecution, not by what the code might have been worth, but by what it cost to write. Remember, they didn't KNOW much about this kind of crime... they asked Sun and friends how much the stolen (copied) code cost to develop, then used that number for damages. The companies involved never claimed such damages... they just answered questions.
That's totally different than what's going on here (though no less evil)
according to the FSF. But to many of us who have been using linux longer than the FSF has even had an opinion on the issue, we just call it Linux, and don't care to call it "GNU/Linux" because really, it has a LOT more than just GNU in it.
Everyone knows and respects the GNU tools.. they don't need to whine about it every chance they get, as if they aren't getting enough credit.
I mean, hey, GNU.. maybe if the HURD hadn't been vapor for 10 years, you would have beat linux to the punch, eh?
It's not so much about the merits of the lawsuit itself, but about the public opinion statements SCO has been making, trying to affect the free software world in a really negative way, based on vague statement sabout the ramifications of this lawsuit.
As everyone knows, they went from "Trade secret" to "license violation" to "copyright violation" to alleging "patent" almost.
They went from talking about their secrets making it into linux, to pointing out it was actually code that was NOT their secret, but that they technically may have an exclusive license to, due to some wording in IBM's Unix license.
They are saying many confusing things, and backing it up with little.
Sco -vs- IBM is between SCO and IBM. Hopefully the rest of the world is smart enough to realize that the free software world is more than happy to obey the law, if only someone would tell them what they are doing wrong.
So it's good for people, lawyers, and organisations to put forward their own researched opinions as to what the ramifications of SCO's actions are, because the public needs both sides.
But, the law is not the computer, and it's not pure logic.
You can say "Well I sent a request for an IP address, and it gave me one, therefore it authorized me to look at all information available on their network". Yeah right.
Judge: Sir, were you aware these were school records, things that are usually confidential? (by virtue of the fact that you reported it as newsworthy, obviously you were).
Reporter: Yes, your honor, I was aware of this..
Judge: Therefore you admit you accessed confidential records without authorization.
Access to information is not everything. If I forget to lock the door to my office, and you come in and rifle through all my files, are you going to tell the judge that because the door opened when you turned the knob, that authorized you to read all my files? That, because you knew the door technically should be locked, then obviously if someone left it unlocked, it was meant as permission? I doubt anyone is going to buy it.
I am not talking about GETTING it in some other format, I'm talking about GIVING it in some format.
Yes, it's considered fair use for you to make copies of music for your own personal use.
That, however, has nothing to do with your right to give ME copies of music.. that is copyright violation.
If you want a case, see the big mp3.com fiasco from a year or so back... that was a perfect example.
They bought & ripped tons of music. They offered an online download service.. all you had to do was use their application, which looked at the CD and verified that you already had a legitimite fair use right to the music, and then could get copies from them whenever.
What did the court say? They said "that's nice, but, sorry mp3.com, that doesn't mean you are authorized to distribute copies of these copyrighted works"
They absolutely should be held accountable for their own mismanagement.
However...
That doesn't make it okay for someone to access the information in this manner without authorization.
Yes, it was broadcast over public airwaves... but that doesn't automatically make it public property. Intent plays a large part, ie: if you KNOW they don't realize it's set up that way, and you KNOW the data is not for you, then you are doing something wrong.. if not legally then morally.
Because the "exploit" they are releasing isn't illegal. Therefore, it's not blackmail.. it's "We are going to do X unless you do Y, either way it's your choice"
this isn't terrorism. It's probably not even illegal. It's just asking microsoft to do the right thing, or we'll do it for them. It's being nice, and giving them the opportunity.
Because using linux as a pdc avoids a lot of licensing expenses, and works quite well?
That's toeing the line between "security" and "protection racket"
If you know the data isn't for you, and it's not advertised for you to get, then you can reasonably assume it's private.
Surfing student records over a wireless connection is one of those things that falls under "We knew it was not public information, and that we were accessing information we were not supposed to be"
ANYONE who accesses my network through some kind of security breach does not deserve any kind of protection.
It sounds like fair use, sure, but courts have already shown it's not permitted.
The reason being: Fair use is not about whatever you think is fair. Remember what mp3.com did? They lost that case, even though it was fair.
You can come up with theoretical logical rasons why file sharing is okay, or impossible to gather evidence about, but really, cant' we same the same for many crimes?
A guy is on kazaa. He's sharing 100,000 songs. Many tens or hundreds of gigabytes of music are shared out, and he talks about it pubilcly on chat cahnnels, offering to trade and whatnot with others. He was breaking the law, clearly.
Should you be able to get cpies of music you already paid for? I think that's fair, but the law currently does not agree. I'd LOVE to be able to approach all the record companies and get back all the music I've lost. The problem isn't my getting that music, it's the righ tof someone else to give it to me. If I tell yuo I had a copie of some old beastie boys album, and I want a copy, it's not your right to decide to give me a copy based on that... you do not have that right under copyright law. If you do give it to me, it's unlikely tehy will sue ME, because it would be awfully hard to prove damages, especially if I can prove I bought the album.
Furthermore, they won't come and sue you for just HAVING a big collection of mp3s, beause THEY would have to prove that you violated copyright to get it... and not the other way around. If you were offering them up for download, that's a different matter.
Sure.
But you don't have a reasonable expectation that nobody will access you work if you leave it up on a publicly accessible, non password protected web page.
Sure, if you could show you really DID only use it for yourself, and had no idea that everyone was pirating it, you would have a defence, i suppose...
but it would be fairly easy to show that many thousands of file sharers KNOW what they are doing, and are NOT simply doing something for their own benefit.
And I came to the conclusion that the whole point of a "written offer" probably boils down, in legal terms, to just meaning "You have to let them know the source is available to them for the cost of media and shipping".
WITHOUT this clause, they woudln't have to tell you.
It's sort of like how you have to give notice that you are vacating your apartment in writing.. it's just so it's clear the message has been given. I do not believe it's intended as a one time offer.
There is also a clause that allows you to avoid the source provision requirement if you are redistributing in the same form you received teh binaries, and in a non commercial way: you can just pass along the written offer you were given.
In this case, as you both can keep copies of the binaries, you would both be entitled to source from the original distributor who had the written offer.
Also, it does say they have to provide a written offer valid for any party to get the source for no more than the cost of shipping. Turning in the written offer could constitute an additional unrelated cost.
At any rate, the best bet , and easiest way to stay out of a source provision mess is to either always provide the source along with the binaries (if it's on cd) or provide equivalent access (if downloading on the net). This way you are not obligated to leave the source available for any length of time, only while you are still distributing binaries.
ie: You can put up a binary for download, and the source in a separate tarball, and take both down a week later, and you are not obliged to provide the source to those who didnt' bother to download it while it was available... because it was available to them at the time you were distributing the binaries.
But having dealt with "support" for a variety of packages.. yes, sometimes you get help.
The thing is, In all the OSS I've used in a commercial setting (usually corporate), I've never once come across anything where I could not get my answers as fast, or faster, than for any product we had a commercial support agreement for... I guess that's my point.
So the assertion that "support is not available" Is just not true, although you may not be able to easily define where that support comes from, in practice, it's not an issue.
The whole point is a) it's been stated as common knowledge by many and b) I recall reading it at one point. And c) There are lot sof binary only drivers.
Did you miss the part where I said I couldn't find it?
I'm *sure* something was in there at one point.. there was a specific rule about binary drivers..
Firewire can do 1Gbps?
I mean, sure, for the biggest and largest contracts, that is true.. but only thet biggest and largest.
What many people find with open source is that, regardless of the lack of a formal definition of who provides support.. SUPPORT IS THERE.
It's far easier to get support, meaning, to get help solving your problems with most open source stuff than it is with closed stuff, period.
Ever had to call microsoft?
The only reason NVIDIAs drivers are not covered by the GPL is because binary only kernel modules using existing kernel interfaces were expressly permitted from the beginning by Linus, as an EXCEPTION to the GPL. This means these drivers can be under any license NVIDIA wants. The only reason you can't distribute thsoe drivers with the OS is because NVIDIA says so, not ebcause of the GPL.
Note - I'm trying to find the clause that allowed it, I'm sure I've seen it before, and it's common knowledge.. but I can't find it, anyone know where it is?
The license on the linux Kernel itself is not just the GPL, it has an additional clause.
You quoted Section 7 of the GPL.. let's look at more of it:
"For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. "
That's pretty self explanatory.. if SCO cannot distribute copies that allow ANYONE to redistribute in the same manner, they cannot distribute at all.. Therefore, they cannot just license their version of linux to their users only, and impose restrictions on others.
And how should they get more clarifications.. I mean
- Linus knows where HE got contributions from
- Those people know where THEY got them from
- The code is available for the WHOLE WORLD to see, and let Linus et-al know if something isn't right.