Linus could only re-release code under a more restrictive license if it's code he's written. He can't take the GPLed code of others and re-release under another more restrictive license.
This is illegal under a federal law known as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. A Google search for this name and printer cartridge will yield the relevant text.
I'm probably feeding a troll, but I'll reply anyway... The records would obviously be synthesized on the fly like this:
1. The TLD servers would list NS records for one (or many) of VeriSign's servers for all non-existant domains. 2. The(se) VeriSign servers would then return the address(es) of the SiteFinder servers for any query they received.
Why not give all of the devices a world-routable IP address and then use the "central house-server/router/firewall" as you describe to block access to it. IPv6 doesn't force you to allow world-access to every device. NAT prevents you from allowing world-acess to every device should you want it.
As the grandparent of this post indicated, all hard drive brands have their issues. I've had great luck with Western Digital drives and terrible luck with Maxtors.
By the way, I'm assuming you meant Maxtor instead of "WD" in "all my... drives are running strong."
rdiff-backup (http://rdiff-backup.stanford.edu) might be worth a look. You could backup your configuration files using rdiff-backup after each change. That would provide the archive. To do sliding window expiration (which I interpret as only saving the last X days of revisions) with the --remove-older-than flag.
Sure the world is an absurd place... But, Iraq was taken by force. I was discussing this thread with a friend of mine and in regards to the extension of sea rights from 6 nautical miles to 12, he said, "It would be like if we took a claim to part of Russia and they took a claim to part of Alaska." Of course, the mess with international law with respect to territory is that it hinges on recognition.
I'm not a lawyer and have limited understanding of international law. But, how would a 1982 treaty affect the claim to Sealand? The claim has been made since 1967. I realize that international law established by treaties can be binding on non-signers of a treaty in cases where it is generally accepted practice and (maybe and/or) when the majority of states are parties to the treaty. Still, in the interest of fairness, how could even a majority of states take away a pre-existing claim? What if the majority of countries in the world decided to gang up against another country and "revoke" their claim to sovereignty? That's absurd. The only way they could do it would be with force.
There are three reasons (that I can think of off the top of my head) that spammers are not doing this: 1. The people that have PGP keys are extremely unlikely to respond (positively) to the product/service/scam being offered in the spam, as compared to a broad cross-section of Internet users. 2. Many of the addresses on PGP keys are outdated. 3. The keyserver operators (should) notice if there are suddenly a ton of queries from the same person. (Just recently, I got an e-mail from a keyserver operator asking if I was an individual who was making lots of requests.)
As stated by an earlier reply, if you are distributing GPL-ed binaries, you must do one of the following (the explanations are my simplifications): (3a) Send the source code with the binary. (3b) Agree to give the source to any third party. (This is because the entity that received the binaries from you could have redistributed the GPL-ed binaries under the terms of the GPL and followed 3c. You would then have the obligation of providing them with the source code. I suppose, technically, if you heard about a piece of GPL-ed software being distributed with a promise to deliver the source, as in 3b, you could demand the source even though you didn't have the binaries. This may be construed as a bug or feature of the license, depending on your personal feelings.)
I would imagine that if you were afraid of having to distribute source to anyone, you could simply follow one of the other options. (Typically, you would have to follow 3a, as 3c applies in only a select number of cases.) (3c) Pass along the message of the original distributor's agreement to distribute the source code.
As usual, IANAL. If you need legal advise, contact a lawyer in your area.
Slashdot Mirror
Linus could only re-release code under a more restrictive license if it's code he's written. He can't take the GPLed code of others and re-release under another more restrictive license.
This is illegal under a federal law known as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. A Google search for this name and printer cartridge will yield the relevant text.
Why should I have to know what order to declare my variables in to get the best performance? That's the compiler's job.
Just curious... What makes the cost and complexity of aborting higher when you're 10 seconds from launch than when you're 300 seconds from launch?
When the drug money is spent on something other than drugs, it would be taxed.
Guantanamo is U.S. soil the same way that all miltary bases and embassies are U.S. soil. Have a peek at the CIA World Factbook for more verification.
while sco { /dev/null http://www.sco.com?sco=litigious%20bastards
wget -O
}
This loop will never execute. When you look at the output of sco, you can see it is clearly false.
I know the parent is joking, but this is almost exactly what happened with the Russians:
e ID =22765
http://www.sqlmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?Articl
Other sources I've seen in the past mentioned that the Russians initially thought it was an intentionally planted bug.
I'm probably feeding a troll, but I'll reply anyway... The records would obviously be synthesized on the fly like this:
1. The TLD servers would list NS records for one (or many) of VeriSign's servers for all non-existant domains.
2. The(se) VeriSign servers would then return the address(es) of the SiteFinder servers for any query they received.
Why not give all of the devices a world-routable IP address and then use the "central house-server/router/firewall" as you describe to block access to it. IPv6 doesn't force you to allow world-access to every device. NAT prevents you from allowing world-acess to every device should you want it.
As the grandparent of this post indicated, all hard drive brands have their issues. I've had great luck with Western Digital drives and terrible luck with Maxtors.
... drives are running strong."
By the way, I'm assuming you meant Maxtor instead of "WD" in "all my
rdiff-backup (http://rdiff-backup.stanford.edu) might be worth a look. You could backup your configuration files using rdiff-backup after each change. That would provide the archive. To do sliding window expiration (which I interpret as only saving the last X days of revisions) with the --remove-older-than flag.
Sure the world is an absurd place... But, Iraq was taken by force. I was discussing this thread with a friend of mine and in regards to the extension of sea rights from 6 nautical miles to 12, he said, "It would be like if we took a claim to part of Russia and they took a claim to part of Alaska." Of course, the mess with international law with respect to territory is that it hinges on recognition.
I'm not a lawyer and have limited understanding of international law. But, how would a 1982 treaty affect the claim to Sealand? The claim has been made since 1967. I realize that international law established by treaties can be binding on non-signers of a treaty in cases where it is generally accepted practice and (maybe and/or) when the majority of states are parties to the treaty. Still, in the interest of fairness, how could even a majority of states take away a pre-existing claim? What if the majority of countries in the world decided to gang up against another country and "revoke" their claim to sovereignty? That's absurd. The only way they could do it would be with force.
There are three reasons (that I can think of off the top of my head) that spammers are not doing this:
1. The people that have PGP keys are extremely unlikely to respond (positively) to the product/service/scam being offered in the spam, as compared to a broad cross-section of Internet users.
2. Many of the addresses on PGP keys are outdated.
3. The keyserver operators (should) notice if there are suddenly a ton of queries from the same person. (Just recently, I got an e-mail from a keyserver operator asking if I was an individual who was making lots of requests.)
As stated by an earlier reply, if you are distributing GPL-ed binaries, you must do one of the following (the explanations are my simplifications):
(3a) Send the source code with the binary.
(3b) Agree to give the source to any third party. (This is because the entity that received the binaries from you could have redistributed the GPL-ed binaries under the terms of the GPL and followed 3c. You would then have the obligation of providing them with the source code. I suppose, technically, if you heard about a piece of GPL-ed software being distributed with a promise to deliver the source, as in 3b, you could demand the source even though you didn't have the binaries. This may be construed as a bug or feature of the license, depending on your personal feelings.)
I would imagine that if you were afraid of having to distribute source to anyone, you could simply follow one of the other options. (Typically, you would have to follow 3a, as 3c applies in only a select number of cases.)
(3c) Pass along the message of the original distributor's agreement to distribute the source code.
As usual, IANAL. If you need legal advise, contact a lawyer in your area.