Yes, I saw the snippet of code that had several lines that matched. I also saw the current project owners declaration that "The company has rights over the entire source code, bought from the original maintainer. There is NO other code from contributors." That would make any copied code perfectly legal.
If they did buy the code from the original maintainer, then obviously every copy before then will always be covered under the GPL, but they would have the right to release future copies under any license they want: they own the code. If they *have* legally purchased the entire code base, and have never distributed it under the GPL, then they have no obligation under the GPL, since it only covers distribution. This doesn't affect any copies that were distributed by the previous owner under the GPL, which is not their responsibility.
It might be interesting and worth calling the original owner, but it is a bit early to grab the pitchforks and torches. Now if they are LYING, and didn't purchase the code base, then you have a story, but I don't see anyone, including you, claiming that in the article.
,I.And we're just supposed to take your word for this?
Unless you are claiming to own mtr, then yes. You can always contact the original owner of mtr and ask. Assuming that the parent is being truthful (and again, you are free to verify yourself) then is sounds like they didn't infringe on anything, and this might just be another "shoot yourself in the foot" article on Slashdot, which is starting to become more and more common.
You basically have palegray.net on their blog with ONE comment following, and they are the only party that is claiming that they have infringed on someone's copyright, and kdawson accepting the article for the front page. No actual media outlet is claiming this, nor is the original maintainer of mtr. At this point, this is really less than "not a story", and just diving into wild speculation in order to work up the/bots.
Yeah, it IS possible to relicense GPL code, but you need to be able to prove in a court of law that you attempted to contact EVERY single contributor and give them plenty of time to reply.
Wrong. If you own the copyright to a piece of code, no matter how many times they try to contact you, they are still infringing on copyright if they use the code. Copyright doesn't go into the public domain just because the owner doesn't enforce it. You don't lose your rights as copyright holder if you don't enforce the copyright. (Trademarks, yes. Patents and copyright, no.) If you can't contact the copyright owner, then it is impossible to legally use GPL code in a non-free project until the copyright expires.
Under all circumstances, you can NOT relicense ANY copyrighted software that you do not yourself own. Ever. You can relicense Public Domain software if you so choose. IANAL, but I get to deal with these finer points of law regularly, and pretty confident on my conclusions, for what that is worth.
I keep repeating this, which should be unnecessary: The only time you have the sniper out, the only time you shoot first, is when you are AT Somalia. At other times, obviously it isn't necessary. The Somalians have no coast guard to approach you or legit reason to approach you. That is the only time you need to be armed and trigger happy. No innocent people would be dying.
So they should be illegal because you don't like them? Because someone might drive drunk or while smoking? Some parents are irresponsible and smoke around the kids too much? Some religious idea you just want to force on us? Some other lame excuse? Maybe we can outlaw homosexuality and sex outside of marriage, too.
In the home invasion scenario, how would police (who arrive after the incident) know the difference between a burglar shot dead after he broke into the house, and a murdered innocent (invited into the house) where the home owner manufactured evidence of a break-in?
A background check is usually enough to show the person has a history. And there is a thing called "forensics". It isn't quite as easy to fake a break in as one would think. Also, when you see a cargo ship that has a manifest for a destination port, and they are pointed in that direction, it is pretty easy to see they didn't sit out there waiting for a ship to steal. And when the other boat is full of people with no manifest, and is out in the middle of the ocean with a boat overflowing with unemployed men loaded to the teeth with RPGs and AK47s, it is pretty safe to assume they weren't crab fishing.
In other words, common fucking sense. Any agency acting in a police manner could easily determine this by the totality of the circumstances.
I particularly like the section about the employee who KNEW he was stealing...
One co-worker who recorded Kara on a video camera reaching into a fare box in an incriminating fashion a year before his arrest later said he erased the video because he didn't want to get involved.
"I did not want to be the one responsible for pointing out to superiors or anything that there was anything wrong going on," he testified. "The thing was I didn't want to be involved in it." He was later fired.
Emphasis mine. Guess it doesn't pay to not get involved.
That is a feature, not a bug. Had they successfully captured the ship and gotten ransom, that would have changed their economic situation in a way that encouraged them to continue, which is what is happening. By virtue of removing the profit from the activity, you stop the activity, which costs them time and money.
I won't shed a tear if one of them are killed (being honest here), but if it reduces the incentive for them to pirate without killing or losing property, that is fine as well. My bitch (as the original commenter) is to simply make them stop in the most effective way. I still say popping off.308 rounds from 1000 yards IS the most effective way.
If marijuana was as legal as tobacco or alcohol, it wouldn't be any more likely to be stolen, which is still somewhat common but generally at a small scale. Lack of availability, combined with the absurd street price for something that is a glorified weed is the problem. A security system is obviously part of the solution, but once pot is legal for any use (and at 46, I'm betting it will happen in my lifetime) then it won't be as huge of an issue.
And yes, of course they should have their contact info as public as any other legit business, if they are to be perceived as legit.
What do you think they're going to do? Invade America with a few marines and machineguns?
Thank you for saying what he should have already known. It won't take crates of weapons to start with, and the only time you need to have anyone armed is in KNOWN dangerous waters. The route between NY and UK? Um, probably don't need it for that route. Going around Somalia? Good time for weapons. You don't need the snipers on guard for the entire journey, or even most of it.
Personally, I say you take a fake cargo ship and roam around the area with a full compliment of trainees and give them some real world experience. I have no moral problem with taking out people who are armed and dangerous and whose only goal is to harm others.
Have you ever considered the difficulty of using, say, an Armalite on the bridge of a cargo ship?
Yes I have, it would be quite easy to crank off shots. We aren't talking about a crab boat, these are huge, stable platforms that don't pitch and sway nearly as much as you might think.
So: you wound one pirate. The others start firing RPGs and AK-47s. These do not need to be accurate.
And they won't be accurate, because their TINY craft will be pitching back and forth. Particularly if they are stupid enough to try to shoot an RPG from one. And I'm pretty sure that once you start dotting their eyes with bullets, they will run away. These aren't disciplined, trained military men. They are thugs with guns that operate using the same tactics as any other bully. Ever see what happens when someone finally pops a bully in the eye?
If pirates assume armed response, they will start shooting the moment they come within range. Therefore, casualties will mount.
Again why I said snipers. They will turn around before they get into range. Also, cargo ships are not exactly teeming with humans on the deck, they look abandoned even when they have a full crew. You could likely go wild with an AK47 using a dozen clips from just inside range, and never hit anyone. Particularly since everyone go below deck (except the sniper) and they will be shooting UP at the boat. And an AK47 isn't going to pierce the hull by any stretch of the imagination. I'm pretty sure that at that distance, it couldn't even penetrate a shipping container. Even Mythbusters uses them for that purpose, at near point blank range.
I think the point that is being missed (although I thought it was obvious) is that the moment you put a bullet in one of the guys on the boat, they are going to turn away. They will have no idea how many people have guns on the cargo ship, they will only know that they are now vulnerable. Pirates are cowards, they aren't wanting to get in a gun fight, they want to be the only ones with the guns during the fight. These Somalian pirates are not military trained, hell, most are likely not even literate, and certainly not the most disciplined. They ARE determined, but only when they have the upper hand.
Also, it is the pirates that will have trouble shooting from their small craft, which will be rocking back and forth. As you point out, a large cargo vehicle is rather stable in comparison.
While your point is a valid concern, I have no reservation about killing a group of armed men looking to take over a ship by force, and who will gladly kill you in order to get money. I don't like the idea of killing someone, but by the same token, if someone breaks into my house and is holding a weapon, I will shoot to kill.
No, this is what is called "defending yourself" and I would wholeheartedly support. Is there a non-pirate scenario whereby a small, fast boat would approach a cargo vessel, with a bunch of armed men, without radio contact? Didn't think so. Shoot first.
Why don't they just put a sniper or two as look out on these cargo ships? Any small boat that approaches without radio, and they have arms, you start picking them off. I'm pretty sure that my idea will be more effective at preventing piracy on the high seas. Lots of ex-military guys who would be qualified.
I really did read it and not trying to argue for the sake of it. I'm just saying I am not aware of how it could be used as a *complete* DRM solution that would prevent copying on the receiving side, ie: I can't see how using only TLS/SSL could create a content control system that Sony would accept for music and movies. Certainly you could control live streams for the duration of the stream with it (which could be handy for pay per view), but once it is decrypted on the client end, it would be copyable, would it not? Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding how it would be implemented, but I don't see how it can protect content other than real time, unless it was used in conjunction with some other protection method. Part of my observation is based on the fact that if you *could* easily do a full DRM scheme in TLS/SSL, then it would be common place considering how cheap it would be.
Again, maybe it is just a failure of imagination on my side.
I guess the government finally figured out the best way to permanently suspend people's rights is to be in a permanent state of war.
"We have always been at war with Eastasia".
And if they can control the flow of information, our history, then they can control our future as well. There is no possible way that Orwell could have known how right he was, and he knew he was right. Next, they will be subpoenaing Slashdot for the real names of everyone that says anything negative about the TSA as well.
Can you copypaste them here, or otherwise reproduce them? I don't have javascript enabled, and I won't enable it for fox news. They'll fingerprint my browser, and track me.
Don't worry, now they only fingerprint paranoids. I'm sure you have nothing to worry about.
You do NOT need any other technology to build a DRM system, other than SSL/TLS.
Of course, your SSL/TLS system won't prevent copying of the stream once you receive it, which is the other part of DRM, so it would be a poor DRM scheme. In short, you could make an adhock DRM system, but it wouldn't be a real DRM scheme.
There is evidence that all these new technologies actually cause some people to drive much more recklessly. In the case of ABS in particular, you didn't see the dramatic drop in rear end accidents promised, partly because the driver in front of you likely has ABS too, thus negating any extra time to stop, and people simply follow more closely now because they can brake faster. Several studies have shown this definitively.
In essence, all we are doing is making our cars more complicated, more expensive, less reliable, heavier, and lowering the gas mileage, with much lower benefits than advertised. The sole exception to this would be the third (center) brake light.
Ammonium nitrate can also be used to make a bomb, but that doesn't change the fact that it was designed for and is primarily used as, a fertilizer. Taken a step further, I can beat someone to death with my computer's monitor, but doesn't mean it was designed to be a deadly weapon.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I saw the snippet of code that had several lines that matched. I also saw the current project owners declaration that "The company has rights over the entire source code, bought from the original maintainer. There is NO other code from contributors." That would make any copied code perfectly legal.
If they did buy the code from the original maintainer, then obviously every copy before then will always be covered under the GPL, but they would have the right to release future copies under any license they want: they own the code. If they *have* legally purchased the entire code base, and have never distributed it under the GPL, then they have no obligation under the GPL, since it only covers distribution. This doesn't affect any copies that were distributed by the previous owner under the GPL, which is not their responsibility.
It might be interesting and worth calling the original owner, but it is a bit early to grab the pitchforks and torches. Now if they are LYING, and didn't purchase the code base, then you have a story, but I don't see anyone, including you, claiming that in the article.
,I.And we're just supposed to take your word for this?
Unless you are claiming to own mtr, then yes. You can always contact the original owner of mtr and ask. Assuming that the parent is being truthful (and again, you are free to verify yourself) then is sounds like they didn't infringe on anything, and this might just be another "shoot yourself in the foot" article on Slashdot, which is starting to become more and more common.
You basically have palegray.net on their blog with ONE comment following, and they are the only party that is claiming that they have infringed on someone's copyright, and kdawson accepting the article for the front page. No actual media outlet is claiming this, nor is the original maintainer of mtr. At this point, this is really less than "not a story", and just diving into wild speculation in order to work up the /bots.
perl -e 'print "World Peace\n";'
Some people just make shit too hard.
Yeah, it IS possible to relicense GPL code, but you need to be able to prove in a court of law that you attempted to contact EVERY single contributor and give them plenty of time to reply.
Wrong. If you own the copyright to a piece of code, no matter how many times they try to contact you, they are still infringing on copyright if they use the code. Copyright doesn't go into the public domain just because the owner doesn't enforce it. You don't lose your rights as copyright holder if you don't enforce the copyright. (Trademarks, yes. Patents and copyright, no.) If you can't contact the copyright owner, then it is impossible to legally use GPL code in a non-free project until the copyright expires.
Under all circumstances, you can NOT relicense ANY copyrighted software that you do not yourself own. Ever. You can relicense Public Domain software if you so choose. IANAL, but I get to deal with these finer points of law regularly, and pretty confident on my conclusions, for what that is worth.
I keep repeating this, which should be unnecessary: The only time you have the sniper out, the only time you shoot first, is when you are AT Somalia. At other times, obviously it isn't necessary. The Somalians have no coast guard to approach you or legit reason to approach you. That is the only time you need to be armed and trigger happy. No innocent people would be dying.
US Customs approach ships out near Somalia? Yea, you're an idiot.
Alcohol and tobacco should also be illegal.
So they should be illegal because you don't like them? Because someone might drive drunk or while smoking? Some parents are irresponsible and smoke around the kids too much? Some religious idea you just want to force on us? Some other lame excuse? Maybe we can outlaw homosexuality and sex outside of marriage, too.
What a fucking putz.
In the home invasion scenario, how would police (who arrive after the incident) know the difference between a burglar shot dead after he broke into the house, and a murdered innocent (invited into the house) where the home owner manufactured evidence of a break-in?
A background check is usually enough to show the person has a history. And there is a thing called "forensics". It isn't quite as easy to fake a break in as one would think. Also, when you see a cargo ship that has a manifest for a destination port, and they are pointed in that direction, it is pretty easy to see they didn't sit out there waiting for a ship to steal. And when the other boat is full of people with no manifest, and is out in the middle of the ocean with a boat overflowing with unemployed men loaded to the teeth with RPGs and AK47s, it is pretty safe to assume they weren't crab fishing.
In other words, common fucking sense. Any agency acting in a police manner could easily determine this by the totality of the circumstances.
I particularly like the section about the employee who KNEW he was stealing...
One co-worker who recorded Kara on a video camera reaching into a fare box in an incriminating fashion a year before his arrest later said he erased the video because he didn't want to get involved.
"I did not want to be the one responsible for pointing out to superiors or anything that there was anything wrong going on," he testified. "The thing was I didn't want to be involved in it." He was later fired.
Emphasis mine. Guess it doesn't pay to not get involved.
Their economic situation has not changed.
That is a feature, not a bug. Had they successfully captured the ship and gotten ransom, that would have changed their economic situation in a way that encouraged them to continue, which is what is happening. By virtue of removing the profit from the activity, you stop the activity, which costs them time and money.
I won't shed a tear if one of them are killed (being honest here), but if it reduces the incentive for them to pirate without killing or losing property, that is fine as well. My bitch (as the original commenter) is to simply make them stop in the most effective way. I still say popping off .308 rounds from 1000 yards IS the most effective way.
Ah, the Han Solo defense. Good strategy.
Worked for him, AND he got the girl. Much better than the Chewbacca defense, although both are known to make heads explode.
put down the pipe, and GET SOME SECURITY.
If marijuana was as legal as tobacco or alcohol, it wouldn't be any more likely to be stolen, which is still somewhat common but generally at a small scale. Lack of availability, combined with the absurd street price for something that is a glorified weed is the problem. A security system is obviously part of the solution, but once pot is legal for any use (and at 46, I'm betting it will happen in my lifetime) then it won't be as huge of an issue.
And yes, of course they should have their contact info as public as any other legit business, if they are to be perceived as legit.
What do you think they're going to do? Invade America with a few marines and machineguns?
Thank you for saying what he should have already known. It won't take crates of weapons to start with, and the only time you need to have anyone armed is in KNOWN dangerous waters. The route between NY and UK? Um, probably don't need it for that route. Going around Somalia? Good time for weapons. You don't need the snipers on guard for the entire journey, or even most of it.
Personally, I say you take a fake cargo ship and roam around the area with a full compliment of trainees and give them some real world experience. I have no moral problem with taking out people who are armed and dangerous and whose only goal is to harm others.
Have you ever considered the difficulty of using, say, an Armalite on the bridge of a cargo ship?
Yes I have, it would be quite easy to crank off shots. We aren't talking about a crab boat, these are huge, stable platforms that don't pitch and sway nearly as much as you might think.
So: you wound one pirate. The others start firing RPGs and AK-47s. These do not need to be accurate.
And they won't be accurate, because their TINY craft will be pitching back and forth. Particularly if they are stupid enough to try to shoot an RPG from one. And I'm pretty sure that once you start dotting their eyes with bullets, they will run away. These aren't disciplined, trained military men. They are thugs with guns that operate using the same tactics as any other bully. Ever see what happens when someone finally pops a bully in the eye?
If pirates assume armed response, they will start shooting the moment they come within range. Therefore, casualties will mount.
Again why I said snipers. They will turn around before they get into range. Also, cargo ships are not exactly teeming with humans on the deck, they look abandoned even when they have a full crew. You could likely go wild with an AK47 using a dozen clips from just inside range, and never hit anyone. Particularly since everyone go below deck (except the sniper) and they will be shooting UP at the boat. And an AK47 isn't going to pierce the hull by any stretch of the imagination. I'm pretty sure that at that distance, it couldn't even penetrate a shipping container. Even Mythbusters uses them for that purpose, at near point blank range.
I think the point that is being missed (although I thought it was obvious) is that the moment you put a bullet in one of the guys on the boat, they are going to turn away. They will have no idea how many people have guns on the cargo ship, they will only know that they are now vulnerable. Pirates are cowards, they aren't wanting to get in a gun fight, they want to be the only ones with the guns during the fight. These Somalian pirates are not military trained, hell, most are likely not even literate, and certainly not the most disciplined. They ARE determined, but only when they have the upper hand.
Also, it is the pirates that will have trouble shooting from their small craft, which will be rocking back and forth. As you point out, a large cargo vehicle is rather stable in comparison.
While your point is a valid concern, I have no reservation about killing a group of armed men looking to take over a ship by force, and who will gladly kill you in order to get money. I don't like the idea of killing someone, but by the same token, if someone breaks into my house and is holding a weapon, I will shoot to kill.
No, this is what is called "defending yourself" and I would wholeheartedly support. Is there a non-pirate scenario whereby a small, fast boat would approach a cargo vessel, with a bunch of armed men, without radio contact? Didn't think so. Shoot first.
Why don't they just put a sniper or two as look out on these cargo ships? Any small boat that approaches without radio, and they have arms, you start picking them off. I'm pretty sure that my idea will be more effective at preventing piracy on the high seas. Lots of ex-military guys who would be qualified.
I really did read it and not trying to argue for the sake of it. I'm just saying I am not aware of how it could be used as a *complete* DRM solution that would prevent copying on the receiving side, ie: I can't see how using only TLS/SSL could create a content control system that Sony would accept for music and movies. Certainly you could control live streams for the duration of the stream with it (which could be handy for pay per view), but once it is decrypted on the client end, it would be copyable, would it not? Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding how it would be implemented, but I don't see how it can protect content other than real time, unless it was used in conjunction with some other protection method. Part of my observation is based on the fact that if you *could* easily do a full DRM scheme in TLS/SSL, then it would be common place considering how cheap it would be.
Again, maybe it is just a failure of imagination on my side.
True, as Communism is working great for North Korea. Just look at how cheap and plentiful their bandwidth is.
More like a chocolate covered cherry.
I guess the government finally figured out the best way to permanently suspend people's rights is to be in a permanent state of war.
"We have always been at war with Eastasia".
And if they can control the flow of information, our history, then they can control our future as well. There is no possible way that Orwell could have known how right he was, and he knew he was right. Next, they will be subpoenaing Slashdot for the real names of everyone that says anything negative about the TSA as well.
Can you copypaste them here, or otherwise reproduce them? I don't have javascript enabled, and I won't enable it for fox news. They'll fingerprint my browser, and track me.
Don't worry, now they only fingerprint paranoids. I'm sure you have nothing to worry about.
You do NOT need any other technology to build a DRM system, other than SSL/TLS.
Of course, your SSL/TLS system won't prevent copying of the stream once you receive it, which is the other part of DRM, so it would be a poor DRM scheme. In short, you could make an adhock DRM system, but it wouldn't be a real DRM scheme.
No real difference than without these features.
Not exactly.
There is evidence that all these new technologies actually cause some people to drive much more recklessly. In the case of ABS in particular, you didn't see the dramatic drop in rear end accidents promised, partly because the driver in front of you likely has ABS too, thus negating any extra time to stop, and people simply follow more closely now because they can brake faster. Several studies have shown this definitively.
In essence, all we are doing is making our cars more complicated, more expensive, less reliable, heavier, and lowering the gas mileage, with much lower benefits than advertised. The sole exception to this would be the third (center) brake light.
TLS/SSL definitely can be used to build DRM.
Ammonium nitrate can also be used to make a bomb, but that doesn't change the fact that it was designed for and is primarily used as, a fertilizer. Taken a step further, I can beat someone to death with my computer's monitor, but doesn't mean it was designed to be a deadly weapon.