As a side note, if you're running an FTP server on a public server with a login banner that gives you anonymous access, and the files on that server are accompanied by license files that give you a free right to download them
Well, giving that their FTP server contains a notice that they don't distribute Linux anymore and that the files are just for the convenience of their existing customer, I'd say that it is not really true.
You know, just because a file is free to download doesn't mean you can/should/are allowed to download it.
My grocery store consistently displays tons of fruits and veggies on the front and no one is checking if I take one and walk away. It doesn't mean I am allowed to do so.
Just because they have a couple of binary files sitting on their ftp server does mean nothing at all when it comes to the question: "Does SCO still distributes Linux".
If they specifically claim that they don't, then you are in violation of their copyright if you download the file. The fact that you can doesn't mean you are allowed to do it.
And if they give a good reason to still have these binaries out there (and they do, it's for their existing customers), I don't see why Linux on their FTP server is relevant here.
Well, that's probably questionnable. At what point of time did they remove the distribution? I mean, not the files standing in their ftp server, but the actual commercial pages advertising Linux ?
You know, just because a file is free to download doesn't mean you can/should/are allowed to download it.
My grocery store consistently displays tons of fruits and veggies on the front and no one is checking if I take one and walk away. It doesn't mean I am allowed to do so.
Just because they have a couple of binary files sitting on their ftp server does mean nothing at all when it comes to the question: "Does SCO still distributes Linux".
If they specifically claim that they don't, then you are in violation of their copyright if you download the file. The fact that you can doesn't mean you are allowed to do it.
And if they give a good reason to still have these binaries out there (and they do, it's for their existing customers), I don't see why Linux on their FTP server is relevant here.
Just a small post to notify you of a misuse of the word "then" for the word "than".
From Dictionary.com, Than is used to compare or contrast things, as in "He is a lot smaller than his older brother." Then refers to time or consequence: "And the Canaanite was then in the land" (Gen. xii. 6.); "If all this be so, then man has a natural freedom" (Locke).
So if one thing follows or results from another, use then.
Than is also used before a pronoun, as in "Paul loves pizza more than me."
I'm not saying they are cash flow positive, I'm saying they make money. They have revenue.
How long did Amazon (which sell very real things for good money) been in the red?
I don't think Red Hat's bad financial health proves anything over there.
Re:Solution: pay someone to develop this software
on
GnuCash - A Call For Help
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Some other companies exploit users as well. Not for their ethics but for some other reasons. As long as people are ok to be exploited there will be people to do it.
Open source is just another way, nothing more.
Re:Solution: pay someone to develop this software
on
GnuCash - A Call For Help
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Hmm, I'm wondering how does Red Hat makes money. They sell only open source software. WAIT! Wait!!!! What did I say? They sell some free software!!!?!?!
Excerpt from the GPL: When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price
Re:Solution: pay someone to develop this software
on
GnuCash - A Call For Help
·
· Score: 2, Informative
sorry coders but your ethics are being exploited
You don't seem to understand the GPL very well, do you? The GPL doesn't say anything about charging for the distribution. Also, as any large accounting software, you can sell yoursef as a contractor to configure/maintain/install/blah/blah anything on any client interested.
The only thing you cannot do is charging for Licensing fees. It does not prevent you from making money off of your work any other way you see fit.
Ok, sorry about all the fuss, but that seems pretty darn interesting. Even by re-reading the original post I don't understand that... But my english sucks so my bad...
Can you send me a copy once you have something running ? I definitely want to be a part of this!!
Well, basically, your are being hypocritical, right?
You just build something that is "harmless" in some kind of parallel reality and pretend you don't know anything about this "strange" side effect that we call DDoS, while in fact it is the primary goal of the whole system.
Could work, but I'm not sure. You need a very kind and friendly judge to be on your side if this matter ever goes to court.
Ok, I see your point. The only flaw is that flooding the spammer does doesn't bring any mailbox to its knee (not intentionnally nor even as a predictable side effect) while in your system, you use this great number as an excuse to flood their website. There is no excuse for that, not even your statistical project.
At best, your explanation will sound hypocritical to a judge.
I can picture you in front of the judge: You You know, I'm just sending a couple of HTTP requests to these guys for every email, that's all. The Judge How many emails is there? You A lot. The Judge To your knowledge, could this practice potentially harm their server (even temporarily) You Hmmm... Yes The Judge Ok, stop it. You Yes your honor.
I don't think this ford example applies very well here. I mean, Ford can do that, I don't really give a shit. I just won't buy Ford anymore and they will loose all (most of) their customers rather quickly (I hope).
That's because Ford doesn't have the monopoly. RIAA is way closer to having a monopoly, so they (think they) can impose anything to their customers.
It's going to blow in their faces pretty hard if they go on this way. Independant labels will pop out everywhere not holding these kind of restrictions. Of course RIAA members will push as hard as they can with all their (numerous) weapons to keep them down. But if society as a whole is sick of their stupid tactics, it'll pop out eventually.
I thought the anti-trust laws were made to avoid these kind of situations.... Too bad.
Well, from the original post, I read "the spammer's web site is/.ed", "a counter-attack as well (will it start cyber-wars?)" and "but still flood the spammer", that led me to think the idea was to to bring the site down on purpose...
Well, from the original post, I read "the spammer's web site is/.ed", "a counter-attack as well (will it start cyber-wars?)" and "but still flood the spammer", that led me to think you wanted to bring the site down...
What makes it illigal? It is a statistical research project.
Well, go ahead and read it again. Point 7 sound more like a counter-attack than a statistical research project.
The statistical part is fine with me, and I think with the law. The retaliation part is obviously illegal. You can't just bring a website down for the heck of bringing it down.
Well, giving that you do that with the intent of DDoSing their website, I find it hard for you to tell me that this is just a normal click.
If I kill someone in the street that was threatening me with a gun, I'm certinly not guilty of anything. If I just kill him because he was looking at my GF, I am. You see? The context and intention of my actions make the same action (Here killing someone) illegal or not.
I'm sure I could build a search angine that would suck every link in all my emails, and then every link in the linked website to give me an "automatic summary" of the linked site. That would be legal.
But the minute I'm downloading your program, It is not a fair use anymore, because I'm going to willingully help bringing their site down for the heck of it. And who decides if they are guilty? I think it should be the legal system, not a bunch of nerds/statisticians/analysts...
all this is a neat idea, but there is still a couple of problems unresolved:
1. There is a small company that I dislike. What prevents me from hacking their ip address and send shitload of spam in their name? 2. automatic or manual retaliation comes back to making justice yourself which is inherently illegal (at least in the us).
1. You were asking a very vague question to which I responded partially. Don't blame me for the dumbness of your questoin. 2. Because the plant is not Chinese does't mean that the state can't controll the whole process does it? 3. If the gov decides to be the biggest distributor, they just have to prevent any other distributor from selling laptops. It's just the way it works for many stuff around there.
Slashdot Mirror
Asshole.
Just a small post to notify you that (...).y.o.u.'.r.e. (...) is the correct wording.
Thanks
As a side note, if you're running an FTP server on a public server with a login banner that gives you anonymous access, and the files on that server are accompanied by license files that give you a free right to download them
Well, giving that their FTP server contains a notice that they don't distribute Linux anymore and that the files are just for the convenience of their existing customer, I'd say that it is not really true.
You know, just because a file is free to download doesn't mean you can/should/are allowed to download it.
My grocery store consistently displays tons of fruits and veggies on the front and no one is checking if I take one and walk away. It doesn't mean I am allowed to do so.
Just because they have a couple of binary files sitting on their ftp server does mean nothing at all when it comes to the question: "Does SCO still distributes Linux".
If they specifically claim that they don't, then you are in violation of their copyright if you download the file. The fact that you can doesn't mean you are allowed to do it.
And if they give a good reason to still have these binaries out there (and they do, it's for their existing customers), I don't see why Linux on their FTP server is relevant here.
Well, that's probably questionnable. At what point of time did they remove the distribution? I mean, not the files standing in their ftp server, but the actual commercial pages advertising Linux ?
Ha! Thanks!
You know, just because a file is free to download doesn't mean you can/should/are allowed to download it.
My grocery store consistently displays tons of fruits and veggies on the front and no one is checking if I take one and walk away. It doesn't mean I am allowed to do so.
Just because they have a couple of binary files sitting on their ftp server does mean nothing at all when it comes to the question: "Does SCO still distributes Linux".
If they specifically claim that they don't, then you are in violation of their copyright if you download the file. The fact that you can doesn't mean you are allowed to do it.
And if they give a good reason to still have these binaries out there (and they do, it's for their existing customers), I don't see why Linux on their FTP server is relevant here.
Have a nice day.
I'm not saying they are cash flow positive, I'm saying they make money. They have revenue.
How long did Amazon (which sell very real things for good money) been in the red?
I don't think Red Hat's bad financial health proves anything over there.
Some other companies exploit users as well. Not for their ethics but for some other reasons. As long as people are ok to be exploited there will be people to do it.
Open source is just another way, nothing more.
Hmm, I'm wondering how does Red Hat makes money. They sell only open source software. WAIT! Wait!!!! What did I say? They sell some free software!!!?!?!
Excerpt from the GPL:
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price
sorry coders but your ethics are being exploited
You don't seem to understand the GPL very well, do you?
The GPL doesn't say anything about charging for the distribution. Also, as any large accounting software, you can sell yoursef as a contractor to configure/maintain/install/blah/blah anything on any client interested.
The only thing you cannot do is charging for Licensing fees. It does not prevent you from making money off of your work any other way you see fit.
Ok, sorry about all the fuss, but that seems pretty darn interesting. Even by re-reading the original post I don't understand that... But my english sucks so my bad...
Can you send me a copy once you have something running ? I definitely want to be a part of this!!
Well, basically, your are being hypocritical, right?
You just build something that is "harmless" in some kind of parallel reality and pretend you don't know anything about this "strange" side effect that we call DDoS, while in fact it is the primary goal of the whole system.
Could work, but I'm not sure. You need a very kind and friendly judge to be on your side if this matter ever goes to court.
Ok, I see your point. The only flaw is that flooding the spammer does doesn't bring any mailbox to its knee (not intentionnally nor even as a predictable side effect) while in your system, you use this great number as an excuse to flood their website. There is no excuse for that, not even your statistical project.
... Yes
At best, your explanation will sound hypocritical to a judge.
I can picture you in front of the judge:
You You know, I'm just sending a couple of HTTP requests to these guys for every email, that's all.
The Judge How many emails is there?
You A lot.
The Judge To your knowledge, could this practice potentially harm their server (even temporarily)
You Hmmm
The Judge Ok, stop it.
You Yes your honor.
I don't think this ford example applies very well here. I mean, Ford can do that, I don't really give a shit. I just won't buy Ford anymore and they will loose all (most of) their customers rather quickly (I hope).
That's because Ford doesn't have the monopoly. RIAA is way closer to having a monopoly, so they (think they) can impose anything to their customers.
It's going to blow in their faces pretty hard if they go on this way. Independant labels will pop out everywhere not holding these kind of restrictions. Of course RIAA members will push as hard as they can with all their (numerous) weapons to keep them down. But if society as a whole is sick of their stupid tactics, it'll pop out eventually.
I thought the anti-trust laws were made to avoid these kind of situations.... Too bad.
Well, from the original post, I read "the spammer's web site is /.ed", "a counter-attack as well (will it start cyber-wars?)" and "but still flood the spammer", that led me to think the idea was to to bring the site down on purpose...
Somewhat confusing.
Well, from the original post, I read "the spammer's web site is /.ed", "a counter-attack as well (will it start cyber-wars?)" and "but still flood the spammer", that led me to think you wanted to bring the site down...
Somewhat confusing.
What makes it illigal? It is a statistical research project.
Well, go ahead and read it again. Point 7 sound more like a counter-attack than a statistical research project.
The statistical part is fine with me, and I think with the law. The retaliation part is obviously illegal. You can't just bring a website down for the heck of bringing it down.
Of course, IANAL.
Well, giving that you do that with the intent of DDoSing their website, I find it hard for you to tell me that this is just a normal click.
If I kill someone in the street that was threatening me with a gun, I'm certinly not guilty of anything. If I just kill him because he was looking at my GF, I am. You see? The context and intention of my actions make the same action (Here killing someone) illegal or not.
I'm sure I could build a search angine that would suck every link in all my emails, and then every link in the linked website to give me an "automatic summary" of the linked site. That would be legal.
But the minute I'm downloading your program, It is not a fair use anymore, because I'm going to willingully help bringing their site down for the heck of it. And who decides if they are guilty? I think it should be the legal system, not a bunch of nerds/statisticians/analysts...
all this is a neat idea, but there is still a couple of problems unresolved:
1. There is a small company that I dislike. What prevents me from hacking their ip address and send shitload of spam in their name?
2. automatic or manual retaliation comes back to making justice yourself which is inherently illegal (at least in the us).
1. You were asking a very vague question to which I responded partially. Don't blame me for the dumbness of your questoin.
2. Because the plant is not Chinese does't mean that the state can't controll the whole process does it?
3. If the gov decides to be the biggest distributor, they just have to prevent any other distributor from selling laptops. It's just the way it works for many stuff around there.
Who's the troll now?
What's going on is that the Chinese are 123 billion people, and the state controls everything. So:
1. Government produces Laptops
2. Government prevent any other laptop from being sold
3. They are #1.
Ain't that easy?
In the other news, Taiwanese that are #1 on laptops may become number 1.
Wow.
He is not called Linux Torvalds, but Linus. Any nerd with some Karma should know that...
Don't you think that would be because Austin is closer to the sea? Hmmm?