An interesting analogy may be chasing speeders on the highway. If someone tailgates you and it pisses you off then trying to "chase them down" or doing other similar things is illigal because it endangers everyone there. Yes, the police have to exceed the speed limit to chase down bad guys, but they are trained and licensed to do so. These guys are trying to take law into their own hands, but that's not how it works.
I used Rayovac Alkalines for a while, because they offered the higher voltage and supposedly don't discharge in storage. Unfortunately I never really got the chance to find out, because every single one of them (something like 20 of em from different sets) broke and leaked after a few months, even while in storage... can't reccomend that kind.
Then, I tried Rayovac High-Capacity NiMH, pretty darn expensive - I think it was $15 for 4 at Best Buy, but they seem to be well worth it. My digital camera is quite the power hog (4 AA's), it lasted only a few days with the Alkalines - these NiMH's have been in there for something like two weeks now.
ha, I get it - that antenna-looking thing is what you wrap your headphone cord around so the damn thing doesn't dangle in front of the monitor (the headphone jack being OVER the screen and all that)
From the previous story: "And it's unfortunate that the nutters will see [the book] as validation of their ridiculous claims ('if our charges weren't true, NASA wouldn't bother answering them' they'll snivel.)"
From this story: "No doubt the cancellation of this book will be listed as further "evidence" that the landings were fake."
...and my company did a study on how having many links in/. posts directly affects karma. you get +2 for the google links, but I'm gonna hafta give ya -1 for the dot.gov reference (*shudder*)
... oh shoot I posted. so much for my mod abilities.
Please note that the DishPVR 721 software also includes some proprietary elements that are not subject to the GPL. You cannot perform a working DishPVR 721 software build without the additional proprietary code.
Combining two pieces of software more than just calling each other through the shell constitutes them being one program, especially in this case where the software won't even *compile* without the missing (proprietary) code. This is not allowed under the GPL - either the entire software is released under the GPL or you can't release it under the GPL at all. (see here)
Admittedly, it's nice of them to release the code and make it avaliable to the public, I'm sure it'll be interesting for everyone - but once again, the GPL is beaten.
Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them.
What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).
If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.
By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.
From what I read here this may be a bit of a gray zone. It sounds to me like "linking" is alredy a reason to consider the two programs as one. I'm not a Windows programmer nor a judge, so I don't know if the definition of combining two programs into one applies to linking DLLs as they are used in the mentioned programs. If it does (and it sounds like it to me), then I stand by my original point. If not, and if indeed the FSF says so (link?), I stand corrected on this point. In any case, the GPL violations by the clones are numerous, this is only one of many.
P.S. Before anyone starts yelling, here's another section from the GPL FAQ:
I'm writing a Windows application with Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) and I will be releasing it under the GPL. Is dynamically linking my program with the Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) run-time library permitted under the GPL?
Yes, because that run-time library normally accompanies the compiler or interpreter you are using.
So? The GPL doesn't forbid you from linking your GPL code against non-GPL code, and linking your GPL code to non-GPL code doesn't magically make the non-GPL code GPLd, either.
Scrolling through the posts on this topic I see so many misconceptions in either direction. As you say, I think everyone should take an hour or two, and check out the entire GPL and the FAQ, in this case, here and here.
The point is not that using non-GPL code in a GPL program "makes" the non-GPL code suddenly licensed under the GPL. If you could license the non-GPL code under the GPL, there is no problem. However, the point is that most non-GPL code has very restrictive licenses. The two licenses conflict, and in this case the GPL forbids the use of the non-GPL code in your program.
There's much more detail to following the GPL than just releasing your source.
NeoNapster has been around for quite a while, amazing it took so long for Slashdot to notice. All they have ever been is a rip off of the GPLed Gnucleus client, just like Morpheus and the whole series of other clones.
The issue here is that this is GPLed software linked with non-free libraries (spyware) and riddled with other GPL violations (missing copyright notices, incomplete source distibutions, etc.). Most of the above mentioned clones do this, some going as far as linking their clones to obviuosly commerical libraries while at the same time pretending to "embrace" the GPL. The Gnucleus author, John Marshall, has been extremely tolerant on the issue, mostly because his interest lies in coding, but if you wanted to, this could be a huge legal case.
Understood and agreed... but realistically: You don't browse the web very much, do you? What about all the little things? What about the litte checkboxes on Hotmail accounts that say "check all"? How else am I going to get two frames to load at the same time? Drop-down menus that load pages? etc, etc.
I think that flat-out disabling JavaScript is not an option most people would be willing to take. Sure, screw popups, screw excessive DHTML. But I'd go in the direction of, more secure, more customizable, a la Mozilla.
Helpful users have been finding out the IP address blocks owned by the "bad guys" and submitting them to create a "ban list" for search results.
The new version of Gnucleus has a feature that allows users to simply click and filter hosts that they suspect to be sharing bogus files (and spam etc.).
There are plans to expand the distributed web-based host cache system in use in Gnucleus and a few other clients to also serve blacklists. Possibly there will even be a "vote" system that would allow users to dynamically change these ban lists to propagate information on "bad" hosts automatically.
I think that using hash information is pretty useless, it's easy to stick the right hash on the wrong file. What you'd need is a PGP-like public-key encryption system with signatures and trust structures and the like, but that'd be going to the extreme.
Slashdot Mirror
So I'm in Ireland on a project right now... how many shall I bring back for you guys?
An interesting analogy may be chasing speeders on the highway. If someone tailgates you and it pisses you off then trying to "chase them down" or doing other similar things is illigal because it endangers everyone there. Yes, the police have to exceed the speed limit to chase down bad guys, but they are trained and licensed to do so. These guys are trying to take law into their own hands, but that's not how it works.
I used Rayovac Alkalines for a while, because they offered the higher voltage and supposedly don't discharge in storage. Unfortunately I never really got the chance to find out, because every single one of them (something like 20 of em from different sets) broke and leaked after a few months, even while in storage... can't reccomend that kind.
Then, I tried Rayovac High-Capacity NiMH, pretty darn expensive - I think it was $15 for 4 at Best Buy, but they seem to be well worth it. My digital camera is quite the power hog (4 AA's), it lasted only a few days with the Alkalines - these NiMH's have been in there for something like two weeks now.
ha, I get it - that antenna-looking thing is what you wrap your headphone cord around so the damn thing doesn't dangle in front of the monitor (the headphone jack being OVER the screen and all that)
Hey everyone,
Has anyone found a place to download this patch without Windows Update? After recent discoveries I'm kinda reluctant...
Thanks!
In a world without walls and fences...
... who needs windows and gates?
Just grep the kernel sources for bad words, you'll be suprised (and amused ;) ).
chrisd works for the Department of Redundancy Department!
What are they going to do if browsers just *hide* the popup windows/banners, still loading the ads in the background?
From the previous story: "And it's unfortunate that the nutters will see [the book] as validation of their ridiculous claims ('if our charges weren't true, NASA wouldn't bother answering them' they'll snivel.)"
From this story: "No doubt the cancellation of this book will be listed as further "evidence" that the landings were fake."
You just can't win with these people, can you?
MacGyver always wins! ...provided he can whip up some kryptonite from what happens to be lying around...
...and my company did a study on how having many links in /. posts directly affects karma. you get +2 for the google links, but I'm gonna hafta give ya -1 for the dot.gov reference (*shudder*)
... oh shoot I posted. so much for my mod abilities.
But the question is, do they play ogg?
And if they can't, meybe they can be hacked?
How many people have written companies since Teremor?
Mars will instantly be slashdotted.
*ducks*
What, really? Oh no! Someone should've told me earlier!
While we're at it, here's my personal absolute favorite: Interview with the Search Engine
This discussion was held before but here goes:
Combining two pieces of software more than just calling each other through the shell constitutes them being one program, especially in this case where the software won't even *compile* without the missing (proprietary) code. This is not allowed under the GPL - either the entire software is released under the GPL or you can't release it under the GPL at all. (see here)
Admittedly, it's nice of them to release the code and make it avaliable to the public, I'm sure it'll be interesting for everyone - but once again, the GPL is beaten.
From the GPL FAQ: (emphasis mine)
From what I read here this may be a bit of a gray zone. It sounds to me like "linking" is alredy a reason to consider the two programs as one. I'm not a Windows programmer nor a judge, so I don't know if the definition of combining two programs into one applies to linking DLLs as they are used in the mentioned programs. If it does (and it sounds like it to me), then I stand by my original point. If not, and if indeed the FSF says so (link?), I stand corrected on this point. In any case, the GPL violations by the clones are numerous, this is only one of many.
P.S. Before anyone starts yelling, here's another section from the GPL FAQ:
So? The GPL doesn't forbid you from linking your GPL code against non-GPL code, and linking your GPL code to non-GPL code doesn't magically make the non-GPL code GPLd, either.
Scrolling through the posts on this topic I see so many misconceptions in either direction. As you say, I think everyone should take an hour or two, and check out the entire GPL and the FAQ, in this case, here and here.
The point is not that using non-GPL code in a GPL program "makes" the non-GPL code suddenly licensed under the GPL. If you could license the non-GPL code under the GPL, there is no problem. However, the point is that most non-GPL code has very restrictive licenses. The two licenses conflict, and in this case the GPL forbids the use of the non-GPL code in your program.
There's much more detail to following the GPL than just releasing your source.
NeoNapster has been around for quite a while, amazing it took so long for Slashdot to notice. All they have ever been is a rip off of the GPLed Gnucleus client, just like Morpheus and the whole series of other clones.
The issue here is that this is GPLed software linked with non-free libraries (spyware) and riddled with other GPL violations (missing copyright notices, incomplete source distibutions, etc.). Most of the above mentioned clones do this, some going as far as linking their clones to obviuosly commerical libraries while at the same time pretending to "embrace" the GPL. The Gnucleus author, John Marshall, has been extremely tolerant on the issue, mostly because his interest lies in coding, but if you wanted to, this could be a huge legal case.
Understood and agreed... but realistically: You don't browse the web very much, do you? What about all the little things? What about the litte checkboxes on Hotmail accounts that say "check all"? How else am I going to get two frames to load at the same time? Drop-down menus that load pages? etc, etc.
I think that flat-out disabling JavaScript is not an option most people would be willing to take. Sure, screw popups, screw excessive DHTML. But I'd go in the direction of, more secure, more customizable, a la Mozilla.
Call me ignorant but I don't see how this is any different from SuSE's Live Eval CD's... they've been around for years...
Helpful users have been finding out the IP address blocks owned by the "bad guys" and submitting them to create a "ban list" for search results.
The new version of Gnucleus has a feature that allows users to simply click and filter hosts that they suspect to be sharing bogus files (and spam etc.).
There are plans to expand the distributed web-based host cache system in use in Gnucleus and a few other clients to also serve blacklists. Possibly there will even be a "vote" system that would allow users to dynamically change these ban lists to propagate information on "bad" hosts automatically.
I think that using hash information is pretty useless, it's easy to stick the right hash on the wrong file. What you'd need is a PGP-like public-key encryption system with signatures and trust structures and the like, but that'd be going to the extreme.
but what happens when the "bad guys" code their client so that is returns fake files with the correct hashes?
if clients rely on the hashes alone to do multi-source downloading, they could get some seriuosly messed up files!
The game began at 7am EST, not exactly a friendly time for US viewers on a sunday morning! Us Europeans didn't have that big of a problem with it...