The problem is with the 40 year old women in the office who use their kids names over and over with different numbers at the end of the password
No, the problem is with the password police who requires those women to change their password every month. While that theoretically improves security, in reality it makes it worse because people are prone to forgot their changed passwords and thus write them down. That is not the user's fault. That those 40 year old women can't remember their passwords, especially when they change every month, is a fact of life. Ignoring that fact, changing the situation from bad to worse, means that you are stupid, not the users.
</end rant about stupid sys admins>
Anyway, if you really cared about security, you would use smartcards, fingerprints or whatever. Passwords for regular users are about as secure as locking your front door and putting the key under the mat*.
*In a place I worked someone used 'secret' as a password and shouted it across the room. And yes, it was a 40 year old woman.;)
If IT keeps warning, they're told to stop worrying. If something happens, IT is blamed. These morons (leaders) need to figure out that IT isn't something that helps them do business. Their business runs on IT. Without it, they have no business.
Sure, management is ultimately responsible for everything. But often, IT can also be blamed for not being informative enough. In the case of security, you should ideally have made a comparison between the security mechanisms and offer your boss a clear choice: - Passwords without enforcement/whining = little security + easy for users - Passwords with user enforcement = some security + hard on users - Chopping off a finger for every bad login attempt = good security + lawsuits - etc...
Spell it out and get management to agree what your job is, what others should do and what things can still happen. Of course, then management can still be unfair, but you will be happy knowing that you are being professional.
Re:Related Star Wars Article
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The way I see it, this is one big pork barrel. From a military perspective, it seems quite useless. The two major threats to the US are terrorism and nuclear missiles. I don't see how space militarization will be more than marginally effective against terrorism. Furthermore, we know that a space shield is probably never going to be effective at stopping nukes. Tests to take down simple ballistic missiles were only marginally succesful and there are plenty of ways to increase the effectiveness of nukes. Multiple warheads and scramjet propulsion are just two techniques which complicate the interception of nukes by many orders of a magnitude.
When the US takes a step towards Star Wars, competitors will simply improve their missiles. It seems likely that those improvements are much less costly than the defensive technology. Let's face it, space is extremely expensive. Bombing or shooting rockets from space is incredibly costly because you must first lift the materials up there and then shoot them back down. Earth-based systems (such as nukes) will have the advantage until new lifting technologies are developed. The only option which doesn't require lifting materials to rearm are lasers, but they can be countered with a reflective layer, so they aren't likely to be the answer.
Finally, if war is brought to space, there is a serious risk of destroying both commercial and military sattelites and 'contaminating' geostationary orbit with debris, making it unusable. Is this a Pandora's box that the US wants to open?
If AGP cards become rare, while people hold on to their AGP-supporting motherboards (especially those running Athlon64's), their value is going to rise.
Exactly. I actually think this will be a boon to those who bought expensive video cards, because many people will want to keep their motherboards and only upgrade their videocard (& CPU). Those people cannot buy a PCI-Express card and they have to fight over your second-hand AGP card (which means higher prices), while you buy the fastest hardware for yourself.
On the other hand, I don't really expect ATI to give up on AGP. I bet that they will do what they have always done. Take the old generation and discount it. The replacement market is too important to give up, so they will simply keep selling two types of video cards for the time being.
Currently there is a project underway to crack ECC2-109. This is 'just' a $10.000 project though (half goes to the project leads and half to the two winners). There will be two winners because the trick is to find two related points which mathematicians can use to calculate the answer (Frankly, I don't even understand how exactly, see the forum for details).
Anyway, there are different clients available if you want to participate. I would suggest this client and this GUI. The project is moving to the end fairly rapidly, so you can help make the final push.
Others too have written about the (im)possibility of creating a map on a 1:1 scale.
Borges did so in "Of Exactitude in Science" in A Universal History of Infamy":
In that Empire, the craft of Cartography attained such Perfection that the Map of a Single province covered the space of an entire City, and the Map of the Empire itself an entire Province. In the course of Time, these Extensive maps were found somehow wanting, and so the College of Cartographers evolved a Map of the Empire that was of the same Scale as the Empire and that coincided with it point for point. Less attentive to the Study of Cartography, succeeding Generations came to judge a map of such Magnitude cumbersome, and, not without Irreverence, they abandoned it to the Rigours of sun and Rain. In the western Deserts, tattered Fragments of the Map are still to be found, Sheltering an occasional Beast or beggar; in the whole Nation, no other relic is left of the Discipline of Geography.
Interestingly, the problem Borges identified has disappeared because we have computers. We no longer have to create an immense, cumbersome map, instead we can store the map on a small harddisk. Furthermore, the monitor allows us to display any piece of the map without having to unfold an immense document. Finally, the computer can easily scale the document so that we can convert the map to a useful scale.
Umberto Eco then took up the challenge in "On the Impossibility of Drawing a Map of the Empire on a Scale of 1 to 1" in How to Travel with a Salmon:
When the map is installed over all the territory (whether suspended or not), the territory of the empire has the characteristic of being a territory entirely covered by a map. The map does not take into account this characteristic, which would have to be presented on another map that depicted the territory plus the lower map. But such a process would be infinite.
This is mostly a thought experiment and less valuable in the real world. The problem of creating the map and keeping it up to date will be the obstacle long before the infinite recursion will be a problem (which you can just avoid by not expanding the entire map). Still, it is a nice example of real-world infinite recursion. The best example that I know is a visual effect that the Droste company used for their boxes of cocoa. The nurse carries a plate with a box of cocoa which shows a nurse carrying a plate with a box of cocoa which shows... Simple, but a very good introduction to infinite recursion.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems like you're saying the best way to pas a lie detector test is to tell the truth!
No, no, no. You are so wrong.
First of all, the guy you replied to is incorrect by making a distinction between test- and control-questions. In the most often used polygraph technique, there are three types of questions: 1. Relevant ("Are you a spy?") 2. Irrelevant ("Is it Friday today?") 3. Control ("Have you ever stolen anything?", "Have you ever lost your temper?")
The irrelevant questions are used to soak up stress before the interview and between relevant and control questions. They aren't scored at all.
During the test, the examiner will think you are lying if your reaction to a relevant question is less than your reaction to a control question. Why? Because the assumption is that you will answer the control question untruthfully. If you don't lie, that won't be true and there is a good chance you'll fail. An example:
Wrong: Q: As a kid, did you ever steal anything? [Control question] A: Yes, I stole some candy. Q: Other than that, did you ever steal anything? [Rephrased Control question] A: No. [Physical reaction is reduced because you can't remember anything else] Q: Have you ever used drugs? [Relevant question] A: No. [Strong physical reaction because you have a family member who died of drug abuse]. Q: I think you are lying. A: I might have used drugs once, I don't remember. [Stupid answer because you didn't prepare well and panicked] Q: Why haven't you told us that earlier? Now I know you are lying. Go to jail, do not collect $200!
Right: Q: As a kid, did you ever steal anything? A: No. [Strong physical reaction because you know you are lying]. Q: Have you ever used drugs? A: No. [Strong physical reaction because you have a family member who died of drug abuse]. Q: I think you are lying. A: No, I have nephew who OD'd. Q: Were you friends, did you hang out together? A: Only as a kid, I lost sight of him when he went over to the dark side. [Drug-using friends reflect badly on you]. Q: Ok. [Examiner disregards your strong reaction to this question]
Note that I have never done a lie detector test, but I read the immensely interesting "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector". If you need to take a lie detector test, you should read it. In this post, I only skimmed the surface of what you really should know. Expending time and energy only to hope that you react properly during the lie detector test is incredibly stupid IMHO (especially because a failed lie detector test might leave a big stain on your security record, so if you fail, you might have trouble getting a job which doesn't even require a lie detector test itself).
It must be nice to live in such a black/white world. If I may add a little grey:
Freedom has never done well in poor countries whose populace lacks (quality) education. In many cases you can help change that by buying goods from that country. A good example is China, the leaders want the country to prosper so they can afford their ego-boosting projects (the space program for instance). At the same time, this brings the populace in contact with the free world (trade contacts, partnerships, internet, etc). This will educate and empower the citizens. The leaders must give some consideration to their citizens or they risk revolt. The country is moving slowly, but we've already seen a temporary change during the SARS crisis. I expect more of this in the future.
Another example is Iran, the majority of the populace consists of young, well-educated and liberal people. The (mostly elderly) conservatives are still holding out, but it is only a matter of time before they have to give in to the next few generations. The income which comes from trade doesn't help the conservatives much, their power is based mostly on the control over the justice system and the Ayatollah. On the other hand, trade with the western world does help the liberals. You don't want to turn away from or wage jihad against the people who provide you with income.
Of course, the same can't be said for some other countries. N-Korea won't allow their citizens enough leeway to be 'infected' with 'our propaganda'. They are so out of reach that it probably doesn't matter whether we buy from them. They will keep their people down. If that causes them to starve, the leaders will just accept that.
Personally, I believe that our government(s) should do whatever helps (individually, we have too little power). That can be sanctions, trade, public embarrasments (the Chinese get pretty irritated every time they are chastised over human rights) or the funding of projects like Freenet. It also helps to lead by example, which some countries aren't doing. Especially the nation which refuses to sign international treates which are signed by just about every country, disregards the human rights of some of their prisoners and signs nasty 'police state' laws.
That's why security through obscurity is never the best method.
What alternative do you propose? A computer which you don't control can never be trusted. You need to do the bulk of the work locally however (rendering on the server is not an option). The only option is to take away the users freedom: DRM. Security through obscurity is the best you can do without it.
The picture suddenly looks different, doesn't it? You get to choose between cheaters or losing control over your computer. I'll let the knee-jerkers run in an infinite loop now:
- Security through obscurity doesn't work, we need DRM. - DRM is bad. - Security through obscurity doesn't work, we need DRM. - DRM is bad. -...
It's called the iTunes Music Store. Not iMusic or Apple Music. Apple Computers probably chose this name because of their settlement with Apple Records. At the very least they are trying to avoid confusion as much as possible. Of course, the contract may force them to pay off Apple Records, but Apple Computers is trying to do the right thing without giving up an enormous business opportunity.
PS. applemusic.com is owned by Apple Computers, but it links to apple.com/itunes/
It all depends on what you need the cluster for. Some computations need constant communication, others can go on for hours, days or even weeks without feedback. If you're smart, you use supercomputers for the first kind of tasks and clusters for the second kind.
Universities (and big business) often work together and exchange resources. Virginia Tech gets a large amount of bargaining power by having control over a large amount of processing power. They can easily trade CPU time on their cluster for CPU time on a low-latency supercomputer.
You can argue about how DeCSS doesn't copy anything, but you all know it, DeCSS is used for ripping dvd's to vcd's and divx. We can keep living in la la land and pretend that DeCSS is perfectly legitimate, but it really isn't.
You are just repeating the MPAA without thinking. Extracting content from a DVD has many valid uses because it allows you to:
Create a player which is open source, unlicensed or different in other ways which our supreme MPAA overlords disagree with.
Create a player which allows you to skip scenes (boring, violent, erotic, non-violent, non-erotic, advertising, etc).
Extract content for fair use purposes: teaching, criticizing/reviewing, research, satire, etc.
Make a backup.
Keep the content accessible until the copyright expires. A limited copyright (required by the constitution) is null and void if all copies of the work in consumers' hands are destroyed by the time it expires (bit rot is already destroying discs a few years old).
Use the content when/if the copyright expires.
The DMCA is evil (and unconstitutional) precisely because it makes these things impossible. IMO, a bit of piracy is to be preferred over a world in which so many freedoms are taken away. I am not living in la-la-la land, I simply prefer to have a choice, a rich public domain to inspire new creations, cultural treasures which cannot be buried for a lifetime or forever and most of all, I prefer to have free speech.
Why would we give this up? The RIAA and the MPAA have had piracy problems before (VCR, cassettes) and their revenue has only increases by harnessing those 'piracy tools'. So why are extreme measures necessary?
IANAL, but IIRC the law still tries to put the toothpaste back in the tube if the original disclosure was a breach of trade-secret law (such as a violation of an NDA or license agreement), no matter how widely that toothpaste has been spread around.
But how could this ever be the case? The CSS protection was reverse engineered, wasn't it? Trade-secret law is certainly not intended to protect you from that. Patents are the proper tool if someone can figure out how your product works just by analyzing it. Reverse engineering of the CSS isn't (yet) illegal in quite a few countries. Once you (legally) find out how CSS works, it can no longer be considered a trade secret, can it? Nobody had to break any licenses (you can analyze a player in a country which doesn't recognize EULAs) and there was no theft. It could be a breach of trade-secret law if they found out that the original creator of DeCSS was doing something illegal, but AFAIK that hasn't been proven and they are just going after one of the distributors.
So WTF is going on? Is it just the SNAFU US legal system or is there a lawyer who can explain to me why this legal wrangling is going on?
I've send the following email to Lois Boland, hoping to educate her:
The Washington Post recently published a story on its website which claims that you have said that 'open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights'. I question the validity of your statement.
First of all, the goal of the USPTO and the WIPO should be to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. The US Constitution clearly deems IP rights to be a means to an end and not a goal itself. 'Promoting intellectual-property rights' is just as extreme (and unconstitutional) a position as denouncing IP rights completely. A rational standpoint is to base one's decisions on an examination of the advantages and disadvantages of certain IP rights. The open-source community consists of many authors and consumers who have their own arguments and examples, based on alternative economic models (which provide jobs to many). Their voices should be heard in a discussion of the future of IP regulations.
Secondly, your statement that open-source software is the antithesis of IP rights is wrong. Open-source licenses could not even exist without copyright. Authors who develop open-source software believe that a permissive license is better than charging money for their products. Often, they produce software for their own use and they are willing to share this work with other people. The reason is rarely pure altruism. The people who use open-source software frequently help by finding problems, fixing them and/or by adding new functionality. Those contributions are often much more valuable than the profits which could be earned by selling the software. Over the last few years, more and more individuals and enterprises have discovered the advantages of open-source software. Examples are IBM, Apple and Tivo. Those companies have found ways to reduce expenses and improve their products by using open-source software. As you might be aware, Apple and IBM are innovative companies who strongly protect their IP (IBM has been granted the largest number of patents every year for the last 10 years). Open-source allows them to reduce the costs of developing and maintaining software which is necessary, but does not differentiate them from their competition. This allows them to spend more resources on innovative technology.
I hope that I have changed your mind about the role your organization should play and the role open-source software can play in an innovative world where laws support viable business models which authors wish to pursue. In this email, I was only able to scratch the surface of the issues involved. I hope that you are willing to reconsider your opposition to a WIPO meeting on open-source, so you can become familiar with the different aspects of open-source cooperation.
The 'free' that RMS believes in maximizes freedom for all, not just you. Here's how: [blah]
All those freedoms are provided by the BSD license. It's even more free because it doesn't require you to open source your code in certain circumstances. It's true that the GPL is more free than copyrighted code without a license and you may certainly use the name "More free than copyrighted software without license". However, to qualify for "Free Software", you should be able to argue that the license is the most free of them all. Usually, GPL advocates come up with the argument that GPL software will stay free forever, which will not happen with BSD software (in other words, the GPL'ed code is less free over a much longer period of time). I have argued against that argument here.
BTW, I find it amazing that someone with such a primitive argument is modded up so highly.
Daniel Quinn's book Ishmael suggests that modern man has lived a simple agrarian lifestyle for 100,000 years. He states that "Civilization" really got started around 10,000 years ago when somebody got the idea that you can control people by locking up the food.
I think that civilization was caused by specialization (which greatly increased efficiency). To get what you want, trade became necessary. Trade is facilitated by currency, rules and arbiters. A government (tribal or more complex) is helpful there. Of course, once you specialize further, you need to trade with more people. So you get traders to haul and store goods (a new specialization), a bigger and more central government, a more standardized currency. Repeat ad nauseam and you get an advanced civilization.
How does this involve locking up food to control people? Or do you mean that a person couldn't just take someone else's crop? Was that a mistake? Why? What alternative do you propose?
RMS made it his life's work to make sure this doesn't happen in the information age.
He doesn't want civilization in the information age? At least, that's logical conclusion of your argument: locking something up caused civilization to happen and RMS wants to make sure that something similar doesn't happen again.
No offense, but that was probably the funniest thing I've read all day. Next time you try convince an agnostic, try to get more sites without apple or mac in the domain name.
No offense, but it's clear that you have no idea how this works. A proper TCO study (or market research in general) is quite expensive. There are two ways to fund them: 1. Get the vendor to sponsor your research (the IDC report). 2. Sell the research to whoever is interested (GISTICS report).
In the first case, the report will be published on the vendors web site. In the second case, the companies who buy the report for their internal decision making will not publish it publicly (for the benefit of their competitors). There is only one company who would be willing to buy an expensive publication license: the vendor*. In short, market research will almost always be published by a vendor. That doesn't discredit (or validate) a report, it can certainly be unbiased research that happens to favor a particular vendor. You will simply have to judge for yourself.
*Well, Consumer Reports might be the only exception.
Q: The BSD licence is written in such a way as to allow code covered by it to be distributed under a more restrictive licence, and so it would be possible for Apple to distribute the BSD-licenced portions of Darwin under the APSL. I believe, however, that you don't.
But, if Apple, or one of its contributors, makes a modification to software that was originally BSD-licenced, are those changes licenced under the BSD licence, or under the APSL licence?
A: We try as much as possible to respect the original license that came with the code, so in that case, barring some compelling reason to do otherwise, our modifications to the BSD code would be released under the BSD license as well.
I don't know of other non-GPL, non-BSD-licensed open source projects that incorporate BSD-licensed code.
I tried to explain that BSD-licensed code doesn't necessarily become more restricted since it can often live together with more restricted code without problem (ie. without getting restricted itself). Licenses like the GPL do try to force code towards more restrictions, but BSD-style licenses have certain advantages which might get people to contribute to the original BSD codebase and not to a more restricted fork. I certainly don't believe that BSD-style licenses cause a trend to proprietary software because I believe in open source cooperation. There is no such thing with closed source software. It's simply wiser to return your changes than to leech (99% of the time). It's perfectly all right with me if people use BSD-licensed software in closed source software and return bug fixes and enhancements that they wish to share. That won't do if your goal is to eliminate closed source software, but that's not my objective.
The BSD license does not require that you provide derivative works under the BSD license. If you did so, and your only rights are as under the APSL, then you'd be violating the APSL.
There is no need for derived works to be put under one license. The APSL explicitly allows you to combine APSL'd code with code under other licenses:
4. Larger Works. You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In each such instance, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Code or any portion thereof.
In a Q&A, they explain that they try not to relicense BSD code:
Q: The BSD licence is written in such a way as to allow code covered by it to be distributed under a more restrictive licence, and so it would be possible for Apple to distribute the BSD-licenced portions of Darwin under the APSL. I believe, however, that you don't.
But, if Apple, or one of its contributors, makes a modification to software that was originally BSD-licenced, are those changes licenced under the BSD licence, or under the APSL licence?
A: We try as much as possible to respect the original license that came with the code, so in that case, barring some compelling reason to do otherwise, our modifications to the BSD code would be released under the BSD license as well.
Since the GPL has additional requirements that I can not legally provide (according to the APSL), I could take Darwin, combine it with the Linux kernel, but if I distributed that to anyone else, there would be no license that I could give them legally, and I would thus be violating both the GPL and the APSL.
True, one of the major problems with such a scenario is that the GPL explicitly requires you to relicense the code you combine with it under the GPL (the 'viral' aspect of the GPL). Most other licenses have no such restriction. In that case, you can have multiple licenses covering different parts of a combined work. You must comply to all of them (which is impossible if they conflict). The BSD and APSL license do not conflict, so you can combine them in one project.
I think I was more clear the first time.
You were perfectly clear. The problem is that you are wrong. I have provided solid proof to back up my assertions. Unless you believe that Apple's IP lawyers are wrong, that is.
Sure, you could rerelease BSD-licensed code under the APSL-2.0, probably, and thus you could combine code from Darwin and OpenBSD.
It's not necessary to relicense any code. You can just combine differently licensed code as long as the licenses don't conflict. That's what Apple does themselves. They didn't change the license of the code they took from FreeBSD (or their minor changes they made). Only major pieces of code that they write themselves get licensed under the APSL.
For the combined work, you'd have to obey both the BSD license and the APSL license. Of course, the BSD license is less restrictive than the APSL, so it might seem that only the APSL applies.
GPL compatibility is like a one-way gift. You bow to the "all-GPL" crowd by allowing them to use your code on their terms, but they don't reciprocate by giving you the right to use their code on your terms.
Sort of like BSD-style licenses, aka proprietary-compatible licenses.
I don't think that the parent put that very well. Let me try to explain it better (if he means to say what I think he means to say):
The GPL implicitly says that it's not good to have a non-restrictive license (such as the BSD license) because it tries to turn code with such a license into GPL'ed code. On the other hand, it's also not right to have a license with more restrictions than the GPL (because it won't work with GPL'ed code). For instance, the major criticism by the FSF of the previous version of the APSL was that you always had to publish the source if you changed the code (even when you didn't distribute the binaries outside of your organisation). However, there is nothing in the Free Software philosophy that says that this is not right (this restriction is in accordance with all freedoms that define Free Software). A programmer who is more extreme than RMS might want to see to it that every change is given back to the community. To this purpose, he can devise a sort of extended GPL license. Unfortunately for him, code under such a license would be incompatible with the GPL. GPL'ed code can never be used together with code that has more restrictions, while it can restrict code with fewer restrictions (code with a GPL-compatible license).
The BSD license is different. A BSD-licensed codebase can be extended with more restricted code. It's up to to the maintainer of the main tree and individual users to decide whether they accept the license restrictions that the new contributions bring (which may only apply to contributed code itself). On the other hand, you can also contribute code with less restrictions (public domain code, for instance) and it can keep its original (lack of a) license. There is no one-way street towards a particular set of restrictions.
To recap, GPL compatibility can only lead to GPL'ed code. You can never benefit from GPL'ed code without adopting the same set of restrictions for your own code. BSD compatibility does nothing more than allow your code to be used with BSD-licensed code. You have the choice to restrict your own code more, less or differently than the BSD-licensed code.
I do think that it happens that improvements are done to BSD licensed programs which are then kept as closed source, so that this work is done twice or more times because the changes weren't freed.
When that happens it's usually because the 'improvements' are hacks or user/company-specific changes. Those wouldn't make it into the open source distribution, even when they have to be made public. A rational person should want to contribute generic improvements because:
Your code gets tested for free by other users.
You reduce the integration effort when you upgrade the open source components. The difference is that every other contributor will work hard to make sure their changes don't effect yours, instead of the other way around (you will have to test against all new contributions).
Your improvements will attract new users, some of whom will improve the code.
You gain fame/glory/goodwill with geeks (Has our perception of IBM not changed because of their community work?).
In short, free market economics favor open source (in the absence of other concerns). Not that I believe in perfect rationality, market transparancy and proper government regulation, but still, open source should benefit from its use by commercial entities. Of course, you argue that the contribution could be even bigger if people would be forced to disclose their changes. That extra contribution will usually be relatively minor in the face of my previous comments and because of the deterring nature of the GPL. A more strict and complicated license increases the risk of using the open source code and decreases its applicability. This results in less users, which does not only reduce the number of contributions, but also causes work to be done twice (because the open source code isn't utilized). So I certainly wouldn't give the nod to the GPL by default if you are concerned about reducing rework.
"The people who bandy this/. folklore can never give me an example."
I think it's hard to give an example of changes you don't know about, since they were kept closed source:) I don't think anyone is in a position to say how often this happens.
In the absence of hard data we will have to use common sense (reluctantly, given the stagnation when science was conducted purely theoretical). Did you find my reasoning convincing?
BTW, I was talking about embrace, extend & replace when I said that.
I've never claimed this (though the sentence you quoted may be interpreted as such).
I fear that many will read your statement as fact instead of opinion. That is why I wanted to counter such an interpretation explicitly.
It may be better to say that the GPL and BSD licenses have different ways of attempting to keep the community thriving: GPL by making sure the code remains Free, BSD by making sure the developers are Free.
I like that one much better. It underscores the fact that we have the same goal. We merely disagree about the best way to support that objective.
I think it's simplest to say that the GPL is about the freedom of the code (i.e., once the code is Free, it has to stay Free) and as such the freedom of the community at large (since this means that over time, they will almost by definition get a larger choice)...
By assuming that this is straightforward, you touch on the difference in view that explains the lack of understanding between BSD and GPL proponents. You see, I believe that the BSD license can protect the freedom of the community quite well. First of all, I don't believe in the myth that BSD software will be embraced, extended and replaced by a closed version that we are forced to buy. There are various reasons why this myth is FUD, but the most important one is simply that it rarely, if ever, happens. The people who bandy this/. folklore can never give me an example. Frankly, I've got better things to do than to worry about things that don't happen (other than a pay raise).
Another myth is that the Free Software library will always keep increasing (because GPL'ed code will stay GPL'ed). This notion is not only false because the copyright holder can relicense his code, but more importantly ignores the unfortunate affliction called bit rot. Software will cease to be useful when it is not maintained and updated or when it is replaced by something better. The continued existence of a useful open source library depends mostly on the ability to attract developers who contribute. Of course, the GPL has an advantage there because it forces a developer to GPL and disclose his changes (in certain circumstances). On the other hand, releasing your changes is often the most sensible thing to do and the BSD license encourages wider adoption. Clearly, the winner depends on the specific project and the rationality of its adopters. There is no reason to assume that the collection of useful GPL software will necessarily grow faster than the BSD collection (other than what is the result of the Linux 'hype' or other marketing issues).
So again, I don't believe that the GPL can protect the freedom of the community any better than the BSD license. You're free to disagree, but please don't pretend that BSD advocates aren't interested in the community.
PS. Note that I'm not championing the sole use of BSD-like licenses. I recognize that other licenses (GPL, LGPL, etc) can be better suited for certain projects. I simply disagree with the notion that the GPL is better if you wish to support the community and BSD is better if you favor the user.
You would be surprised at the ratings and the number of viewers such live executions would attract. I can guarantee you that deep down, most people are savages, with a thin layer of civilization on top. Executions used to be public, and they were quite an entertainment, attracting huge crowds and lots of sideshows and festivities, it was almost a modern day carnival. More people than you'd care to admit would gladly and ghoulishly gape at such a spectacle, and the gorier, the better.
That's one way of looking at it. You could also have explained such human behaviour as natural curiosity. The same curiosity that drives explorers, archaeologists, engineers and scientists to discover our world, our history, new technology and so much more. Personally, I like to watch shows like CSI that teach me about many aspects of forensic evidence gathering, including autopsies. You may find that savage, but if humans would lack those interests, we could never have surpassed savage lifestyle. How can we learn about new phenomena if we are not fascinated by them?
If you want a reference just take a look at the typical crowds that gather at every minor or major disaster, trying to get a good view of the 'action' and in the meantime hindering the rescue workers.
And how do you characterize people who assist the wounded shortly after an accident? The behaviour you detest (flocking towards a disaster) is laudable when there are no rescue workers (which was true during most of human history). Besides, most people happily stay out of the way of rescue workers if they know what to do. Not knowing might be called stupid or misinformed, but certainly not vile.
People are scum and don't you forget it.
No, you interpret certain behaviour in the worst possible way. Judging mankind as inherently evil shows lack of understanding on your part. You fail to understand that bad behaviour is caused by mechanisms which were/are necessary for human survival. For instance, violent tendencies are inherent to humans and are the basis of terrible crimes. One might want to argue that mankind is despicable because we have these violent tendencies. However, if we were unable to use violence, we could not defend ourselves (see "A Clockwork Orange").
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is with the 40 year old women in the office who use their kids names over and over with different numbers at the end of the password
;)
No, the problem is with the password police who requires those women to change their password every month. While that theoretically improves security, in reality it makes it worse because people are prone to forgot their changed passwords and thus write them down. That is not the user's fault. That those 40 year old women can't remember their passwords, especially when they change every month, is a fact of life. Ignoring that fact, changing the situation from bad to worse, means that you are stupid, not the users.
</end rant about stupid sys admins>
Anyway, if you really cared about security, you would use smartcards, fingerprints or whatever. Passwords for regular users are about as secure as locking your front door and putting the key under the mat*.
*In a place I worked someone used 'secret' as a password and shouted it across the room. And yes, it was a 40 year old woman.
If IT keeps warning, they're told to stop worrying. If something happens, IT is blamed. These morons (leaders) need to figure out that IT isn't something that helps them do business. Their business runs on IT. Without it, they have no business.
Sure, management is ultimately responsible for everything. But often, IT can also be blamed for not being informative enough. In the case of security, you should ideally have made a comparison between the security mechanisms and offer your boss a clear choice:
- Passwords without enforcement/whining = little security + easy for users
- Passwords with user enforcement = some security + hard on users
- Chopping off a finger for every bad login attempt = good security + lawsuits
- etc...
Spell it out and get management to agree what your job is, what others should do and what things can still happen. Of course, then management can still be unfair, but you will be happy knowing that you are being professional.
The way I see it, this is one big pork barrel. From a military perspective, it seems quite useless. The two major threats to the US are terrorism and nuclear missiles. I don't see how space militarization will be more than marginally effective against terrorism. Furthermore, we know that a space shield is probably never going to be effective at stopping nukes. Tests to take down simple ballistic missiles were only marginally succesful and there are plenty of ways to increase the effectiveness of nukes. Multiple warheads and scramjet propulsion are just two techniques which complicate the interception of nukes by many orders of a magnitude.
When the US takes a step towards Star Wars, competitors will simply improve their missiles. It seems likely that those improvements are much less costly than the defensive technology. Let's face it, space is extremely expensive. Bombing or shooting rockets from space is incredibly costly because you must first lift the materials up there and then shoot them back down. Earth-based systems (such as nukes) will have the advantage until new lifting technologies are developed. The only option which doesn't require lifting materials to rearm are lasers, but they can be countered with a reflective layer, so they aren't likely to be the answer.
Finally, if war is brought to space, there is a serious risk of destroying both commercial and military sattelites and 'contaminating' geostationary orbit with debris, making it unusable. Is this a Pandora's box that the US wants to open?
If AGP cards become rare, while people hold on to their AGP-supporting motherboards (especially those running Athlon64's), their value is going to rise.
Exactly. I actually think this will be a boon to those who bought expensive video cards, because many people will want to keep their motherboards and only upgrade their videocard (& CPU). Those people cannot buy a PCI-Express card and they have to fight over your second-hand AGP card (which means higher prices), while you buy the fastest hardware for yourself.
On the other hand, I don't really expect ATI to give up on AGP. I bet that they will do what they have always done. Take the old generation and discount it. The replacement market is too important to give up, so they will simply keep selling two types of video cards for the time being.
Oops, I forgot to mention that there is a linux client & GUI available too.
Happy cracking.
Currently there is a project underway to crack ECC2-109. This is 'just' a $10.000 project though (half goes to the project leads and half to the two winners). There will be two winners because the trick is to find two related points which mathematicians can use to calculate the answer (Frankly, I don't even understand how exactly, see the forum for details).
Anyway, there are different clients available if you want to participate. I would suggest this client and this GUI. The project is moving to the end fairly rapidly, so you can help make the final push.
Others too have written about the (im)possibility of creating a map on a 1:1 scale.
Borges did so in "Of Exactitude in Science" in A Universal History of Infamy":
In that Empire, the craft of Cartography attained such Perfection that the Map of a Single province covered the space of an entire City, and the Map of the Empire itself an entire Province. In the course of Time, these Extensive maps were found somehow wanting, and so the College of Cartographers evolved a Map of the Empire that was of the same Scale as the Empire and that coincided with it point for point. Less attentive to the Study of Cartography, succeeding Generations came to judge a map of such Magnitude cumbersome, and, not without Irreverence, they abandoned it to the Rigours of sun and Rain. In the western Deserts, tattered Fragments of the Map are still to be found, Sheltering an occasional Beast or beggar; in the whole Nation, no other relic is left of the Discipline of Geography.
Interestingly, the problem Borges identified has disappeared because we have computers. We no longer have to create an immense, cumbersome map, instead we can store the map on a small harddisk. Furthermore, the monitor allows us to display any piece of the map without having to unfold an immense document. Finally, the computer can easily scale the document so that we can convert the map to a useful scale.
Umberto Eco then took up the challenge in "On the Impossibility of Drawing a Map of the Empire on a Scale of 1 to 1" in How to Travel with a Salmon:
When the map is installed over all the territory (whether suspended or not), the territory of the empire has the characteristic of being a territory entirely covered by a map. The map does not take into account this characteristic, which would have to be presented on another map that depicted the territory plus the lower map. But such a process would be infinite.
This is mostly a thought experiment and less valuable in the real world. The problem of creating the map and keeping it up to date will be the obstacle long before the infinite recursion will be a problem (which you can just avoid by not expanding the entire map). Still, it is a nice example of real-world infinite recursion. The best example that I know is a visual effect that the Droste company used for their boxes of cocoa. The nurse carries a plate with a box of cocoa which shows a nurse carrying a plate with a box of cocoa which shows... Simple, but a very good introduction to infinite recursion.
http://a772.g.akamai.net/5/772/51/96ec7e42288f68/1 a1a1aaa2198c627970773d80669d84574a8d80d3cb12453c02 589f25382f668c9329e0375e8177dec6493fc5bcd3c9e0d81/ i_robot_fox320.mov
Enjoy yourselves.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems like you're saying the best way to pas a lie detector test is to tell the truth!
No, no, no. You are so wrong.
First of all, the guy you replied to is incorrect by making a distinction between test- and control-questions. In the most often used polygraph technique, there are three types of questions:
1. Relevant ("Are you a spy?")
2. Irrelevant ("Is it Friday today?")
3. Control ("Have you ever stolen anything?", "Have you ever lost your temper?")
The irrelevant questions are used to soak up stress before the interview and between relevant and control questions. They aren't scored at all.
During the test, the examiner will think you are lying if your reaction to a relevant question is less than your reaction to a control question. Why? Because the assumption is that you will answer the control question untruthfully. If you don't lie, that won't be true and there is a good chance you'll fail. An example:
Wrong:
Q: As a kid, did you ever steal anything? [Control question]
A: Yes, I stole some candy.
Q: Other than that, did you ever steal anything? [Rephrased Control question]
A: No. [Physical reaction is reduced because you can't remember anything else]
Q: Have you ever used drugs? [Relevant question]
A: No. [Strong physical reaction because you have a family member who died of drug abuse].
Q: I think you are lying.
A: I might have used drugs once, I don't remember. [Stupid answer because you didn't prepare well and panicked]
Q: Why haven't you told us that earlier? Now I know you are lying. Go to jail, do not collect $200!
Right:
Q: As a kid, did you ever steal anything?
A: No. [Strong physical reaction because you know you are lying].
Q: Have you ever used drugs?
A: No. [Strong physical reaction because you have a family member who died of drug abuse].
Q: I think you are lying.
A: No, I have nephew who OD'd.
Q: Were you friends, did you hang out together?
A: Only as a kid, I lost sight of him when he went over to the dark side. [Drug-using friends reflect badly on you].
Q: Ok. [Examiner disregards your strong reaction to this question]
Note that I have never done a lie detector test, but I read the immensely interesting "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector". If you need to take a lie detector test, you should read it. In this post, I only skimmed the surface of what you really should know. Expending time and energy only to hope that you react properly during the lie detector test is incredibly stupid IMHO (especially because a failed lie detector test might leave a big stain on your security record, so if you fail, you might have trouble getting a job which doesn't even require a lie detector test itself).
It must be nice to live in such a black/white world. If I may add a little grey:
Freedom has never done well in poor countries whose populace lacks (quality) education. In many cases you can help change that by buying goods from that country. A good example is China, the leaders want the country to prosper so they can afford their ego-boosting projects (the space program for instance). At the same time, this brings the populace in contact with the free world (trade contacts, partnerships, internet, etc). This will educate and empower the citizens. The leaders must give some consideration to their citizens or they risk revolt. The country is moving slowly, but we've already seen a temporary change during the SARS crisis. I expect more of this in the future.
Another example is Iran, the majority of the populace consists of young, well-educated and liberal people. The (mostly elderly) conservatives are still holding out, but it is only a matter of time before they have to give in to the next few generations. The income which comes from trade doesn't help the conservatives much, their power is based mostly on the control over the justice system and the Ayatollah. On the other hand, trade with the western world does help the liberals. You don't want to turn away from or wage jihad against the people who provide you with income.
Of course, the same can't be said for some other countries. N-Korea won't allow their citizens enough leeway to be 'infected' with 'our propaganda'. They are so out of reach that it probably doesn't matter whether we buy from them. They will keep their people down. If that causes them to starve, the leaders will just accept that.
Personally, I believe that our government(s) should do whatever helps (individually, we have too little power). That can be sanctions, trade, public embarrasments (the Chinese get pretty irritated every time they are chastised over human rights) or the funding of projects like Freenet. It also helps to lead by example, which some countries aren't doing. Especially the nation which refuses to sign international treates which are signed by just about every country, disregards the human rights of some of their prisoners and signs nasty 'police state' laws.
That's why security through obscurity is never the best method.
...
What alternative do you propose? A computer which you don't control can never be trusted. You need to do the bulk of the work locally however (rendering on the server is not an option). The only option is to take away the users freedom: DRM. Security through obscurity is the best you can do without it.
The picture suddenly looks different, doesn't it? You get to choose between cheaters or losing control over your computer. I'll let the knee-jerkers run in an infinite loop now:
- Security through obscurity doesn't work, we need DRM.
- DRM is bad.
- Security through obscurity doesn't work, we need DRM.
- DRM is bad.
-
It's called the iTunes Music Store. Not iMusic or Apple Music. Apple Computers probably chose this name because of their settlement with Apple Records. At the very least they are trying to avoid confusion as much as possible. Of course, the contract may force them to pay off Apple Records, but Apple Computers is trying to do the right thing without giving up an enormous business opportunity.
PS. applemusic.com is owned by Apple Computers, but it links to apple.com/itunes/
It all depends on what you need the cluster for. Some computations need constant communication, others can go on for hours, days or even weeks without feedback. If you're smart, you use supercomputers for the first kind of tasks and clusters for the second kind.
Universities (and big business) often work together and exchange resources. Virginia Tech gets a large amount of bargaining power by having control over a large amount of processing power. They can easily trade CPU time on their cluster for CPU time on a low-latency supercomputer.
You are just repeating the MPAA without thinking. Extracting content from a DVD has many valid uses because it allows you to:
- Create a player which is open source, unlicensed or different in other ways which our supreme MPAA overlords disagree with.
- Create a player which allows you to skip scenes (boring, violent, erotic, non-violent, non-erotic, advertising, etc).
- Extract content for fair use purposes: teaching, criticizing/reviewing, research, satire, etc.
- Make a backup.
- Keep the content accessible until the copyright expires. A limited copyright (required by the constitution) is null and void if all copies of the work in consumers' hands are destroyed by the time it expires (bit rot is already destroying discs a few years old).
- Use the content when/if the copyright expires.
The DMCA is evil (and unconstitutional) precisely because it makes these things impossible. IMO, a bit of piracy is to be preferred over a world in which so many freedoms are taken away. I am not living in la-la-la land, I simply prefer to have a choice, a rich public domain to inspire new creations, cultural treasures which cannot be buried for a lifetime or forever and most of all, I prefer to have free speech.Why would we give this up? The RIAA and the MPAA have had piracy problems before (VCR, cassettes) and their revenue has only increases by harnessing those 'piracy tools'. So why are extreme measures necessary?
IANAL, but IIRC the law still tries to put the toothpaste back in the tube if the original disclosure was a breach of trade-secret law (such as a violation of an NDA or license agreement), no matter how widely that toothpaste has been spread around.
But how could this ever be the case? The CSS protection was reverse engineered, wasn't it? Trade-secret law is certainly not intended to protect you from that. Patents are the proper tool if someone can figure out how your product works just by analyzing it. Reverse engineering of the CSS isn't (yet) illegal in quite a few countries. Once you (legally) find out how CSS works, it can no longer be considered a trade secret, can it? Nobody had to break any licenses (you can analyze a player in a country which doesn't recognize EULAs) and there was no theft. It could be a breach of trade-secret law if they found out that the original creator of DeCSS was doing something illegal, but AFAIK that hasn't been proven and they are just going after one of the distributors.
So WTF is going on? Is it just the SNAFU US legal system or is there a lawyer who can explain to me why this legal wrangling is going on?
PS, SNAFU = Situation Normal All Fucked Up.
I've send the following email to Lois Boland, hoping to educate her:
The Washington Post recently published a story on its website which claims that you have said that 'open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights'. I question the validity of your statement.
First of all, the goal of the USPTO and the WIPO should be to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. The US Constitution clearly deems IP rights to be a means to an end and not a goal itself. 'Promoting intellectual-property rights' is just as extreme (and unconstitutional) a position as denouncing IP rights completely. A rational standpoint is to base one's decisions on an examination of the advantages and disadvantages of certain IP rights. The open-source community consists of many authors and consumers who have their own arguments and examples, based on alternative economic models (which provide jobs to many). Their voices should be heard in a discussion of the future of IP regulations.
Secondly, your statement that open-source software is the antithesis of IP rights is wrong. Open-source licenses could not even exist without copyright. Authors who develop open-source software believe that a permissive license is better than charging money for their products. Often, they produce software for their own use and they are willing to share this work with other people. The reason is rarely pure altruism. The people who use open-source software frequently help by finding problems, fixing them and/or by adding new functionality. Those contributions are often much more valuable than the profits which could be earned by selling the software. Over the last few years, more and more individuals and enterprises have discovered the advantages of open-source software. Examples are IBM, Apple and Tivo. Those companies have found ways to reduce expenses and improve their products by using open-source software. As you might be aware, Apple and IBM are innovative companies who strongly protect their IP (IBM has been granted the largest number of patents every year for the last 10 years). Open-source allows them to reduce the costs of developing and maintaining software which is necessary, but does not differentiate them from their competition. This allows them to spend more resources on innovative technology.
I hope that I have changed your mind about the role your organization should play and the role open-source software can play in an innovative world where laws support viable business models which authors wish to pursue. In this email, I was only able to scratch the surface of the issues involved. I hope that you are willing to reconsider your opposition to a WIPO meeting on open-source, so you can become familiar with the different aspects of open-source cooperation.
Respectfully yours,
Real Name
The 'free' that RMS believes in maximizes freedom for all, not just you. Here's how: [blah]
All those freedoms are provided by the BSD license. It's even more free because it doesn't require you to open source your code in certain circumstances. It's true that the GPL is more free than copyrighted code without a license and you may certainly use the name "More free than copyrighted software without license". However, to qualify for "Free Software", you should be able to argue that the license is the most free of them all. Usually, GPL advocates come up with the argument that GPL software will stay free forever, which will not happen with BSD software (in other words, the GPL'ed code is less free over a much longer period of time). I have argued against that argument here.
BTW, I find it amazing that someone with such a primitive argument is modded up so highly.
Daniel Quinn's book Ishmael suggests that modern man has lived a simple agrarian lifestyle for 100,000 years. He states that "Civilization" really got started around 10,000 years ago when somebody got the idea that you can control people by locking up the food.
I think that civilization was caused by specialization (which greatly increased efficiency). To get what you want, trade became necessary. Trade is facilitated by currency, rules and arbiters. A government (tribal or more complex) is helpful there. Of course, once you specialize further, you need to trade with more people. So you get traders to haul and store goods (a new specialization), a bigger and more central government, a more standardized currency. Repeat ad nauseam and you get an advanced civilization.
How does this involve locking up food to control people? Or do you mean that a person couldn't just take someone else's crop? Was that a mistake? Why? What alternative do you propose?
RMS made it his life's work to make sure this doesn't happen in the information age.
He doesn't want civilization in the information age? At least, that's logical conclusion of your argument: locking something up caused civilization to happen and RMS wants to make sure that something similar doesn't happen again.
No offense, but that was probably the funniest thing I've read all day. Next time you try convince an agnostic, try to get more sites without apple or mac in the domain name.
No offense, but it's clear that you have no idea how this works. A proper TCO study (or market research in general) is quite expensive. There are two ways to fund them:
1. Get the vendor to sponsor your research (the IDC report).
2. Sell the research to whoever is interested (GISTICS report).
In the first case, the report will be published on the vendors web site. In the second case, the companies who buy the report for their internal decision making will not publish it publicly (for the benefit of their competitors). There is only one company who would be willing to buy an expensive publication license: the vendor*. In short, market research will almost always be published by a vendor. That doesn't discredit (or validate) a report, it can certainly be unbiased research that happens to favor a particular vendor. You will simply have to judge for yourself.
*Well, Consumer Reports might be the only exception.
I tried to explain that BSD-licensed code doesn't necessarily become more restricted since it can often live together with more restricted code without problem (ie. without getting restricted itself). Licenses like the GPL do try to force code towards more restrictions, but BSD-style licenses have certain advantages which might get people to contribute to the original BSD codebase and not to a more restricted fork. I certainly don't believe that BSD-style licenses cause a trend to proprietary software because I believe in open source cooperation. There is no such thing with closed source software. It's simply wiser to return your changes than to leech (99% of the time). It's perfectly all right with me if people use BSD-licensed software in closed source software and return bug fixes and enhancements that they wish to share. That won't do if your goal is to eliminate closed source software, but that's not my objective.
There is no need for derived works to be put under one license. The APSL explicitly allows you to combine APSL'd code with code under other licenses:In a Q&A, they explain that they try not to relicense BSD code: Since the GPL has additional requirements that I can not legally provide (according to the APSL), I could take Darwin, combine it with the Linux kernel, but if I distributed that to anyone else, there would be no license that I could give them legally, and I would thus be violating both the GPL and the APSL.
True, one of the major problems with such a scenario is that the GPL explicitly requires you to relicense the code you combine with it under the GPL (the 'viral' aspect of the GPL). Most other licenses have no such restriction. In that case, you can have multiple licenses covering different parts of a combined work. You must comply to all of them (which is impossible if they conflict). The BSD and APSL license do not conflict, so you can combine them in one project.
I think I was more clear the first time.
You were perfectly clear. The problem is that you are wrong. I have provided solid proof to back up my assertions. Unless you believe that Apple's IP lawyers are wrong, that is.
Sure, you could rerelease BSD-licensed code under the APSL-2.0, probably, and thus you could combine code from Darwin and OpenBSD.
It's not necessary to relicense any code. You can just combine differently licensed code as long as the licenses don't conflict. That's what Apple does themselves. They didn't change the license of the code they took from FreeBSD (or their minor changes they made). Only major pieces of code that they write themselves get licensed under the APSL.
For the combined work, you'd have to obey both the BSD license and the APSL license. Of course, the BSD license is less restrictive than the APSL, so it might seem that only the APSL applies.
GPL compatibility is like a one-way gift. You bow to the "all-GPL" crowd by allowing them to use your code on their terms, but they don't reciprocate by giving you the right to use their code on your terms.
Sort of like BSD-style licenses, aka proprietary-compatible licenses.
I don't think that the parent put that very well. Let me try to explain it better (if he means to say what I think he means to say):
The GPL implicitly says that it's not good to have a non-restrictive license (such as the BSD license) because it tries to turn code with such a license into GPL'ed code. On the other hand, it's also not right to have a license with more restrictions than the GPL (because it won't work with GPL'ed code). For instance, the major criticism by the FSF of the previous version of the APSL was that you always had to publish the source if you changed the code (even when you didn't distribute the binaries outside of your organisation). However, there is nothing in the Free Software philosophy that says that this is not right (this restriction is in accordance with all freedoms that define Free Software). A programmer who is more extreme than RMS might want to see to it that every change is given back to the community. To this purpose, he can devise a sort of extended GPL license. Unfortunately for him, code under such a license would be incompatible with the GPL. GPL'ed code can never be used together with code that has more restrictions, while it can restrict code with fewer restrictions (code with a GPL-compatible license).
The BSD license is different. A BSD-licensed codebase can be extended with more restricted code. It's up to to the maintainer of the main tree and individual users to decide whether they accept the license restrictions that the new contributions bring (which may only apply to contributed code itself). On the other hand, you can also contribute code with less restrictions (public domain code, for instance) and it can keep its original (lack of a) license. There is no one-way street towards a particular set of restrictions.
To recap, GPL compatibility can only lead to GPL'ed code. You can never benefit from GPL'ed code without adopting the same set of restrictions for your own code. BSD compatibility does nothing more than allow your code to be used with BSD-licensed code. You have the choice to restrict your own code more, less or differently than the BSD-licensed code.
When that happens it's usually because the 'improvements' are hacks or user/company-specific changes. Those wouldn't make it into the open source distribution, even when they have to be made public. A rational person should want to contribute generic improvements because:
- Your code gets tested for free by other users.
- You reduce the integration effort when you upgrade the open source components. The difference is that every other contributor will work hard to make sure their changes don't effect yours, instead of the other way around (you will have to test against all new contributions).
- Your improvements will attract new users, some of whom will improve the code.
- You gain fame/glory/goodwill with geeks (Has our perception of IBM not changed because of their community work?).
In short, free market economics favor open source (in the absence of other concerns). Not that I believe in perfect rationality, market transparancy and proper government regulation, but still, open source should benefit from its use by commercial entities. Of course, you argue that the contribution could be even bigger if people would be forced to disclose their changes. That extra contribution will usually be relatively minor in the face of my previous comments and because of the deterring nature of the GPL. A more strict and complicated license increases the risk of using the open source code and decreases its applicability. This results in less users, which does not only reduce the number of contributions, but also causes work to be done twice (because the open source code isn't utilized). So I certainly wouldn't give the nod to the GPL by default if you are concerned about reducing rework."The people who bandy this
I think it's hard to give an example of changes you don't know about, since they were kept closed source
In the absence of hard data we will have to use common sense (reluctantly, given the stagnation when science was conducted purely theoretical). Did you find my reasoning convincing?
BTW, I was talking about embrace, extend & replace when I said that.
I've never claimed this (though the sentence you quoted may be interpreted as such).
I fear that many will read your statement as fact instead of opinion. That is why I wanted to counter such an interpretation explicitly.
It may be better to say that the GPL and BSD licenses have different ways of attempting to keep the community thriving: GPL by making sure the code remains Free, BSD by making sure the developers are Free.
I like that one much better. It underscores the fact that we have the same goal. We merely disagree about the best way to support that objective.
I think it's simplest to say that the GPL is about the freedom of the code (i.e., once the code is Free, it has to stay Free) and as such the freedom of the community at large (since this means that over time, they will almost by definition get a larger choice)...
/. folklore can never give me an example. Frankly, I've got better things to do than to worry about things that don't happen (other than a pay raise).
By assuming that this is straightforward, you touch on the difference in view that explains the lack of understanding between BSD and GPL proponents. You see, I believe that the BSD license can protect the freedom of the community quite well. First of all, I don't believe in the myth that BSD software will be embraced, extended and replaced by a closed version that we are forced to buy. There are various reasons why this myth is FUD, but the most important one is simply that it rarely, if ever, happens. The people who bandy this
Another myth is that the Free Software library will always keep increasing (because GPL'ed code will stay GPL'ed). This notion is not only false because the copyright holder can relicense his code, but more importantly ignores the unfortunate affliction called bit rot. Software will cease to be useful when it is not maintained and updated or when it is replaced by something better. The continued existence of a useful open source library depends mostly on the ability to attract developers who contribute. Of course, the GPL has an advantage there because it forces a developer to GPL and disclose his changes (in certain circumstances). On the other hand, releasing your changes is often the most sensible thing to do and the BSD license encourages wider adoption. Clearly, the winner depends on the specific project and the rationality of its adopters. There is no reason to assume that the collection of useful GPL software will necessarily grow faster than the BSD collection (other than what is the result of the Linux 'hype' or other marketing issues).
So again, I don't believe that the GPL can protect the freedom of the community any better than the BSD license. You're free to disagree, but please don't pretend that BSD advocates aren't interested in the community.
PS. Note that I'm not championing the sole use of BSD-like licenses. I recognize that other licenses (GPL, LGPL, etc) can be better suited for certain projects. I simply disagree with the notion that the GPL is better if you wish to support the community and BSD is better if you favor the user.
You would be surprised at the ratings and the number of viewers such live executions would attract. I can guarantee you that deep down, most people are savages, with a thin layer of civilization on top. Executions used to be public, and they were quite an entertainment, attracting huge crowds and lots of sideshows and festivities, it was almost a modern day carnival. More people than you'd care to admit would gladly and ghoulishly gape at such a spectacle, and the gorier, the better.
That's one way of looking at it. You could also have explained such human behaviour as natural curiosity. The same curiosity that drives explorers, archaeologists, engineers and scientists to discover our world, our history, new technology and so much more. Personally, I like to watch shows like CSI that teach me about many aspects of forensic evidence gathering, including autopsies. You may find that savage, but if humans would lack those interests, we could never have surpassed savage lifestyle. How can we learn about new phenomena if we are not fascinated by them?
If you want a reference just take a look at the typical crowds that gather at every minor or major disaster, trying to get a good view of the 'action' and in the meantime hindering the rescue workers.
And how do you characterize people who assist the wounded shortly after an accident? The behaviour you detest (flocking towards a disaster) is laudable when there are no rescue workers (which was true during most of human history). Besides, most people happily stay out of the way of rescue workers if they know what to do. Not knowing might be called stupid or misinformed, but certainly not vile.
People are scum and don't you forget it.
No, you interpret certain behaviour in the worst possible way. Judging mankind as inherently evil shows lack of understanding on your part. You fail to understand that bad behaviour is caused by mechanisms which were/are necessary for human survival. For instance, violent tendencies are inherent to humans and are the basis of terrible crimes. One might want to argue that mankind is despicable because we have these violent tendencies. However, if we were unable to use violence, we could not defend ourselves (see "A Clockwork Orange").