"But that isn't true--you cannot have a piece of open source software (i.e., something that meets the definition of open source) "
Hmm this maybe a semantic issue and as I am not up on all the correct definitions I'll concede as stated you maybe right.
How about even with this license some people may produce freely availalbe code that may be used folks on the Net.
"It's clear that you feel uncomfortable with when I restate your position in the way I did"
Well as it does not come close to reflecting what I feel my postions is I do have some issues with it. Particularly calling my conviction into question and stating I believe as OSS developers are relgious zealot whose opinions I reject out of hand.
"You just don't recognize that such a suggestion is pretty much the same as if you said "guys, why don't you consider giving up on this OSS stuff altogether and just develop proprietary software"
Wow an excellent use of the logical fallacy of the false delimma allow me to compliment you.
The IETF also has rules/guiding principle and such, so you are saying OSS's rules should trump those?
I'm not saying they are correct or that your principles are any less worthy just that you entire argument could be turned on its head and used to support an IETF postion.
Please note I have never said OSS developer should write this software using this license just that they should examine the whole pciture before rejecting it. Your argument was this the licenses are complety incompatible and thats a legal fact. Maybe you are the worlds greatest IP lawyer I don't know but I found that claimto be an exaggeration.
I seriously doubt the IETF is trying to tell OSS developers anything. They are trying to navigate amoung a disperate set of vendors and interest to create an Internet that works. In additon they have all the political BS and stupidity that happens anytime you get a group of people together. I am sure they are aware there is a cost to not having OSS folks working on software that supports their protocols.
"And that's not an academic or semantic distinction: those additional restrictions seriously interfere with day-to-day open source software development."
They do interfere and I think thats a bad thing. Is it a lethal thing, maybe I'm not done investigating yet. Some people seem to think it might be work. It is clearly not a good thing but perhaps it will end up acceptable.
"And that's your problem: you dismiss the FSF's concerns as "purely religious reasons"
No its not thank you very much. If it were I wouldn't be interested in what their lawyer had to say. I don't dismiss anything out of hand. Your post was well in advance of any comment by them.
"The problem with people like you is that you lack the courage of your own convictions: you think that OSS developers are just a bunch of religious morons that complain too much, yet you are afraid to come out and say that we don't need OSS development. You want the buzz-word value of OSS licenses while imposing non-OSS licenses on developers."
Could you try to argue the facts or at least logical inferences that might be drawn from what I've said. Did I ever say OSS developers should implement it, no - I've said some might be able to under the licenses they use. I've said given equal alternatives that are less encumbered one should chose those alterntives.
I don't want nor can I impose anything on OSS developers. I'm not afraid to come out and say anything I believe I just don't happen to believe the words you are trying to stick into my mouth.
I do believe *SOME* OSS developers are religious morons who whine incessitantly, I also know some I like and respect, as for the rest I can't say one way or the other.
There are other licenses besides FSF. People already appear to be saying that there are license that would be fine Sendmail Open Source License,BSD license,IBM Common Public License amoung them.
"The major effect of this is that people will take the IETF even less seriously than they already do."
Which will still be way more seriously then they take the FSF folks.
It'd be nice if you consider the whole of what I actually wrote, I already said that I think its likely its not the best idea but I won't dismiss it out of hand on purely religious reasons. I never said that they I think the terms are begin or that OSS folks will change their license. I said:
1) An FSF lawyer has not said with certainity there is a conflict
(unlike your legal fact rhetoric) It appears they may vert
well come down on that side
2) There is more then one type of license for freely distributed
software.
3) It always makes sense to look up to see if the world is
passing you by; IE if this type of license is being accepted
by the IETF and W3C maybe things are changing and the
OSS community should be aware of that.
Really well how naive is Eben Moglen? Because he is not saying its a "legal fact" thats its incompatible with all Open Source licenses. When he was shown the section on relicensing he did not say "it violates the GPL" HOWEVER after getting a copy of the whole license he has now said:
"it may prohibit use under the GPL"
I encourage pleople to read: http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/ 02/26/1 448253
This seems to be almost identical to the issue that came up with the MS XML Schema patents and the W3C thought their license was ok.
The IETF uses RFC3668 for patent issues and MS may well have met all their requirements.
As far as your last point please I'm not concerned with wether it meet your definition of OSS (Or anyone elses) I am concerned with is it better or worse then license that have already been accepted and are in use in software and protocols around the world.
I am not saying I think this license is a Good Thing. I'm not thrilled with it and if there is a solution that is just as good but unencumbered then I think thats the right direction.
> The patent licensing requirements are just incompatible with >the GPL and other OSS licenses--that's a legal fact. Therefore, >IETF SPF can't be fully implemented by OSS--there is nothing >to debate or negotiate or decide.
Having read thru the thread on the madrid mailing list this is a patently false statement. There is disagreement about wether or not there is a problem. The IETF Legal counsel has not to the best of my knowledge published a finding one way or the other.
As most people on the Net are not lawyers it might actaully be more useful to look at this license in terms of how it compares to other licenses granted the IETF. Is it more or less restrictive? Even if it does pass the sniff test it may be that it takes a step down the road to being more restictive then we would like. On the otherh and if it looks like all the legalese from all the other companies then maybe it'll be ok.
Its merely a TRO so they can transition to a new provider. Obviosuly I don't have all the facts but its certainly not clear that the judge made a bad call. I mean not ISP would ever use non portable address space as a club over their customers head right?!:)
Anyway yes Cisco has problems just like all the other vendors. I have no idea how you are trying to compare a hub and a switch attached to different boxes for their performance. Maybe there is a misconfiguration in the Catalyst. A 4 port belkin hub is little less likely to have that issue
Of course if you are really trying to use a catalyst to ROUTE traffic maybe you just are using the wrong tool.
It really depends on what you want/need. When you are paying bills from home I assume you are using the the http protcol and the agency you are dealing with is using ssl/tsl. That should secure your communication. If you want to provide confidentiality (IE encyption) then ssl/ssh/ipsec well do just fine. In kerberos the authentication is encrypted but other than that it is up to the app to decide. For instance you can use rlogin/telnet and kerberos in either encypted or plain text. (the auth will be encrypted assuming its a kerberoized host but the rest of the communication will be plain text)
The WEP plus I have seen: http://www.orinocowireless.com/upload/docum ents/WE PplusWhitepaper.pdf
Should be interoperable just fine however you will not get the advantage of weak key avoidance if any of the stations using the same shared key do not have it implemented.
Note that there are other attacks that this does not protect against. I would not count on WEP for secure communications.
I have not tried it BUT I have been looking at the various Sprint phones that support data. Most of the dataphones can do both of the following 1) Access websites including webbased email thru the phone.com micro-browser 2) allow connectivity to a computer thru the serial cable.
My understanding of the second option was it acts like a modem. IE you can connect to any ISP you have a dialup account with or even send a fax.
NOTE I looked at the PDQ and was unimpressed. I have been waiting for this phone to come out for a while and was very disappointed. I played with it the day it arrived and it is just too big. Also the construction feels cheep to me. The phone that seems to be a better bet for half the price is the Neopoint 1000. http://www.neopoint.com
It doesn't have as big of a screen or as easy text entry but it does sync with outlook. And has a contact app, a calendar and a todo list.
Re:Are you sure you want to get excited about this
on
Digital VCRs
·
· Score: 1
Richard Bullwinkle indicates that TiVo has no plans to downloading ads to the box.
On the website: If your viewing practices suggest that you are an outdoor enthusiast, the advertiser's generic car ad may be replaced by one for its four-wheel drive vehicle.
This might be the section that is confusing people perhaps you can explain what it means?
(Note for completeness like many other things in the Tivo service you can opt out of this)
Re:Are you sure you want to get excited about this
on
Digital VCRs
·
· Score: 1
This policy statement is new, earlier when I reviewed both this product and ReplayTV, TIVO did NOT have an opt out policy. From my perspective the other big advantage of the ReplayTV box is free lifetime guide service which you pay for with TIVO. Ideally any box like this would be able to get a program guide from third parties. I also think that even if I am using a modem I'd rather have these smart devices use some kind of network to them talk to ONE box that has the modem and Internet access.
Slashdot Mirror
"But that isn't true--you cannot have a piece of open source software (i.e., something that meets the definition of open source) "
Hmm this maybe a semantic issue and as I am not up on
all the correct definitions I'll concede as stated you maybe right.
How about even with this license some people may produce
freely availalbe code that may be used folks on the Net.
"It's clear that you feel uncomfortable with when I restate your position in the way I did"
Well as it does not come close to reflecting what I feel my postions is I do have some issues with it. Particularly
calling my conviction into question and stating I believe
as OSS developers are relgious zealot whose opinions
I reject out of hand.
"You just don't recognize that such a suggestion is pretty much the same as if you said "guys, why don't you consider giving up on this OSS stuff altogether and just develop proprietary software"
Wow an excellent use of the logical fallacy of the false delimma allow me to compliment you.
The IETF also has rules/guiding principle and such, so you
are saying OSS's rules should trump those?
I'm not saying they are correct or that your principles are
any less worthy just that you entire argument could
be turned on its head and used to support an IETF postion.
Please note I have never said OSS developer should write
this software using this license just that they should examine
the whole pciture before rejecting it. Your argument
was this the licenses are complety incompatible and thats a
legal fact. Maybe you are the worlds greatest IP lawyer
I don't know but I found that claimto be an exaggeration.
I seriously doubt the IETF is trying to tell OSS developers
anything. They are trying to navigate amoung a disperate
set of vendors and interest to create an Internet that works.
In additon they have all the political BS and stupidity that
happens anytime you get a group of people together.
I am sure they are aware there is a cost to not having OSS
folks working on software that supports their protocols.
"And that's not an academic or semantic distinction: those additional restrictions seriously interfere with day-to-day open source software development."
They do interfere and I think thats a bad thing. Is it a lethal
thing, maybe I'm not done investigating yet. Some people
seem to think it might be work. It is clearly not a good
thing but perhaps it will end up acceptable.
"And that's your problem: you dismiss the FSF's concerns as "purely religious reasons"
No its not thank you very much. If it were I wouldn't be interested in what their lawyer had to say. I don't dismiss
anything out of hand. Your post was well in advance of any
comment by them.
"The problem with people like you is that you lack the courage of your own convictions: you think that OSS developers are just a bunch of religious morons that complain too much, yet you are afraid to come out and say that we don't need OSS development. You want the buzz-word value of OSS licenses while imposing non-OSS licenses on developers."
Could you try to argue the facts or at least logical inferences
that might be drawn from what I've said. Did I ever say OSS
developers should implement it, no - I've said some
might be able to under the licenses they use. I've said
given equal alternatives that are less encumbered one
should chose those alterntives.
I don't want nor can I impose anything on OSS developers.
I'm not afraid to come out and say anything I believe I just
don't happen to believe the words you are trying to
stick into my mouth.
I do believe *SOME* OSS developers are religious morons
who whine incessitantly, I also know some I like and
respect, as for the rest I can't say one way or the other.
There are other licenses besides FSF. People already
appear to be saying that there are license that would be fine
Sendmail Open Source License,BSD license,IBM Common Public License amoung them.
"The major effect of this is that people will take the IETF even less seriously than they already do."
Which will still be way more seriously then they take the FSF folks.
It'd be nice if you consider the whole of what I actually wrote,
I already said that I think its likely its not the best idea
but I won't dismiss it out of hand on purely religious reasons.
I never said that they I think the terms are begin or that OSS
folks will change their license. I said:
1) An FSF lawyer has not said with certainity there is a conflict
(unlike your legal fact rhetoric) It appears they may vert
well come down on that side
2) There is more then one type of license for freely distributed
software.
3) It always makes sense to look up to see if the world is
passing you by; IE if this type of license is being accepted
by the IETF and W3C maybe things are changing and the
OSS community should be aware of that.
Really well how naive is Eben Moglen? Because he is not saying
/ 02/26/1 448253
its a "legal fact" thats its incompatible with all Open Source
licenses. When he was shown the section on relicensing
he did not say "it violates the GPL" HOWEVER after getting
a copy of the whole license he has now said:
"it may prohibit use under the GPL"
I encourage pleople to read:
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04
This seems to be almost identical to the issue that came up with
the MS XML Schema patents and the W3C thought their license
was ok.
The IETF uses RFC3668 for patent issues and MS may well
have met all their requirements.
As far as your last point please I'm not concerned with wether
it meet your definition of OSS (Or anyone elses) I am concerned
with is it better or worse then license that have already been
accepted and are in use in software and protocols around
the world.
I am not saying I think this license is a Good Thing.
I'm not thrilled with it and if there is a solution that
is just as good but unencumbered then I think thats the right
direction.
> The patent licensing requirements are just incompatible with >the GPL and other OSS licenses--that's a legal fact. Therefore, >IETF SPF can't be fully implemented by OSS--there is nothing >to debate or negotiate or decide.
Having read thru the thread on the madrid mailing list this
is a patently false statement. There is disagreement about
wether or not there is a problem. The IETF Legal counsel
has not to the best of my knowledge published a finding one
way or the other.
As most people on the Net are not lawyers it might actaully be
more useful to look at this license in terms of how it compares
to other licenses granted the IETF. Is it more or less restrictive?
Even if it does pass the sniff test it may be that it takes a step
down the road to being more restictive then we would like.
On the otherh and if it looks like all the legalese from all
the other companies then maybe it'll be ok.
http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/
Its merely a TRO so they can transition to a
new provider. Obviosuly I don't have all the
facts but its certainly not clear that the judge
made a bad call. I mean not ISP would ever use
non portable address space as a club over their
customers head right?!
Are you sure you don't want to start a holy war?
Anyway yes Cisco has problems just like all the
other vendors. I have no idea how you are
trying to compare a hub and a switch attached
to different boxes for their performance. Maybe
there is a misconfiguration in the Catalyst.
A 4 port belkin hub is little less likely to have
that issue
Of course if you are really trying to use a catalyst to
ROUTE traffic maybe you just are using
the wrong tool.
YMMV
It really depends on what you want/need. When /ssh/ipsec well do just fine. In kerberos
you are paying bills from home I assume you are
using the the http protcol and the agency you
are dealing with is using ssl/tsl. That should
secure your communication. If you want to
provide confidentiality (IE encyption) then ssl
the authentication is encrypted but other than
that it is up to the app to decide. For instance
you can use rlogin/telnet and kerberos in either
encypted or plain text. (the auth will be
encrypted assuming its a kerberoized host but the
rest of the communication will be plain text)
The WEP plus I have seen:m ents/WE PplusWhitepaper.pdf
http://www.orinocowireless.com/upload/docu
Should be interoperable just fine however you
will not get the advantage of weak key avoidance
if any of the stations using the same shared key
do not have it implemented.
Note that there are other attacks that this does
not protect against. I would not count on WEP
for secure communications.
http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/IEEE/
This site is best place I have seen for wireless
security. It has a link to the 802.1X stuff.
Note IEEE has been making its specs available in
PDF.
No you can not run a server at least according to
the Openband T&Cs I see at:
http://www.openband.net/pdf_files/Internet_t_an
and in this case you might want to check outt _t_and_c .pdf
the service terms:
http://www.openband.net/pdf_files/Interne
Note the part about how they reserve the right to
collect info on your browsing habits.
And of course even though that have all this acces
you still can't host any services.
I have not tried it BUT I have been looking at the various Sprint phones that support data. Most of the dataphones can do both of the following 1) Access websites including webbased email thru the phone.com micro-browser 2) allow
connectivity to a computer thru the serial cable.
My understanding of the second option was it acts like a modem. IE you can connect to any ISP you
have a dialup account with or even send a fax.
NOTE I looked at the PDQ and was unimpressed. I have been waiting for this phone to come out for a while and was very disappointed. I played with it the day it arrived and it is just too big. Also the construction feels cheep to me. The phone that seems to be a better bet for half the price is the Neopoint 1000. http://www.neopoint.com
It doesn't have as big of a screen or as easy text entry but it does sync with outlook. And has a contact app, a calendar and a todo list.
Richard Bullwinkle indicates that TiVo has no plans to downloading ads to the box.
On the website:
If your viewing practices suggest that you are an outdoor enthusiast, the advertiser's generic car ad may be replaced by one for its four-wheel drive vehicle.
This might be the section that is confusing people
perhaps you can explain what it means?
(Note for completeness like many other things
in the Tivo service you can opt out of this)
This policy statement is new, earlier when I reviewed both this product and ReplayTV, TIVO did NOT have an opt out policy. From my perspective the other big advantage of the ReplayTV box is free lifetime guide service which you pay for with TIVO. Ideally any box like this would be able to get a program guide from third parties. I also think that even if I am using a modem I'd rather have these smart devices use some kind of network to them talk to ONE box that has the modem and Internet access.