Hey, the article mentions the possibility of Sorenson BINARIES. Nobody's expecting Apple to open-source TrueType and Quicktime. Evan's beef is they won't even let US do it.
There's going to be a lot of Windows bashing on this story, but folks, remember we're not talking about the Windows 9x kernel here.
I wouldn't want to trust windows 2000 with my life, but I haven't yet seen a BSOD on it
I think the odd thing is that they have three systems, but they're all the same OS. Usually, these control systems are implemented three different ways, so that whatever bugs are present don't affect all of them.
Windows 2000 would be a much saner choice, IMHO, if backup #1 was linux and backup #2 was another unix.
Man, it is really bizarre to see a press release about an oranization cold booting into safe mode. The way they write it up, you'd think it was rocket science. . .
Interesting. See the article kept saying "It's great value for the price--sometimes it even beats a GF Ultra". No one said it was superior to the most expensive consumer 3d hardware. . .
It's easy to prove that something can't be done. Just assume that it can be done, and show that this assumption leads to a contradiction.
Re:I'm holding out for Day Of The Tentacle
on
Leisure Suit Unix
·
· Score: 2
They're doing something similar for the LucasArts games here:
http://www.mixnmojo.com/scramm/
But it doesn't support Linux right now.
Re:I actually wouldn't mind replaying classics...
on
Leisure Suit Unix
·
· Score: 2
Oh, there's LOADS of debate about what kind of copying's illegal. If your legit copy of SQ3 is corrupt, I'd say you're within your rights downloading another copy.
Question 1 is intuitively obvious. If there is no reason to do it, no one will do it.
Question 2 is very comercially oriented. What would have happend if Linus Torvalds or Richard Stallman or Eric Allman or the founders of Apache had asked that question? And if you look at those projects, they were often started solely because the author, him/herself desired it, and for no other reason.
Perhaps it would be better rephased as "will it be useful to people?" But it's a factor in a decision, not the whole of it.
Question 3 is always a valid question, but bear in mind that morality varies from country to country, from region to region, from person to person.
It's in a violator's interest that the GPL be valid. Because if the GPL is invalid, they have no license to use the code. And if they have not license to use the code, they are committing copyright violation.
Re:Not: Re:why suprised? They HAVE TO RELEASE CODE
on
NSA Linux In Depth
·
· Score: 2
Okay, so you're saying derivitive works by the gummint lose whatever copyright they originally had? Are you sure that's what you mean?
No one is advocating running malicious programs with root privileges. The point of capabilities is to reduce the possible damage by a buggy program with root privilages.
For example, if BIND only had the privileges to access the DNS ports, it couldn't do anything nasty even IF a buffer overflow was uncovered.
Ever think that this article had a totally different purpose than the one you think it should have? This was not supposed to be "How to secure Linux 2.4", and it wasn't. Big whoop.
Instead, it's an informative piece on the security directions the kernel has taken. I'm really upset. Honest.
Look, I may not agree with everything Stallman says, but I never have a problem understanding what he says.
Here, it's pretty clear that he doesn't want to make the article too long, so he discusses only copyright. That's the form of IP that the GPL most clearly attacks.
The sentence you quoted is part of his explanation of why he isn't discussing the other forms of IP in that article.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? How did they generate that wireframe drawing of the Death Star, then?
You may have to settle for seeing the full stomachs second. People with money don't starve. People who know IT are more likely to have money.
Hey, the article mentions the possibility of Sorenson BINARIES. Nobody's expecting Apple to open-source TrueType and Quicktime. Evan's beef is they won't even let US do it.
There's going to be a lot of Windows bashing on this story, but folks, remember we're not talking about the Windows 9x kernel here.
I wouldn't want to trust windows 2000 with my life, but I haven't yet seen a BSOD on it
I think the odd thing is that they have three systems, but they're all the same OS. Usually, these control systems are implemented three different ways, so that whatever bugs are present don't affect all of them.
Windows 2000 would be a much saner choice, IMHO, if backup #1 was linux and backup #2 was another unix.
Man, it is really bizarre to see a press release about an oranization cold booting into safe mode. The way they write it up, you'd think it was rocket science. . .
I tend to favour "copy control" or maybe "distribution control"
Was everyone in hollywood high from 1967-1972?
Probably. I mean, there's always been a connection between celeberty and drugs. . .
It's against their policy to add new featurs in an service pack. . .
heh
You mean on the very first day they announced Crusoe.
Interesting. See the article kept saying "It's great value for the price--sometimes it even beats a GF Ultra". No one said it was superior to the most expensive consumer 3d hardware. . .
It's easy to prove that something can't be done. Just assume that it can be done, and show that this assumption leads to a contradiction.
They're doing something similar for the LucasArts games here:
http://www.mixnmojo.com/scramm/
But it doesn't support Linux right now.
Oh, there's LOADS of debate about what kind of copying's illegal. If your legit copy of SQ3 is corrupt, I'd say you're within your rights downloading another copy.
Question 1 is intuitively obvious. If there is no reason to do it, no one will do it.
Question 2 is very comercially oriented. What would have happend if Linus Torvalds or Richard Stallman or Eric Allman or the founders of Apache had asked that question? And if you look at those projects, they were often started solely because the author, him/herself desired it, and for no other reason.
Perhaps it would be better rephased as "will it be useful to people?" But it's a factor in a decision, not the whole of it.
Question 3 is always a valid question, but bear in mind that morality varies from country to country, from region to region, from person to person.
I imagine if the obfuscated code was distributed along with a non-obfuscated version, it could be considered open-source.
It's in a violator's interest that the GPL be valid. Because if the GPL is invalid, they have no license to use the code. And if they have not license to use the code, they are committing copyright violation.
Okay, so you're saying derivitive works by the gummint lose whatever copyright they originally had? Are you sure that's what you mean?
Already being invented
http://www.bluelinx.com/products.htm
No one is advocating running malicious programs with root privileges. The point of capabilities is to reduce the possible damage by a buggy program with root privilages.
For example, if BIND only had the privileges to access the DNS ports, it couldn't do anything nasty even IF a buffer overflow was uncovered.
Ever think that this article had a totally different purpose than the one you think it should have? This was not supposed to be "How to secure Linux 2.4", and it wasn't. Big whoop.
Instead, it's an informative piece on the security directions the kernel has taken. I'm really upset. Honest.
Yeah, although ZDNet is now claiming the copyright. Go get 'em, Stallman!
Look, I may not agree with everything Stallman says, but I never have a problem understanding what he says.
Here, it's pretty clear that he doesn't want to make the article too long, so he discusses only copyright. That's the form of IP that the GPL most clearly attacks.
The sentence you quoted is part of his explanation of why he isn't discussing the other forms of IP in that article.
Doesn't sound much like a troll to me.
Similarly, Google provides a service that facilitates the exchange of copyrighted works for no charge.
The purpose is irrelevent. It is completely legal to tell people how to commit crimes. Your First Amendment is supposed to protect speech like that.
I cannot understand how any reasonable judge could argue that explaining how to commit a crime is the same thing as committing it.
The OpenNap servers are only directories-- they don't contain illegal contents, just listings, so how can they be held accountable?