I made that same thing 3 years ago... only instead of a Trio it was my crappy cell phone and instead of an iPod it was a discman! I'm going to sue them for their blatant theft of my IP!
You must be with the Italian media who the Vatican has said is wrong, last I checked (15 seconds ago) the headlines were along the lines of "Pope Clings to Life".
But yes, still more non funny stuff from/. on 4/1... the tradition continues.
Your UID is awful low to be talking like that. You should know that they do this every year, often repeating the same story over and over again (remember the evil bit?)./. is worthless for 'real news' (if such a thing even exists here) every year on this date.
The general difference between commercials on free tv and spam online is that spam online does not go to pay for the programming or content you are seeing.
You are quoting just one definition of open source, there are many.
Microsoft's Shared Source initiative is a form of open source, just not an OSI approved one... which at the end up the day means nothing.
The definition you quoted is more that of the contemporary view of free (as in speech) software as it pretty well discounts BSD and MIT style licensed software.
Surely time would have been better spent by programmers and engineers actually stopping the OS from crashing so much?
That's just insane? Why would they ever do that? After all, customers like crashes!
They have been working to improve stability since they began, not on longhorn but on OSs, although it didn't really become a major focus until Windows 95... the same operating system you seem to be making your comments from.
Personally speaking, I keep my 2k and XP machines running for about a month straight, only rebooting when I need to change custom drivers or hardware. Yes, the system does crash from time to time, but it is quite rare, as it is for most 2k and XP machines
Remember that Avalon heavily relies on the.NET framework and like most.NET apps, they do use a lot of memory at first, but will give it back when needed.
Try running 50 copies of your calculator app and just watch as each one drops to hardly anything.
One must not also forget the Powerbook 500, sleek, round, very much unlike anything up until that pointing showing that even laptops could be sexy. Add to that the first true and successful touchpad and you have an amazing winner.
Try there are no API's used on IE, Word or most other recent (within the last couple of years) that are not documented.
As part of one of the court settlements of years ago, Microsoft began checking all products and applications they shipped for the API's they were using and verified that each such API was externally documented. This was done to help eliminate the argument that they use hidden API's to do things their competitors cant, which has over time become less and less true.
IE is part of the Windows Operating System so that parts of the OS and other applications can rely on the functionality and APIs being present
and
To be clear there are no Operating System APIs that IE uses that are not documented on MSDN as part of the platform SDK and available to other browsers and any other software that runs on Windows.
Why is it half of the time when I click on a "read more" link for a story with no comments I repeatedly am told "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."?
- All "information" and "ideas", which includes music, software, text, and other unique works, should be allowed to freely flow between people in an unlimited fashion without any encumbrances of ownership;
I take it you aren't a fan of the GPL then. Take what you said to it's logical conclusion and the GPL becomes too restrictive even for you.
IP addresses have about much location as a grain of sand along a beach. A little wind or modem reboot on a dynamic network and things are changed enough to be irrelevant.
Yes, generally they are within a specific (but large) geographic area, but without serious assistance from the ISP you aren't going to be able to narrow it down anymore, and doing so even in an automated sense I would expect would be a not very small security issue.
In short... I am very big on ensuring contracts and rights are protected, no matter whose they are. Hell, despite being an anti-Linux and anti-oss person I was the one who discovered a potential GPL violation here where I work and when on to prove it (unfortunately).
I think it's pretty well guaranteed that he and others working on the project clicked 'I Agree' to the Terms of Service and Terms of Sale, their hack is not a clean room implementation, and it's based off of plenty of downloading and sniffing.
Conceivably, they could have had someone else click 'I Agree' and have the user let them monitor the iTunes traffic as the legitimate user buys songs... but this is rather unlikely and if this case were to go to court (which it wouldn't), it would be shot down in a moment.
No, my argument is that just because it is open, there is no guarantee that anyone will look. If you want to open something up, be my guest, but don't expect anything, people my flock, or you it may be ignored, but you wont know until you release.
He violated the iTunes Music Store Terms of Service and Terms of Sale, breach of contract as it were, which is illegal in most countries. Apple could easily sue him for such things, not that they will.
The fallacy of your argument is the assumption that the public will review the work, the same goes for OSS, just because the code is open doesn't mean people are going to examine it in depth enough to find all of the flaws.
I use the breakin analogy not regarding building ones own, but finding out info and possibly stealing something valuable whether it be a watch, tv or circuit design.
The fact is that by making it as difficult as possible for illegitimate users to get in, but making it possible (within reason) for legitimate ones, you safeguard your secrets for that much longer.
Hell, that's exactly what encryption is about. Given sufficient computing power, you can break through just about all ciphers, and because it's so very hard to do it, it severely limits the # of people who do it. Yes, encryption can be tricky to use, but once you figure it all out it's easy to use, just hard to break.
It's safe to say that you'll just sue their pants off after they steal your designs... but that doesn't mean that you'll know it, hell, who says they have to rip off your entire design? They could easily just take smaller design portions.
But then I was never talking about the entire design, I was speaking only of features and functionality... not something I am going to go any further into as you have repeatedly missed my points, and with that, I am done with this conversation.
It's not "if we release the specs, it can be reverse engineered", it's "if we release the specs, it'll be much easier for it to be reverse engineered".
Simpler example: I lock all of my doors and windows when I am away, heck, I even have a security camera running in my livingroom... but that of course is not going to stop someone who wants to break into my house, which has happened. (http://www.brendangrant.com/breakin/index.html) Just because it has happened and it can happen doesn't mean I should just throw open the windows and doors.
The reason for not releasing such things, whether it be register values, pin-outs, passwords and what not is because you do not want to make it easy on those who you do not want having access to your secrets.
If you disagree, that's fine, but in doing so please, save me the time and give me your bank account #'s, passwords and a copy of your signature... not to mention all of your secrets that a determined person could probably dig up on you.
I didn't call it a contract, I called it an agreement, which is just what Apple calls it. In fact, a quick control-f of the iTunes Terms of Service, we find that it does not contain the word contract, nor the iTunes Terms of Sale.
Anyway, the Terms of Service specifically says:
You agree not to modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute, or create derivative works based on the Service, in any manner, and you shall not exploit the Service in any unauthorized way whatsoever, including but not limited to, by trespass or burdening network capacity.
So loaning is out according to this (feel free to complain about fair use and first sale doctrine all you want, but users have agreed to play by those rules), as is using the songs purchased by someone who did click 'I Agree' to said terms.
Just like any contract or agreement when one party is involved who cannot legally sign their name or what not... the agreement becomes null and void. In such a case, if/when a 12 year old using their parents credit card to purchase songs is found out, Apple has the right not only to terminate their ability to buy more songs, but also to prevent them from playing them. Yes, they were purchased, but such songs are only able to be purchased when the buyer is bound by the ToS (both of them), and any illegitimate purchases are then forfeited as the 'buyer' has no right to them (the issue of refunding of the purchase price is a whole different story, one I am not going to go into here).
I don't think you fully understand the paranoia of manufacturers.
Opening up their drivers would enable other software to be written for their device, but it would also open up their designs to competitors, not something they like to do.
I don't want to name names, but for this story, the company will be known as... Widecom.
I have spent some time working with some products from Widecom in past and have learned much about their seeming paranoia. We have a couple of proprietary datasheets on a couple of parts, the first sheet lays out most of the functionality of each register, what values do what, dang near anything you want to do with it. Of course, the part this sheet describes has been obsoleted and replaced by a new one (sheet and chip)... whose datasheet is 1/8th the size of the original. Most of the functionality of the first part works in the second one... of course Widecom doesn't like to tell unless you spend a fair amount of time begging or trying it for yourself.
Add to that the fact that we are contractually limited to the # of copies of the datasheets we can have (each one is stamped "CONFIDENTIAL *our company name*" in case it gets out.
For good reason, Widecom doesn't want its competitors to know the ins and outs of it's chips, and make it very difficult for them to learn such things.
Just because you don't know of any companies that do does not mean that they don't, of those who do, there is no requirement to loudly advertise the fact, they simply must give credit and there are simple, quiet and legitimate ways of doing that/
One quick example I can show of BSD licensed code having it's warning intact is the Microsoft FTP client, at least the version shipping with Windows 2000 contains the following string:
Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved
You can verify this for yourself with a hex editor, take a look around offset 0x5A15.
I will grant you that it is easier to try to claim BSD code as ones own, but that doesn't mean that it happens as much as you claim, furthermore you seem to be making generalizations without a shred of proof.
The company I work for has a few products that contain BSD licensed code, and at the top of each file has the original blurb from the authors, as well as the appropriate copyright string, which is all that is required.
Slashdot Mirror
I made that same thing 3 years ago... only instead of a Trio it was my crappy cell phone and instead of an iPod it was a discman! I'm going to sue them for their blatant theft of my IP!
You must be with the Italian media who the Vatican has said is wrong, last I checked (15 seconds ago) the headlines were along the lines of "Pope Clings to Life".
/. on 4/1... the tradition continues.
But yes, still more non funny stuff from
Your UID is awful low to be talking like that. You should know that they do this every year, often repeating the same story over and over again (remember the evil bit?). /. is worthless for 'real news' (if such a thing even exists here) every year on this date.
The general difference between commercials on free tv and spam online is that spam online does not go to pay for the programming or content you are seeing.
You are quoting just one definition of open source, there are many.
Microsoft's Shared Source initiative is a form of open source, just not an OSI approved one... which at the end up the day means nothing.
The definition you quoted is more that of the contemporary view of free (as in speech) software as it pretty well discounts BSD and MIT style licensed software.
Surely time would have been better spent by programmers and engineers actually stopping the OS from crashing so much?
That's just insane? Why would they ever do that? After all, customers like crashes!
They have been working to improve stability since they began, not on longhorn but on OSs, although it didn't really become a major focus until Windows 95... the same operating system you seem to be making your comments from.
Personally speaking, I keep my 2k and XP machines running for about a month straight, only rebooting when I need to change custom drivers or hardware. Yes, the system does crash from time to time, but it is quite rare, as it is for most 2k and XP machines
Remember that Avalon heavily relies on the .NET framework and like most .NET apps, they do use a lot of memory at first, but will give it back when needed.
Try running 50 copies of your calculator app and just watch as each one drops to hardly anything.
One must not also forget the Powerbook 500, sleek, round, very much unlike anything up until that pointing showing that even laptops could be sexy. Add to that the first true and successful touchpad and you have an amazing winner.
Try there are no API's used on IE, Word or most other recent (within the last couple of years) that are not documented.
As part of one of the court settlements of years ago, Microsoft began checking all products and applications they shipped for the API's they were using and verified that each such API was externally documented. This was done to help eliminate the argument that they use hidden API's to do things their competitors cant, which has over time become less and less true.
You completly ignored his point, quoting TFS:
IE is part of the Windows Operating System so that parts of the OS and other applications can rely on the functionality and APIs being present
and
To be clear there are no Operating System APIs that IE uses that are not documented on MSDN as part of the platform SDK and available to other browsers and any other software that runs on Windows.
To quote post #12030544
I replied to the spam
and my mortgage has never been longer or harder.
Why is it half of the time when I click on a "read more" link for a story with no comments I repeatedly am told "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."?
- All "information" and "ideas", which includes music, software, text, and other unique works, should be allowed to freely flow between people in an unlimited fashion without any encumbrances of ownership;
I take it you aren't a fan of the GPL then. Take what you said to it's logical conclusion and the GPL becomes too restrictive even for you.
IP addresses have about much location as a grain of sand along a beach. A little wind or modem reboot on a dynamic network and things are changed enough to be irrelevant.
Yes, generally they are within a specific (but large) geographic area, but without serious assistance from the ISP you aren't going to be able to narrow it down anymore, and doing so even in an automated sense I would expect would be a not very small security issue.
You are such a mean mean man, what's next? There is no Santa Clause? The Easter Bunny doesn't exist? Our parents don't really love us?
Always nice to hear another voice of reason on this site.
Please, do take a look at a recent post of mine on a similar topic.
In short... I am very big on ensuring contracts and rights are protected, no matter whose they are. Hell, despite being an anti-Linux and anti-oss person I was the one who discovered a potential GPL violation here where I work and when on to prove it (unfortunately).
I think it's pretty well guaranteed that he and others working on the project clicked 'I Agree' to the Terms of Service and Terms of Sale, their hack is not a clean room implementation, and it's based off of plenty of downloading and sniffing.
Conceivably, they could have had someone else click 'I Agree' and have the user let them monitor the iTunes traffic as the legitimate user buys songs... but this is rather unlikely and if this case were to go to court (which it wouldn't), it would be shot down in a moment.
No, my argument is that just because it is open, there is no guarantee that anyone will look. If you want to open something up, be my guest, but don't expect anything, people my flock, or you it may be ignored, but you wont know until you release.
He violated the iTunes Music Store Terms of Service and Terms of Sale, breach of contract as it were, which is illegal in most countries. Apple could easily sue him for such things, not that they will.
The fallacy of your argument is the assumption that the public will review the work, the same goes for OSS, just because the code is open doesn't mean people are going to examine it in depth enough to find all of the flaws.
I use the breakin analogy not regarding building ones own, but finding out info and possibly stealing something valuable whether it be a watch, tv or circuit design.
The fact is that by making it as difficult as possible for illegitimate users to get in, but making it possible (within reason) for legitimate ones, you safeguard your secrets for that much longer.
Hell, that's exactly what encryption is about. Given sufficient computing power, you can break through just about all ciphers, and because it's so very hard to do it, it severely limits the # of people who do it. Yes, encryption can be tricky to use, but once you figure it all out it's easy to use, just hard to break.
It's safe to say that you'll just sue their pants off after they steal your designs... but that doesn't mean that you'll know it, hell, who says they have to rip off your entire design? They could easily just take smaller design portions.
But then I was never talking about the entire design, I was speaking only of features and functionality... not something I am going to go any further into as you have repeatedly missed my points, and with that, I am done with this conversation.
It's not "if we release the specs, it can be reverse engineered", it's "if we release the specs, it'll be much easier for it to be reverse engineered".
Simpler example: I lock all of my doors and windows when I am away, heck, I even have a security camera running in my livingroom... but that of course is not going to stop someone who wants to break into my house, which has happened. (http://www.brendangrant.com/breakin/index.html) Just because it has happened and it can happen doesn't mean I should just throw open the windows and doors.
The reason for not releasing such things, whether it be register values, pin-outs, passwords and what not is because you do not want to make it easy on those who you do not want having access to your secrets.
If you disagree, that's fine, but in doing so please, save me the time and give me your bank account #'s, passwords and a copy of your signature... not to mention all of your secrets that a determined person could probably dig up on you.
I didn't call it a contract, I called it an agreement, which is just what Apple calls it. In fact, a quick control-f of the iTunes Terms of Service, we find that it does not contain the word contract, nor the iTunes Terms of Sale.
Anyway, the Terms of Service specifically says:
You agree not to modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute, or create derivative works based on the Service, in any manner, and you shall not exploit the Service in any unauthorized way whatsoever, including but not limited to, by trespass or burdening network capacity.
So loaning is out according to this (feel free to complain about fair use and first sale doctrine all you want, but users have agreed to play by those rules), as is using the songs purchased by someone who did click 'I Agree' to said terms.
Just like any contract or agreement when one party is involved who cannot legally sign their name or what not... the agreement becomes null and void. In such a case, if/when a 12 year old using their parents credit card to purchase songs is found out, Apple has the right not only to terminate their ability to buy more songs, but also to prevent them from playing them. Yes, they were purchased, but such songs are only able to be purchased when the buyer is bound by the ToS (both of them), and any illegitimate purchases are then forfeited as the 'buyer' has no right to them (the issue of refunding of the purchase price is a whole different story, one I am not going to go into here).
I don't think you fully understand the paranoia of manufacturers.
Opening up their drivers would enable other software to be written for their device, but it would also open up their designs to competitors, not something they like to do.
I don't want to name names, but for this story, the company will be known as... Widecom.
I have spent some time working with some products from Widecom in past and have learned much about their seeming paranoia. We have a couple of proprietary datasheets on a couple of parts, the first sheet lays out most of the functionality of each register, what values do what, dang near anything you want to do with it. Of course, the part this sheet describes has been obsoleted and replaced by a new one (sheet and chip)... whose datasheet is 1/8th the size of the original. Most of the functionality of the first part works in the second one... of course Widecom doesn't like to tell unless you spend a fair amount of time begging or trying it for yourself.
Add to that the fact that we are contractually limited to the # of copies of the datasheets we can have (each one is stamped "CONFIDENTIAL *our company name*" in case it gets out.
For good reason, Widecom doesn't want its competitors to know the ins and outs of it's chips, and make it very difficult for them to learn such things.
Just because you don't know of any companies that do does not mean that they don't, of those who do, there is no requirement to loudly advertise the fact, they simply must give credit and there are simple, quiet and legitimate ways of doing that/
One quick example I can show of BSD licensed code having it's warning intact is the Microsoft FTP client, at least the version shipping with Windows 2000 contains the following string:
Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
All rights reserved
You can verify this for yourself with a hex editor, take a look around offset 0x5A15.
I will grant you that it is easier to try to claim BSD code as ones own, but that doesn't mean that it happens as much as you claim, furthermore you seem to be making generalizations without a shred of proof.
The company I work for has a few products that contain BSD licensed code, and at the top of each file has the original blurb from the authors, as well as the appropriate copyright string, which is all that is required.