Over at IBiblio, they've launched a plan for free community recording studios, under the condition that the recordings be public domain. I'm not convinced that this is the way to do it; I think maybe some sort of GPL for music might be better.
Kerry's a lost cause. He's bought and paid for by Hollywood because, as a Democrat, he needs their money for his White House run in 2004.
If I were a campaign strategist for someone running against Kerry this year, I'd nail him to a cross if he expresses any support for this bill.
Envision the commercial:
Massachusetts is one of the leading high-tech states. Thousands of jobs are in the technology industry. But to John Kerry, that's not good enough. Thanks to legislation which he advocates, the tech industry will be forced to spend billions doing Hollywood's job for them. Why would John Kerry sell out the lifeblood of the Massachusetts economy? Maybe he'll need the money for a future home search. {cue picture of the White House}.
Sorry? Minors are allowed to purchase things, like food, yes? Does this mean that if a food had a license agreement that said that it could only be eaten if the recipient was over-18 (and I'm not talking about alcohol) then it could be bought but not consumed.
To be blunt, yes. The only way around this is to have a legal guardian (generally a parent) sign something granting the child the right to enter into a contract with the food company.
Surely, some-one not bound by the terms of the EULA who had purchased the software would only be bound by the same laws covering (say) music CDs. Meaning they could install the software, and do anything with it so long as it was not expressly prohibited by copyright law. (Like copy it.)
Any EULA worth its salt has a clause saying that use of the software constitutes agreement to the EULA. While this clause has not been found legally valid by a court of law, it is valid by default. AFAIK, there have been no cases questioning the validity of EULAs. Since the act of using the software therefore binds one to its terms, it is impossible to use the software without agreement to the terms. Since a minor cannot agree to the contract, the minor cannot use the software.
That said, no software company is insane enough to go after 15-year-olds using the software. If it ever got to court, there is at least some chance that major components of the license would be rendered inoperative (namely the "use constitutes agreement" clauses). So the software industry will not force the issue.
And those opposed to EULAs shouldn't necessarily be rushing to court. There is a chance that the courts will rule that the EULAs are fully legal, in which case the battle over UCITA will become moot and it will be up to us to pass laws explicitly overturning the EULA.
This is somewhat similar to the Second Amendment. That amendment is almost never invoked in the courts for fear that a definitive interpretation will result which ends the stalemate.
Under US law, minors cannot agree to the GPL. Therefore they cannot modify or distribute code licensed under the GPL, because:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Now it's not entirely clear what modification of the software means (the same can be said of distribution). Obviously modifying the source code applies. An interesting question is if configuration files included with the distribution qualify. IANAL, but an argument could be made that such configuration files do apply (configuration files that are not included with the software are a different matter).
The end result is that, legally speaking, nobody under 18 can modify or distribute a GPL work. So if you're 17 and give your friend a Debian CD, the FSF could technically go after you for distribution without the right to distribute. If you're 14 and posting patches to the LKML, Linus could file suit against you for a GPL violation.
Granted, this is unlikely to occur. The press would be horrible. But is the law.
The way around this is simple, have your parents "sign" for you. I would imagine that an affidavit stating that they bind you to the terms of the GPL would be sufficient, but again, IANAL.
Not bound to fine print eh.. does that mean he could do whatever he wanted with purchased software, ignoring EULAs since he's not bound?! perfect! reverse engineering and hacking for everybody!
Yes, he's not bound by the EULA. However, since the EULA is not valid, he would not have the right to install the software in any form (since such rights are only granted by the EULA). So technically no one under the age of eighteen can install Microsoft software (or GPL software for that matter, it has more than a few EULA like clauses).
Of course, as John Stossel once pointed out, most state governments in the US heavily restrict gambling except under certain circumstances, then run lotteries and encourage their citizens to play. Silly and hypocritical, at best.
There's a reason that sports betting is illegal in most of the US: it would destroy the state lotteries. The typical state lottery has a vig of 50-60% (In Massachusetts, 50% of each ticket is tax and c.10% is taken to cover administrative expenses; only 40% of the take is distributed to winners... thus you have to win 2.5 times more than luck would dictate to break even).
Contrast with a sports book. Assuming standard Vegas odds, the vig is less than 5%, since the payouts are 11-10. In order to break even in sports betting, you only need to be 4-5% better than dumb luck.
It almost makes me wonder if we'd all be better off if the Mafia ran the US... it can't be worse than being run by the RIAA/MPAA...;o)
My god, the original submitter is an idiot. Cuba is a communist nation, arguably the closest thing to a pure Marxist state left in the world. Fidel isn't banning computers because they could be used for piracy. He's banning them for the same reason that China set up that nationwide firewall and proxy server: he doesn't want his people to communicate with the 'decadent' capitalist world.
I imagine that if he thought striking against the MPAA/RIAA would deal a blow to the US economic system, he would be encouraging his people to pirate.
Mandrake offers it as an optional package. However, the entire distro was compiled with 2.96 (because of Mandrake's Red Hat compatibility policy), so 2.96 is the preferred compiler.
The injunctions against writing passwords down are taken from military doctrine and do not apply to the personal case. In the military, if someone forgets a password, there is not a significant loss? Why? Because a call can go up the chain and the password can be entered.
The problem is that personal users, fearful of losing data because they forget the password, choose an easy to guess password. Ultimately, writing the passphrase down in a safe place is acceptable practice, imho.
F'rinstance, my passphrase is written in my wallet, but the actual phrase is an obfuscation of that phrase. The odds of someone stealing my wallet and knowing which accounts I use this passphrase on are slim enough for me to take this risk.
Granted, if you write your passphrase down, you might make it easier for Three Letter Agencies to snag your message traffic if they search you.
The assertion that you should never write passwords down is not necessarily a good one. When deciding whether to write the password down, determine two things: 1) what damage is done if someone steals my password 2) what damage is done if I forget the password. In most cases of personal encryption, writing it down does little harm.
This is a very important question. Most experts say never write down your passphrase under any circumstances. This approach comes from military doctrine, but military crypto systems are designed in such a way that one person forgetting a passphrase is not a calamity.
I believe most people are more afraid of forgetting their own passphrase than they are of having it stolen. As a result they tend to pick passphrases that are far too weak. I actually did a small survey on this question and the results support my view. See http://world.std.com/~reinhold/passphrase.survey.a sc
Also many people need multiple passphrases for different programs and needs. Remembering them all can be difficult, particularly those that are used infrequently. For most people it is better to pick strong passphrases, write them down and keep them in a very safe place. There may be legal advantages to memorizing your key, however.
I use a Diceware password for my PGP (slightly obfuscated). The password is written unobfuscated in my wallet. I had no difficulty memorizing it, but I might forget it in the future, so I have some insurance.
To anybody and everybody out there with insecure passphrases: Use DiceWare.
...last year, I accidentally did some portscanning (I was getting Samba up and running and forgot the WINS server; OIT's web page didn't have that information readily available. So I scanned the entire 128.119.0.0/16 subnet for a WINS server) and got my ethernet card blacklisted (I was still able to log on to the public machines). I met with OIT and explained to/convinced their netops guys that I wasn't evil. I ended up scoring extra points by being very vigilant from then on about reporting hacking attempts from the university subnet (as OIT's detection systems are mainly designed for external attacks).
So my advice is be contrite, say you'll never do it again; if you want to do it again, ask them first (maybe going UNODIR would work, also). And if there's anything they need help with, don't hesitate to give it.
Remember, netops people have a tendency to be just like you. They've just had to deal with far too many morons who do stupid things while breaking the AUP. As a result, any violations are assumed to be the work of a moron. If you can demonstrate that you know what you're doing and can be trusted running a wireless gateway (stay away from WEP... use end-to-end IPSec), they'll be much more likely to let it slide.
Isn't one of the objections to UCITA that it does allow such changing of contracts?
UCITA, IIRC, essentially amends contract law to specifically allow modification of the contract ex post facto in the case of click-thru licenses. Without UCITA, such is probably legal, but not necessarily (no court has heard a case on the issue). Again, the operative principle is that it has to be referenced in a prior agreement between the parties.
Essentially, UCITA sets the idea of later modification to a click-thru license in stone (barring constitutionality challenges, of course).
before starting the boycott read the comments here: {DELETED FOR BREVITY --LR} Many agree with the concerns of Apache although they voted yes.
I mentioned those companies which expressed reservations while voting yes. However, their comments do not change the fact that they took action knowing the damage that this could cause the Open Source community. This is analogous (though not as severe) as someone voting for the Nazi Party and saying, "We'll address the concerns of Kristallnacht and Mein Kampf later."
Especially damning is that two of these companies (Apple and Caldera) have used open source to further their corporate aims. While I have no problem with that, I do have a problem with them stabbing the community in the back on this. Apple and Caldera have fallen below my respect for this, and I respect Microsoft. I would cheer if Windows XP was ported to the PowerPC and drove MacOS X into an early grave. I would consider it a step forward if every shop running Caldera switched tomorrow to the appropriate flavor of Windows for their application.
Slashdot Mirror
Over at IBiblio, they've launched a plan for free community recording studios, under the condition that the recordings be public domain. I'm not convinced that this is the way to do it; I think maybe some sort of GPL for music might be better.
NBC's in Burbank, too. They probably want to see the CBDTA pass...
No, just give campaign contributions to his opponents.
Did they have 404's in 1966, also?
I could see putting a 486 in a freezer. I mean, you could overclock a 486-100 to 2 GHz and get the performance of, say, a 1 GHz Celeron.
Actually, it doesn't.
Peking?
Sorry, I had to say it...
Kerry's a lost cause. He's bought and paid for by Hollywood because, as a Democrat, he needs their money for his White House run in 2004.
If I were a campaign strategist for someone running against Kerry this year, I'd nail him to a cross if he expresses any support for this bill.
Envision the commercial:
I can dream, can't I?
To be blunt, yes. The only way around this is to have a legal guardian (generally a parent) sign something granting the child the right to enter into a contract with the food company.
Surely, some-one not bound by the terms of the EULA who had purchased the software would only be bound by the same laws covering (say) music CDs. Meaning they could install the software, and do anything with it so long as it was not expressly prohibited by copyright law. (Like copy it.)Any EULA worth its salt has a clause saying that use of the software constitutes agreement to the EULA. While this clause has not been found legally valid by a court of law, it is valid by default. AFAIK, there have been no cases questioning the validity of EULAs. Since the act of using the software therefore binds one to its terms, it is impossible to use the software without agreement to the terms. Since a minor cannot agree to the contract, the minor cannot use the software.
That said, no software company is insane enough to go after 15-year-olds using the software. If it ever got to court, there is at least some chance that major components of the license would be rendered inoperative (namely the "use constitutes agreement" clauses). So the software industry will not force the issue.
And those opposed to EULAs shouldn't necessarily be rushing to court. There is a chance that the courts will rule that the EULAs are fully legal, in which case the battle over UCITA will become moot and it will be up to us to pass laws explicitly overturning the EULA.
This is somewhat similar to the Second Amendment. That amendment is almost never invoked in the courts for fear that a definitive interpretation will result which ends the stalemate.
I should have been more clear...
Under US law, minors cannot agree to the GPL. Therefore they cannot modify or distribute code licensed under the GPL, because:
Now it's not entirely clear what modification of the software means (the same can be said of distribution). Obviously modifying the source code applies. An interesting question is if configuration files included with the distribution qualify. IANAL, but an argument could be made that such configuration files do apply (configuration files that are not included with the software are a different matter).
The end result is that, legally speaking, nobody under 18 can modify or distribute a GPL work. So if you're 17 and give your friend a Debian CD, the FSF could technically go after you for distribution without the right to distribute. If you're 14 and posting patches to the LKML, Linus could file suit against you for a GPL violation.
Granted, this is unlikely to occur. The press would be horrible. But is the law.
The way around this is simple, have your parents "sign" for you. I would imagine that an affidavit stating that they bind you to the terms of the GPL would be sufficient, but again, IANAL.
Yes, he's not bound by the EULA. However, since the EULA is not valid, he would not have the right to install the software in any form (since such rights are only granted by the EULA). So technically no one under the age of eighteen can install Microsoft software (or GPL software for that matter, it has more than a few EULA like clauses).
There's a reason that sports betting is illegal in most of the US: it would destroy the state lotteries. The typical state lottery has a vig of 50-60% (In Massachusetts, 50% of each ticket is tax and c.10% is taken to cover administrative expenses; only 40% of the take is distributed to winners... thus you have to win 2.5 times more than luck would dictate to break even).
Contrast with a sports book. Assuming standard Vegas odds, the vig is less than 5%, since the payouts are 11-10. In order to break even in sports betting, you only need to be 4-5% better than dumb luck.
It almost makes me wonder if we'd all be better off if the Mafia ran the US... it can't be worse than being run by the RIAA/MPAA... ;o)
My god, the original submitter is an idiot. Cuba is a communist nation, arguably the closest thing to a pure Marxist state left in the world. Fidel isn't banning computers because they could be used for piracy. He's banning them for the same reason that China set up that nationwide firewall and proxy server: he doesn't want his people to communicate with the 'decadent' capitalist world.
I imagine that if he thought striking against the MPAA/RIAA would deal a blow to the US economic system, he would be encouraging his people to pirate.
Look again at the post you've linked to:
This user's id is actually "CmdrTaco on". (spaces are legal in usernames).
Kinda brings the Weekend Update where Adam Sandler sang "Demi Moore gets 12 million for her next movie/4 for herself and 4 for each boobie."
Mandrake offers it as an optional package. However, the entire distro was compiled with 2.96 (because of Mandrake's Red Hat compatibility policy), so 2.96 is the preferred compiler.
The injunctions against writing passwords down are taken from military doctrine and do not apply to the personal case. In the military, if someone forgets a password, there is not a significant loss? Why? Because a call can go up the chain and the password can be entered.
The problem is that personal users, fearful of losing data because they forget the password, choose an easy to guess password. Ultimately, writing the passphrase down in a safe place is acceptable practice, imho.
F'rinstance, my passphrase is written in my wallet, but the actual phrase is an obfuscation of that phrase. The odds of someone stealing my wallet and knowing which accounts I use this passphrase on are slim enough for me to take this risk.
Granted, if you write your passphrase down, you might make it easier for Three Letter Agencies to snag your message traffic if they search you.
The assertion that you should never write passwords down is not necessarily a good one. When deciding whether to write the password down, determine two things: 1) what damage is done if someone steals my password 2) what damage is done if I forget the password. In most cases of personal encryption, writing it down does little harm.
From the Diceware FAQ:
I use a Diceware password for my PGP (slightly obfuscated). The password is written unobfuscated in my wallet. I had no difficulty memorizing it, but I might forget it in the future, so I have some insurance.
To anybody and everybody out there with insecure passphrases: Use DiceWare.
What about end-to-end IPSec?
...last year, I accidentally did some portscanning (I was getting Samba up and running and forgot the WINS server; OIT's web page didn't have that information readily available. So I scanned the entire 128.119.0.0/16 subnet for a WINS server) and got my ethernet card blacklisted (I was still able to log on to the public machines). I met with OIT and explained to/convinced their netops guys that I wasn't evil. I ended up scoring extra points by being very vigilant from then on about reporting hacking attempts from the university subnet (as OIT's detection systems are mainly designed for external attacks).
So my advice is be contrite, say you'll never do it again; if you want to do it again, ask them first (maybe going UNODIR would work, also). And if there's anything they need help with, don't hesitate to give it.
Remember, netops people have a tendency to be just like you. They've just had to deal with far too many morons who do stupid things while breaking the AUP. As a result, any violations are assumed to be the work of a moron. If you can demonstrate that you know what you're doing and can be trusted running a wireless gateway (stay away from WEP... use end-to-end IPSec), they'll be much more likely to let it slide.
UCITA, IIRC, essentially amends contract law to specifically allow modification of the contract ex post facto in the case of click-thru licenses. Without UCITA, such is probably legal, but not necessarily (no court has heard a case on the issue). Again, the operative principle is that it has to be referenced in a prior agreement between the parties.
Essentially, UCITA sets the idea of later modification to a click-thru license in stone (barring constitutionality challenges, of course).
"I think he's attempting reentry!"
10 points to whoever replies with the movie that's from...
I mentioned those companies which expressed reservations while voting yes. However, their comments do not change the fact that they took action knowing the damage that this could cause the Open Source community. This is analogous (though not as severe) as someone voting for the Nazi Party and saying, "We'll address the concerns of Kristallnacht and Mein Kampf later."
Especially damning is that two of these companies (Apple and Caldera) have used open source to further their corporate aims. While I have no problem with that, I do have a problem with them stabbing the community in the back on this. Apple and Caldera have fallen below my respect for this, and I respect Microsoft. I would cheer if Windows XP was ported to the PowerPC and drove MacOS X into an early grave. I would consider it a step forward if every shop running Caldera switched tomorrow to the appropriate flavor of Windows for their application.
Steve Ballmer is definitely #2...
*rimshot*
To boycott the following companies, who voted to exclude Open Source: