4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
That section says that the customer has a licence for that copy of the Linux kernel, not any other. Section 4 does not apply only to users who received copies from distributors who were completely in compliance with the GPL, because sec. 6 would make the emphasized language entirely superfluous under that interpretation:
That would seem to imply that a patch can be considered not to be derivative work. Is it so?
Some versions of the Grsecurity article seem to imply that Bruce is the only one who argues that's a violation. IANAL, and I think if that's not a violation then the GPL is badly written (perhaps thet's why there is v3.) RMS's statement is unusually laconic.
Phew, a decent comment, at last. Not decent enough to mod it up, so I reply instead.
"We" don't use IT, so we don't mind about cybersecurity. Thanks to shaitand's explanation, now we know that's the reason why students —as well as other people— are not interested in learning how to hack. How come?
One example that comes to mind, recalling a three-year old talk, is the mindset by which you can't expect users to be the primary security managers of their own accounts. If we wanted e-commerce customers to be drawn from IT security experts only, we would still be going to shop by car (yeah, I know we still do... Cars dominate this discussion.)
Let me repeat myself, I'm at about one third through the comments, and the parent poster is about the first one on subject. Computers, algorithms, cybernetics, and that kind of stuff are all too important to be left in the incompetent hands of the populace. Let's discuss something else, please.
Hm... sooner or later someone will learn how to hack their way into intranet servers anyway, for example by emulating that device VPN. Intrusions are normal. The point is that if you allow diversity, it becomes unlikely that all servers are attacked simultaneously.
In addition, smaller data centers can afford smaller security teams, which implies better trust.
The real issue shouldn't be how mach man contributed to the change, but how much man can contribute to (slowing down) the change. That looking for a culprit sounds childish.
The cited article, 2016/11/17, gives no further references. The Daily Express citation doesn't even contain the word "1000". The Independent, Tuesday 15 November 2016, cites USA Today as a source....
Google finds a VOA News of April 11, 2013 2:07 PM, mentioning the same 1000 years theory three years ago. The phrase is ascribed to a 2008 ceremony marking the 50th anniversary of the NASA. So perhaps it should be 992.
Please mod parent up, if you have points. It is fully agreeable.
Let me add that by setting up tests a society implicitly invites courses. What courses on computing security are available today?
People are going to lose parental authority, driving licenses, and --except US-- firearm licenses, unless they don't prove to be able to manage suitably, or at least acceptably. Tests don't have to be hard, just put people on the right track. Otherwise, they play idiot because that's just what they're left with.
The parenthesized statement doesn't explain why Paypal doesn't allow anonymous payments. By contrast, identifications based on money accounts are among the most reliable, and payment is almost universally accepted as a means of identification. That concept is rooted into assumptions at the very base of human society, along with death and taxes.
Incentivize and reward is the key. Some people can self-motivate themselves, while others need a stronger input. Capitalism (liberism) can even be coercive. Modern communism (China) concedes noticeable leeway to individual initiative. On the other hand, capitalistic countries often embark on long term plans. Capitalism and communism became quite similar to each other.
Both capitalism and communism lean on a monetary system which has proved to be faulty. Consider corruption, unfitness to cooperation of the so-called intellectual property, crowd funding and donation-supported activities even for necessary pursuits. They are all symptoms that the current economic establishment —banks and stock market— is on the ropes. Perhaps technology can bring us better means for incentivizing and rewarding people. That's all we need.
You announce that there will be monetary compensation for the authors of the 10 bugs in each category that survive the largest number of code reviews.
So you have categorized bugs already, well done! That way you can prevent claims based on submissions that you don't consider bugs.
— Of course it's a bug, otherwise it would have been documented!
Zero is the only number which equals its double. Your math must be wrong, because I earned a little bit more than zero since the 1970s. Actually, I only started professional programming in the late 1980s. I'm lucky my dad earned much more by selling fresh food, otherwise I wouldn't have a household right now, let alone an income.
I managed to write some good software, though. I have the feeling that adding up all the software written since the 1970s, it is a heck of a grand job we did. We may still work the same hours and drive the same cars, but computers aren't quite the same.
Possibly, money isn't just the right unit of measurement, especially since it doesn't take free software into account. Alas, we have nothing better for comparing sundry stuff. For comparing software with itself, such as 1990s operating systems vs today's ones, we ought to use evolutionary concepts. Number of individuals, total energy, entropy, anything.
It doesn't look as fabricated stuff, no geek-friendly header fields. Look at this, for example. It seems to be derived from an original pdf, which bears a 2015 date on it. However vulnerable Clinton's server, the documents seem to have leaked from state dept.
I'm not so sure we could have science without politics. For sure, we cannot have science without religion.
Religion does not inhibit logical or deductive thinking. Rather, one inspires another. They band together, unless one falls prey of self-injury. For example, Darwin was renown for his theological merits before becoming famous for reinterpreting the design of Nature.
On the other hand, if we committed scientific research to a team of robots whose minds are so weak that they cannot conceive any moral or religious thought, most probably their outcome would be of no relevance whatsoever. They'd come out with a bunch of meaningless "laws" that nobody could believe or use.
Note that kWh per year is a pretty stupid unit, too...
Yes indeed. For example, we're troubling with watt-equivalent measures while phasing out incandescent bulbs. Would it be better had we always used lumen?
Ref [1] has a nice map too, but they don't tell what are those kWh being used for. Since establishing who supplies energy to whom is a political question, (mega)people still has some merits as a unit of measurement.
"Enough for 1.1M people" is a practical unit of measurement. They used to mention joules, but that unit is difficult for readers, especially Americans, who are better used to yards and pounds than meters and kilograms.
Furthermore, "enough for 1.1M people" suggests but does not hold that there are so many customers. One may wonder why Moroccan customers would buy energy from that plant, which implies paying not only production, but also payoff of initial outlay, plus transportation, plus the company profits rather than just build their own (see "Spain" below). That really doesn't matter, Sun is open source, and whenever solar energy replaces fossil, bad emissions are reduced —fossil energy entails contempt of dead body.
Where I break ranks is the requirement that a software author has to allow REDISTRIBUTION of his software. THAT is the killer here.
I see your point. However, constraining redistribution of software may become impractical. Let me explain myself by example. I recall a study on Literary machines before the advent of WWW. It was hypertext, with provisions for per-access micropayment. HTML was much simpler and straightforward, so it won.
What about redistribution of profits? I'm not advocating communism, it has already been tried and failed. I don't have a solution at hand. Yet, it seems to me that software is more important to mankind than the current establishment. Aristocracy passed and nobody regrets. Now we have a different ruling class, based on earning money by selling goods and services. It will pass too. Software won't. How about helping such transition?
As someone who tried to learn gimp, then bought PS, PS is far, far easier to learn than GIMP.
I guess I didn't want to risk buying, if I wasn't able to learn how to use it during its free 30-day trial.
I had bought the whole suite, Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver and LiveMotion. Hard to learn, hard to upgrade, overly slow because of ubiquitous scripts. Switching to Gimp, Inkscape, Gedit, Tex, and other compatible stuff was such a relief!
Yes, one has to be a bit cuter. That's not the kind of software to spoon feed its users. In return, learning yields the ability to choose one's own food.
It's not easy to do software for a career. In most cases, it's not the programmer who earns the big bucks. Programmers are deprived of their inventions by assuming they are writing at their employer's dictation. OTOH, users are forced to run obsolete software because upgrades require paying anew. Software producers who adopt the free software model help both ways.
I'm not saying the free software model is easy, but we already tried proprietary software. Perhaps, software is just too complex to fit a simple law of supply and demand. So, what stops us from trying alternatives? It looks as if it is the fear of not earning as much money as possible otherwise. Greed. Not programmers' or users', but money makers' greed, as with any other business. Please consider the environment before using proprietary software...
I think you guys got it wrong. Trump didn't talk about black-listing APNIC or cutting off the US... He proposed closing that Internet up in some ways. I'm not saying he is going to actually do anything of what he trumpets, even if he gets elected. But, just so as to get his proposal straight, consider:
It addresses traditional one-way communication; the press has to be responsible,
mentions kids that are watching the Internet, and
is worried about inside recruiters, we have a lot of foolish people.
The proposal consists of shutting the Internet down completely. In fact, when we had old, dial-up MSN, and the Internet was almost unused, there were no terrorists popping up out of nowhere, at least not Muslims. That makes sense, let's see Bill Gates. It doesn't matter if we have invested so much in maintaining that global communication infrastructure, security is vital, business is optional. Don't you think so? See this.
Er, because you cannot inspect (encrypted) packets like you do real stuff?
(For example, customs can block a memory card, say, until a responsible person explains its content.)
Slashdot Mirror
GPLv2 sec. 4 states:
That section says that the customer has a licence for that copy of the Linux kernel, not any other. Section 4 does not apply only to users who received copies from distributors who were completely in compliance with the GPL, because sec. 6 would make the emphasized language entirely superfluous under that interpretation:
That would seem to imply that a patch can be considered not to be derivative work. Is it so?
Some versions of the Grsecurity article seem to imply that Bruce is the only one who argues that's a violation. IANAL, and I think if that's not a violation then the GPL is badly written (perhaps thet's why there is v3.) RMS's statement is unusually laconic.
Phew, a decent comment, at last. Not decent enough to mod it up, so I reply instead.
"We" don't use IT, so we don't mind about cybersecurity. Thanks to shaitand's explanation, now we know that's the reason why students —as well as other people— are not interested in learning how to hack. How come?
One example that comes to mind, recalling a three-year old talk, is the mindset by which you can't expect users to be the primary security managers of their own accounts. If we wanted e-commerce customers to be drawn from IT security experts only, we would still be going to shop by car (yeah, I know we still do... Cars dominate this discussion.)
Let me repeat myself, I'm at about one third through the comments, and the parent poster is about the first one on subject. Computers, algorithms, cybernetics, and that kind of stuff are all too important to be left in the incompetent hands of the populace. Let's discuss something else, please.
Hm... sooner or later someone will learn how to hack their way into intranet servers anyway, for example by emulating that device VPN. Intrusions are normal. The point is that if you allow diversity, it becomes unlikely that all servers are attacked simultaneously.
In addition, smaller data centers can afford smaller security teams, which implies better trust.
So perhaps it isn't such a bad idea to use your home-brew email server after all.
When an AI can explain how AI works, then maybe I'll believe that it's an AI. Until then ...
Since a human brain can't explain how a brain works, that seems like a silly criteria.
A human being can explain why they have made a decision.
Do you allege Trump is not a human being?
Berlin's Xmas truck was actually stopped by that kind of anti-crash software. It didn't avoid all casualties, but most likely saved many lives. (Article: Berlin truck’s automatic braking system ‘may have saved lives’)
If guns had a reliable mechanism to prevent harm, we could probably carry them on-flight as well.
Bravo! That's exactly what I would have written. Posted messages don't kill. Cars do. Which might be why many cars already have a back door...
The real issue shouldn't be how mach man contributed to the change, but how much man can contribute to (slowing down) the change. That looking for a culprit sounds childish.
The cited article, 2016/11/17, gives no further references. The Daily Express citation doesn't even contain the word "1000". The Independent, Tuesday 15 November 2016, cites USA Today as a source....
Google finds a VOA News of April 11, 2013 2:07 PM, mentioning the same 1000 years theory three years ago. The phrase is ascribed to a 2008 ceremony marking the 50th anniversary of the NASA. So perhaps it should be 992.
Hawking's original reckoning is missing.
Please mod parent up, if you have points. It is fully agreeable.
Let me add that by setting up tests a society implicitly invites courses. What courses on computing security are available today?
People are going to lose parental authority, driving licenses, and --except US-- firearm licenses, unless they don't prove to be able to manage suitably, or at least acceptably. Tests don't have to be hard, just put people on the right track. Otherwise, they play idiot because that's just what they're left with.
The parenthesized statement doesn't explain why Paypal doesn't allow anonymous payments. By contrast, identifications based on money accounts are among the most reliable, and payment is almost universally accepted as a means of identification. That concept is rooted into assumptions at the very base of human society, along with death and taxes.
Incentivize and reward is the key. Some people can self-motivate themselves, while others need a stronger input. Capitalism (liberism) can even be coercive. Modern communism (China) concedes noticeable leeway to individual initiative. On the other hand, capitalistic countries often embark on long term plans. Capitalism and communism became quite similar to each other.
Both capitalism and communism lean on a monetary system which has proved to be faulty. Consider corruption, unfitness to cooperation of the so-called intellectual property, crowd funding and donation-supported activities even for necessary pursuits. They are all symptoms that the current economic establishment —banks and stock market— is on the ropes. Perhaps technology can bring us better means for incentivizing and rewarding people. That's all we need.
You announce that there will be monetary compensation for the authors of the 10 bugs in each category that survive the largest number of code reviews.
So you have categorized bugs already, well done! That way you can prevent claims based on submissions that you don't consider bugs.
—
Of course it's a bug, otherwise it would have been documented!
Zero is the only number which equals its double. Your math must be wrong, because I earned a little bit more than zero since the 1970s. Actually, I only started professional programming in the late 1980s. I'm lucky my dad earned much more by selling fresh food, otherwise I wouldn't have a household right now, let alone an income.
I managed to write some good software, though. I have the feeling that adding up all the software written since the 1970s, it is a heck of a grand job we did. We may still work the same hours and drive the same cars, but computers aren't quite the same.
Possibly, money isn't just the right unit of measurement, especially since it doesn't take free software into account. Alas, we have nothing better for comparing sundry stuff. For comparing software with itself, such as 1990s operating systems vs today's ones, we ought to use evolutionary concepts. Number of individuals, total energy, entropy, anything.
It doesn't look as fabricated stuff, no geek-friendly header fields. Look at this, for example. It seems to be derived from an original pdf, which bears a 2015 date on it. However vulnerable Clinton's server, the documents seem to have leaked from state dept.
Just cold hard science.
I'm not so sure we could have science without politics. For sure, we cannot have science without religion.
Religion does not inhibit logical or deductive thinking. Rather, one inspires another. They band together, unless one falls prey of self-injury. For example, Darwin was renown for his theological merits before becoming famous for reinterpreting the design of Nature.
On the other hand, if we committed scientific research to a team of robots whose minds are so weak that they cannot conceive any moral or religious thought, most probably their outcome would be of no relevance whatsoever. They'd come out with a bunch of meaningless "laws" that nobody could believe or use.
Note that kWh per year is a pretty stupid unit, too...
Yes indeed. For example, we're troubling with watt-equivalent measures while phasing out incandescent bulbs. Would it be better had we always used lumen?
Ref [1] has a nice map too, but they don't tell what are those kWh being used for. Since establishing who supplies energy to whom is a political question, (mega)people still has some merits as a unit of measurement.
"Enough for 1.1M people" is a practical unit of measurement. They used to mention joules, but that unit is difficult for readers, especially Americans, who are better used to yards and pounds than meters and kilograms.
Furthermore, "enough for 1.1M people" suggests but does not hold that there are so many customers. One may wonder why Moroccan customers would buy energy from that plant, which implies paying not only production, but also payoff of initial outlay, plus transportation, plus the company profits rather than just build their own (see "Spain" below). That really doesn't matter, Sun is open source, and whenever solar energy replaces fossil, bad emissions are reduced —fossil energy entails contempt of dead body.
Where I break ranks is the requirement that a software author has to allow REDISTRIBUTION of his software. THAT is the killer here.
I see your point. However, constraining redistribution of software may become impractical. Let me explain myself by example. I recall a study on Literary machines before the advent of WWW. It was hypertext, with provisions for per-access micropayment. HTML was much simpler and straightforward, so it won.
What about redistribution of profits? I'm not advocating communism, it has already been tried and failed. I don't have a solution at hand. Yet, it seems to me that software is more important to mankind than the current establishment. Aristocracy passed and nobody regrets. Now we have a different ruling class, based on earning money by selling goods and services. It will pass too. Software won't. How about helping such transition?
As someone who tried to learn gimp, then bought PS, PS is far, far easier to learn than GIMP.
I guess I didn't want to risk buying, if I wasn't able to learn how to use it during its free 30-day trial.
I had bought the whole suite, Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver and LiveMotion. Hard to learn, hard to upgrade, overly slow because of ubiquitous scripts. Switching to Gimp, Inkscape, Gedit, Tex, and other compatible stuff was such a relief!
Yes, one has to be a bit cuter. That's not the kind of software to spoon feed its users. In return, learning yields the ability to choose one's own food.
It's not easy to do software for a career. In most cases, it's not the programmer who earns the big bucks. Programmers are deprived of their inventions by assuming they are writing at their employer's dictation. OTOH, users are forced to run obsolete software because upgrades require paying anew. Software producers who adopt the free software model help both ways.
I'm not saying the free software model is easy, but we already tried proprietary software. Perhaps, software is just too complex to fit a simple law of supply and demand. So, what stops us from trying alternatives? It looks as if it is the fear of not earning as much money as possible otherwise. Greed. Not programmers' or users', but money makers' greed, as with any other business. Please consider the environment before using proprietary software...
Hm... locking radicals doesn't seem counter intuitive to me, just plain wrong.
It is a bet, we are betting we're better than them, but we cannot back up that either. It is a belief, not an assertion. Can we stand the competition?
I think you guys got it wrong. Trump didn't talk about black-listing APNIC or cutting off the US... He proposed closing that Internet up in some ways. I'm not saying he is going to actually do anything of what he trumpets, even if he gets elected. But, just so as to get his proposal straight, consider:
The proposal consists of shutting the Internet down completely. In fact, when we had old, dial-up MSN, and the Internet was almost unused, there were no terrorists popping up out of nowhere, at least not Muslims. That makes sense, let's see Bill Gates. It doesn't matter if we have invested so much in maintaining that global communication infrastructure, security is vital, business is optional. Don't you think so? See this.
Er, because you cannot inspect (encrypted) packets like you do real stuff?
(For example, customs can block a memory card, say, until a responsible person explains its content.)
By the same ratio that human-readable plates were mandated in the pre-digital era, one would expect some kind of transponder be mandated now.
At any rate, plate-scanning requires surveillance cameras. Privacy rules have to be stated for the latter.