I'll cough up the extra $10 when it can: 1. Read Metallica CD audio data 2. Write copy of Metallica CD audio data 3. Read Mettalica CD label 4. Write copy of Mettalica CD label
To expect that password protection in documents can prevent modification to a document is utterly foolish... if a file can be read, its bytes can be changed and saved as a new file.
The only legally defensible approach to digital document integrity is digital signatures with public/private keying. Digital signatures do not prevent modification, but instead can be used to prove that a document has been modified without consent of the original signer.
Current digital signature technology is capable of providing overwelming legal proof that the integrity of a document is tied to the secrecy of a private key.
Oddly enough, the legal strength of digital signatures is frightening to businesses. If Dell price quotes were digitally signed, and someone presented a Dell price quote with valid digital signature in court... Dell's only defense would be that Dell made a mistake... or that someone got access to the private key without Dell authorization. That's a difficult legal position for Dell. Better to use some cheesy pasword-in-the-document crap that is easily discredited in court, so Dell can claim the quote has been tampered with and therefore not binding.
I don't mean to pick on Dell in particular... I think many companies are wary of digital signatures because of their legal strength.
...those hanging steel ball contraptions... try and build a NOT gate out of one of those!
Hmmm... How about this:
Simultaneously swing the left ball and your input (I) on the right ball... then read the result (R) on the left ball. It works like this:
if I = True then swing the left ball and the right (I) ball simultaneously... then notice that the left (R) ball stops dead... representing false.
so I = True --> R = False
If I = False then swing the left ball and do not swing the right (I) ball... then notice that the left (R) ball continues to swing... representing true.
so I = False --> R = True
It's clumsy, but if you could somehow combine it with a V shaped OR gate then you would have that holy grail NOR device.
...can't you massage any logic function to be implemented with any sort of gates you want?
Not so... If you design a device that implements the NOT function -- a NOT gate -- there are no combinations of your device that will yield OR, AND, NOR, NAND, etc.
Similarly, you cannot implement all those functions with only OR gates or only AND gates.
But... combinations of NOR gates can be used to implement NOT, OR, AND, NAND, etc. The same is true for NAND gates but NOR gates are usually easier to implement.
Of course, it's not very efficient to implement complex functions using only NOR gates... but it's interesting that it can be done.
If a cascading molecule NOT gate is hard then thier cascading domino metaphor must not be accurate... It's easy to build a domino NOT gate. Here's how:
TtttttttttttttR i i I
It's 2 runs in an L shape. Simultaneously gate a True signal at T and the input signal at I, read the result at R. Note: True = Falls, False = Stands.
Here's how it works: If I = True then the shorter I run knocks down the last t. When the longer T run reaches R, the last t will already have fallen so R will not fall. so we have: I = True --> R = False
If I = False then the T run will knock down R. So we have: I = False --> R = True
That's a NOT gate!
Combine that with a V shaped OR gate and you have a NOR gate. It's well known that any logic function can be constructed from NOR gates.
A malicious DOS fiend will cover his tracks and will not be found.
Frustrated Law Enforcers who can't get the guy they want, will get the guy they can.
A lack of criminal convictions shows incompetence, but fortunately, enough innocents will fall into this vaguely worded trap to keep the trials rolling at a fair clip.
Here's what Webster says: "measures taken to guard against espionage or sabotage, crime, attack, or escape".
You've stated the obvious and dodged the point. The point is that some products advertized to the consumer as secure fail to disclose that the security is for someone else -- they give the false impression that the security is for the consumer.
Be honest. If you bought a product advertised as secure... say a home... would'nt you assume that it was designed to prevent espionage or sabatoge against you? Prevent crime or attack against you?
Wether the idea of security for Company X in a product is valid or not is for the consumer to decide.
Manufacturers should be required to fully disclose who these products are secured for, and how that security will be used to extract more money from the property owner.
Let a fully informed consumer decide if it's worth paying extra for security that secures her property against her, for the benefit of Company X.
In the case of Xbox, it's only slightly less agregious. Microsoft understands that the security is for Microsoft, so they don't prominently advertise Xbox security to consumers. But is hiding this security from the consumer really any better?
I say that manufacturers should be required to fully disclose the situation to consumers before purchase. Something like a prominent label that says:
Disclosure : This product contains security features that secure the product against the owner for the benefit of Company X
Good point. Employment is basically a commercial transaction -- the Employee sells services, the Employer buys those services.
Have you ever told the clerk at BestBuy that this GadgetX is worth 50% more so you have decided to pay 50% more for it? Of course not... you'll buy it at the advertised price and smile that you got such a bargain... employers do the same.
Every buyer has their comfort price... including employers buying employee's services.
Your responsiblilty in this counter offer is to decide wether thier counter salary exceeds thier comfort salary for your position. If it does then they may have countered just to buy time... keep you in place until they can replace you.
Think of it as two separate offers. Analyze them both and decide which is best for your career -- now and in the future.
Here's a few things to think about vis-a-vis your current employer :
Viability: Why did'nt your employer offer you a salary increase before? Was it that they could'nt afford it or just that you had not pressed for a raise? If they could'nt afford it before, are you sure they can afford your raise now?
Resentment: Will management feel you are setting a bad precident -- others might want raises? Will your peers who also took a salary cut during the dot.bomb resent your increase?
You're right... Security in the Xbox case has nothing to do with protecting the consumer's personal property and information from the bad guys.
It uses the new meaning of the word secure. The meaning championed by IP Cartels like the MPAA and RIAA, by initiatives like SDMI and by products like the Secure Digital Memory Card. Jane Consumer buys secure products because she thinks they will prevent access by people she considers thieves. But if her product uses the new meaning of secure then it was designed to prevent access by people the IP Cartels consider thieves... and Jane soon realizes there is really only one person considered a thief -- herself, the Consumer.
The new-meaning-of-secure products are secured against the Consumer -- the buyer and owner of the product.
In the Xbox case, the new Security works like this:
Jane Consumer has just purchased her new secure Xbox and can theoretically play any game that is compatible with her Xbox hardware and OS. Fortunately, any Company that designs games for MS Windows can, with a little effort, figure out how to design Xbox compatible games.
Unfortunately, Jane can't play Xbox hardware+OS compatible games because Xbox security locks her out -- and Microsoft won't sell her a key to open it. MS instead sells the keys to Game Companies through License fees that are passed on to the Consumer. So Jane ends up buying an Xbox, a game and a key to let the game in.
The beauty of this scheme is that Jane can't just buy the key once, open her Xbox, and be done with her new-found security forever. She has to buy the key with every copy of every game that she will ever buy for her Xbox.
The new-meaning-of-secure products are not designed to protect Consumers' property and information. Nor are they designed to harrass and annoy Consumers. They are designed to extract more money from Consumers.
Fortunately for Consumers, unlocking these new secure products, through the modern magic of digital wizardry, requires no additional knowledge or effort. All it takes is a little more money -- Jane & Joe Consumers' money of course...
Face it Folks... if you design unsecured products with lifetime warranties, you are in the wrong business. A Consumer will buy your product about once. But that same Consumer will soon pay an IP fee every time she uses her new IP-Utilizing product. I.E. her new music player, video player, book reader, game console (insert future IP-Utilizing product here).
Security in the Xbox case has nothing to do with protecting the consumer's personal property and information from the bad guys.
It uses the new meaning of the word secure. The meaning championed by IP Cartels like the MPAA and RIAA, by initiatives like SDMI and by products like the Secure Digital Memory Card. Jane Consumer buys secure products because she thinks they will prevent access by people she considers thieves. But if her product uses the new meaning of secure then it was designed to prevent access by people the IP Cartels consider thieves... and Jane soon realizes there is really only one person considered a thief -- herself, the Consumer.
The new-meaning-of-secure products are secured against the Consumer -- the buyer and owner of the product.
In the Xbox case, the new Security works like this:
Jane Consumer has just purchased her new secure Xbox and can theoretically play any game that is compatible with her Xbox hardware and OS. Fortunately, any Company that designs games for MS Windows can, with a little effort, figure out how to design Xbox compatible games.
Unfortunately, Jane can't play Xbox hardware+OS compatible games because Xbox security locks her out -- and Microsoft won't sell her a key to open it. MS instead sells the keys to Game Companies through License fees that are passed on to the Consumer. So Jane ends up buying an Xbox, a game and a key to let the game in.
The beauty of this scheme is that Jane can't just buy the key once, open her Xbox, and be done with her new-found security forever. She has to buy the key with every copy of every game that she will ever buy for her Xbox.
The new-meaning-of-secure products are not designed to protect Consumers' property and information. Nor are they designed to harrass and annoy Consumers. They are designed to extract more money from Consumers.
Fortunately for Consumers, unlocking these new secure products, through the modern magic of digital wizardry, requires no additional knowledge or effort. All it takes is a little more money -- Jane & Joe Consumers' money of course...
Face it Folks... if you design unsecured products with lifetime warranties, you are in the wrong business. A Consumer will buy your product about once. But that same Consumer will soon pay an IP fee every time she uses her new IP-Utilizing product. I.E. her new music player, video player, book reader, game console (insert future IP-Utilizing product here).
Jono
In place swap of two variables
on
Deep Algorithms?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
OK... It's not deep... but using XOR to swap the value of two variables is pretty fun. No temporary storage needed!
// Swap A and B
A ^= B;
B ^= A;
A ^= B; // Swap of A and B complete
Jono
Re:Anonymity will be lost on product release
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 1
Ummm... from the article: They will then GPL the obfuscated gobbledygook...
by the way... sorry about the extra "be" in my original post.
Must use preview. Must use preview. Must use preview:o)
Anonymity will be lost on product release
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 1
A Lawsuit will be happen
While your Company can remain anonymous for now, that anonymity will be lost when you release your product.
Once you release binaries under GPL, someone will demand the Source Code. When you provide them with unmaintainable obfuscated source they will sound the "GPL VIOLATION" siren. No matter how much you obfuscate, the original GPL programmers will recognise thier work... it will be immediately known which GPL work has been violated.
Your Lawyer may be betting that this strategy will raise enough doubt to intimidate a few GPL in-thier-free-time programmers from bringing a lawsuit. Will the Original GPL programmers risk time and money on a lawsuit they may not win?
If that's the rationale then source obfuscation is not even necessary. I believe you could take almost any GPLed work and release it under a proprietary license, and the original few authors will not be able to act against you alone.
Your Company must understand that thier tactic is designed to break the efficacy of the GPL. Then they will realise that there is a Foundation, a whole community and several companies whose survival depends on the efficacy of the GPL. Therefore, those few injured programmers will be joined. A lawsuit will be brought. Your Company will be damaged.
Overlaying information from DBs onto our field-of-awareness is fascinating. Also useful would be Enhanced Sensory Perception. Devices exist for this already, but they have not been fused into a single field-of-awareness device. Some categories of Enhanced Sensory Perception are:
Super Sensory: Our current senses are extended to sense lower intensities and wider spectrum. e.g. Hear faint conversations, sounds too high or low in frequency. See faint things, see infra-red, utraviolet, etc. Smell faint traces, smell chemicals beyond our current detection.
Extra Sensory:Sense information that is alien to our sensory system. e.g. Sense UWB Radio to "see" through walls and into the ground. Sense magnetism.
Limited Sensing: Cap the intensity of sensory input, to prevent the "stun", and temporary loss of perception effects of extreme intensity inputs. e.g. Reduce the intensity of loud bangs and bright flashes. Another critical goal of limited sensing is to prevent sensory overload. Sensory overload is easily reached when fusing Enhanced Sensory Perception and Information from DBs into our field-of-awareness. The system must attempt to limit this augmentation to areas that represent danger, are of known interest to us personally, or are in our current focus area. e.g. Do we want to hear every faint sound ?... or just the voice of a distant person we are looking at? Do we want to see the IR signature of everything?... or just when it would enhance our perception of danger, interest, or current focus? Selectivly limiting and hilighting sensory input is the make-or-break job of a usable Augmented Reality Device.
A more careful reading of the article shows that the Java "byte" keyword == C# "sbyte" keyword -- Both are signed byte data types.
C# has the unsigned byte data type which it labels "byte"... Java does not have unsigned byte.
I am dismayed to see that you bypassed the issue of Patents entirely. Your answer to the Patent question did not even include the word Patent!
IBM's current strategy regarding Patents does not appear to be about gaining a monopoly in patented areas, but instead seems focused on 3 main areas:
To defend against Lawsuits: If company ABC threatens to sue over IBM's use of ABC patent #nnnnn, then IBM can threaten suit over ABC's use of IBM Patent #mmmmm.
To prevent IBM lockout:Anyone writing software that is covered by an IBM Patent must reach an agreement with IBM. This gives IBM the opportunity to structure the agreement in a way that insures IBM will not be locked out of future progress in the area covered by her Patents.
To reach into non-IBM Patent areas: IBM can use cross-licensing agreements to extend her reach into areas not covered by IBM Patents.
I believe all these areas can be enhanced by IBM making a subset of her Patents available under both proprietary agreements, and the GPL (or similar). I suggest that allowing some IBM Patents to be used in GPL software will increase the value of those Patents, without harm to IBM. Drastically decreasing the time and expense required to use IBM Patents will stimulate the use of said Patents and thus increase their value. In the field of Software, there is nothing more worthless than unused (or under utilized) Patents.
Open Source could benefit the 3 areas as follows:
To defend against Lawsuits:ABC's proprietary products would still be open to Patent -based countersuits by IBM. In addition, IBM could make use of ABC's Open Source products without the threat of lawsuit. This is probably the area that requires the most legal attention from IBM. It may be that some Patents may lose thier defensive weapon status if allowed to be used in Open Source. I believe this would not be the case for many -- if not most -- IBM Patents.
To prevent IBM lockout:IBM can remain actively involved in the use and development of GPLed software that uses her Patents, without the need for an expensive, time consuming, proprietary agreement. A big win for IBM.
To reach into non-IBM Patent areas:IBM could still enter into cross licensing agreements as before, but IBM's contribution of Patents to Open Source could stimulate other companies to contribute Open Source software in areas not covered by IBM Patents. IBM could immediately use and extend this software without the need for expensive and time consuming cross licensing agreements. A big win for IBM.
Of course, IBM could be hotly debating this issue internally right now. Lawyers are doing research, a policy is being hammered out, and IBM does not want to release half-baked information regarding use of her Patents. If this is the case, please give us a hint that the Patent issue is being considered within IBM. We are patient, we can wait:o)
On the other hand, it may be that IBM does not think people are interested in this issue, or IBM does not want to deal with it. If this is the case, please know that many people, including myself, consider Patents to be the number one contribution that IBM can make to Open Source.
I will even go so far as to recommend to IBM that she keep her $1 Billion and open up some useful Patents instead!
Jonathan Weesner
San Antonio, TX
Animated Gif anarchy since 0.9 (AAARGH!!)
on
Mozilla 0.9.1 Out
·
· Score: 1
0.9.1 (Using it now) is great! Thanks Moz guys!
The one irritating thing about 0.9 and 0.9.1 is that animated Gifs can't be stopped (AAAAGH!!!).
It probably has to do with the new image library (Pr0n) that landed just before 0.9. It included major rework on animated Gifs.
I liked the way 0.8 would stop loading an animated Gif when the stop button was pushed! Even better would be an option that causes Moz to stop loading all Gifs after the first frame by default. Then maybe a right-click option we could use to selectively continue loading an animation.
Anyone now when we'll be able to stop those pesky Gifs????
Jono
According to the
Gordon Moore Bio on Intel's website, he was born on January 3, 1929 -- making him 72 years old.
72 seems an odd age for mandatory retirement. Intel's mandatory retirement age is probably 70, but they let him slide a few years because he's a founder of the company.
Jonathan Weesner
Level D Flight Simulators using Linux at
NLX Corp. That's my idea of FUN !!
Slashdot Mirror
Correction: Charles Bolden is a retired Major General in the US Marine Corp ... not the Airforce.
I'll cough up the extra $10 when it can:
1. Read Metallica CD audio data
2. Write copy of Metallica CD audio data
3. Read Mettalica CD label
4. Write copy of Mettalica CD label
I'm holding out for step 3!
Jono
The only legally defensible approach to digital document integrity is digital signatures with public/private keying. Digital signatures do not prevent modification, but instead can be used to prove that a document has been modified without consent of the original signer.
Current digital signature technology is capable of providing overwelming legal proof that the integrity of a document is tied to the secrecy of a private key.
Oddly enough, the legal strength of digital signatures is frightening to businesses. If Dell price quotes were digitally signed, and someone presented a Dell price quote with valid digital signature in court... Dell's only defense would be that Dell made a mistake... or that someone got access to the private key without Dell authorization. That's a difficult legal position for Dell. Better to use some cheesy pasword-in-the-document crap that is easily discredited in court, so Dell can claim the quote has been tampered with and therefore not binding.
I don't mean to pick on Dell in particular... I think many companies are wary of digital signatures because of their legal strength.
Jono
I want a mouse with one of those laptop eraser head thingys in it.
Mouse moves the cursor, eraser head moves page underneath cursor.
Also make the eraser head a button click when pressed down. Don't know what for... but sounds neat.
Jono
Hmmm... How about this:
Simultaneously swing the left ball and your input (I) on the right ball... then read the result (R) on the left ball. It works like this:
if I = True then swing the left ball and the right (I) ball simultaneously... then notice that the left (R) ball stops dead... representing false.
so I = True --> R = False
If I = False then swing the left ball and do not swing the right (I) ball... then notice that the left (R) ball continues to swing... representing true.
so I = False --> R = True
It's clumsy, but if you could somehow combine it with a V shaped OR gate then you would have that holy grail NOR device.
<i>...those hanging steel ball contraptions... try and build a NOT gate out of one of those!</i><p>
Hmmm... How about this:<p>
d
Not so... If you design a device that implements the NOT function -- a NOT gate -- there are no combinations of your device that will yield OR, AND, NOR, NAND, etc.
Similarly, you cannot implement all those functions with only OR gates or only AND gates.
But... combinations of NOR gates can be used to implement NOT, OR, AND, NAND, etc. The same is true for NAND gates but NOR gates are usually easier to implement.
Of course, it's not very efficient to implement complex functions using only NOR gates... but it's interesting that it can be done.
If a cascading molecule NOT gate is hard then thier cascading domino metaphor must not be accurate... It's easy to build a domino NOT gate. Here's how:
:
TtttttttttttttR
i
i
I
It's 2 runs in an L shape. Simultaneously gate a True signal at T and the input signal at I, read the result at R. Note: True = Falls, False = Stands.
Here's how it works
If I = True then the shorter I run knocks down the last t. When the longer T run reaches R, the last t will already have fallen so R will not fall. so we have:
I = True --> R = False
If I = False then the T run will knock down R. So we have:
I = False --> R = True
That's a NOT gate!
Combine that with a V shaped OR gate and you have a NOR gate. It's well known that any logic function can be constructed from NOR gates.
Jonathan Weesner
A malicious DOS fiend will cover his tracks and will not be found.
Frustrated Law Enforcers who can't get the guy they want, will get the guy they can.
A lack of criminal convictions shows incompetence, but fortunately, enough innocents will fall into this vaguely worded trap to keep the trials rolling at a fair clip.
"measures taken to guard against espionage or sabotage, crime, attack, or escape".
You've stated the obvious and dodged the point. The point is that some products advertized to the consumer as secure fail to disclose that the security is for someone else -- they give the false impression that the security is for the consumer.
Be honest. If you bought a product advertised as secure... say a home... would'nt you assume that it was designed to prevent espionage or sabatoge against you? Prevent crime or attack against you?
Wether the idea of security for Company X in a product is valid or not is for the consumer to decide.
Manufacturers should be required to fully disclose who these products are secured for, and how that security will be used to extract more money from the property owner.
Let a fully informed consumer decide if it's worth paying extra for security that secures her property against her, for the benefit of Company X.
In the case of Xbox, it's only slightly less agregious. Microsoft understands that the security is for Microsoft, so they don't prominently advertise Xbox security to consumers. But is hiding this security from the consumer really any better?
I say that manufacturers should be required to fully disclose the situation to consumers before purchase. Something like a prominent label that says:
Disclosure : This product contains security features that secure the product against the owner for the benefit of Company X
Jono
Good point. Employment is basically a commercial transaction -- the Employee sells services, the Employer buys those services.
Have you ever told the clerk at BestBuy that this GadgetX is worth 50% more so you have decided to pay 50% more for it? Of course not... you'll buy it at the advertised price and smile that you got such a bargain... employers do the same.
Every buyer has their comfort price... including employers buying employee's services.
Your responsiblilty in this counter offer is to decide wether thier counter salary exceeds thier comfort salary for your position. If it does then they may have countered just to buy time... keep you in place until they can replace you.
Jono
Here's a few things to think about vis-a-vis your current employer :
Jono
It uses the new meaning of the word secure. The meaning championed by IP Cartels like the MPAA and RIAA, by initiatives like SDMI and by products like the Secure Digital Memory Card. Jane Consumer buys secure products because she thinks they will prevent access by people she considers thieves. But if her product uses the new meaning of secure then it was designed to prevent access by people the IP Cartels consider thieves... and Jane soon realizes there is really only one person considered a thief -- herself, the Consumer.
The new-meaning-of-secure products are secured against the Consumer -- the buyer and owner of the product.
In the Xbox case, the new Security works like this
Jane Consumer has just purchased her new secure Xbox and can theoretically play any game that is compatible with her Xbox hardware and OS. Fortunately, any Company that designs games for MS Windows can, with a little effort, figure out how to design Xbox compatible games.
Unfortunately, Jane can't play Xbox hardware+OS compatible games because Xbox security locks her out -- and Microsoft won't sell her a key to open it. MS instead sells the keys to Game Companies through License fees that are passed on to the Consumer. So Jane ends up buying an Xbox, a game and a key to let the game in.
The beauty of this scheme is that Jane can't just buy the key once, open her Xbox, and be done with her new-found security forever. She has to buy the key with every copy of every game that she will ever buy for her Xbox.
The new-meaning-of-secure products are not designed to protect Consumers' property and information. Nor are they designed to harrass and annoy Consumers. They are designed to extract more money from Consumers.
Fortunately for Consumers, unlocking these new secure products, through the modern magic of digital wizardry, requires no additional knowledge or effort. All it takes is a little more money -- Jane & Joe Consumers' money of course...
Face it Folks... if you design unsecured products with lifetime warranties, you are in the wrong business. A Consumer will buy your product about once. But that same Consumer will soon pay an IP fee every time she uses her new IP-Utilizing product. I.E. her new music player, video player, book reader, game console (insert future IP-Utilizing product here).
Jono
It uses the new meaning of the word secure. The meaning championed by IP Cartels like the MPAA and RIAA, by initiatives like SDMI and by products like the Secure Digital Memory Card. Jane Consumer buys secure products because she thinks they will prevent access by people she considers thieves. But if her product uses the new meaning of secure then it was designed to prevent access by people the IP Cartels consider thieves... and Jane soon realizes there is really only one person considered a thief -- herself, the Consumer.
The new-meaning-of-secure products are secured against the Consumer -- the buyer and owner of the product.
In the Xbox case, the new Security works like this :
Jane Consumer has just purchased her new secure Xbox and can theoretically play any game that is compatible with her Xbox hardware and OS. Fortunately, any Company that designs games for MS Windows can, with a little effort, figure out how to design Xbox compatible games.
Unfortunately, Jane can't play Xbox hardware+OS compatible games because Xbox security locks her out -- and Microsoft won't sell her a key to open it. MS instead sells the keys to Game Companies through License fees that are passed on to the Consumer. So Jane ends up buying an Xbox, a game and a key to let the game in.
The beauty of this scheme is that Jane can't just buy the key once, open her Xbox, and be done with her new-found security forever. She has to buy the key with every copy of every game that she will ever buy for her Xbox.
The new-meaning-of-secure products are not designed to protect Consumers' property and information. Nor are they designed to harrass and annoy Consumers. They are designed to extract more money from Consumers.
Fortunately for Consumers, unlocking these new secure products, through the modern magic of digital wizardry, requires no additional knowledge or effort. All it takes is a little more money -- Jane & Joe Consumers' money of course...
Face it Folks... if you design unsecured products with lifetime warranties, you are in the wrong business. A Consumer will buy your product about once. But that same Consumer will soon pay an IP fee every time she uses her new IP-Utilizing product. I.E. her new music player, video player, book reader, game console (insert future IP-Utilizing product here).
Jono
No temporary storage needed!
Jono
They will then GPL the obfuscated gobbledygook...
by the way... sorry about the extra "be" in my original post.
Must use preview. Must use preview. Must use preview :o)
While your Company can remain anonymous for now, that anonymity will be lost when you release your product.
Once you release binaries under GPL, someone will demand the Source Code. When you provide them with unmaintainable obfuscated source they will sound the "GPL VIOLATION" siren. No matter how much you obfuscate, the original GPL programmers will recognise thier work... it will be immediately known which GPL work has been violated.
Your Lawyer may be betting that this strategy will raise enough doubt to intimidate a few GPL in-thier-free-time programmers from bringing a lawsuit. Will the Original GPL programmers risk time and money on a lawsuit they may not win?
If that's the rationale then source obfuscation is not even necessary. I believe you could take almost any GPLed work and release it under a proprietary license, and the original few authors will not be able to act against you alone.
Your Company must understand that thier tactic is designed to break the efficacy of the GPL. Then they will realise that there is a Foundation, a whole community and several companies whose survival depends on the efficacy of the GPL. Therefore, those few injured programmers will be joined. A lawsuit will be brought. Your Company will be damaged.
Jono
Jono
Simple... ask for :
- Modifiable source code... essential for University level research.
- Blanket permission to publish research methods and results, including code.
- No NDAs that could limit a student's job oportunities. (i.e. "No Compete" clauses etc.)
- Free or low cost would be nice
:o)
Jonathan WeesnerAda 95 is Object Oriented, has operator overloading,memory management and all the other buzzword compliant stuff.
Of Course, if you actually use Ada 95, you probably need your head examined...
Jono
A more careful reading of the article shows that the Java "byte" keyword == C# "sbyte" keyword -- Both are signed byte data types.
C# has the unsigned byte data type which it labels "byte"... Java does not have unsigned byte.
Suppose you left your family to travel to another country, then were arrested by the federal police of that country, thrown in jail and denied bail.
Now suppose there was a chance that the charges could be dropped.
Would you sit in your cell and say "No!, I must help the people of this fine country fight a stupid law that thier elected officials created"?
Or would you put your hands together and pray "God please get me the hell out of this sh*thole country!"
The EFF is doing what is best for Dmitry...
Better to help a concerned American (like Prof. Felten) bear the burden of fighting the DMCA.
Jonathan Weesner
IBM's current strategy regarding Patents does not appear to be about gaining a monopoly in patented areas, but instead seems focused on 3 main areas:
- To defend against Lawsuits: If company ABC threatens to sue over IBM's use of ABC patent #nnnnn, then IBM can threaten suit over ABC's use of IBM Patent #mmmmm.
- To prevent IBM lockout:Anyone writing software that is covered by an IBM Patent must reach an agreement with IBM. This gives IBM the opportunity to structure the agreement in a way that insures IBM will not be locked out of future progress in the area covered by her Patents.
- To reach into non-IBM Patent areas: IBM can use cross-licensing agreements to extend her reach into areas not covered by IBM Patents.
I believe all these areas can be enhanced by IBM making a subset of her Patents available under both proprietary agreements, and the GPL (or similar). I suggest that allowing some IBM Patents to be used in GPL software will increase the value of those Patents, without harm to IBM. Drastically decreasing the time and expense required to use IBM Patents will stimulate the use of said Patents and thus increase their value. In the field of Software, there is nothing more worthless than unused (or under utilized) Patents.Open Source could benefit the 3 areas as follows:
- To defend against Lawsuits:ABC's proprietary products would still be open to Patent -based countersuits by IBM. In addition, IBM could make use of ABC's Open Source products without the threat of lawsuit. This is probably the area that requires the most legal attention from IBM. It may be that some Patents may lose thier defensive weapon status if allowed to be used in Open Source. I believe this would not be the case for many -- if not most -- IBM Patents.
- To prevent IBM lockout:IBM can remain actively involved in the use and development of GPLed software that uses her Patents, without the need for an expensive, time consuming, proprietary agreement. A big win for IBM.
- To reach into non-IBM Patent areas:IBM could still enter into cross licensing agreements as before, but IBM's contribution of Patents to Open Source could stimulate other companies to contribute Open Source software in areas not covered by IBM Patents. IBM could immediately use and extend this software without the need for expensive and time consuming cross licensing agreements. A big win for IBM.
Of course, IBM could be hotly debating this issue internally right now. Lawyers are doing research, a policy is being hammered out, and IBM does not want to release half-baked information regarding use of her Patents. If this is the case, please give us a hint that the Patent issue is being considered within IBM. We are patient, we can waitOn the other hand, it may be that IBM does not think people are interested in this issue, or IBM does not want to deal with it. If this is the case, please know that many people, including myself, consider Patents to be the number one contribution that IBM can make to Open Source.
I will even go so far as to recommend to IBM that she keep her $1 Billion and open up some useful Patents instead!
Jonathan Weesner
San Antonio, TX
0.9.1 (Using it now) is great! Thanks Moz guys! The one irritating thing about 0.9 and 0.9.1 is that animated Gifs can't be stopped (AAAAGH!!!). It probably has to do with the new image library (Pr0n) that landed just before 0.9. It included major rework on animated Gifs. I liked the way 0.8 would stop loading an animated Gif when the stop button was pushed! Even better would be an option that causes Moz to stop loading all Gifs after the first frame by default. Then maybe a right-click option we could use to selectively continue loading an animation. Anyone now when we'll be able to stop those pesky Gifs???? Jono
72 seems an odd age for mandatory retirement. Intel's mandatory retirement age is probably 70, but they let him slide a few years because he's a founder of the company.
Jonathan Weesner
Level D Flight Simulators using Linux at NLX Corp. That's my idea of FUN !!