Instead of treating it as forgery why not merge the functions of POP and SMTP into a unified service that incorporates address validation as part of the protocol? If we treat fake From field as forgery do we also make criminals out of the many people who've entered fake info into HotMail's servers? I hope not.
I stopped upgrading my copy of Netscape since they introduced their new installer. It won't allow you to download the software unless you agree to the License terms.
We could implement a secure user identity system precisely like telephone Caller ID. It would be essentially an Internet ID. All Internet transactions could be based on it. Anyone who sends me e-mail can be identified. Anything I send can be traced to me. People wouldn't be forced to participate, but if they remain anonymous, I might choose to block them. I certainly wouldn't accept file attachments from them. I know you hate this idea, but I think the Internet needs a fingerprint. It does not have to have personal information, but if you break the law it can be traced to you.
Imagine that! No longer will cookies be used to track user activity. These won't be necessary, since the Internet ID would be much more effective at tracking user activity.
There are better ways to promote security than to adopt such measures. I prefer his less intrusive suggestions, such as improving the way the OS handles potentially insecure software.
It doesn't matter what the license says, unfair is unfair. When I am prevented from installing software to a new computer, even after removing it from my old computer, I consider that unfair.
Unlike you I do use Windows, which puts me in a good position to complain. And please spare me the tired "you don't have to buy it" falsehood. You do have to buy it if you want to run or develop certain kinds of software.
WPA (Windows Product Activation) is not a bad thing. It is meant to
protect Microsoft's investment in its own endeavors. Microsoft is a
software developer (among other things) and has the right to implement
such a feature on their own software. When we have cold, hard proof of
abuse of such features, that is when we should lash out in defense. Until
then, let's not get bent out of shape over hypotheticals, okay?
I strongly disagree on this point. WPA is a bad thing for a simple reason: it will not stop the pirates, so the only thing it accomplishes is to inhibit the actions of ordinary users.
People who assemble their own computers or otherwise purchase naked PCs may benefit from installing their copy of Windows XP to their new machine. Assuming the machine has no major parts in common with the old one the user will need a new activation code. At best it's an inconvenience, at worst you may be denied a new code.
WPA also prevents users from installing the product to two computers in the same household, unless Microsoft agrees to give you two codes.
The GPL doesn't require you to agree to anything. Looking at GPL'd code does not bind you to any particular terms. The GPL specifies terms under which code may be copied, which is something you normally wouldn't be allowed to do. Unlike the GPL, the SGPL imposes limitations that didn't exist before you "agreed" to be bound by it.
In other words, the GPL specifies terms under which it grants you additional rights, while the SGPL specifies terms under which you are assigned additional responsabilities.
You must accept this SGPL before reading or using the Specifications. You are prohibited under law from using, modifying or distributing the Specifications or from manufacturing or distributing any Devices based upon the Specifications or based upon any modifications thereof. Therefore, by using, modifying or distributing the Specifications or manufacturing or distributing any Device based on the Specifications, you indicate by your actions, your acceptance of the terms of this SGPL to do so as well as all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Specifications or manufacturing Devices based on the Specifications or modifications of the Specifications.
Looking at the Simputer website I see lots of scary things relating to the so-called SGPL.
Any individual or company can download the hardware specification, PCB layout details, the bill of materials, etc., henceforth called "Specifications" free of charge. The act of doing so binds the individual or company to the SGPL.
What they're saying here is that downloading the specs implies that the person downloading these agrees to the terms of the SGPL. They treat it as binding when people haven't signed anything. That seems neither fair nor legal.
The problem we faced in coming up with a suitable protection model for the Simputer is the fact that being essential a hardware specification, the elements sought to be protected were not strictly copyrightable. Consequently, protection mechanisms such as the copyleft principle used in the GNU GPL do not fully apply. It was therefore important that the Simputer GPL utilised a stronger mix of copyright and contract than was used by free software licenses. Ultimately, this is the trade-off. The Simputer GPL, in order to protect the unique intellectual property of the Simputer had to accommodate the shortcomings of trade secret law.
Having said that, we do not feel that the Simputer GPL is any less enforceable than other more traditional GPL's. For one, every person who uses the specification is deemed to have read and agreed to the SGPL. While we do make the transmitter of the information liable to disclose the specification along with the license, it would not be a open for a recipient to say that he/she is not bound by the terms of the SGPL merely because the version he/she received from an unnamed third party did not include the SGPL. The only exception to this liability is someone who, using clean room operating procedures, comes up with something similar to the Simputer - but that is a problem that all patent holders face as well and we have no special solution to suggest.
Finally, since the SGPL contains a mix of protections under copyright, patent trademark and trade secret law, we feel that when all these components and brought into play simultaneously the SGPL will achieve its goal of protecting the Simputer specifications appropriately.
They use the SGPL to protect elements of the Simputer's design that normally get no protection under the law. Again, it's because the mere act of downloading the specs binds you to the SGPL's restrictions (according to the Simputer people).
The SGPL's wording is often similar to that of the GNU GPL. The names are also very similar. It seems to me the Simputer people are trying to cash in on the GNU GPL's success. I believe Richard Stallman should be notified of this.
I didn't read the EU directive, but I did read the article, which is quite vague.
Your comment does not address my concerns. I was taking about users giving their data to a website, which might reside in an EU country, that explicitly allows access to this data to anybody who requests it, including countries where the data is "less safe". This kind of voluntary sharing should not be restricted.
I hope the EU won't impose restrictions over the voluntary sharing of personal information. People should have the choice to allow worldwide distribution of their personal data. Websites should have the right to collect and distribute data submitted for such purposes, regardless of where the website resides or how many countries can see it.
Consider a directory of people from around the world. The nature of the service implies that the data you submit shall be made available to anybody who requests it. There should be no restrictions on people's ability to submit their data under such terms.
I am very much in favor of rules forbidding the distribution of personal data without consent, but I hope the EU's rules will not make voluntary sharing illegal.
"By switching to subscriptions and using a new authentication system that forces users to register each copy of Office that is locked to the computer hardware, Microsoft hopes to combat overseas piracy."
Microsoft customers of the future will be renting software instead of buying it. The option to buy will likely disappear once customers have been weaned away from purchasing software. Let's face it, if.NET gets off the ground you can be sure they'll take advantage of it.
Extra: The RIAA files suit against ISPs running mail servers for failure to filter out incoming copyrighted content.
Extra: RIAA calls for ISP-wide, packet-level filtering of copyrighted content.
Extra: RIAA calls for limited ban on transfer of encrypted data, citing "serious difficulties identifying pirates". RIAA lawyer Goethe Bigballs says the DMCA should be ammended to prohibit the use of encryption technology by individuals while affording conglomerates maximum protection under the law.
Why should any private organization be designated the sole collector of royalties for copyrighted works by arbitrary artists? How can the government excuse such bureaucracy? What if I as an artist don't want to be tied to groups or unions like the RIAA, ASCAP, or BMI? Doesn't the constitution grant me freedom of association? Isn't it up to me to decide how *my* money is collected?
It's been said that copyright law allows radio stations to broadcast any piece of music they want, as long as they pay. Therefore the government designates a particular agency to collect royalties. Why must there be a single collection agency? Why must government designate it? Instead, allow artists to register with the copyright office whatever collection agency they have designated. The collection agency could be the artists themselves. Those who don't register don't get paid. Think about it. The artists are happy because they get paid, and no company gets a monopoly over the collection of royalties.
I'm not gonna give an example of two companies with the same name. Such companies certainly exist, even in particular geographical areas, but I'm really not going to bother finding an example.
The TV station analogy is not very good. Stations broadcasting on random frequencies would often result in signal corruption, which is quite different from whatever label is given to a signal. If you want to classify things according to particular criteria then take a look at the Yahoo directory. Don't impose organization as part of a DNS bureaucracy.
Phone numbers aren't given out at random, just as IP addresses aren't. Buildings with random letters would certainly be difficult to find, which is not the case with a system whose domain name you know. Domain names aren't used for routing, so they needn't help you find a server within a network. They simply help you invoke it, where the important thing is that you're able to remember the name.
Consider the.com,.net, and.org domains as being separate from any geographical area (as they infact are). They are in essence their own virtual space and they needn't carry any kind of strict meaning. There's really nothing wrong with american companies using.cx as their TLD. There's no need to force companies to adopt particularly organized domain names.
That a piece of music carries a watermark linking it to the person who purchased it raises certain important issues. For instance, certain problems arise when person X transfers his copy to person Y (permanently or otherwise). Imagine what happens if person Y pirates a copy of the song without person X's knowledge. Would person X be held responsable, given that X's identity is linked to the file? Companies seem to believe it's their right to track our every move, privacy be damned.
Of course they really don't want us to transfer our files to anyone else. Every sale is a "first sale" under their little scheme. Why should hackers help out a group whose only purpose is to limit our rights as consumers?
The fact that people had to resort to using.com,.net, and.org TLDs as generic appendages is, in my opinion, a symptom of the flaws inherent in such a classification system. It shouldn't be strongly regulated.
Consider there may be several companies sharing the same name, all having equal rights to a regulated.com domain. It's possible then that a company might not find a domain if forced to move from one class to another. They shouldn't be forced to drop the domain name they've registered under, a name people already identify the website with.
If you as a visitor would like to know whether company X is an NOC, a company in Mongolia, or a personal page then simply look at the site's content. If people need to confirm a company's non-profit status then perhaps the website could display a certificate granted by whatever agency non-profit organizations must register with.
The point is that TLD classification according to type makes it easier to pigeonhole websites and therefore restrict their content. This should never happen. There should always be room for unrestricted content domain names. We need less bureaucracy, not more. The drawbacks of strongly regulated domains are worse than the benefits, which may very well be obtained through alternative means.
Speaking for myself I'm quite glad that.com,.org, and.net domains are not "better regulated". Given that I represent neither a company, an organization, or a computer network, would I be prevented from registering under such domains if these were strongly regulated? What if I started with a.org site and later it became a full-fledged company? Would non.xxx sites be forbidden from carrying XXX content? Enforcing classification of TLDs according to type is not necessarily a good thing. There's a real need for generic TLDs that allow for sites that evolve, present dynamic content, or are difficult to classify.
I sincerely hope the second term does not stand up in court. There is a difference between linking to a library and communicating with a server. The first creates a derivative work, the second does not. I believe the client API for MySQL is public domain, so it's perfectly legal to link to it. Because a program that uses this library is not a derivative work of GPL'd code (it merely communicates with a GPL'd server) the second term would/should not hold.
An important question is whether internal copying of GPLed sources and binaries falls under the GPL's definition of redistribution. But is the employee really entitled to distribute internal sources? Consider the following scenario:
I link my code to a GPLed library without ever distributing the binaries outside of my company. I own the copyright to my code. It's not GPLed, and doesn't have to be (the GPL doesn't place restrictions on use). I can impose whatever restrictions I want on the redistribution of my code, but not on the redistribution of the library. An employee cannot legally redistribute my code in any form (according to the fictional license) and cannot distribute the binaries (he would be in violation of the GPL in doing so). Would it be all that different if instead of linking to a library we were dealing with modifying a program? Perhaps yes, perhaps not. I don't know.
I brought up this issue on a Debian mailing list some time ago, but objections were raised to the idea of overriding packages (which I called "fake installing"). I now think we need a more fundamental solution. We need a distribution-independent install system that can adopted by program authors who distribute original packages (whether in source or in binary form). Distributions could provide their own versions of software while allowing users to replace these with whatever version they want, all without confusing the distribution's package management frontend.
While understanding technology and how it is used is crucial to making good laws, possessing an intimate understanding of the law is not strictly necessary in identifying laws which are unfair or poorly defined. Can anyone honestly say that techies lack enough knowledge to criticise ideas such as the CDA, crypto export controls, and software patents? I couldn't say so, and in fact believe it has little to do with legal expertise. While an understanding of the law may be necessary in interpreting the meaning of certain legal constructs, once a techie understands what a law prevents him from doing (or allows others to do), he can certainly pose valid arguments. It's not about legal precedents, legal intricacies or validity in a legal sense, but about a more general concept of fairness.
The biggest problem with patents is that they don't allow for the concept of independent creation. This happens a lot more than people might think. It happened with the Calculus, developed by both Newton and Leibnitz without any exchanges between them (the matter of who was the first to devise it was later disputed by them). The precise details may vary from one person to the next, but it's almost as if ideas have a life of their own. That the wheel would never have been invented because of the death of a particular ancient does not strike me as a believable scenario. While I think credit should be given wherever credit is due (and none taken where it's not), there truly should not be a monopoly on ideas. People should be free to realise their ideas without restriction.
The purpose of the moderation system should be to enable readers to filter the messages that they see. I should be able to see all messages unless I decide I don't want to. People who want to will, without a doubt, enable filtering. On the other hand, if certain kinds of messages are hidden from people who didn't specifically choose to filter them out, the system begins to resemble censorship. It's about enabling people to filter messages, not about allowing people to look at discarded messages. Hope you're all listening.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of treating it as forgery why not merge the functions of POP and SMTP into a unified service that incorporates address validation as part of the protocol? If we treat fake From field as forgery do we also make criminals out of the many people who've entered fake info into HotMail's servers? I hope not.
I stopped upgrading my copy of Netscape since they introduced their new installer. It won't allow you to download the software unless you agree to the License terms.
Imagine that! No longer will cookies be used to track user activity. These won't be necessary, since the Internet ID would be much more effective at tracking user activity.
There are better ways to promote security than to adopt such measures. I prefer his less intrusive suggestions, such as improving the way the OS handles potentially insecure software.
Unlike you I do use Windows, which puts me in a good position to complain. And please spare me the tired "you don't have to buy it" falsehood. You do have to buy it if you want to run or develop certain kinds of software.
People who assemble their own computers or otherwise purchase naked PCs may benefit from installing their copy of Windows XP to their new machine. Assuming the machine has no major parts in common with the old one the user will need a new activation code. At best it's an inconvenience, at worst you may be denied a new code.
WPA also prevents users from installing the product to two computers in the same household, unless Microsoft agrees to give you two codes.
In other words, the GPL specifies terms under which it grants you additional rights, while the SGPL specifies terms under which you are assigned additional responsabilities.
The SGPL's wording is often similar to that of the GNU GPL. The names are also very similar. It seems to me the Simputer people are trying to cash in on the GNU GPL's success. I believe Richard Stallman should be notified of this.
Your comment does not address my concerns. I was taking about users giving their data to a website, which might reside in an EU country, that explicitly allows access to this data to anybody who requests it, including countries where the data is "less safe". This kind of voluntary sharing should not be restricted.
Consider a directory of people from around the world. The nature of the service implies that the data you submit shall be made available to anybody who requests it. There should be no restrictions on people's ability to submit their data under such terms.
I am very much in favor of rules forbidding the distribution of personal data without consent, but I hope the EU's rules will not make voluntary sharing illegal.
Extra: RIAA calls for ISP-wide, packet-level filtering of copyrighted content.
Extra: RIAA calls for limited ban on transfer of encrypted data, citing "serious difficulties identifying pirates". RIAA lawyer Goethe Bigballs says the DMCA should be ammended to prohibit the use of encryption technology by individuals while affording conglomerates maximum protection under the law.
It's been said that copyright law allows radio stations to broadcast any piece of music they want, as long as they pay. Therefore the government designates a particular agency to collect royalties. Why must there be a single collection agency? Why must government designate it? Instead, allow artists to register with the copyright office whatever collection agency they have designated. The collection agency could be the artists themselves. Those who don't register don't get paid. Think about it. The artists are happy because they get paid, and no company gets a monopoly over the collection of royalties.
should read:
Domain names aren't used for routing, so they needn't help you find a server's particular location within a network.
I'm not gonna give an example of two companies with the same name. Such companies certainly exist, even in particular geographical areas, but I'm really not going to bother finding an example.
.com, .net, and .org domains as being separate from any geographical area (as they infact are). They are in essence their own virtual space and they needn't carry any kind of strict meaning. There's really nothing wrong with american companies using .cx as their TLD. There's no need to force companies to adopt particularly organized domain names.
The TV station analogy is not very good. Stations broadcasting on random frequencies would often result in signal corruption, which is quite different from whatever label is given to a signal. If you want to classify things according to particular criteria then take a look at the Yahoo directory. Don't impose organization as part of a DNS bureaucracy.
Phone numbers aren't given out at random, just as IP addresses aren't. Buildings with random letters would certainly be difficult to find, which is not the case with a system whose domain name you know. Domain names aren't used for routing, so they needn't help you find a server within a network. They simply help you invoke it, where the important thing is that you're able to remember the name.
Consider the
That a piece of music carries a watermark linking it to the person who purchased it raises certain important issues. For instance, certain problems arise when person X transfers his copy to person Y (permanently or otherwise). Imagine what happens if person Y pirates a copy of the song without person X's knowledge. Would person X be held responsable, given that X's identity is linked to the file? Companies seem to believe it's their right to track our every move, privacy be damned.
Of course they really don't want us to transfer our files to anyone else. Every sale is a "first sale" under their little scheme. Why should hackers help out a group whose only purpose is to limit our rights as consumers?
The fact that people had to resort to using .com, .net, and .org TLDs as generic appendages is, in my opinion, a symptom of the flaws inherent in such a classification system. It shouldn't be strongly regulated.
.com domain. It's possible then that a company might not find a domain if forced to move from one class to another. They shouldn't be forced to drop the domain name they've registered under, a name people already identify the website with.
Consider there may be several companies sharing the same name, all having equal rights to a regulated
If you as a visitor would like to know whether company X is an NOC, a company in Mongolia, or a personal page then simply look at the site's content. If people need to confirm a company's non-profit status then perhaps the website could display a certificate granted by whatever agency non-profit organizations must register with.
The point is that TLD classification according to type makes it easier to pigeonhole websites and therefore restrict their content. This should never happen. There should always be room for unrestricted content domain names. We need less bureaucracy, not more. The drawbacks of strongly regulated domains are worse than the benefits, which may very well be obtained through alternative means.
Speaking for myself I'm quite glad that .com, .org, and .net domains are not "better regulated". Given that I represent neither a company, an organization, or a computer network, would I be prevented from registering under such domains if these were strongly regulated? What if I started with a .org site and later it became a full-fledged company? Would non .xxx sites be forbidden from carrying XXX content? Enforcing classification of TLDs according to type is not necessarily a good thing. There's a real need for generic TLDs that allow for sites that evolve, present dynamic content, or are difficult to classify.
Could you please expand on this issue?
I sincerely hope the second term does not stand up in court. There is a difference between linking to a library and communicating with a server. The first creates a derivative work, the second does not. I believe the client API for MySQL is public domain, so it's perfectly legal to link to it. Because a program that uses this library is not a derivative work of GPL'd code (it merely communicates with a GPL'd server) the second term would/should not hold.
I link my code to a GPLed library without ever distributing the binaries outside of my company. I own the copyright to my code. It's not GPLed, and doesn't have to be (the GPL doesn't place restrictions on use). I can impose whatever restrictions I want on the redistribution of my code, but not on the redistribution of the library. An employee cannot legally redistribute my code in any form (according to the fictional license) and cannot distribute the binaries (he would be in violation of the GPL in doing so). Would it be all that different if instead of linking to a library we were dealing with modifying a program? Perhaps yes, perhaps not. I don't know.
I brought up this issue on a Debian mailing list some time ago, but objections were raised to the idea of overriding packages (which I called "fake installing"). I now think we need a more fundamental solution. We need a distribution-independent install system that can adopted by program authors who distribute original packages (whether in source or in binary form). Distributions could provide their own versions of software while allowing users to replace these with whatever version they want, all without confusing the distribution's package management frontend.
While understanding technology and how it is used is crucial to making good laws, possessing an intimate understanding of the law is not strictly necessary in identifying laws which are unfair or poorly defined. Can anyone honestly say that techies lack enough knowledge to criticise ideas such as the CDA, crypto export controls, and software patents? I couldn't say so, and in fact believe it has little to do with legal expertise. While an understanding of the law may be necessary in interpreting the meaning of certain legal constructs, once a techie understands what a law prevents him from doing (or allows others to do), he can certainly pose valid arguments. It's not about legal precedents, legal intricacies or validity in a legal sense, but about a more general concept of fairness.
The biggest problem with patents is that they don't allow for the concept of independent creation. This happens a lot more than people might think. It happened with the Calculus, developed by both Newton and Leibnitz without any exchanges between them (the matter of who was the first to devise it was later disputed by them). The precise details may vary from one person to the next, but it's almost as if ideas have a life of their own. That the wheel would never have been invented because of the death of a particular ancient does not strike me as a believable scenario. While I think credit should be given wherever credit is due (and none taken where it's not), there truly should not be a monopoly on ideas. People should be free to realise their ideas without restriction.
The purpose of the moderation system should be to enable readers to filter the messages that they see. I should be able to see all messages unless I decide I don't want to. People who want to will, without a doubt, enable filtering. On the other hand, if certain kinds of messages are hidden from people who didn't specifically choose to filter them out, the system begins to resemble censorship. It's about enabling people to filter messages, not about allowing people to look at discarded messages. Hope you're all listening.
--
Adrian, who is feeling rather squishy.