For a commercial redistributor. the source provision duty can be discharged in ways such as by providing source with the object code (or only source), i.e. on the same CD, or from the same 'place'. Alternatively, by providing a written offer to provide source, valid for 3 years.
For the 'offer' case: The GPLv2 says the source must be made available to "to any 3rd party". The GPLv3 says the source must be made available to "to give anyone who possesses the object code".
See section 3 of GPLv2, or section 6 of GPLv3 for the fine details. GPLv2 would apply to Linux (violation of licence which Harald Welte often sues for); busybox is, IIRC, under the GPLv3.
Both the licences are available from the FSF website, along with a useful FAQ.
Oh, to respond explicitely to your Debian point: Debian are non-commercial, so they could *almost* get away with providing just a link to original sources of GPL software. However your argument is moot, because Debian do in fact provide the sources directly themselves - apt-get even has a command to retrieve from Debian servers.
No, you're just plain wrong, sorry. Don't know how to be kind about it. The applies to redistribution *full stop*.
The only way derivation comes into it, is that the GPL allows it (unlike some licences which allow redistribution, but only of unmodified source/binaries - e.g. qmail, the old Pine licence). But again, from the point of view of obligations to provide source - its irrelevant whether or not the software was modified or not.
If you still dispute this, please read the actual GPL...;)
They need to provide only in case if it was modified.
This is completely false. A distributor of GPL software must *ALWAYS* provide sources, in some way acceptable to the GPL. Whether the software is modified or not is irrelevant.
The only case where this duty can be discharged without actually providing source-code, on media or download, is not open to commercial redistributors OR to redistributors who had the source. So an STB manufacturer is disqualified, independently, in two different ways from availing of this.
why do you think that practical considerations are not relevant to evolutionary biology? The ones you gave all sound like perfectly fine fitness criteria..
How about some kind of buffering? Draw to offscreen buffer, flip view when its fully drawn.
The compiz stuff has very smooth rendering, and I wonder if it's due in part to the double-buffering which (I/think/) is inherent to it? (Though, gah, I wish the compiz WM supported desktop-switching shortcuts!! Arggg!).
Sorry.. What you wrote sounded surprising. I had googled to find references on whether Mars Express had taken RADAR topography measurements, and it had - which made me think you were making things up (earlier imagery tended to be from RADAR).
Mars Express also gathered topographical data via RaDAR. So they applied the photos as textures onto a model constructed directly from data. That's not the same thing as deriving the 3D model from 2D photos, as in the case here.
With that in mind, suppose, today, that a criminal was sitting before you with a knife, threatening to cut off your fingers one by one if you did not give him your notebook password. Are you really willing to sit there and tell me that you would rather have your hands butchered than give up your text-based password?
I'd rather the criminal could just take the laptop without ever having to threaten me, TBH. Similarly, I'd rather have a car with old fashioned mechanical locks on the doors and ignition (the UK is seeing an increase in burglaries perpetrated to steal car keys, due to use of electronic locks, particularly on more expensive cars).
Increased security is not without side-effects. Particularly when applied to goods popular with thieves, such as cars and laptops..
The parent poster shouldn't be modded informative. Their post is a jumble of random network related terminology (several of which have 0 bearing on home routers) into information-less sentences. E.g. *BGP* or IOS on a home router? "Cache tables" (did the poster misremember hearing someone say "hash tables"?). The crowning glory though:
"Spanning tree malformations can do it".
The parent is either a wickedly funny troll, or an ignorant parrot. I just can't make up my mind..
From the BBC article: Being uncontacted, these tribes have no immunity to a number of otherwise mild diseases, so contact often leads to deaths (smallpox, flu, etc).
That's only vaguely true, and not even vaguely relevant. The owners of private property have every right, legally and ethically, to require visitors to that property to agree to (practically) any terms they want. The visitors are free to leave if they find the terms unacceptable.
Out of curiosity, are you familiar with english law at all (you sound american)? Are you even a lawyer?
I've used PGP to exchange data with non-geeks. It takes a little effort for them to get the hang of it, but there are user-friendly programmes available for most (all) platforms and MUAs.The other parties in my cases would typically have been college educated in someway, and all had a business impetus behind their desire to learn how to use PGP. However, it's well within the grasp of the required IT competance of any modern knowledge worker.
In the case I have experience of, we found that if we did not require PGP that the remote parties (we exchanged data with quite a few organisations) would instead often propose their own half-baked encryption system. Sometimes these would be ridiculous, snake-oil products which they had been conned into buying (sometimes at great expense) - and we would then have to too! (I can remember one product where the encrypted files bore an obvious structural similarity to the plain-text - clearly something derived from a substition cipher, created by an ignoramus).
So it seems to me that many professional, non-geeks are actually already quite aware of the need to encrypt data (and this was 4+ years ago too), they just don't know which tools are good and which are not. Given that, it seems entirely appropriate for tech geeks to then suggest using a widely supported, best-of-breed encryption standard...
You want PGP. I've used this to transfer files of data worth millions* across the internet. The procedure is quite simple:
Both sides obtain PGP software (widely available)
Both sides generate keys
Both sides exchange keys in a manner that allows each side to be sufficiently assured that the key does indeed belong to the other party**
Create a zip file of the data to send
Use the PGP software (perhaps as a plugin to your email software, for maximum convenience) to encrypt the zip file with the key of the recipient, and sign it with your own key.
Send the encrypted and signed file - ideally to the intended recipient, but if you make a mistake in that it won't matter:)
* Quite literally: the data being codes that granted temporal access to certain widely used commercial services, each code having a definite monetary value.
** Exactly how depends on what level of assurance is required and acceptable. Ideally you should exchange keys in person. If that is not possible, via a trusted intermediary. If that is not possible, via a distinct channel from normal channels of communication (e.g. post, mobile phone; landline phone as a last resort). You can exchange keys via email, and then verify the keys 'fingerprint' over a secure*** channel, if that secure channel lacks the bandwidth for key-exchange (e.g. voice phone;) ).
*** Sufficiently secure for your needs that is. There are no absolutes in security.
I'd like to add a big "+1 / Me Too" to the parent post. The reputation-anonymiser idea is very interesting.
There are though some problems with reputation systems (as seen on, e.g., wikipedia): sock and meat puppeting. These problems are to some extent a function of the size of the domain of a reputation system - the smaller it is, the easier to game and vice, versa.
I have only the briefest knowledge of the field in my own country, never mind yours, however (presuming you're in country whose law is derived from the English common law system, e.g. the USA) it's likely all property of this man, his laptop and letters particularly, are now intestate. Likely some local authority will have assigned an administrator for the estate. If the young man was still a minor, these probably will be his parents.
If you have their permission, or the permission of the person to whom the administrators have assigned the property (ie the new owners), you can do what you like. The dead have little privacy (indeed, no privacy at all in many places).
To determine what you can do about online accounts, you should talk to a solicitor (i.e. a lawyer in the USA), preferably one who specialises in these things.
What about a 17 year old male and a 15 year old female? Where they meet in the pub, where she's drinking with her father, says she's 16 and they later have consensual sex? Is the 17 year old male a rapist, to be sent to prison for years and branded a sex offender for life?
That's no hypothethical. That's actually what happened under Ireland's statutory rape laws (age<16 == rape). So, sorry, but I have nothing but contempt for your mindless "you must not be a parent" drivel that results in politicians placating you and your ilk with "statutory X" and "minimum sentence" laws. You make this world a *worse* place for your children and mine.
Thankfully, the Irish law was eventually ruled unconstitutional, but not before the young man concerned had, wrongfully, spent 6 years in jail.
If you read the article, you'll see they quote the court records which show that the search warrant was issued solely on the basis of the man's IP address appearing in the logs of the FBIs HTTP server, doing a GET of the links. As per the article, the FBI did/not/ record the referrer, so there is absolutely no indication the links were followed from the forum. They then found a thumb nail image of naked children on his hard drive..
It seems like this action will predominantly catch people who were specifically looking for child pornography and so searches will therefore find other material. However it is very disturbing that a HTTP GET can result in all your computers, much of your electronic gadgets and all your correspondence being impounded indefinitely. It sounds like it's way too easy for, inevitably, at least few innocent people to be massively inconvienced (potentially maliciously by 3rd parties).
This is not true. There are no border controls at all between Schengen agreement countries (e.g. when commuting in the Netherlands you can literally go through Germany for a shortcut, no passport required - you won't notice a border even). Not all EU countries are in the Schengen agreement (e.g. UK by choice, Ireland by dint of wanting to maintain its open border with the UK). EU citizens still need to show a passport, national ID card or (I/think/ this is acceptable) EU driving licence to travel between EU countries in Schengen and those outside.
This problem is much more grave in EU than in US (imagine needing a Green Card in order to leave California and find work in Florida) so factories are moved not only to China or Eastern Europe, but even to US.
EU citizens of the 'original 12' have freedom of mobility within the EU. Citizens of the recently acceded countries (i.e. various eastern europe nations) have to wait a few years more before they get this right, however several EU member states (Ireland and the UK come to mind) have already granted such citizens full rights. You have to be reasonably well advanced into middle-aged to be able to remember having to apply for a visa to be able to work in another EEC country, so I don't know where you got this idea from.
In general there are no barriers to EU citizens working wherever they please in the EU (and this will be universally true in a few years time, presuming no more countries join the EU (i.e. Turkey))...
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL doesn't say customers anywhere..
For a commercial redistributor. the source provision duty can be discharged in ways such as by providing source with the object code (or only source), i.e. on the same CD, or from the same 'place'. Alternatively, by providing a written offer to provide source, valid for 3 years.
For the 'offer' case: The GPLv2 says the source must be made available to "to any 3rd party". The GPLv3 says the source must be made available to "to give anyone who possesses the object code".
See section 3 of GPLv2, or section 6 of GPLv3 for the fine details. GPLv2 would apply to Linux (violation of licence which Harald Welte often sues for); busybox is, IIRC, under the GPLv3.
Both the licences are available from the FSF website, along with a useful FAQ.
Oh, to respond explicitely to your Debian point: Debian are non-commercial, so they could *almost* get away with providing just a link to original sources of GPL software. However your argument is moot, because Debian do in fact provide the sources directly themselves - apt-get even has a command to retrieve from Debian servers.
No, you're just plain wrong, sorry. Don't know how to be kind about it. The applies to redistribution *full stop*.
The only way derivation comes into it, is that the GPL allows it (unlike some licences which allow redistribution, but only of unmodified source/binaries - e.g. qmail, the old Pine licence). But again, from the point of view of obligations to provide source - its irrelevant whether or not the software was modified or not.
If you still dispute this, please read the actual GPL... ;)
They need to provide only in case if it was modified.
This is completely false. A distributor of GPL software must *ALWAYS* provide sources, in some way acceptable to the GPL. Whether the software is modified or not is irrelevant.
The only case where this duty can be discharged without actually providing source-code, on media or download, is not open to commercial redistributors OR to redistributors who had the source. So an STB manufacturer is disqualified, independently, in two different ways from availing of this.
why do you think that practical considerations are not relevant to evolutionary biology? The ones you gave all sound like perfectly fine fitness criteria..
How about some kind of buffering? Draw to offscreen buffer, flip view when its fully drawn.
/think/) is inherent to it? (Though, gah, I wish the compiz WM supported desktop-switching shortcuts!! Arggg!).
The compiz stuff has very smooth rendering, and I wonder if it's due in part to the double-buffering which (I
I.e., perhaps this problem is already fixed.
Sorry.. What you wrote sounded surprising. I had googled to find references on whether Mars Express had taken RADAR topography measurements, and it had - which made me think you were making things up (earlier imagery tended to be from RADAR).
I can't undo the moderation unfortunately.
Mars Express also gathered topographical data via RaDAR. So they applied the photos as textures onto a model constructed directly from data. That's not the same thing as deriving the 3D model from 2D photos, as in the case here.
With that in mind, suppose, today, that a criminal was sitting before you with a knife, threatening to cut off your fingers one by one if you did not give him your notebook password. Are you really willing to sit there and tell me that you would rather have your hands butchered than give up your text-based password?
I'd rather the criminal could just take the laptop without ever having to threaten me, TBH. Similarly, I'd rather have a car with old fashioned mechanical locks on the doors and ignition (the UK is seeing an increase in burglaries perpetrated to steal car keys, due to use of electronic locks, particularly on more expensive cars).
Increased security is not without side-effects. Particularly when applied to goods popular with thieves, such as cars and laptops..
The parent poster shouldn't be modded informative. Their post is a jumble of random network related terminology (several of which have 0 bearing on home routers) into information-less sentences. E.g. *BGP* or IOS on a home router? "Cache tables" (did the poster misremember hearing someone say "hash tables"?). The crowning glory though:
"Spanning tree malformations can do it".
The parent is either a wickedly funny troll, or an ignorant parrot. I just can't make up my mind..
Gah, yes - chicken pox. Thanks! :)
From the BBC article: Being uncontacted, these tribes have no immunity to a number of otherwise mild diseases, so contact often leads to deaths (smallpox, flu, etc).
That's only vaguely true, and not even vaguely relevant. The owners of private property have every right, legally and ethically, to require visitors to that property to agree to (practically) any terms they want. The visitors are free to leave if they find the terms unacceptable.
Out of curiosity, are you familiar with english law at all (you sound american)? Are you even a lawyer?Oops, as posters here have pointed out, the consultant in this story does not sound very competant and/or aware of security.
If that's the case, may be wise to heed other poster's suggestions of changing consultants.
I've used PGP to exchange data with non-geeks. It takes a little effort for them to get the hang of it, but there are user-friendly programmes available for most (all) platforms and MUAs.The other parties in my cases would typically have been college educated in someway, and all had a business impetus behind their desire to learn how to use PGP. However, it's well within the grasp of the required IT competance of any modern knowledge worker.
In the case I have experience of, we found that if we did not require PGP that the remote parties (we exchanged data with quite a few organisations) would instead often propose their own half-baked encryption system. Sometimes these would be ridiculous, snake-oil products which they had been conned into buying (sometimes at great expense) - and we would then have to too! (I can remember one product where the encrypted files bore an obvious structural similarity to the plain-text - clearly something derived from a substition cipher, created by an ignoramus).
So it seems to me that many professional, non-geeks are actually already quite aware of the need to encrypt data (and this was 4+ years ago too), they just don't know which tools are good and which are not. Given that, it seems entirely appropriate for tech geeks to then suggest using a widely supported, best-of-breed encryption standard...
You want PGP. I've used this to transfer files of data worth millions* across the internet. The procedure is quite simple:
* Quite literally: the data being codes that granted temporal access to certain widely used commercial services, each code having a definite monetary value.
** Exactly how depends on what level of assurance is required and acceptable. Ideally you should exchange keys in person. If that is not possible, via a trusted intermediary. If that is not possible, via a distinct channel from normal channels of communication (e.g. post, mobile phone; landline phone as a last resort). You can exchange keys via email, and then verify the keys 'fingerprint' over a secure*** channel, if that secure channel lacks the bandwidth for key-exchange (e.g. voice phone ;) ).
*** Sufficiently secure for your needs that is. There are no absolutes in security.
I'd like to add a big "+1 / Me Too" to the parent post. The reputation-anonymiser idea is very interesting.
There are though some problems with reputation systems (as seen on, e.g., wikipedia): sock and meat puppeting. These problems are to some extent a function of the size of the domain of a reputation system - the smaller it is, the easier to game and vice, versa.
On what basis exactly? To the extent that those accounts belonged to the deceased, they now belong to the successors of his estate...
I have only the briefest knowledge of the field in my own country, never mind yours, however (presuming you're in country whose law is derived from the English common law system, e.g. the USA) it's likely all property of this man, his laptop and letters particularly, are now intestate. Likely some local authority will have assigned an administrator for the estate. If the young man was still a minor, these probably will be his parents.
If you have their permission, or the permission of the person to whom the administrators have assigned the property (ie the new owners), you can do what you like. The dead have little privacy (indeed, no privacy at all in many places).
To determine what you can do about online accounts, you should talk to a solicitor (i.e. a lawyer in the USA), preferably one who specialises in these things.
What about a 17 year old male and a 15 year old female? Where they meet in the pub, where she's drinking with her father, says she's 16 and they later have consensual sex? Is the 17 year old male a rapist, to be sent to prison for years and branded a sex offender for life?
That's no hypothethical. That's actually what happened under Ireland's statutory rape laws (age<16 == rape). So, sorry, but I have nothing but contempt for your mindless "you must not be a parent" drivel that results in politicians placating you and your ilk with "statutory X" and "minimum sentence" laws. You make this world a *worse* place for your children and mine.
Thankfully, the Irish law was eventually ruled unconstitutional, but not before the young man concerned had, wrongfully, spent 6 years in jail.
If you read the article, you'll see they quote the court records which show that the search warrant was issued solely on the basis of the man's IP address appearing in the logs of the FBIs HTTP server, doing a GET of the links. As per the article, the FBI did /not/ record the referrer, so there is absolutely no indication the links were followed from the forum. They then found a thumb nail image of naked children on his hard drive..
It seems like this action will predominantly catch people who were specifically looking for child pornography and so searches will therefore find other material. However it is very disturbing that a HTTP GET can result in all your computers, much of your electronic gadgets and all your correspondence being impounded indefinitely. It sounds like it's way too easy for, inevitably, at least few innocent people to be massively inconvienced (potentially maliciously by 3rd parties).
This is not true. There are no border controls at all between Schengen agreement countries (e.g. when commuting in the Netherlands you can literally go through Germany for a shortcut, no passport required - you won't notice a border even). Not all EU countries are in the Schengen agreement (e.g. UK by choice, Ireland by dint of wanting to maintain its open border with the UK). EU citizens still need to show a passport, national ID card or (I /think/ this is acceptable) EU driving licence to travel between EU countries in Schengen and those outside.
Good post, except for this:
...
This problem is much more grave in EU than in US (imagine needing a Green Card in order to leave California and find work in Florida) so factories are moved not only to China or Eastern Europe, but even to US.
EU citizens of the 'original 12' have freedom of mobility within the EU. Citizens of the recently acceded countries (i.e. various eastern europe nations) have to wait a few years more before they get this right, however several EU member states (Ireland and the UK come to mind) have already granted such citizens full rights. You have to be reasonably well advanced into middle-aged to be able to remember having to apply for a visa to be able to work in another EEC country, so I don't know where you got this idea from.
In general there are no barriers to EU citizens working wherever they please in the EU (and this will be universally true in a few years time, presuming no more countries join the EU (i.e. Turkey))
You slander somebody on the internet, and that is real criminal behavior.
Slander is (more or less always) a tort (i.e. not criminal).