The LAN side access isn't difficult with WIFI, and the ATTACKER doesn't need to plug-in his own USB, having any USB plugged in will activate the unauthenticated SMB.
The take-home message, then, is don't plug USB storage into your router, and do use WPA2, not earlier WiFi security protocols.
you are correct they cannot effectively monitor all communication. Yet, they attempted to do just that rather than expending the resources monitoring threats they had been warned about repeatedly.
Pretend you are responsible for reducing terrorism. You're giving a hundred million dollar budget, a list of 50 people who appear to be threats, and the phone numbers of major internet providers. Do you: a) use that money to closely monitor the 50 suspects Or b) make logs of every email and phone call of every law abiding citizen, so you have more data than you can possibly look at.
Yes the Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the US. As the Supreme Court said, a law violating the Constitution is null and void, without effect. If an act is made "legal" only by an unconstitutional "law", it is not made it legal at all, for that law is null and void. Acting under the color of a void law that contravenes the Constitution is acting illegally.
perhaps an analogy to make it more clear. I hereby give you permission to break into your neighbor's house. If you go ahead and break into your neighbor's house you have acted illegally because I do not have the power to grant you that permission. It is the same with an unconstitutional law - the legislature has no authority grant you permission to act under that law.
We should not put people in jail for trying to do the right thing, having an accident of some sort. Crime requires criminal intent, knowingly doing something wrong. Elected leaders take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Not to be smart, not to make good decisions, but you make constitutional decisions. When an elected official KNOWINGLY violates the Constitution I would have no problem sending into jail.
Because there may be a legitimate disagreement as to the Constitutionality of a law, rarely could it be proven that they knowingly violated it. However I can think of one prosecutable instance. A certain state senator was also a law professor. I listened to the tape of him on the Senate floor warning that a certain bill was unconstitutional. He said he liked the bill, but it went to far and violated the Constitution. The bill needed to be scaled back he said, or the Supreme Court would surely strike it down. He went ahead and voted FOR the bill that he knew to be unconstitutional.
So he's a law professor and a senator. He should have a pretty good idea of what is Constitutional and what is not. He knows it's unconstitutional, but breaks his oath of office and votes for it anyway. I'm good to sentence him to six months in jail. That senator, Barack Obama, deserves jail time for willfully violating our constitutional rights, by his own admission.
> You say this is already happening? That there are politicians in the US or UK that are using the intelligence services to target individual voters
Google Herbert Hoover. This year, we know the Obama administration used a federal agency, the IRS, to target citizens who disagree with him politically. Given that he's a) tracking all of your emails and phone calls while b) using federal agencies against voters, it seems quite likely he'd combine the two.
I think you all make good points. If it ain't broke don't fix it is often a good idea. Sometimes not. I didn't specify why I deleted the code.
So true that someone else probably already did it and you can get the code on the Internet. I'm replacing a lot of over complicated and therefore unreliable code with GPL code it's been well tested (including unit testing).
Of course there's a lot of crap code posted on forums, places like stack exchange. Sadly , the comments section of the PHP documentation is full of really bad code. Perhaps because PHP is TOO easy to use - you can make it appear to work without having a clue what you're doing.
> . The statement changing the puppet doesn't change the puppeteer" implies without question that the president is a puppet.
That does assume, and there is a specific term for a assuming the answer to an important question. That term is "begging the question". It will be found on most lists of logical fallacies.
you are thinking of "raises the question". Raising the question ask for an answer. Begging the question assumes the answer. The word begging is used in the sense of "humor me for a moment and assume...". You're begging the audience to overlook your unwarranted and important assumption.
> The statement "changing the puppet doesn't change the puppeteer" implies without question that the president is a puppet.
There is a specific term for assuming the answer to an important question. That term is "begging the question" and it will normally be found on any list of logical fallacies.
You're thinking of "raises the question". Begging the assumes the answer, raising the question asks for an answer.
encryption used for DVDs was believed to be unbreakable, until it was broken. How many companies have released encryption schemes, for DRM or otherwise and it gets cracked within hours of actual release. more than once Microsoft encryption has been cracked before its official release.
Though I haven't studied this particular one, my general impression is that it was not designed by cryptography experts and then vetted the way well known cryptographic algorithms are vetted by other experts.
Working hard and smart at the same time is normally a winning combination.
It's been aid that laziness is a popular characteristic of a good programmers. a programmer's JOB is to make the computer work for you. Hard work in programming sometimes means writing 18 different classes in one day, to handle 18 different columns. a better approach is to write one abstract class and a couple of subclasses that handle the different columns is polymorphically.
Many times I've deleted a hundred lines of code and replaced it with four lines that do the same task more reliably and more elegantly. My predecessor worked hard. I worked smart.
That said, reading a 1300 page book to learn HOW to do it in four lines was "hard work". I suspect programmers should listen to the old advice about sharpening the axe and spend a lot of their mental energy learning how to accomplish more faster, rather than producing more lines of code per day. The number of bugs is proportional to the number of lines of code, so the person who writes more lines per day really just creates more problems per day.
That was supposed to say the VALUE of object oriented programming. Develop a GUI using textbox objects, then the same GUI via graphics primitives, no objects. You'll quickly learn to love objects.
That's orthogonal to how well the language's object system is designed.
>. Back then as now, people managed to struggle through careers in programming without seeming to gain knowledge, skill or apparently any understanding
I like how you distinguished between knowledge, skill, and understanding. I think many programmers have knowledge of how they've seen something done, but no understanding of why that's the right way in some cases and not others, or what the side effects may be.
For people who have knowledge, working with languages at different levels can deepen understanding. It has for me.
Yes, back in the day it could be said that becoming familiar with assembly could make you a better C programmer. It can still be said, because it's true, and I said it above. That's the point of "spend a few hours playing with microcontrollers", to get a minimal familiarity with that level of intimacy with the hardware.
Are you suggesting that it's not true, that C won't show you things that you don't learn from Ruby? Also the reverse - GUI programming in.NET will make you truly appreciate the value of objects, interfaces, etc.
Note that I'm not suggesting that all programs should be written in a low level language. Go ahead and use the appropriate language. Perl is great because it has LWP::Simple (very high level) and it has bit shift operators.
What I'm saying is use SQL, sure, and even report generators, but know how they work. If I give you two tables that are 3X3, could you perform a join with pencil and paper? If so, you'll do better work than someone who only uses a report generator and has never looked at the underlying data.
Indeed. Half of today's programmers have roughly zero engineering education, and want to be called software engineers. They have no idea, no idea at all, what their data structures look like in memory and why they are so damn slow. Heck "data structure" is an unfamiliar term to many.
It's not entirely young vs old, either. I'm in my 30s. I work with people in their 50s who make GOOD money as programmers, but can't describe how the systems they are responsible for actually work.
How do we fix it? If you want to be good, studying the old work of the masters like Knuth is helpful, of course. Most helpful, I think, is to become familiar with languages at different levels. Get a little bit familiar with C. Not C# or C++, but C. It will make you a better programmer in any language. Also get familiar with high level. You truly appreciate object oriented code when you do GUI programming in a good Microsoft language. Then, take a peek at Perl's objects to see how the high level objects are implemented with simple low level tricks. Perl is perfect for understanding what an object really is, under the covers. Maybe play with microcontrollers for a few hours. At that point, you'll have the breadth of knowledge that you could implement high level entities like objects in low level C. You'll have UNDERSTANDING, not just rote repetition.
* none of this is intended to imply that I'm any kind of expert. Hundreds, possibly thousands of people are better programmers than I. On the other hand, tens of thousands could learn something from the approach I described.
They had code to configure iptables, sure. Which they shipped with iptables and the rest of Linux. You realize their device needed needed an OS to boot, right?
In 2010, when they were caught before, they signed a letter agreeing they understood that they needed to include an offer for the complete source, as they compiled it. Not some other version of Linux, the version they were using. That's really not complicated - if you ship GPL software, include an offer to provide the source you used.
That's interesting. Here, the same mushrooms are most often smoked. Maybe that's because weed, which is better smoked than eaten, is so popular here. Perhaps if people are accustomed to smoking stuff...
Thank you. I was hoping the court commented on the fact that they continued to infringe after having been notified, when (mostly) rectifying the infringement would have been simple.
> Why is it that you can take literary works and sample from them without violating copyright but GPL'ed code is viral? > If they are both based on copyright, why can't you take small samples of code and incorporate it into non-gpl'ed code?
You can. Who said otherwise? Just as you can quote a few sentences from a book, you can copy a few lines from a GPL work. You can't copy-paste several pages from a typical book, under normal circumstances, and you can't copy-paste several pages from a GPL work without complying with the license.
It may be a mistake to get into a discussion involving fair use on Slashdot since quite a few people here seem to think it means you can take whatever you want, from anyone you want, and do with it whatever you please. As it sounds like you know, fair use has a very specific definition. Generally, it means you can use a small sample of a work in a way that does not compete with the original work, such as quoting a book in a review. I've never heard anyone say you can't quote code in a code review.
> Why is is that you create a derived work from a literary work and by just rewriting it, you have to pay no royalties and yet GPL > advocates want the original author to be able to "steal" all of the derived works even it it almost completely refactored into a new codebase?
I'm not sure what you're on about here either, but you can't refactor a book either. You can write a new book on the same topic. You can't re-arrange the paragraphs by cut and paste, add a few words, and call it your own. Same with software. Maybe this will make it clear:
It's illegal to shoot someone. is it illegal to shoot someone and give them a Coke? is it illegal to shoot someone and smile at them?
It's illegal to take my code and distribute it without following the license. is it illegal to take my code and distribute it without following the license and also add your own code? is it illegal to take my code and distribute it without following the license and also change my code a little bit?
Adding some of your own code to mine is the same as adding a Coke to the shooting. How would that make it okay?
Following the GPL is nothing more than posting your changes, or giving them to your customers. Is that SO hard? You insist on selling my work, but can't post your own?
> How does the variety of toxic plants fit into this narrative? I don't see the process of learning what insects to eat > as being any different from the process of learning what plants to eat.
The poisonous parts tend to be the leaves, not the fruit. Humans, and primates generally, don't often graze on random leaves. We eat the sweet fruit, which is designed to be be eaten. Tomato stems and leaves are poisonous, the fruit is delicious. The poisonous part is not delicious. Beans are a notable exception to this general rule.
> far-less-than-modern practices [wikipedia.org] led humans to separate the poisonous mushrooms from the edible ones
From your wikipedia link:
The first reliable evidence of mushroom consumption dates to several hundred years BC in China. The Chinese value mushrooms for MEDICINAL PROPERTIES
If you're familiar with the medicinal properties of 'shrooms, you may recognize the 'medicinal' ones ARE the poisonous ones - they cause hallucinations. Anyway, it's a general rule - we eat a lot more fruit than fungus.
> Why do you say they are an acquired taste compared to anything else we eat?
Our taste buds are: Salty: meat sweet: fruit, including "vegetable" fruits like cucumber sour: fruit bitter: danger maybe umami (glutamate, MSG)
Mushrooms are neither sweet, nor salty, nor slightly sour. Those are hallmarks of "food". Fruits and some vegetables are sweet and a bit sour, meat is salty. Things that don't fit the taste profile of either fruits or meats are not pleasant when most people first try them. We can learn to enjoy them, however, and beer is a great example. Give young child mushrooms or bleu cheese and see what happens - they haven't learned the taste, so they only enjoy the naturally attractive flavors.
Umami (glutamate) is debated as to whether it's a basic taste, but it does seem that IN COMBINATION WITH other food flavors, it can enhance those other flavors and make them more delicious. Mushrooms are full of glutamates, they are nature's MSG. Perhaps that's why we eat mushrooms and not other fungus, and why we normally put mushrooms on top of some base food, like meat. Putting mushrooms on a steak is the same compounds as putting MSG on it - it amplifies the steak taste.
Not only did they not exercise due diligence to start with, it appears that when asked to comply with the license by posting the code they actually used, the company lied and said they weren't using iptables. Had they simply said "oops, sorry about that, here's the code we compiled" it would have been resolved with just a few minutes of time.
That second scenario is what Plesk did. I pointed out they weren't in compliance and as an Apache copyright holder I insisted that they comply. They immediately posted the Apache code they were using, ending the matter. The only effect on them is that now a couple of Slashdot readers know that they did the right thing.
I think that's the big takeaway - when you mess up, don't lie and initiate a cover-up, just fix it and move on.
It appears that when asked to comply with the license by posting the code they actually used, the company lied and said they weren't using iptables. Contrast that to when I pointed out to Plesk that they were violating the Apache license. They very quickly apologized and posted the code, putting an end to the issue. All they needed to do is post the code that they compiled in order to come into compliance.
The court opinion is six pages, Im guessing three of those are boilerplate. Are there any fluent speakers of German who can read through it and tell us the facts as expressed by the court?
Slashdot Mirror
The LAN side access isn't difficult with WIFI, and the ATTACKER doesn't need to plug-in his own USB, having any USB plugged in will activate the unauthenticated SMB.
The take-home message, then, is don't plug USB storage into your router, and do use WPA2, not earlier WiFi security protocols.
you are correct they cannot effectively monitor all communication. Yet, they attempted to do just that rather than expending the resources monitoring threats they had been warned about repeatedly.
Pretend you are responsible for reducing terrorism. You're giving a hundred million dollar budget, a list of 50 people who appear to be threats, and the phone numbers of major internet providers. Do you:
a) use that money to closely monitor the 50 suspects
Or
b) make logs of every email and phone call of every law abiding citizen, so you have more data than you can possibly look at.
Choosing B is stupid.
That must be one remaining state Obama hadn't yet visited when he had been to "uh, 57 states so far". You know, when his "numeracy is a little off".
Yes the Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the US. As the Supreme Court said, a law violating the Constitution is null and void, without effect. If an act is made "legal" only by an unconstitutional "law", it is not made it legal at all, for that law is null and void. Acting under the color of a void law that contravenes the Constitution is acting illegally.
perhaps an analogy to make it more clear. I hereby give you permission to break into your neighbor's house. If you go ahead and break into your neighbor's house you have acted illegally because I do not have the power to grant you that permission. It is the same with an unconstitutional law - the legislature has no authority grant you permission to act under that law.
We should not put people in jail for trying to do the right thing, having an accident of some sort. Crime requires criminal intent, knowingly doing something wrong. Elected leaders take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Not to be smart, not to make good decisions, but you make constitutional decisions. When an elected official KNOWINGLY violates the Constitution I would have no problem sending into jail.
Because there may be a legitimate disagreement as to the Constitutionality of a law, rarely could it be proven that they knowingly violated it. However I can think of one prosecutable instance. A certain state senator was also a law professor. I listened to the tape of him on the Senate floor warning that a certain bill was unconstitutional. He said he liked the bill, but it went to far and violated the Constitution. The bill needed to be scaled back he said, or the Supreme Court would surely strike it down. He went ahead and voted FOR the bill that he knew to be unconstitutional.
So he's a law professor and a senator. He should have a pretty good idea of what is Constitutional and what is not. He knows it's unconstitutional, but breaks his oath of office and votes for it anyway. I'm good to sentence him to six months in jail. That senator, Barack Obama, deserves jail time for willfully violating our constitutional rights, by his own admission.
> You say this is already happening? That there are politicians in the US or UK that are using the intelligence services to target individual voters
Google Herbert Hoover. This year, we know the Obama administration used a federal agency, the IRS, to target citizens who disagree with him politically. Given that he's a) tracking all of your emails and phone calls while b) using federal agencies against voters, it seems quite likely he'd combine the two.
I think you all make good points. If it ain't broke don't fix it is often a good idea. Sometimes not. I didn't specify why I deleted the code.
So true that someone else probably already did it and you can get the code on the Internet. I'm replacing a lot of over complicated and therefore unreliable code with GPL code it's been well tested (including unit testing).
Of course there's a lot of crap code posted on forums, places like stack exchange. Sadly , the comments section of the PHP documentation is full of really bad code. Perhaps because PHP is TOO easy to use - you can make it appear to work without having a clue what you're doing.
Meta: the statement "changing the puppet doesn't change the puppeteer" begs the question,
You: um no. The question begging for an answer
it's not a question did bags. It's the speaker who begs you to ignore his skipping the question.
> . The statement changing the puppet doesn't change the puppeteer" implies without question that the president is a puppet.
...". You're begging the audience to overlook your unwarranted and important assumption.
That does assume, and there is a specific term for a assuming the answer to an important question. That term is "begging the question". It will be found on most lists of logical fallacies.
you are thinking of "raises the question". Raising the question ask for an answer. Begging the question assumes the answer. The word begging is used in the sense of "humor me for a moment and assume
> The statement "changing the puppet doesn't change the puppeteer" implies without question that the president is a puppet.
There is a specific term for assuming the answer to an important question. That term is "begging the question" and it will normally be found on any list of logical fallacies.
You're thinking of "raises the question". Begging the assumes the answer, raising the question asks for an answer.
encryption used for DVDs was believed to be unbreakable, until it was broken. How many companies have released encryption schemes, for DRM or otherwise and it gets cracked within hours of actual release. more than once Microsoft encryption has been cracked before its official release.
Though I haven't studied this particular one, my general impression is that it was not designed by cryptography experts and then vetted the way well known cryptographic algorithms are vetted by other experts.
Working hard and smart at the same time is normally a winning combination.
It's been aid that laziness is a popular characteristic of a good programmers. a programmer's JOB is to make the computer work for you. Hard work in programming sometimes means writing 18 different classes in one day, to handle 18 different columns. a better approach is to write one abstract class and a couple of subclasses that handle the different columns is polymorphically.
Many times I've deleted a hundred lines of code and replaced it with four lines that do the same task more reliably and more elegantly. My predecessor worked hard. I worked smart.
That said, reading a 1300 page book to learn HOW to do it in four lines was "hard work". I suspect programmers should listen to the old advice about sharpening the axe and spend a lot of their mental energy learning how to accomplish more faster, rather than producing more lines of code per day. The number of bugs is proportional to the number of lines of code, so the person who writes more lines per day really just creates more problems per day.
That was supposed to say the VALUE of object oriented programming. Develop a GUI using textbox objects, then the same GUI via graphics primitives, no objects. You'll quickly learn to love objects.
That's orthogonal to how well the language's object system is designed.
>. Back then as now, people managed to struggle through careers in programming without seeming to gain knowledge, skill or apparently any understanding
I like how you distinguished between knowledge, skill, and understanding. I think many programmers have knowledge of how they've seen something done,
but no understanding of why that's the right way in some cases and not others, or what the side effects may be.
For people who have knowledge, working with languages at different levels can deepen understanding. It has for me.
Yes, back in the day it could be said that becoming familiar with assembly could make you a better C programmer. It can still be said, because it's true, and I said it above. That's the point of "spend a few hours playing with microcontrollers", to get a minimal familiarity with that level of intimacy with the hardware.
.NET will make you truly appreciate the value of objects, interfaces, etc.
Are you suggesting that it's not true, that C won't show you things that you don't learn from Ruby? Also the reverse - GUI programming in
Note that I'm not suggesting that all programs should be written in a low level language. Go ahead and use the appropriate language. Perl is great because it has LWP::Simple (very high level) and it has bit shift operators.
What I'm saying is use SQL, sure, and even report generators, but know how they work. If I give you two tables that are 3X3, could you perform a join with pencil and paper? If so, you'll do better work than someone who only uses a report generator and has never looked at the underlying data.
Indeed. Half of today's programmers have roughly zero engineering education, and want to be called software engineers. They have no idea, no idea at all, what their data structures look like in memory and why they are so damn slow. Heck "data structure" is an unfamiliar term to many.
It's not entirely young vs old, either. I'm in my 30s. I work with people in their 50s who make GOOD money as programmers, but can't describe how the systems they are responsible for actually work.
How do we fix it? If you want to be good, studying the old work of the masters like Knuth is helpful, of course. Most helpful, I think, is to become familiar with languages at different levels. Get a little bit familiar with C. Not C# or C++, but C. It will make you a better programmer in any language. Also get familiar with high level. You truly appreciate object oriented code when you do GUI programming in a good Microsoft language. Then, take a peek at Perl's objects to see how the high level objects are implemented with simple low level tricks. Perl is perfect for understanding what an object really is, under the covers. Maybe play with microcontrollers for a few hours. At that point, you'll have the breadth of knowledge that you could implement high level entities like objects in low level C. You'll have UNDERSTANDING, not just rote repetition.
* none of this is intended to imply that I'm any kind of expert. Hundreds, possibly thousands of people are better programmers than I. On the other hand, tens of thousands could learn something from the approach I described.
They had code to configure iptables, sure. Which they shipped with iptables and the rest of Linux. You realize their device needed needed an OS to boot, right?
In 2010, when they were caught before, they signed a letter agreeing they understood that they needed to include an offer for the complete source, as they compiled it. Not some other version of Linux, the version they were using. That's really not complicated - if you ship GPL software, include an offer to provide the source you used.
That's interesting. Here, the same mushrooms are most often smoked. Maybe that's because weed, which is better smoked than eaten, is so popular here. Perhaps if people are accustomed to smoking stuff ...
See he caught mice you didn't even know you had ;)
Interesting. That was in 2010, it seems, from this link:
http://lawandlifesiliconvalley.com/blog/
Thank you. I was hoping the court commented on the fact that they continued to infringe after having been notified, when (mostly) rectifying the infringement would have been simple.
> Why is it that you can take literary works and sample from them without violating copyright but GPL'ed code is viral?
> If they are both based on copyright, why can't you take small samples of code and incorporate it into non-gpl'ed code?
You can. Who said otherwise? Just as you can quote a few sentences from a book, you can copy a few lines from a GPL work.
You can't copy-paste several pages from a typical book, under normal circumstances, and you can't copy-paste several pages from a GPL work without complying with the license.
It may be a mistake to get into a discussion involving fair use on Slashdot since quite a few people here seem to think it means you
can take whatever you want, from anyone you want, and do with it whatever you please. As it sounds like you know, fair use has a
very specific definition. Generally, it means you can use a small sample of a work in a way that does not compete with the original
work, such as quoting a book in a review. I've never heard anyone say you can't quote code in a code review.
> Why is is that you create a derived work from a literary work and by just rewriting it, you have to pay no royalties and yet GPL
> advocates want the original author to be able to "steal" all of the derived works even it it almost completely refactored into a new codebase?
I'm not sure what you're on about here either, but you can't refactor a book either. You can write a new book on the same topic.
You can't re-arrange the paragraphs by cut and paste, add a few words, and call it your own. Same with software. Maybe this
will make it clear:
It's illegal to shoot someone.
is it illegal to shoot someone and give them a Coke?
is it illegal to shoot someone and smile at them?
It's illegal to take my code and distribute it without following the license.
is it illegal to take my code and distribute it without following the license and also add your own code?
is it illegal to take my code and distribute it without following the license and also change my code a little bit?
Adding some of your own code to mine is the same as adding a Coke to the shooting. How would that make it okay?
Following the GPL is nothing more than posting your changes, or giving them to your customers. Is that SO hard?
You insist on selling my work, but can't post your own?
I'm curious where you're from and how old you are that you haven't heard of smoking 'shrooms.
In Texas it's almost as well known as smoking marijuana.
> How does the variety of toxic plants fit into this narrative? I don't see the process of learning what insects to eat
> as being any different from the process of learning what plants to eat.
The poisonous parts tend to be the leaves, not the fruit. Humans, and primates generally, don't often graze on random leaves.
We eat the sweet fruit, which is designed to be be eaten. Tomato stems and leaves are poisonous, the fruit is delicious.
The poisonous part is not delicious. Beans are a notable exception to this general rule.
> far-less-than-modern practices [wikipedia.org] led humans to separate the poisonous mushrooms from the edible ones
From your wikipedia link:
The first reliable evidence of mushroom consumption dates to several hundred years BC in China.
The Chinese value mushrooms for MEDICINAL PROPERTIES
If you're familiar with the medicinal properties of 'shrooms, you may recognize the 'medicinal' ones ARE the poisonous ones - they cause hallucinations. Anyway, it's a general rule - we eat a lot more fruit than fungus.
> Why do you say they are an acquired taste compared to anything else we eat?
Our taste buds are:
Salty: meat
sweet: fruit, including "vegetable" fruits like cucumber
sour: fruit
bitter: danger
maybe umami (glutamate, MSG)
Mushrooms are neither sweet, nor salty, nor slightly sour. Those are hallmarks of "food". Fruits and some vegetables are sweet and a bit sour, meat is salty. Things that don't fit the taste profile of either fruits or meats are not pleasant when most people first try them. We can learn to enjoy them, however, and beer is a great example. Give young child mushrooms or bleu cheese and see what happens - they haven't learned the taste, so they only enjoy the naturally attractive flavors.
Umami (glutamate) is debated as to whether it's a basic taste, but it does seem that IN COMBINATION WITH other food flavors, it can enhance those other flavors and make them more delicious. Mushrooms are full of glutamates, they are nature's MSG. Perhaps that's why we eat mushrooms and not other fungus, and why we normally put mushrooms on top of some base food, like meat. Putting mushrooms on a steak is the same compounds as putting MSG on it - it amplifies the steak taste.
Not only did they not exercise due diligence to start with, it appears that when asked to comply with the license by posting the code they actually used, the company lied and said they weren't using iptables. Had they simply said "oops, sorry about that, here's the code we compiled" it would have been resolved with just a few minutes of time.
That second scenario is what Plesk did. I pointed out they weren't in compliance and as an Apache copyright holder I insisted that they comply.
They immediately posted the Apache code they were using, ending the matter. The only effect on them is that now a couple of Slashdot readers know that they did the right thing.
I think that's the big takeaway - when you mess up, don't lie and initiate a cover-up, just fix it and move on.
It appears that when asked to comply with the license by posting the code they actually used, the company lied and said they weren't using iptables.
Contrast that to when I pointed out to Plesk that they were violating the Apache license. They very quickly apologized and posted the code, putting an end to the issue. All they needed to do is post the code that they compiled in order to come into compliance.
The court opinion is six pages, Im guessing three of those are boilerplate. Are there any fluent speakers of German who can read through it and tell us the facts as expressed by the court?