Overall a good letter and I'm glad you sent it. However, part of your letter includes a flawed argument commonly expressed by GPL proponents:
However, if you do decide to release that software to the public, or a subset thereof, you'd like to have a guarantee that nobody can then take this software, make some small modifications to it, and start offering it under restricted terms, in effect preventing the public from benefiting from your software the way you intended.
The public still has access to YOUR software the EXACT same way that you intended. Your copy is unaffected. Your CVS repository is intact. Your website still has the same links to your tarballs. Your project is unaffected. The only effect that someone taking your software and offering it under restricted terms has is hurting your feelings ("Gee, not even a thankyou?"), your ego ("Hey, *I* wrote that!") and your sense of decency ("You could at least share your changes."). Your _freedom_ (That's what's important right?) is unaffected.
In fact, using this case as an example, the "public" can be taken to mean the set of Linux users with an interest in your software. This set of users will continue to benefit from using your software as you intended and have no interest in purchasing it in modified form from someone else. The set of YOUR users have nothing in common with the set of THEIR users.
You would only be able to make this argument if you had hopes of their set of users (the typical consumer) using your software. If this were the case you would either sell it to them yourself or license it under a BSD-style license where it can be modified (or not) for proprietary use without further source release.
Personally, I think the biggest reason GPL software authors complain in situations like this is because money is involved. How dare they profit from your work? And while I agree -- how dare they indeed -- if it was about profit and money then why did you make it available for free (beer) in the first place?
Unless you're self-employed (or unemployed) someone else is already profiting from work you perform. You don't complain so much about that because you at least get paid. So are you saying you want to get paid for your software if someone else profits from it? If that's the case, don't release it as OSS.
Lastly, you really should have used "Open Source software" in place of "Free Software" in paragraph 3.
The strongest occurance of FUD was the Comrade comment at the end. Communism is still a bad word and the comment has surely planted (non technical and legal) seeds of fear, uncertainty and doubt in the minds of Forbe's staunchest readers.
The average, ignorant capitlistic Forbes-reading PHB will come away with an impression that OSS is too closely related to Communism. Not because of the GPL's treehugging, teach-the-world-to-sing qualities but because a biased reporter abused his influence.
Because some P2P clients let you change the port? Application Recognition is more accurate than blocking specific ports.
And I think you meant (it's not, but it's what you meant) that it's an ass-backward way to enforce the policy. The policy itself is sound.
And when it comes right down to it the only thing the university cares about is the network, and it's been completely ruined by P2P sharing and recent network borne viruses/worms.
Re:This goes back to the early days of Apple
on
Beatles Bite Apple
·
· Score: 1
Actually, that's probably not too far off the median property value of that neighborhood. This is Gary we're talking about (Born and raised btw.)
I don't know the source of your.sig, but you do know that Wolverine's first appearance was in The Hulk and he did in fact hold his own (the Hulk is a little dim-witted.)
This wasn't just a "license" title. It was written and directed by The Wachowski Brothers themselves and is meant to supplement the events of Reloaded.
The rush, as others have pointed out, was because the release date had to coincide with the release of the movie.
If you were going to use it as your nameserver then yes, you would. But that's not what the parent was saying.
As it happens, you shouldn't be doing this at all. It's unecessary traffic. Your DNS server should always be close. In fact some authoritative name servers don't even do recursive lookups to prevent the sort of (ab)use that you suggested.
But it's moot really. This doesn't affect DNS.
People: If this is an issue at all (I see nothing wrong anywhere [maybe PIR got them back up?] and I don't exactly trust The Register's clue level anyway) then the only issue is WHOIS related. There's no problem with any root servers, thus this isn't a DNS problem.
It was your entire intention to troll. As the other replies pointed out, EDOOFUS is an error code indicating that the FreeBSD developer made a mistake, not the user.
You response to this situation is colored by your unfortunate, yet anecdotal experience. What you don't realize is that people are people too, and you probably just asked an asshole for help.
>>If you have a license to listen to the music, then it doesn't matter what the media is.
>Did you miss the point of copyright altogether.
I didn't. My comment was meant to be an illustration of how the Industry can't have it both ways. Either you're purchasing a license to listen to the material (their claim, and in which case the media shouldn't matter) or you're only purchasing the media (their actions) and if you want the material in another form you have to buy that too.
I'ts obvious by now that it's really the latter that's the issue, but they'll never say "yeah, we don't care about artists right or any License To Listen, we just want to charge you 4 times for the same things."
>A copyright holder might not be too upset if everyone who did those things also owned a copy of the track.
(I realize this thread is regarding Australian law but) AFAIK, in the U.S. you're allowed to have an MP3 of a song from a CD that you personally own, whether you ripped it yourself or downloaded it from a P2P network (or HTTP, or FTP, or Sneaker Net) This reinforces the notion of License To Listen that is in such contradiction with the Industry's behavior.
The music industry cannot have it two ways. You can buy a CD and listen to it, but you don't own it really, you're just licensed to listen to the music. But you can't copy it to a tape to play in your car, but you _can_ rip it to MP3s and put it on your iPod? Either the media matters, or it doesn't. If you have a license to listen to the music, then it doesn't matter what the media is.
Yet if the music industry insists that you have to buy the music in each variety of media that exists (vinyl, tape, CD), then it ceases being an issue of license and music. It becomes an issue of media and how many times they can charge you for listening to it.
If I've bought a license to listen to the music then by golly I'm going to listen to it in any form I choose. If that means that if I buy a Dylan CD that I should be able to (at the very least and within the scope of my argument):
1. Download the songs from a P2P service. 2. Download the songs from an online music service for free (choose which, but let's say the iTunes Music Store.) 2. Rip my own MP3s from the CD I bought. 3. Copy the CD to tape. 4. Record the song from radio to tape. 5. Audio Hijack (or a similar application) the song from streaming radio to my choice of digital audio file (WAV, MP3, etc). 6. Copy the song from a friend's vinyl album to a tape.
All in all, the industry's actions differs from their claims.
Lastly, you can't tell me that if I snuck a microphone into a recording studio that I wouldn't be considered a sound thief. (course, it would be of little use unless I had music production and audio mixing experience, etc, but it's the thought that counts.)
If you've bought tapes then you already have a right to listen to the music in any form. You can download them from any P2P service you can find them on.
What does the submitter care if RedHat EOLs 6.2 if he's building his kernels by hand anyway. An EOL for 6.2 would mean he wouldn't get new RPMs or support for it. It's not like it would suddenly prevent manual installation of kernels.
Is ATI going to continue to sell RV300 based boards? And if so at what price points? I _just_ (last weekend) bought a 9700 PRO at Circuit City on sale for $299. I realize now that it was to just get rid of it (Best Buy also is listing theirs for $299 presumably for the same reason.)
The 9800 is only marginally better than the 9700, and the 9700 is far far better than the new 9600. The new 9600 is supposed to be $219 and the new 9800 replaces the 9700 at $399. That leaves a big gap.
What I'm worried about is if ATI is going to continue producing 9700's, will they be under $300? Anything less than $299 and I'll feel ripped off. (Unless I can get a price adjustment from CC.)
Still, I got a good deal I suppose. I never would have spent $399, and if they stop making 9700's then I paid a fair price for it too.
You're confusing the two. 5.0-RELEASE is just a CVS tag on the -CURRENT branch. The -STABLE branch will have a 4.8 and maybe even a 4.9-RELEASE. 5.0 probably won't go -STABLE until 5.2-RELEASE. It's not IA-64 vs IA-32.
This overlapping of -RELEASEs started with 3.0
A -RELEASE from the -CURRENT branch is only meant for early adopters (and an early adopter guide is available) and [software] developers.
They can yes, but there's nothing to suggest that they should have. Now if it had been something like bigasterisk.dyndns.org or something more suggestive, then there'd be some carlessness involved.
Slashdot _does_ need to be more responsible when linking, HOWEVER...
The problem is that more geeks are hosting their personal sites on their broadband connections, and they simply don't have enough upstream bandwidth to handle a slashdotting. When Drew said that they didn't ask if/. could link to his page, he didn't mean in a legal sense, (which the parent poster seems to be thinking) he meant in a "hey, will your connection and server be ok if we do this?" sense.
There was no reason to even think that they should ask. They didn't make a conscious "decision" to DDoS Drew, they simply saw a site worth linking to. Drew took it as a personal attack and he needs to realize that they had no idea that bigasterisk.com was hosted on a home DSL connection.
It's also more likely that his connection was unusable before his server ever "puked" (if it did.) He could have killed Apache and _still_ had no use of his DSL. How would you feel? Granted, it's no excuse for his irrational assumption of malicious intent, but you'd be unable to even do anything about it. You couldn't put up a mirror because your connection is hosed. You couldn't reach/. to post a URL to the mirror even if you had one.
And I'm speaking from experience, as the admin of a web server at an ISP that was/.ed 4 years ago. (Mosfet's KDE page.)
The point he was trying to make was that you were confusing the version numbers and their pre/postfix placement.
4.4BSD = last full release of Berkeley Unix from the CSRG at UCB. All versions of BSD/OS, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, 386BSD, and so on are based on this (again, simplified.) There will never be > 4.4BSD. When a BSD system says it's based on 4.4BSD, it's a reference to the historical lineage of it's code base. To quote from http://www.freebsd.org/features.html,
A complete operating system based on 4.4BSD.
FreeBSD's distinguished roots derive from the latest BSD software releases from the Computer Systems Research Group at the University of California, Berkeley. The book The Design and Implementation of 4.4BSD Operating System, written by the 4.4BSD system architects, thus describes much of FreeBSD's core functionality in detail.
Drawing on the skills and experience of a diverse and world-wide group of volunteer developers, the FreeBSD Project has worked to extend the feature set of the 4.4BSD operating system in many ways, striving constantly to make each new release of the OS more stable, faster and containing new functionality driven by user requests.
MacOSX's BSD subsystem was never based on 3.3BSD, but on FreeBSD 3.3 (an important distinction). OSX 10.2's BSD subsystem was upgraded to a FreeBSD 4.4 base.
Therefore, to say that 'Apple does use 4.4BSD subsystem elements for 10.2' is a true statement, but this has not changed from 10.1 or 10.0 (or the Public Beta, etc), since all versions have been based on FreeBSD, and all versions of FreeBSD are still a "4.4BSD based" system.
If you reread your initial post, this was not what you claimed, and thus the propogation of misinformation continues...
FreeBSD is not just a kernel. This isn't some tarball you get from bsdkernel.org, compile and reboot with. It's a complete OS that includes the kernel and the userland together. The userland components are developed with and for the kernel by one group of people. That userland has thus evolved alongside the changing kernel in the -CURRENT CVS trunk, diverging greatly from the time that 4.0 was tagged -STABLE. When you upgrade, you get it all.
I'm sure you meant no harm, but unless corrected, the misunderstanding of the nature of the BSDs, and how they differ from Linux, will continue to be propogated.
Yes, Multi-link PPP on both sides. He said PPP over TCP/IP, not PPP over serial or PPPoE. You'd run a PPP server on Carl (the colo box) and your multi-linked PPP connection gets the address of Carl's third IP.
Here I was hoping for a more intelligent FreeBSD.org search rather than just a result collector.
And did you have to include Defcon1? Their articles are often outdated, inacccurate or stolen [and claimed original]. (Every offense to EFNet #FreeBSDHelp intended.)
Slashdot Mirror
However, if you do decide to release that software to the public, or a subset thereof, you'd like to have a guarantee that nobody can then take this software, make some small modifications to it, and start offering it under restricted terms, in effect preventing the public from benefiting from your software the way you intended.
The public still has access to YOUR software the EXACT same way that you intended. Your copy is unaffected. Your CVS repository is intact. Your website still has the same links to your tarballs. Your project is unaffected. The only effect that someone taking your software and offering it under restricted terms has is hurting your feelings ("Gee, not even a thankyou?"), your ego ("Hey, *I* wrote that!") and your sense of decency ("You could at least share your changes."). Your _freedom_ (That's what's important right?) is unaffected.
In fact, using this case as an example, the "public" can be taken to mean the set of Linux users with an interest in your software. This set of users will continue to benefit from using your software as you intended and have no interest in purchasing it in modified form from someone else. The set of YOUR users have nothing in common with the set of THEIR users.
You would only be able to make this argument if you had hopes of their set of users (the typical consumer) using your software. If this were the case you would either sell it to them yourself or license it under a BSD-style license where it can be modified (or not) for proprietary use without further source release.
Personally, I think the biggest reason GPL software authors complain in situations like this is because money is involved. How dare they profit from your work? And while I agree -- how dare they indeed -- if it was about profit and money then why did you make it available for free (beer) in the first place?
Unless you're self-employed (or unemployed) someone else is already profiting from work you perform. You don't complain so much about that because you at least get paid. So are you saying you want to get paid for your software if someone else profits from it? If that's the case, don't release it as OSS.
Lastly, you really should have used "Open Source software" in place of "Free Software" in paragraph 3.
The strongest occurance of FUD was the Comrade comment at the end. Communism is still a bad word and the comment has surely planted (non technical and legal) seeds of fear, uncertainty and doubt in the minds of Forbe's staunchest readers.
The average, ignorant capitlistic Forbes-reading PHB will come away with an impression that OSS is too closely related to Communism. Not because of the GPL's treehugging, teach-the-world-to-sing qualities but because a biased reporter abused his influence.
Their primary objective is to make the network useable again by reducing P2P and network borne viruses.
Who cares if they don't get the truly geek. They will have saved their network.
Your privacy would only be concerned if they were looking at what you were sharing/downloading, etc. Icarus doesn't do that.
Because some P2P clients let you change the port? Application Recognition is more accurate than blocking specific ports.
And I think you meant (it's not, but it's what you meant) that it's an ass-backward way to enforce the policy. The policy itself is sound.
And when it comes right down to it the only thing the university cares about is the network, and it's been completely ruined by P2P sharing and recent network borne viruses/worms.
Actually, that's probably not too far off the median property value of that neighborhood. This is Gary we're talking about (Born and raised btw.)
I don't know the source of your .sig, but you do know that Wolverine's first appearance was in The Hulk and he did in fact hold his own (the Hulk is a little dim-witted.)
Lack of a PTR record has nothing to do with whether the machine at the IP is up. You were better off trying a ping. (It replies today btw.)
simoniker:
This wasn't just a "license" title. It was written and directed by The Wachowski Brothers themselves and is meant to supplement the events of Reloaded.
The rush, as others have pointed out, was because the release date had to coincide with the release of the movie.
If you were going to use it as your nameserver then yes, you would. But that's not what the parent was saying.
As it happens, you shouldn't be doing this at all. It's unecessary traffic. Your DNS server should always be close. In fact some authoritative name servers don't even do recursive lookups to prevent the sort of (ab)use that you suggested.
But it's moot really. This doesn't affect DNS.
People: If this is an issue at all (I see nothing wrong anywhere [maybe PIR got them back up?] and I don't exactly trust The Register's clue level anyway) then the only issue is WHOIS related. There's no problem with any root servers, thus this isn't a DNS problem.
It was your entire intention to troll. As the other replies pointed out, EDOOFUS is an error code indicating that the FreeBSD developer made a mistake, not the user.
You response to this situation is colored by your unfortunate, yet anecdotal experience. What you don't realize is that people are people too, and you probably just asked an asshole for help.
>Did you miss the point of copyright altogether.
I didn't. My comment was meant to be an illustration of how the Industry can't have it both ways. Either you're purchasing a license to listen to the material (their claim, and in which case the media shouldn't matter) or you're only purchasing the media (their actions) and if you want the material in another form you have to buy that too.
I'ts obvious by now that it's really the latter that's the issue, but they'll never say "yeah, we don't care about artists right or any License To Listen, we just want to charge you 4 times for the same things."
>A copyright holder might not be too upset if everyone who did those things also owned a copy of the track.
(I realize this thread is regarding Australian law but) AFAIK, in the U.S. you're allowed to have an MP3 of a song from a CD that you personally own, whether you ripped it yourself or downloaded it from a P2P network (or HTTP, or FTP, or Sneaker Net) This reinforces the notion of License To Listen that is in such contradiction with the Industry's behavior.
The music industry cannot have it two ways. You can buy a CD and listen to it, but you don't own it really, you're just licensed to listen to the music. But you can't copy it to a tape to play in your car, but you _can_ rip it to MP3s and put it on your iPod? Either the media matters, or it doesn't. If you have a license to listen to the music, then it doesn't matter what the media is.
Yet if the music industry insists that you have to buy the music in each variety of media that exists (vinyl, tape, CD), then it ceases being an issue of license and music. It becomes an issue of media and how many times they can charge you for listening to it.
If I've bought a license to listen to the music then by golly I'm going to listen to it in any form I choose. If that means that if I buy a Dylan CD that I should be able to (at the very least and within the scope of my argument):
1. Download the songs from a P2P service.
2. Download the songs from an online music service for free (choose which, but let's say the iTunes Music Store.)
2. Rip my own MP3s from the CD I bought.
3. Copy the CD to tape.
4. Record the song from radio to tape.
5. Audio Hijack (or a similar application) the song from streaming radio to my choice of digital audio file (WAV, MP3, etc).
6. Copy the song from a friend's vinyl album to a tape.
All in all, the industry's actions differs from their claims.
Lastly, you can't tell me that if I snuck a microphone into a recording studio that I wouldn't be considered a sound thief. (course, it would be of little use unless I had music production and audio mixing experience, etc, but it's the thought that counts.)
He can still run Linux on it. $999 for a 12" iBook is a good deal with any OS.
If you've bought tapes then you already have a right to listen to the music in any form. You can download them from any P2P service you can find them on.
That zmachine looks COMPLETELY like the lab at the beginning of Halflife.
What does the submitter care if RedHat EOLs 6.2 if he's building his kernels by hand anyway. An EOL for 6.2 would mean he wouldn't get new RPMs or support for it. It's not like it would suddenly prevent manual installation of kernels.
Sorry, I was brain farting. That's R300 and R350.
Is ATI going to continue to sell RV300 based boards? And if so at what price points? I _just_ (last weekend) bought a 9700 PRO at Circuit City on sale for $299. I realize now that it was to just get rid of it (Best Buy also is listing theirs for $299 presumably for the same reason.)
The 9800 is only marginally better than the 9700, and the 9700 is far far better than the new 9600. The new 9600 is supposed to be $219 and the new 9800 replaces the 9700 at $399. That leaves a big gap.
What I'm worried about is if ATI is going to continue producing 9700's, will they be under $300? Anything less than $299 and I'll feel ripped off. (Unless I can get a price adjustment from CC.)
Still, I got a good deal I suppose. I never would have spent $399, and if they stop making 9700's then I paid a fair price for it too.
You're confusing the two. 5.0-RELEASE is just a CVS tag on the -CURRENT branch. The -STABLE branch will have a 4.8 and maybe even a 4.9-RELEASE. 5.0 probably won't go -STABLE until 5.2-RELEASE. It's not IA-64 vs IA-32.
This overlapping of -RELEASEs started with 3.0
A -RELEASE from the -CURRENT branch is only meant for early adopters (and an early adopter guide is available) and [software] developers.
They can yes, but there's nothing to suggest that they should have. Now if it had been something like bigasterisk.dyndns.org or something more suggestive, then there'd be some carlessness involved.
Slashdot _does_ need to be more responsible when linking, HOWEVER...
/. could link to his page, he didn't mean in a legal sense, (which the parent poster seems to be thinking) he meant in a "hey, will your connection and server be ok if we do this?" sense.
/. to post a URL to the mirror even if you had one.
/.ed 4 years ago. (Mosfet's KDE page.)
The problem is that more geeks are hosting their personal sites on their broadband connections, and they simply don't have enough upstream bandwidth to handle a slashdotting. When Drew said that they didn't ask if
There was no reason to even think that they should ask. They didn't make a conscious "decision" to DDoS Drew, they simply saw a site worth linking to. Drew took it as a personal attack and he needs to realize that they had no idea that bigasterisk.com was hosted on a home DSL connection.
It's also more likely that his connection was unusable before his server ever "puked" (if it did.) He could have killed Apache and _still_ had no use of his DSL. How would you feel? Granted, it's no excuse for his irrational assumption of malicious intent, but you'd be unable to even do anything about it. You couldn't put up a mirror because your connection is hosed. You couldn't reach
And I'm speaking from experience, as the admin of a web server at an ISP that was
A complete operating system based on 4.4BSD.
FreeBSD's distinguished roots derive from the latest BSD software releases from the Computer Systems Research Group at the University of California, Berkeley. The book The Design and Implementation of 4.4BSD Operating System, written by the 4.4BSD system architects, thus describes much of FreeBSD's core functionality in detail.
Drawing on the skills and experience of a diverse and world-wide group of volunteer developers, the FreeBSD Project has worked to extend the feature set of the 4.4BSD operating system in many ways, striving constantly to make each new release of the OS more stable, faster and containing new functionality driven by user requests.
MacOSX's BSD subsystem was never based on 3.3BSD, but on FreeBSD 3.3 (an important distinction). OSX 10.2's BSD subsystem was upgraded to a FreeBSD 4.4 base.
Therefore, to say that 'Apple does use 4.4BSD subsystem elements for 10.2' is a true statement, but this has not changed from 10.1 or 10.0 (or the Public Beta, etc), since all versions have been based on FreeBSD, and all versions of FreeBSD are still a "4.4BSD based" system.
If you reread your initial post, this was not what you claimed, and thus the propogation of misinformation continues...
FreeBSD is not just a kernel. This isn't some tarball you get from bsdkernel.org, compile and reboot with. It's a complete OS that includes the kernel and the userland together. The userland components are developed with and for the kernel by one group of people. That userland has thus evolved alongside the changing kernel in the -CURRENT CVS trunk, diverging greatly from the time that 4.0 was tagged -STABLE. When you upgrade, you get it all.
I'm sure you meant no harm, but unless corrected, the misunderstanding of the nature of the BSDs, and how they differ from Linux, will continue to be propogated.
Yes, Multi-link PPP on both sides. He said PPP over TCP/IP, not PPP over serial or PPPoE. You'd run a PPP server on Carl (the colo box) and your multi-linked PPP connection gets the address of Carl's third IP.
Here I was hoping for a more intelligent FreeBSD.org search rather than just a result collector.
And did you have to include Defcon1? Their articles are often outdated, inacccurate or stolen [and claimed original]. (Every offense to EFNet #FreeBSDHelp intended.)