I do not recommend that anyone try this at home (or at work), but it doesn't seem so hard to integrate GPLed code into a proprietary product so that it is nearly impossible to detect. You wouldn't have to obfuscate the code, only do obfuscation at the compile stage so that identifiers in the code don't appear in the executable. I would think companies might do this anyway to make it harder to reverse-engineer their code. There are a few other things to think about.
One problem is to ensure that anything that is printed out looks different from the GPL version, which would be simple enough, though tedious.
Another problem is integrating new versions of the GPL code into your product.
I think the biggest problem is keeping it secret. Obviously, in this case, the company is not doing this part very well. It shouldn't be too hard for this anonymous coward to leak the info without becoming a primary suspect.
Again, this stunt should only be performed by trained professionals. Do not this try at home, kids.
If you can't copy, it's not a computer
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I agree with the Mike Godwin letter that politicians and media moguls simply do not understand computer technology. Copying is simply a fundamental operation of computers. Any algorithm that does squat has to move information around, even "Hello world". Every read and print makes a copy. Every assignment statement makes a copy. Every packet is a copy. Everything on your disk drive is a copy. This effort to somehow mark a bit as copy-protected or not is just going to throw a huge wrench in the works. And how are they going to mark a bit as copy-protected or not except by using more bits?
This whole effort is somewhat like trying to outlaw the laws of physics. If they could, these guys would try to slow down the speed of light because it allows copying to happen too fast.
Copying is how computers work. Would somebody with some influence and a clue please tell them this?
I agree that landing a Math faculty position is very tough. Currently, a CS faculty position is much, much easier. Many universities have had open CS positions go unfilled for years due to the dot-com madness, while the Math positions get 100s of applicants.
That said, you should work on what interests you the most. It is very difficult to put a lot effort into a subject that is not interesting to you.
The problem with sites like Slashdot is that it is centralized. You need to pay for the people, the equipment, and the bandwidth, so something has to give.
My idea is to decentralize the whole thing. The "site" can be decentralized to a set of machines willing to cooperate (using Freenet-like, Gnutella-like technology). Choice of stories can be decentralized by using moderation to select stories. Some group of people is needed to get things started and keep it running, but we all know about maintaining software by a decentralized group.
The point is that all the expenses are amortized over a large group. Everyone who participates contributes a little to produce a big community. Payment is by contributing resources. Privileges (like moderation rights) would depend on the level of contribution. No need for ads, no dependency on companies with money-losing business plans, but (if implemented well) very robust and fast.
Probably someone has already done this. Speak up and save the Internet!
Because the marriage is agreed upon by free will, there is no warranty
for the marriage, to the extent permitted by applicable law. Except when
otherwise stated in writing the husband and wife and/or other parties
provide the marriage "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed
or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of
merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The entire risk as
to the quality and performance of the marriage is with you. Should the
marriage prove defective, you assume the cost of all necessary servicing,
repair or correction.
In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing
will the husband and wife, or any other party who may modify and/or attempt
to modify the marriage as permitted by law, be liable to you for damages,
including any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising
out of the use or inability to use the marriage (including but not limited
to loss of life or life being rendered inaccurate or losses sustained by
you or third parties or a failure of the marriage to operate with any other
programs), even if such holder or other party has been advised of the
possibility of such damages.
Before you make a decision that will last the rest of your life, you need to review the following issues. If you disagree on two or more of them, the chances of a successful marriage are slim to none.
This is a great idea. Everyone should adapt one of these responses to their liking.
Personally, I think it is better to avoid political issues and focus on security. Here is my revision of RMS's #2 with this in mind. Comments welcome.
You emailed an attachment to me in Microsoft Word format. However,
those of us with Unix machines do not have Word installed. If you
send me the information in plain text, HTML, RTF, or PDF, then I will
be able to read it.
There are many other reasons why emailing Word documents is a bad
idea. The most important is that Word documents can carry viruses.
For example, http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/acro.ht ml
lists over 20 different viruses that could be hidden in a Word
document. Although you might have your machine and your Word program
set up to avoid viruses, the person you are sending to might not.
A Word document can also include other hidden information (called
metadata). For example, text that you think you deleted may still be
embarrassingly present. See
http://www.microsystems.com/Shares_Well.htm for more details.
Converting the file to another format is simple. Open the document,
click on File, then Save As, and in the Save As Type strip box at the
bottom of the box, choose the type of document you want. The options
should include plain text (might be called Text Only or Text
Document), HTML (might be called Web Page), RTF (Rich Text Format),
and PDF. You can then attach the new type of document instead of your
Word document. Note that versions of Word change in inconsistent
ways; if you see slightly different menu item names, please try them.
At the university where I work, there is something similar. You can "challenge" any course by just taking a single test for all the courses where a challenge is allowed. You'll have to look and ask around to find a college where you can do this.
I think everyone is thinking too small. You need to go where the money is, so you need to have a good plan for companies to support free software. Many companies already do this (I think the Apache developers are all doing it as part of their job). Another example is IBM. The problem is somehow organizing free software developers and companies into a coalition.
I guess I didn't state my real question carefully enough. I am not so worried about "consumer freedom", which worries about licenses, fair use, etc. If the terms are onerous enough, then no one will buy.
I am more worried about "creative freedom". People who create/produce/contribute need to have freedom of speech, freedom to distribute, freedom to put their thoughts and creative works on the internet. I think they also should have the freedom to set the terms of use.
In your writings, you make an analogy about how computer communication protocols are like laws (or a system of laws) in that the protocols require anything that interacts with them to behave in a certain way. The constant threat is that corporations or governments might impose protocols that limit freedom.
What are examples of protocols that exist (or are soon to exist or you feel will soon exists) that would limit the freedom we currently enjoy? By freedom, I mean the freedom to communicate my thoughts or creative works freely with anyone else on the internet. I don't assume that I have a general right to distribute or copy anybody else's material without permission though I think I should have the right to sell (with the result that I no longer own or have it) anything I buy.
There are various manual filters for handling email, (e.g., procmail), but what I would like is a filter that automatically learns (to some extent) how to classify email. An initial version would have the following features:
Emails can be classified under any number of keywords. The user can selectively view the messages under any keyword.
Each keyword is associated with a policy that specifies importance and expiration (when the message is to be deleted and whether the user needs to confirm a deletion).
The system (after learning from watching the user) will suggest categories for incoming email.
Any systems like this out there. Any systems that would be relatively easier to modify to include these features.
But more importantly to the topic at hand, Jon Katz has asserted that Harry Potter is the most
banned book in America! Prove it Jon!
I was curious about this, too. If you search on google using the keywords: most banned Harry Potter, then you get a number of sites that support this assertion. In particular, the Harry Potter series is the "most challenged" according to statistics gathered by the American Library Association, roughly meaning that someone is seriously trying to remove the book from the shelves.
I think you need a global registration system, something analogous to the yellow pages, plus a localized system of shortcuts, something analogous to a roledex.
Rather than a hierarchical naming system where you end up with names like joes-bakery.com, a particular Joe's Bakery would register with its address, company name, products, services, trademarks, etc. The first time you want to find Joe's Bakery, you need to provide enough information to identify the business. After that, the IP address can be locally cached with the registry information and "joes" could be a shortcut if it is a unique match.
If you want the same shortcuts for a group of people, you should be able to have a secondary cache on a common server.
There does not need to be a single global registry. There could be different registries with different performance characteristics and different accuracy of information. This way anybody can register anybody, and the market and personal preferences can decide rather than ICANN selling monopolies.
A review for slashdot about stupidity shouldn't have those oxymoronic smart quotes in it.
Re:Globalism is not the problem: Government is
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
We believe that without the government, prices would skyrocket (they wouldn't, supply and demand
and competition prevent that), or we'd have shortages (again, suppy and demand and competition
would help), or we'd see our economy fail because other countries do it cheaper (they do, and better,
sometimes its even our unions that make our businesses unprofitable, not necessarily our
business tactics).
I believe that without the government we would have more pollution and more danger in general (cars, food, health, workplaces, medicine, buildings). The government is certainly not perfect in this, but better than what the private industry would do. Given a choice between any public good and profit, businesses will choose profit, especially if they think that their survival is on the line. Government is needed to regulate businesses. What regulations are appropriate is the right question.
Instead of dynamic scoping, I should have said unrestricted global variables. Don't know what I was thinking.
Unless you go out of your way to declare a variable, a variable can be assigned any type of value. Variables are weakly typed. Values are strongly typed, but not variables (without additional effort). Also, lists do not have subtypes as far as I know, it could be a list of numbers, list of strings, or a mixture of types.
How do macros violate the rules? Well, the syntax in the macro does not need to be prefix notation, so all a beginner needs to learn is how to parse the individual syntax of each macro.
No, I am not a Windows user, but Linux is harder to learn and use.
And if you think my reasons are lame, you should at least try to come up with better ones. The conspiracy theories are not very good.
Long ago and far away, I programmed on an Xerox Lisp Machine (Dandelion) for several years and immensely enjoyed it, so my comments are intended to be friendly rather than hostile.
While weak typing and dynamic scoping are great for some things, it really trips up a lot of beginner programmers. An alternative Lisp that requires declarations might be very helpful for beginners. For strongly typed languages, compilers are a major help in debugging.
I would agree that other languages have become huge, I think the problem is that Lisp is a big and idiosyncratic language. Some things are in Lisp because of tradition. Some more things are in Lisp because they were grafted on top of the tradition. Then you have exceptions such as macros that violate the usual rules. It is true that Java is also huge, but each object in the API follows a very restricted syntax.
CLOS has all sorts of interesting things in it such as multiple inheritance and methods for combinations of objects. These are very nice once you have learned to use them, but there are lots of pitfalls, too.
I guess this means Lisp is a power tool for those who have learned how to use it. But it is difficult to learn, and unfortunately, a widely-used and widely-understood (more or less) language needs to appeal more to the lowest common denominator rather than only to those that get it.
I agree. Open APIs, open protocols, and open OEM agreements.
5) Microsoft may not use agreements with Computer OEMs to restrict in any way the addition of
other software to the computers, along with Microsoft products. In particular, OEMs are not to be
prohibited from selling "dual-boot" systems,
where the system can be booted into Windows or into some other operating system, such as Linux or
a form of BSD or BeOS.
I would add that OEMs are not to be prohibited in any way from selling systems with no Microsoft OS. End the Microsoft tax!
The last year of CS is often brutal with loads of senior-level courses with major programming projects. This is especially true for those who switch to CS halfway through college. It is easy to get tired and depressed because you are doing little else other than programming and looking for obscure bugs. The question at this point is whether you are disciplined enough to finish things off without the immediate self-gratification that you (and all of us) desire.
Finish the semester and take a break.
Finish the degree and take a break.
Decide what you would like to do that would be enjoyable, make money, and use your skills at the same time. Do open source programming on the side just for the hell of it.
Formulate a long-term plan for getting there. You are not going to start off in a perfect position, but once you set you goals, you should be able to better see how to get there.
Yes, this is the bad, bad part of the agreement. All the protocols need to be open. Claiming the need for closed protocols for security is just another security by obscurity argument.
Maybe what's worse is that Microsoft is allowed veto power over certain types of third-party software, both in who is allowed to develop and who is allowed to be distributed.
Ban on Exclusive Agreements- Microsoft will be prohibited from
entering into agreements requiring the exclusive support or
development of certain Microsoft software. This will allow software
developers and computer manufacturers to contract with Microsoft and
still support and develop rival middleware products.
If I understand this correctly, this means that computer makers can sell Linux or *BSD boxes (or OSless) without retaliation. Does this mean no Microsoft tax?
This seems to be related to another item in the NYT article:
"The most significant element in the settlement proposal, industry executives said, is the requirement that Microsoft share the technical information needed for other software or hardware products to work smoothly with Windows."
What happened to writing specs for protocols and APIs? What I would like to see is for "representatives of software makers, computer manufacturers and others deemed qualified" are permitted to make the specs public.
Slashdot Mirror
One problem is to ensure that anything that is printed out looks different from the GPL version, which would be simple enough, though tedious.
Another problem is integrating new versions of the GPL code into your product.
I think the biggest problem is keeping it secret. Obviously, in this case, the company is not doing this part very well. It shouldn't be too hard for this anonymous coward to leak the info without becoming a primary suspect.
Again, this stunt should only be performed by trained professionals. Do not this try at home, kids.
This whole effort is somewhat like trying to outlaw the laws of physics. If they could, these guys would try to slow down the speed of light because it allows copying to happen too fast.
Copying is how computers work. Would somebody with some influence and a clue please tell them this?
That said, you should work on what interests you the most. It is very difficult to put a lot effort into a subject that is not interesting to you.
My idea is to decentralize the whole thing. The "site" can be decentralized to a set of machines willing to cooperate (using Freenet-like, Gnutella-like technology). Choice of stories can be decentralized by using moderation to select stories. Some group of people is needed to get things started and keep it running, but we all know about maintaining software by a decentralized group.
The point is that all the expenses are amortized over a large group. Everyone who participates contributes a little to produce a big community. Payment is by contributing resources. Privileges (like moderation rights) would depend on the level of contribution. No need for ads, no dependency on companies with money-losing business plans, but (if implemented well) very robust and fast.
Probably someone has already done this. Speak up and save the Internet!
In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing will the husband and wife, or any other party who may modify and/or attempt to modify the marriage as permitted by law, be liable to you for damages, including any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use or inability to use the marriage (including but not limited to loss of life or life being rendered inaccurate or losses sustained by you or third parties or a failure of the marriage to operate with any other programs), even if such holder or other party has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
Unix or Windows?
Free or Proprietary?
DMCA or Fair Use?
Vi or Emacs?
GPL or BSD?
Gnome or KDE?
C or C++ or Java or C# or ...?
Linux or GNU/Linux?
Yes, I know Redhat is not Linux, but it's American, though maybe a little too red for most of your constituents.
Personally, I think it is better to avoid political issues and focus on security. Here is my revision of RMS's #2 with this in mind. Comments welcome.
At the university where I work, there is something similar. You can "challenge" any course by just taking a single test for all the courses where a challenge is allowed. You'll have to look and ask around to find a college where you can do this.
I think everyone is thinking too small. You need to go where the money is, so you need to have a good plan for companies to support free software. Many companies already do this (I think the Apache developers are all doing it as part of their job). Another example is IBM. The problem is somehow organizing free software developers and companies into a coalition.
KDE is fine on two machines I use. A 400Mhz/512MB Pentium II and a 433Mhz/64MB Celeron laptop.
I am more worried about "creative freedom". People who create/produce/contribute need to have freedom of speech, freedom to distribute, freedom to put their thoughts and creative works on the internet. I think they also should have the freedom to set the terms of use.
What are examples of protocols that exist (or are soon to exist or you feel will soon exists) that would limit the freedom we currently enjoy? By freedom, I mean the freedom to communicate my thoughts or creative works freely with anyone else on the internet. I don't assume that I have a general right to distribute or copy anybody else's material without permission though I think I should have the right to sell (with the result that I no longer own or have it) anything I buy.
- Emails can be classified under any number of keywords. The user can selectively view the messages under any keyword.
- Each keyword is associated with a policy that specifies importance and expiration (when the message is to be deleted and whether the user needs to confirm a deletion).
- The system (after learning from watching the user) will suggest categories for incoming email.
Any systems like this out there. Any systems that would be relatively easier to modify to include these features.Rather than a hierarchical naming system where you end up with names like joes-bakery.com, a particular Joe's Bakery would register with its address, company name, products, services, trademarks, etc. The first time you want to find Joe's Bakery, you need to provide enough information to identify the business. After that, the IP address can be locally cached with the registry information and "joes" could be a shortcut if it is a unique match.
If you want the same shortcuts for a group of people, you should be able to have a secondary cache on a common server.
There does not need to be a single global registry. There could be different registries with different performance characteristics and different accuracy of information. This way anybody can register anybody, and the market and personal preferences can decide rather than ICANN selling monopolies.
A review for slashdot about stupidity shouldn't have those oxymoronic smart quotes in it.
Unless you go out of your way to declare a variable, a variable can be assigned any type of value. Variables are weakly typed. Values are strongly typed, but not variables (without additional effort). Also, lists do not have subtypes as far as I know, it could be a list of numbers, list of strings, or a mixture of types.
How do macros violate the rules? Well, the syntax in the macro does not need to be prefix notation, so all a beginner needs to learn is how to parse the individual syntax of each macro.
No, I am not a Windows user, but Linux is harder to learn and use.
And if you think my reasons are lame, you should at least try to come up with better ones. The conspiracy theories are not very good.
While weak typing and dynamic scoping are great for some things, it really trips up a lot of beginner programmers. An alternative Lisp that requires declarations might be very helpful for beginners. For strongly typed languages, compilers are a major help in debugging.
I would agree that other languages have become huge, I think the problem is that Lisp is a big and idiosyncratic language. Some things are in Lisp because of tradition. Some more things are in Lisp because they were grafted on top of the tradition. Then you have exceptions such as macros that violate the usual rules. It is true that Java is also huge, but each object in the API follows a very restricted syntax.
CLOS has all sorts of interesting things in it such as multiple inheritance and methods for combinations of objects. These are very nice once you have learned to use them, but there are lots of pitfalls, too.
I guess this means Lisp is a power tool for those who have learned how to use it. But it is difficult to learn, and unfortunately, a widely-used and widely-understood (more or less) language needs to appeal more to the lowest common denominator rather than only to those that get it.
Finish the semester and take a break.
Finish the degree and take a break.
Decide what you would like to do that would be enjoyable, make money, and use your skills at the same time. Do open source programming on the side just for the hell of it.
Formulate a long-term plan for getting there. You are not going to start off in a perfect position, but once you set you goals, you should be able to better see how to get there.
Maybe what's worse is that Microsoft is allowed veto power over certain types of third-party software, both in who is allowed to develop and who is allowed to be distributed.
"The most significant element in the settlement proposal, industry executives said, is the requirement that Microsoft share the technical information needed for other software or hardware products to work smoothly with Windows."
What happened to writing specs for protocols and APIs? What I would like to see is for "representatives of software makers, computer manufacturers and others deemed qualified" are permitted to make the specs public.