It is not possible to claim that a particular document is both a trade secret and copyrighted.
The two are mutually exclusive.
Microsoft's request mentions both copyright documents and proprietary materials, causing much confusion. They also ask that other posts be removed simply because they link to such information or describe the means that someone else could use to bypass the click-thru agreement, causing more confusion.
It is reasonable for Andover to try to understand the request before acting on it. The fact that Microsoft started off by asking for too much (overly broad) is MS's problem, not Andover's.
"I mean, you morons hired me to handle your technology, why oh why won't you listen?"
Good question. Let them know that they are not letting you do your job. Let them know that they should either let you do the job, or expect you to find a different job, one where you get both responsibilities and the authority to make things happen.
Alternatively, tell them how you're going to solve the problem, solve the problem that way, then tell them you've solved the problem.
If it's a matter of not having an extra box to build a firewall with, pick up a used box yourself, or claim the old machine next time someone upgrades their desktop.
I would suggest taking no further action unless you recieve a paper copy of the letter, to insure that this is really from MS, and to make it clear that in the future you will only react to proper legal notice.
I would also suggest that you only remove the posts in question if ordered to do so by a court.
You want to avoid doing anything which might be used to claim that you have excercised any form of control over the content of the posts on your site. This is important because as soon as you start filtering the posts, perhaps even if you are tricked into doing so, you could be held responible for filtering all the posts.
What slashdot has done is to set up a system with some clearly defined rules than let people play with it. The fact that some users have a defualt score of -2 is a result of lots of seperate actions by users.
Editorial control, on the other hand, is when someone looks at the content before it is published, and makes a judgement on where to publish it, if at all.
The mechanisms are entirely different in a very important way.
"I want a GCL. A General Commercial License, that is."
Better yet, write up a GCL, take a sheet of those colored dot labels and print GCL on each one.
Then when you go shopping, if you think something is going to have a license you don't like, stick a GCL sticker on it before you get to the register.
Now you've modified the license agreement, sticking your proposed changes (by reference) on the box, where they are even easier to see than the leftlet inside or the software click-through license
You take it to the register and offer to buy it with the modified terms, which you fail to mention to the check-out drone, in the same way that the check-out drone fails to mention the original license agreement to you.
They sell you the product, you've got the product with the modified license.
I have a moral objection to all discussion of potatos. I find the mention of them to be a vile, currupting influence on society, and I believe that discussion of potatos is particularly bad for today's youth.
I have kids, and the problem has become alarmingly worse in the past year or two.
I propose that your solution is a good one, but that we also apply it to partition the Internet in a way which provides me and my family with a more clearly deliniated space in which potatos not discussed, and in which we can be sure that potatos and images of potatos are never available to my children.
I believe a subtle form of censorship is the answer here, but in a different form from either of the solutions being debated here: there needs to be a very good, reliable way to partition the "spudzy side of town" from the rest of the net. Ideally, this would be driven by force of law and would include both IP address as well as namespace partitioning (a.spud top-level?), so that both routing and DNS could be used to prevent exposure of children to these sites. (I and many others firmly believe that exposing children to potatos, even accidentally, is a particularly egregious form of child abuse.)
Seriously, we all know the problem is getting out of hand. If we don't clean up our own Internet, someone else will do it for us.
Bottom line: Are you willing to sacrifice the future of the entire Internet to avoid the minor inconvenience of a few sleazy spudpushers? </Advocate>
"When Linux makes it to the desktop I see a strong possibility that installation programs will run under any user acount but will require a root login for the actual install."
The only reason the install process should need root access would be to write to/usr/local/bin and/usr/local/lib, or whatever.
These directories could (should, IMO) belong to some other UID, like apps. In this case the install would only need the permissions of that UID.
This would limit the damage that a virus could do to wiping out the applications you have installed, but not being able to touch the base install.
The distributions should be putting more focus on setting up stuff like this. There should be intermediate security levels instead of just user and root.
"What Mattel is doing is desperately trying to protect the integrity of its software. Once the "crack" is widely available to all CyberPatrol users, CyberPatrol will cease to have any value to either Mattel or its customers."
That depends on why their customers have purchased their product. It's a question of what the customer wants from the software. There are two obvious cases, and they are quite different from one another.
Parents may want to use the software to help their children avoid certain sites. If the child agrees with the rational behind the filter, and isn't planning to try to bypass it (that is to say, if the parents and the child have the same motivations), this won't effect them. The filter will still be valuable.
If a parent is expecting the filter to keep their cihld from seeing something and the child doesn't agree with this limitation, then making the list available will help the child find the sites with the details about how to bypass the filter and provide a list of sites to look at once they have bypassed the filter.
It's worth noticing that the second case is another attempt to find a technological fix for a a social problem. This just doesn't work.
What the parent in the second case needs to do is work with the child to reach the first case, or simply take away the computer or the internet access.
What someone could do with a public work is to package it up in a compilation or something, without letting their customers know that the work is also available in the public domain, then seek damages against anyone who makes copies of the compilation.
Making a compilation and placing it under the GDL would make it clear to anyone who recieved that compilation that they have the right to distribute it further, while insuring that nobody repackages that compilation in such a way as to make that right non-obvious.
"I release a document under this license, and then if the FSF changes it in a way that I disagree with to the point I decide it is as evil as Microsoft, I can't leave it under the old version? I'm stuck with my document being under a liscense I feel is morally wrong."
You are allowed to release it under an exact version of GDL and only that version if you wish. You are allowed to release it under the GDL without specifying a version, then anyone can choose to use any version of the GDL published by FSF. Or you can release it under a particular version or any later version.
It's a matter of what trust you wish to place in the FSF. If you worry they will do something you don't like, release it under a particular version of the GDL, and include a note in an invarient section giving information on where one might look for your perspectives of future versions of the GDL along with a copy of your document under future versions of GDL if you approve of the changes.
Section 7 of FDL 1.1 contains a typo: > an "aggregate", and this this License ^^^^^
Also, I have a question about section 7, which perhaps should prompt a clarification of section 7.
Suppose I want to create an "aggregate" containing three works, one an independent work not covered by the FDL, and the other two both released under the FDL, but each of these three documents are roughly the same size, each about one third the total "aggregate".
It would seem that section 7, as worded in version 1.1, would make this impossible because both FDL documents would require that I use thier Cover Text, and I cannot satisfy both requirements at the same time.
Would it make sense to modify section 7 to change the requirement from one quarter to one half, or to say something like 'The requirement to use this document's Cover Text in an "aggregate" may be waived if the "aggregate" contains another FDL document which is larger than this one, and the "aggregate" uses a Cover Text from that document instead.' or 'If the "aggregate" contains multiple FDL documents that require the use of thier Cover Text, the author of the compilation may choose to use the Cover Text of any of the conflicting FDL documents. '?
I find that I want to change the configuration details of enough of the software that it is easier to simply make a habit of compiling it all myself.
This saves the hassle of downloading a binary version, installing it, finding I don't like the default configuration, saving any content I might have created with the misconfigured (from my view) version, uninstalling it, and putting that content back later.
Yes, given the choice I also spend a couple minutes modifying my pizza once it arrives. They just don't have all the things I like on my pizza.
The thing is, you don't judge people by their apperance, I don't do that, and most of our friends probably don't do that either.
But your statements that it is the norm, in a public place, prompted me to object.
Consider the idea of immergent behavior, and the possibility that people's perception of norms has an impact on their behavior, and that behavior has an impact on the immergent behavior.
Then it is possible that complaining about a behavior in a public space in such a way that it purpetuates the perception that it is normal behavior has the end result of purpetuating the behavior you are complaining about.
While reviewing my recent points I noticed your questions. I don't know that you'll ever see the responses, but here goes...
"WTF is your point?"
My point was that the cutoinary stance of the original message wasn't so out of line, and that the post I was responding to was potentially incorrect to state their were no scripts.
I didn't mean to imply that they nessecarily were collecting information, or that any other site wasn't doing so.
My point was just that the original statement which I was critiquing went to far. I was attempting to help that posts author understand that the claim "Certainly looks harmless enough to me." might be misguided.
Your inclination to be shallow does not mean that everyone else is shallow. It is not fair for you to claim that everyone judges people on thier apperance, and you have yet to provide any proof that this is true.
I've purchased Civ:CTP, Railroad Tycoon II, and Heros 3 from Loki.
I have every expectation that I will be able to play these games at any point in the future, with minimal effort.
ldd is your friend.
Ten years from now, with a different kernel and an entirely different set of libraries, I will either have the old libraries installed so I can use lots of old software I care about (remember, hard drive space will have become less expensive), or I will go grab them off a server somewhere and install them, devoting a couple minutes to the task of preparing my system to use old software.
Loki offers exactly the same gaurentee that other software providers offer. That the software will work on a system that meets the system requirements listed on the box.
It is nieve of you to assume that all future versions of Windows will always run your Quake 3 for windows.
As one of the multitude waiting for news containing the words 'Loki' and 'Westwood', or 'Loki' and 'Blizard', and buying other games from Loki in the meantime, I'd like to know if there is anything else that we can do to help create a situation in which we see the announcements we've been waiting for.
I understand that you cannot tell us what's happening before the announcements actually occur, but can you tell us if there is another place we might hope to get information, or if there is a good way for us to have a positive influence on the probability of particular games being ported?
"He even went back to his old, tired arguments about how since he's written a bunch of books and articles that means he's a better writer (and therefore person) than anyone who would say otherwise."
We must be reading different articles. What I read was that he is nearly content with what he has writen, aware that there are flaws, and aware that he has room to learn to write better.
Perhaps you can point to something that supports you contention that he thinks "he's a better writer" than someone else.
Releasing only a binary version of the detection tools is a boneheaded move. The tools will not be installed on nearly as many machines as simply because the source is not available.
There are already people clamoring over conspricy theories. Now they will suggest that the detection tools might contribute to the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's request didn't mention trade secret. It ask slashdot to remove materials they claim to have a copyright on.
It is not possible to claim that a particular document is both a trade secret and copyrighted.
The two are mutually exclusive.
Microsoft's request mentions both copyright documents and proprietary materials, causing much confusion. They also ask that other posts be removed simply because they link to such information or describe the means that someone else could use to bypass the click-thru agreement, causing more confusion.
It is reasonable for Andover to try to understand the request before acting on it. The fact that Microsoft started off by asking for too much (overly broad) is MS's problem, not Andover's.
Good question. Let them know that they are not letting you do your job. Let them know that they should either let you do the job, or expect you to find a different job, one where you get both responsibilities and the authority to make things happen.
Alternatively, tell them how you're going to solve the problem, solve the problem that way, then tell them you've solved the problem.
If it's a matter of not having an extra box to build a firewall with, pick up a used box yourself, or claim the old machine next time someone upgrades their desktop.
I would also suggest that you only remove the posts in question if ordered to do so by a court.
You want to avoid doing anything which might be used to claim that you have excercised any form of control over the content of the posts on your site. This is important because as soon as you start filtering the posts, perhaps even if you are tricked into doing so, you could be held responible for filtering all the posts.
What slashdot has done is to set up a system with some clearly defined rules than let people play with it. The fact that some users have a defualt score of -2 is a result of lots of seperate actions by users.
Editorial control, on the other hand, is when someone looks at the content before it is published, and makes a judgement on where to publish it, if at all.
The mechanisms are entirely different in a very important way.
Better yet, write up a GCL, take a sheet of those colored dot labels and print GCL on each one.
Then when you go shopping, if you think something is going to have a license you don't like, stick a GCL sticker on it before you get to the register.
Now you've modified the license agreement, sticking your proposed changes (by reference) on the box, where they are even easier to see than the leftlet inside or the software click-through license
You take it to the register and offer to buy it with the modified terms, which you fail to mention to the check-out drone, in the same way that the check-out drone fails to mention the original license agreement to you.
They sell you the product, you've got the product with the modified license.
I have kids, and the problem has become alarmingly worse in the past year or two.
I propose that your solution is a good one, but that we also apply it to partition the Internet in a way which provides me and my family with a more clearly deliniated space in which potatos not discussed, and in which we can be sure that potatos and images of potatos are never available to my children.
I believe a subtle form of censorship is the answer here, but in a different form from either of the solutions being debated here: there needs to be a very good, reliable way to partition the "spudzy side of town" from the rest of the net. Ideally, this would be driven by force of law and would include both IP address as well as namespace partitioning (a .spud top-level?), so that both routing and DNS could be used to prevent exposure of children to these sites. (I and many others firmly believe that exposing children to potatos, even accidentally, is a particularly egregious form of child abuse.)
Seriously, we all know the problem is getting out of hand. If we don't clean up our own Internet, someone else will do it for us.
Bottom line: Are you willing to sacrifice the future of the entire Internet to avoid the minor inconvenience of a few sleazy spudpushers? </Advocate>
The only reason the install process should need root access would be to write to /usr/local/bin and /usr/local/lib, or whatever.
These directories could (should, IMO) belong to some other UID, like apps. In this case the install would only need the permissions of that UID.
This would limit the damage that a virus could do to wiping out the applications you have installed, but not being able to touch the base install.
The distributions should be putting more focus on setting up stuff like this. There should be intermediate security levels instead of just user and root.
That depends on why their customers have purchased their product. It's a question of what the customer wants from the software. There are two obvious cases, and they are quite different from one another.
Parents may want to use the software to help their children avoid certain sites. If the child agrees with the rational behind the filter, and isn't planning to try to bypass it (that is to say, if the parents and the child have the same motivations), this won't effect them. The filter will still be valuable.
If a parent is expecting the filter to keep their cihld from seeing something and the child doesn't agree with this limitation, then making the list available will help the child find the sites with the details about how to bypass the filter and provide a list of sites to look at once they have bypassed the filter.
It's worth noticing that the second case is another attempt to find a technological fix for a a social problem. This just doesn't work.
What the parent in the second case needs to do is work with the child to reach the first case, or simply take away the computer or the internet access.
Making a compilation and placing it under the GDL would make it clear to anyone who recieved that compilation that they have the right to distribute it further, while insuring that nobody repackages that compilation in such a way as to make that right non-obvious.
You are allowed to release it under an exact version of GDL and only that version if you wish. You are allowed to release it under the GDL without specifying a version, then anyone can choose to use any version of the GDL published by FSF. Or you can release it under a particular version or any later version.
It's a matter of what trust you wish to place in the FSF. If you worry they will do something you don't like, release it under a particular version of the GDL, and include a note in an invarient section giving information on where one might look for your perspectives of future versions of the GDL along with a copy of your document under future versions of GDL if you approve of the changes.
From: Nathan Wallwork <xyzzy@ladb.unm.edu>
To: gnu@gnu.org
Subject: FDL, section 7, typo + question
Section 7 of FDL 1.1 contains a typo:
> an "aggregate", and this this License
^^^^^
Also, I have a question about section 7, which perhaps should prompt a clarification of section 7.
Suppose I want to create an "aggregate" containing three works, one an independent work not covered by the FDL, and the other two both released under the FDL, but each of these three documents are roughly the same size, each about one third the total "aggregate".
It would seem that section 7, as worded in version 1.1, would make this impossible because both FDL documents would require that I use thier Cover Text, and I cannot satisfy both requirements at the same time.
Would it make sense to modify section 7 to change the requirement from one quarter to one half, or to say something like 'The requirement to use this document's Cover Text in an "aggregate" may be waived if the "aggregate" contains another FDL document which is larger than this one, and the "aggregate" uses a Cover Text from that document instead.' or 'If the "aggregate" contains multiple FDL documents that require the use of thier Cover Text, the author of the compilation may choose to use the Cover Text of any of the conflicting FDL documents. '?
This saves the hassle of downloading a binary version, installing it, finding I don't like the default configuration, saving any content I might have created with the misconfigured (from my view) version, uninstalling it, and putting that content back later.
Yes, given the choice I also spend a couple minutes modifying my pizza once it arrives. They just don't have all the things I like on my pizza.
Real geeks are a diverse lot.
Bzit. Wrong answer.
But your statements that it is the norm, in a public place, prompted me to object.
Consider the idea of immergent behavior, and the possibility that people's perception of norms has an impact on their behavior, and that behavior has an impact on the immergent behavior.
Then it is possible that complaining about a behavior in a public space in such a way that it purpetuates the perception that it is normal behavior has the end result of purpetuating the behavior you are complaining about.
"WTF is your point?"
My point was that the cutoinary stance of the original message wasn't so out of line, and that the post I was responding to was potentially incorrect to state their were no scripts.
I didn't mean to imply that they nessecarily were collecting information, or that any other site wasn't doing so.
My point was just that the original statement which I was critiquing went to far. I was attempting to help that posts author understand that the claim "Certainly looks harmless enough to me." might be misguided.
You don't know that.
I am certain I can put up a page which appears to have no scripts of applets, but does server side processing.
Even if this isn't the case, there will be web log files which could be used for data mining.
Of course, this may not be happening.
Your inclination to be shallow does not mean that everyone else is shallow. It is not fair for you to claim that everyone judges people on thier apperance, and you have yet to provide any proof that this is true.
I have every expectation that I will be able to play these games at any point in the future, with minimal effort.
ldd is your friend.
Ten years from now, with a different kernel and an entirely different set of libraries, I will either have the old libraries installed so I can use lots of old software I care about (remember, hard drive space will have become less expensive), or I will go grab them off a server somewhere and install them, devoting a couple minutes to the task of preparing my system to use old software.
Loki offers exactly the same gaurentee that other software providers offer. That the software will work on a system that meets the system requirements listed on the box.
It is nieve of you to assume that all future versions of Windows will always run your Quake 3 for windows.
I understand that you cannot tell us what's happening before the announcements actually occur, but can you tell us if there is another place we might hope to get information, or if there is a good way for us to have a positive influence on the probability of particular games being ported?
You don't understand patent law.
Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks are three entirely different things. What you say is true of Trademarks, but not true of Copyrights or Patents.
We must be reading different articles. What I read was that he is nearly content with what he has writen, aware that there are flaws, and aware that he has room to learn to write better.
Perhaps you can point to something that supports you contention that he thinks "he's a better writer" than someone else.
Expecting people to download a binary and run it as root, on the other hand, doesn't show much understanding of the culture.
There are already people clamoring over conspricy theories. Now they will suggest that the detection tools might contribute to the problem.
Now try making a claim that a reasonable man should be expected to know that a networked computer can be used as part of a distributed DoS attack.
The fact that you probably have to explain to the court what you mean by "a distributed DoS attack" will make it difficult.