Apple wasn't requesting that the law be changed - it is already illegal to jailbreak your phone, as you must circumvent a copyright protection device to do so, in violation of the DCMA. The EFF was requesting an exemption to the law, but until/unless it is approved it will continue to be against the law.
Just because Apple hasn't sued anyone doesn't mean that it is legal, and the fact that they objected to the EFF's exemption request makes it clear that they want to reserve the right to take legal action against jailbreaking in the future, if they so choose.
The reason you don't hear as much complaining is because fewer rejections make it into the news. However when they do there have been plenty of complaints here on slashdot. For example, when Manhunt 2 was given an AO rating, all of the console makers refused to allow it on their consoles. Even people who didn't like Manhunt thought it was bullshit that adults were being prohibited from playing the game that had be rated adult only.
I obviously don't complain in general gaming threads because it would be off-topic, but I do think that gaming consoles are as bad as the iPhone, and don't restrain from saying so. Here is the best example I could find with slashdot's search (the parenthetical in the last sentence). And many other slashdotters have complained about it as well.
It is censorship, it just isn't a violation of our first amendment rights. Cable TV shows are often censored by their networks, even though it isn't required by law. I often censor my own speech when I don't want to offend people. Anyone who removes offensive material is participating in censorship, and they have the right to do so.
If the appliances in my house refused to work with food that didn't come from Whole Foods then I would be complaining about their limited selection and arbitrary standards. And more so about the appliances.
Don't use the ratings to assign a single good/bad score for each individual, use it to cluster people into groups which are more likely to be matched together. Using that approach, when a troll votes down an average person it isn't an abuse of the system - rather it improves the system by making it less likely that a troll will be grouped with average people.
Only works if the partitions don't change while you are copying them. The big advantage of using LVM for this is that you can create snapshots on a live system, without resorting to remounting the partition read-only (and all the problems that will cause).
But really, those are his only options. If you insist on using plain ext3 and won't add a layer of between the FS to allow for this, then you have no choice but to freeze the partition while doing a volume-level back up.
Yes you need new machines to do this, but really, if you are buying NEW machines, you should probably upgrade.
Around here at least that isn't even necessary. The majority of computers sold in the last few years have had 64-bit processors, so at most they just need more RAM. On top of that I see plenty of XP machines that have 4GB of memory of which only 3GB are being used.
Our company has just announced that they will be upgrading all corporate-supported* computers to Windows 7. I am actually excited for this, because Windows 7 is the first version of windows where 64-bit doesn't suck ass. I write data analysis software and I was getting tired of having the memory space available to applications limited to 2GB. Memory is so cheap, but the vast majority of my users couldn't take advantage of it because they were stuck with a 32-bit OS.
* Meaning computers whose support costs are payed out of the IT overhead fund. You can keep XP for computers that need it but your project has to pay IT for any support they provide out of their own budget.
The article didn't say that the study proved that BPA is dangerous. It said that they proved that BPA can cross the placenta. All it takes to prove that something possible is to record a single incident of it occurring. That is definitely within the realm of what a single study can do, and assuming that these studies were performed correctly, that is exactly what they did. There are a lot of things that cannot be conclusively proven with a single piece of evidence, but the use of the word in this headline here is perfectly legitimate.
Are you counting the entire list of computers or just the top 10? Is the first list supposed to be ones used for security research and the second for general research? If so, Red Sky and possibly others are used for security research.
The change is that most super computers at the national laboratories are not single-use, and are thus listed as general research even if they spend a large proportion of their cycles on security research.
I would imagine a FSF approved license would be one of the GNU ones.
Actually the FSF approves of using any license that meets their definition of free software. They discourage the use of GPL-incompatible licenses for new projects, but have no problem with contributing to existing projects under an incompatible license.
Yep. For example, this flight was performed at 50,000ft which equates to 15.24 km above MSL. The orbital velocity at that altitude is 7.90 m/s, which at that air pressure equates to 26.8 Mach.
Of course, between the friction from air and the fact that orbital velocity decreases with altitude, it would be a better use of your energy to gain altitude then to increase horizontal speed.
The definition of "Products" for the section I quoted does include software:
1. Definition of the iTunes Store Service. Apple is the provider of the iTunes Store (the "Service") that permits you to purchase or rent (as applicable) digital content, such as sound recordings and videos (including movies and television shows), games, software, and ring tones, under certain terms and conditions as set forth in this Agreement.... b. Security. You understand that the Service, and products transacted through the Service, such as sound recordings, videos (including movies and television shows), games, software, ring tones, and related artwork ("Products"), include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors ("Usage Rules").
You are correct that there is an additional license specific to the app store, so it is possible that this one only covers the old iPod games/software and not iPhone apps. I don't have a iPhone or App Store account so I'm not certain if the user has to accept both agreements, or just the one.
b. Use of Products. You acknowledge that Products contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following applicable Usage Rules, and, whether or not Products are limited by security technology, you agree to use Products in compliance with the applicable Usage Rules.
Usage Rules
(i) Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement and the applicable end-user license agreement.
(ii) You shall be able to store Products from up to five different Accounts on certain iPhone OS-based devices (including, but not limited to, iPad, iPod touch or iPhone), at a time.
(iii) You shall be able to store Products on five iTunes-authorized devices at any time.
He owns the copyright on Doom. He is allowed to release it under as many licenses as he wants. The fact that he released it under the GPL doesn't prevent him from releasing it under a proprietary license later (although he can't use modifications made by others without their permission).
No license can impose additional restrictions on third parties other than developers taking the code and distributing a binary.
Not true. From a legal point of view copyright law gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to distribute a work in any form. You must have permission to distribute the work, and if you are distributing the work in violation to the license, then you are infringing.
The GPL does not apply to Apple anymore than it would apply to Walmart.
In fact if Walmart sells a book that violates copyright they can be sued. In practice since it wasn't willful infringement the most likely outcome is that the judge will issue an injunction forcing them to stop distribution, but they won't have to pay any damages. The infringing publisher/author will get hit with the willful infringement charges.
From a practical point of view, the FSF doesn't want the iPhone app to stop being distributed, they want the it to be distributed in a manner that satisfies the GPL. Since Apple is the only one who can chose to modify or make an exemption to their term of service to allow this, it makes since to contact them in addition to the app's author, which is what is happening.
The problem is that the terms of service that you agree to when you use the app store places restrictions on how you use the application that are in conflict with the GPL: details. Thus Apple is violating the terms of service when they distribute the application, in a manner that cannot be resolved externally.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
b. Use of Products. You acknowledge that Products (other than the iTunes Plus Products) contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following applicable Usage Rules, and, whether or not Products are limited by security technology, you agree to use Products in compliance with the applicable Usage Rules.
Usage Rules (i) Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement. (ii) You shall be authorized to use the Products only for personal, noncommercial use. (iii) You shall be authorized to use the Products on five Apple-authorized devices at any time, except in the case of Movie Rentals, as described below....
Therefore distributing through the iTunes Store adds restrictions on use that are prohibited by the GPL.
In most ways, this is a typical enforcement action for the FSF: we want to resolve this situation as amicably as possible. We have not sued Apple, nor have we sent them any legal demand that they remove the programs from the App Store.
Slashdot:
It's an unusual enforcement action, though, because they don't want Apple to just make the app disappear, they want Apple to grant its users the full freedoms offered by the GPL.
The upstream developers for this port are also violating the GPL, and we are discussing this with them too. We are raising the issue with Apple as well since Apple is the one that distributes this software to the public; legally, both parties have the responsibility to comply with the GPL.
They are both responsible, but Apple is the only one that can change their licensing terms to make it legal to release GPL software for the iPhone. Since the FSF would prefer that option over having the application removed from the store, contacting Apple and letting them choose the path forward is the pragmatic and diplomatic thing to do.
Re:Pulse audio doesn't have drivers
on
Fedora 13 Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Yet PulseAudio requires all sort of features so you need to have a Pulseaudio fixed Alsa driver or else it will screw up:)
Okay, that makes more sense. Thanks.
Re:Even though Fedora is my desktop of choice
on
Fedora 13 Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Multichannel audio setup for ALSA. OSS 4x supports multichannel out of the box without any configuration needed. To be fair though OSS was removed from the mainline kernel before OSS 4 was released, and hasn't been the default for any of the mainline distros. However, it is still the sound system for FreeBSD and was available before PulseAudio for any Linux users who wanted to install it.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple wasn't requesting that the law be changed - it is already illegal to jailbreak your phone, as you must circumvent a copyright protection device to do so, in violation of the DCMA. The EFF was requesting an exemption to the law, but until/unless it is approved it will continue to be against the law.
Just because Apple hasn't sued anyone doesn't mean that it is legal, and the fact that they objected to the EFF's exemption request makes it clear that they want to reserve the right to take legal action against jailbreaking in the future, if they so choose.
The reason you don't hear as much complaining is because fewer rejections make it into the news. However when they do there have been plenty of complaints here on slashdot. For example, when Manhunt 2 was given an AO rating, all of the console makers refused to allow it on their consoles. Even people who didn't like Manhunt thought it was bullshit that adults were being prohibited from playing the game that had be rated adult only.
I obviously don't complain in general gaming threads because it would be off-topic, but I do think that gaming consoles are as bad as the iPhone, and don't restrain from saying so. Here is the best example I could find with slashdot's search (the parenthetical in the last sentence). And many other slashdotters have complained about it as well.
It is censorship, it just isn't a violation of our first amendment rights. Cable TV shows are often censored by their networks, even though it isn't required by law. I often censor my own speech when I don't want to offend people. Anyone who removes offensive material is participating in censorship, and they have the right to do so.
If the appliances in my house refused to work with food that didn't come from Whole Foods then I would be complaining about their limited selection and arbitrary standards. And more so about the appliances.
Don't use the ratings to assign a single good/bad score for each individual, use it to cluster people into groups which are more likely to be matched together. Using that approach, when a troll votes down an average person it isn't an abuse of the system - rather it improves the system by making it less likely that a troll will be grouped with average people.
Only works if the partitions don't change while you are copying them. The big advantage of using LVM for this is that you can create snapshots on a live system, without resorting to remounting the partition read-only (and all the problems that will cause).
But really, those are his only options. If you insist on using plain ext3 and won't add a layer of between the FS to allow for this, then you have no choice but to freeze the partition while doing a volume-level back up.
The links all worked as designed for me, but I had to be signed into a Google account to remove the background. Screw that shit.
The driver support for Windows 7 64-bit is far, far, better than XP 64-bit.
Yes you need new machines to do this, but really, if you are buying NEW machines, you should probably upgrade.
Around here at least that isn't even necessary. The majority of computers sold in the last few years have had 64-bit processors, so at most they just need more RAM. On top of that I see plenty of XP machines that have 4GB of memory of which only 3GB are being used.
Our company has just announced that they will be upgrading all corporate-supported* computers to Windows 7. I am actually excited for this, because Windows 7 is the first version of windows where 64-bit doesn't suck ass. I write data analysis software and I was getting tired of having the memory space available to applications limited to 2GB. Memory is so cheap, but the vast majority of my users couldn't take advantage of it because they were stuck with a 32-bit OS.
* Meaning computers whose support costs are payed out of the IT overhead fund. You can keep XP for computers that need it but your project has to pay IT for any support they provide out of their own budget.
The article didn't say that the study proved that BPA is dangerous. It said that they proved that BPA can cross the placenta. All it takes to prove that something possible is to record a single incident of it occurring. That is definitely within the realm of what a single study can do, and assuming that these studies were performed correctly, that is exactly what they did. There are a lot of things that cannot be conclusively proven with a single piece of evidence, but the use of the word in this headline here is perfectly legitimate.
Are you counting the entire list of computers or just the top 10? Is the first list supposed to be ones used for security research and the second for general research? If so, Red Sky and possibly others are used for security research.
The change is that most super computers at the national laboratories are not single-use, and are thus listed as general research even if they spend a large proportion of their cycles on security research.
I would imagine a FSF approved license would be one of the GNU ones.
Actually the FSF approves of using any license that meets their definition of free software. They discourage the use of GPL-incompatible licenses for new projects, but have no problem with contributing to existing projects under an incompatible license.
Yep. For example, this flight was performed at 50,000ft which equates to 15.24 km above MSL. The orbital velocity at that altitude is 7.90 m/s, which at that air pressure equates to 26.8 Mach.
Of course, between the friction from air and the fact that orbital velocity decreases with altitude, it would be a better use of your energy to gain altitude then to increase horizontal speed.
The definition of "Products" for the section I quoted does include software:
1. Definition of the iTunes Store Service. Apple is the provider of the iTunes Store (the "Service") that permits you to purchase or rent (as applicable) digital content, such as sound recordings and videos (including movies and television shows), games, software, and ring tones, under certain terms and conditions as set forth in this Agreement. ...
b. Security. You understand that the Service, and products transacted through the Service, such as sound recordings, videos (including movies and television shows), games, software, ring tones, and related artwork ("Products"), include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors ("Usage Rules").
You are correct that there is an additional license specific to the app store, so it is possible that this one only covers the old iPod games/software and not iPhone apps. I don't have a iPhone or App Store account so I'm not certain if the user has to accept both agreements, or just the one.
Anyway, for completeness, the App Store terms of agreement has simular restrictions:
b. Use of Products. You acknowledge that Products contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following applicable Usage Rules, and, whether or not Products are limited by security technology, you agree to use Products in compliance with the applicable Usage Rules.
Usage Rules
(i) Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement and the applicable end-user license agreement.
(ii) You shall be able to store Products from up to five different Accounts on certain iPhone OS-based devices (including, but not limited to, iPad, iPod touch or iPhone), at a time.
(iii) You shall be able to store Products on five iTunes-authorized devices at any time.
He owns the copyright on Doom. He is allowed to release it under as many licenses as he wants. The fact that he released it under the GPL doesn't prevent him from releasing it under a proprietary license later (although he can't use modifications made by others without their permission).
Yes, everyone who distributes the software must comply with the license every time they distribute it, binary or source.
No license can impose additional restrictions on third parties other than developers taking the code and distributing a binary.
Not true. From a legal point of view copyright law gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to distribute a work in any form. You must have permission to distribute the work, and if you are distributing the work in violation to the license, then you are infringing.
The GPL does not apply to Apple anymore than it would apply to Walmart.
In fact if Walmart sells a book that violates copyright they can be sued. In practice since it wasn't willful infringement the most likely outcome is that the judge will issue an injunction forcing them to stop distribution, but they won't have to pay any damages. The infringing publisher/author will get hit with the willful infringement charges.
From a practical point of view, the FSF doesn't want the iPhone app to stop being distributed, they want the it to be distributed in a manner that satisfies the GPL. Since Apple is the only one who can chose to modify or make an exemption to their term of service to allow this, it makes since to contact them in addition to the app's author, which is what is happening.
The problem is that the terms of service that you agree to when you use the app store places restrictions on how you use the application that are in conflict with the GPL: details. Thus Apple is violating the terms of service when they distribute the application, in a manner that cannot be resolved externally.
The GPLv2 section 6 states
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
The iTunes Store Terms of Service section 10b states:
b. Use of Products. You acknowledge that Products (other than the iTunes Plus Products) contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following applicable Usage Rules, and, whether or not Products are limited by security technology, you agree to use Products in compliance with the applicable Usage Rules.
Usage Rules ...
(i) Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement.
(ii) You shall be authorized to use the Products only for personal, noncommercial use.
(iii) You shall be authorized to use the Products on five Apple-authorized devices at any time, except in the case of Movie Rentals, as described below.
Therefore distributing through the iTunes Store adds restrictions on use that are prohibited by the GPL.
Reality:
In most ways, this is a typical enforcement action for the FSF: we want to resolve this situation as amicably as possible. We have not sued Apple, nor have we sent them any legal demand that they remove the programs from the App Store.
Slashdot:
It's an unusual enforcement action, though, because they don't want Apple to just make the app disappear, they want Apple to grant its users the full freedoms offered by the GPL.
From the press release:
The upstream developers for this port are also violating the GPL, and we are discussing this with them too. We are raising the issue with Apple as well since Apple is the one that distributes this software to the public; legally, both parties have the responsibility to comply with the GPL.
They are both responsible, but Apple is the only one that can change their licensing terms to make it legal to release GPL software for the iPhone. Since the FSF would prefer that option over having the application removed from the store, contacting Apple and letting them choose the path forward is the pragmatic and diplomatic thing to do.
Yet PulseAudio requires all sort of features so you need to have a Pulseaudio fixed Alsa driver or else it will screw up :)
Okay, that makes more sense. Thanks.
Multichannel audio setup for ALSA. OSS 4x supports multichannel out of the box without any configuration needed. To be fair though OSS was removed from the mainline kernel before OSS 4 was released, and hasn't been the default for any of the mainline distros. However, it is still the sound system for FreeBSD and was available before PulseAudio for any Linux users who wanted to install it.