What would the FSF sue Sigma for? It is not their code that has been infringeded upon (AFAIK).
The FSF might assist, but they can't just sue anybody for copyright violation (which is what a GPL violation is - unless the violator acknowledges the GPL, and then it would be contract violation, and still not the FSFs business). Sueing or not is an option for the owner of the copyright, in this case the XVID team.
Damn... Now I'm even answering AC's.
But your final question is a valid one, an your post makes me wish you logged in, and I hadn't already posted on this page.
A little digging on Information Waves page reveals THIS page, where they say that multiple listings will be available, including flat-file and DNS.
So to answer your question: They seem very willing to make useful information available.
Well... If we are thinking big, how about having the movement sensor fibers implanted (not too hard, if they are thin enough), and some implants to create sound (I believe work is progressing nicely on those). And sensors on the vocal cord, so you can talk silently (as in get a audio stream of synthesized speech without your mouth making audiable sound).
Now that would be a cool system. And of cause you would need processors small enough to implant, so that only one socket would be needed.
Just imagine...
This raises an interesting question (OK, more of a minor nitpick, but that sounds less like a reason to post), since the law in question is an exception to another law. So right now it is a crime, both in the US and in Australia, but in the US it will be legal under certain circumstances. Would this differ from the situation where only the aussie law exists?
Recompiling the compiler doesn't do anything to rid you of trojan code/back doors. If you need to ask why, take a look at "Reflections on Trusting Trust" by Ken Thompson, and the description of a back door in the jargon file.
The short story is, that the compiler decides what to output. So you have to trust your compiler.
The reason for the recompiling of gcc is something else entirely: It is to allow the source code of gcc to rely on gcc, and to allow an optimized compiler to be created. For additional information consult a good book on compiler writing.
Then I take it that they are going to C&D sourceforge any time now, since they host a program to recreate asf files from streams. In fact I'm surprised this program is still around, think it's years since I first came across it. It is actually quite nice, I've used it to download clips that where too big for my connection, nothing removes skips and frezes like dropping the file to the local disk. Plus you get to watch it as often as you want, without spending time/money on downloading/streaming it again.
There is no technical reason why the upstream has to be slower, it's purely a business decision on the part of the ISP.
While it does not force upstreams to be as small as reported, the frequency division schemes used for xDSL means that high downstream bandwidth results in low speed upstream. There simply isn't enough bandwidth on the copper-pair for several megabits in both direction. The question then becomes, upstream or downstream?
And that aside, what's wrong with offering a huge pipe downstream? Anybody with half a brain and a little knowledge of tcp/ip knows that this will consume part of your upstream for ACK's. Why blame the isp for not providing a huge upstream, instead of enjoying the huge downstream? I don't know the actual offers in the states, but around here (Denmark) the isps offer several different downstream/upstream packages, so one can just choose the right one. And the price naturally reflects ones choice. If you need the extra upstream you simply have to pay for it.
Not to start an overly long off-topic thread, but my understanding is that boiling the water for coffee is wrong. Coffee should be brewed using water heated to between 92 and 96 degrees celcius. As to the serving you are absolutely right, I would rather have to blow on my coffee for a minute or two than have cold coffee.
So bacause the source for gpl'ed programs is available the gpl is responsible for developers acting unethically, violating copyright.
You don't need to use linux to steal gpl'ed sourcecode. Just as like you don't have to use windows to write your own code.
The only diference* between gpl'ed code and propriatary code is that you get the gpl'ed code in hand, up front, without having to negotiate a deal, just as long as you abide by the stated terms if you use it. If those terms are not acceptable you can negotiate with the copyrightholder(s), just like any other bit of code you want to use.
*)Yes the terms include restrictions on the terms you may distribute the result under. Just like a propriatary products could have a license term restricting you from releasing your product for pay.
If I own the hardware, I want to run whatever I damn well please, and as long as I'm not using unlicensed software there are no laws to stop me (that I know of).
Well, that depends on your definition of remote control, X is the basis of an entire graphical user interface.
What I like about X, and X on windows is no exception, is that it puts the app on the box it needs to be on or the one where it runs best, and the gui on the screen I'm closest to. But to think of it as remote control is IMHO glossing over the strengths of X, that the gui/logic split happens before the full screen has been rendered, unlike vnc and the like.
Well, installing the sharing client should be the first clue, selecting the directory to share should be another and then there is the list of uploads which every p2p app I've seen have. But sure, people install stuff they don't understand, they answer install questions without thinking and no way are they gonna try to understand the applications they run.
IMHO there is nothing sneaky about the way p2p apps in general share your files, you get a dialog, where you select a directory. But you are right in observing that people don't realise the consequences. Is this our problem? I say hell no (working for an ISP you might be of a different opinion, but this is my reply).
I'm just thinking out loud here, but couldn't one just start a second sshd in a chroot-jail, with whatever, minimal, environment is needed and the stuff to be shared mounted in using loopback/--bind, read-only? Then fix the config for this particular sshd to only allow whatever access you whish. Of cause it will be running on a non-default port, or your real sshd will...
If you are a terrorist and go to sleep ontop of your bomb, with the radiotrigger activated, then you deserve to get blown up. Any reasonable bomb design should have an OFF switch for any type of reciever. Or for the paranoid, an ON switch (just don't flip it before you plant it).
What I'm trying to say is that I find it hard to believe that simply sending a "signal" can do anything to counteract bombings. Unless bombers in the UK are of the dumb kind.
They might be misstating it, but they are doing the right thing. If the copyrightholder wants his site removed, it is made inaccessible. But the copy they have on file was made within the law, so they keep that one. Then if the sites owner changes his mind, or (I hope) when the work enters the public domain (remember, copyright is for a limited time only), they allow access again.
In fact I'm hoping that they try their hardest to archive everything, robots.txt or not. That way we will have, in the future, a nice archive of the past, and not a period full of blanks and questionmarks.
Well, the structure of the web change all the time too. And why should we rely on dead tree surviving, when the information is available digital, ready for storage?
If you have archives of GPL'ed software, no longer available, please setup a site with it. You have the right to distribute under the GPL, and I'm sure there are people who are interested.
Excatly. The wayback machine is just a reasonable extrapolation of these principles to the context of the web.
One of the important aspects of copyright is that it is limited in time, and something WE give authors in exchange for their work. If there are no libraries and archieves, then there will likely not be a copy of the work, once it enters the public domain. One would expect that the retro-active robots.txt feature on the wayback machine is limited to the term of copyright (so in... what... 65 years or so... they should allow free access to the first sites captured, robots.txt or not).
Allowing access now, while respecting the common ways of restricting such use, is consistent with the function of a library, adapted for the web.
Slashdot Mirror
What would the FSF sue Sigma for? It is not their code that has been infringeded upon (AFAIK).
The FSF might assist, but they can't just sue anybody for copyright violation (which is what a GPL violation is - unless the violator acknowledges the GPL, and then it would be contract violation, and still not the FSFs business). Sueing or not is an option for the owner of the copyright, in this case the XVID team.
Damn... Now I'm even answering AC's.
But your final question is a valid one, an your post makes me wish you logged in, and I hadn't already posted on this page.
A little digging on Information Waves page reveals THIS page, where they say that multiple listings will be available, including flat-file and DNS.
So to answer your question: They seem very willing to make useful information available.
Any links or other references to back it up?
Well... If we are thinking big, how about having the movement sensor fibers implanted (not too hard, if they are thin enough), and some implants to create sound (I believe work is progressing nicely on those). And sensors on the vocal cord, so you can talk silently (as in get a audio stream of synthesized speech without your mouth making audiable sound).
Now that would be a cool system. And of cause you would need processors small enough to implant, so that only one socket would be needed.
Just imagine...
This raises an interesting question (OK, more of a minor nitpick, but that sounds less like a reason to post), since the law in question is an exception to another law. So right now it is a crime, both in the US and in Australia, but in the US it will be legal under certain circumstances.
Would this differ from the situation where only the aussie law exists?
Recompiling the compiler doesn't do anything to rid you of trojan code/back doors. If you need to ask why, take a look at "Reflections on Trusting Trust" by Ken Thompson, and the description of a back door in the jargon file.
The short story is, that the compiler decides what to output. So you have to trust your compiler.
The reason for the recompiling of gcc is something else entirely: It is to allow the source code of gcc to rely on gcc, and to allow an optimized compiler to be created.
For additional information consult a good book on compiler writing.
Then I take it that they are going to C&D sourceforge any time now, since they host a program to recreate asf files from streams.
In fact I'm surprised this program is still around, think it's years since I first came across it.
It is actually quite nice, I've used it to download clips that where too big for my connection, nothing removes skips and frezes like dropping the file to the local disk. Plus you get to watch it as often as you want, without spending time/money on downloading/streaming it again.
While it does not force upstreams to be as small as reported, the frequency division schemes used for xDSL means that high downstream bandwidth results in low speed upstream. There simply isn't enough bandwidth on the copper-pair for several megabits in both direction. The question then becomes, upstream or downstream?
And that aside, what's wrong with offering a huge pipe downstream? Anybody with half a brain and a little knowledge of tcp/ip knows that this will consume part of your upstream for ACK's. Why blame the isp for not providing a huge upstream, instead of enjoying the huge downstream?
I don't know the actual offers in the states, but around here (Denmark) the isps offer several different downstream/upstream packages, so one can just choose the right one. And the price naturally reflects ones choice. If you need the extra upstream you simply have to pay for it.
Not to start an overly long off-topic thread, but my understanding is that boiling the water for coffee is wrong. Coffee should be brewed using water heated to between 92 and 96 degrees celcius.
As to the serving you are absolutely right, I would rather have to blow on my coffee for a minute or two than have cold coffee.
Thanks for the tip.
What text? As far as I can tell the page renders nicely (Mozilla 1.0)
So bacause the source for gpl'ed programs is available the gpl is responsible for developers acting unethically, violating copyright.
You don't need to use linux to steal gpl'ed sourcecode. Just as like you don't have to use windows to write your own code.
The only diference* between gpl'ed code and propriatary code is that you get the gpl'ed code in hand, up front, without having to negotiate a deal, just as long as you abide by the stated terms if you use it. If those terms are not acceptable you can negotiate with the copyrightholder(s), just like any other bit of code you want to use.
*)Yes the terms include restrictions on the terms you may distribute the result under. Just like a propriatary products could have a license term restricting you from releasing your product for pay.
Please excuse me while I run home and get rid of the stack of linux games that I obviously don't have.
If I own the hardware, I want to run whatever I damn well please, and as long as I'm not using unlicensed software there are no laws to stop me (that I know of).
Well, that depends on your definition of remote control, X is the basis of an entire graphical user interface.
What I like about X, and X on windows is no exception, is that it puts the app on the box it needs to be on or the one where it runs best, and the gui on the screen I'm closest to. But to think of it as remote control is IMHO glossing over the strengths of X, that the gui/logic split happens before the full screen has been rendered, unlike vnc and the like.
Nope, wrong guess, KaZaa is a FastTrack client.
Well, installing the sharing client should be the first clue, selecting the directory to share should be another and then there is the list of uploads which every p2p app I've seen have. But sure, people install stuff they don't understand, they answer install questions without thinking and no way are they gonna try to understand the applications they run.
IMHO there is nothing sneaky about the way p2p apps in general share your files, you get a dialog, where you select a directory. But you are right in observing that people don't realise the consequences. Is this our problem? I say hell no (working for an ISP you might be of a different opinion, but this is my reply).
I'm just thinking out loud here, but couldn't one just start a second sshd in a chroot-jail, with whatever, minimal, environment is needed and the stuff to be shared mounted in using loopback/--bind, read-only? Then fix the config for this particular sshd to only allow whatever access you whish. Of cause it will be running on a non-default port, or your real sshd will...
If you are a terrorist and go to sleep ontop of your bomb, with the radiotrigger activated, then you deserve to get blown up. Any reasonable bomb design should have an OFF switch for any type of reciever. Or for the paranoid, an ON switch (just don't flip it before you plant it).
What I'm trying to say is that I find it hard to believe that simply sending a "signal" can do anything to counteract bombings. Unless bombers in the UK are of the dumb kind.
Well, it might not work for thousands of years, but short term one could simply move to new disks periodically.
And it wouldn't surprise me if the Library of Congress (mentioned as a "user") chips in a little.
They might be misstating it, but they are doing the right thing. If the copyrightholder wants his site removed, it is made inaccessible. But the copy they have on file was made within the law, so they keep that one. Then if the sites owner changes his mind, or (I hope) when the work enters the public domain (remember, copyright is for a limited time only), they allow access again.
In fact I'm hoping that they try their hardest to archive everything, robots.txt or not. That way we will have, in the future, a nice archive of the past, and not a period full of blanks and questionmarks.
Well, the structure of the web change all the time too. And why should we rely on dead tree surviving, when the information is available digital, ready for storage?
If you have archives of GPL'ed software, no longer available, please setup a site with it. You have the right to distribute under the GPL, and I'm sure there are people who are interested.
Excatly. The wayback machine is just a reasonable extrapolation of these principles to the context of the web.
One of the important aspects of copyright is that it is limited in time, and something WE give authors in exchange for their work. If there are no libraries and archieves, then there will likely not be a copy of the work, once it enters the public domain. One would expect that the retro-active robots.txt feature on the wayback machine is limited to the term of copyright (so in... what... 65 years or so... they should allow free access to the first sites captured, robots.txt or not).
Allowing access now, while respecting the common ways of restricting such use, is consistent with the function of a library, adapted for the web.