The problem is that you licensing the patent only protects you, it does not protect others who might run your code, or even (as per their GPL rights) modify and/or redistribute.
If you want to include patented code in something you release with the GPL, you need to get the patent holder to issue a perpetual free license for the patent to anyone anywhere that might legitimately obtain the code, so that they have their GPL rights without having to seperately obtain patent licenses.
There are *not* trivial measures. You cannot mandate that every email reader/client in the world implemented any particular verification scheme. If its so trivial *you* do it. Heck, feel free to begin how to detect if a message 'looks' like a paypal message (but isnt really).
Its not that it would be so difficult to verify that a particular message really is from paypal. However, thats solving the wrong problem. You have to be able to detect the ones that 'Joe Sixpack' is going to *think* are from Paypal but are not. The other option is for Joe Sixpack to learn to actually verify each message that he thinks are from paypal, really are.
Someone one said "A fool and his money are soon parted".
Joe Sixpack needs to get off his ass, and actually learn something about the tool (yes its a TOOL, not a toy) he is using to send/receive REAL money to/from other people. If he is too lazy/ignorant/unmotivated to do that, then he will get ripped off, and its not ebay, paypal, or the government's job to protect him from his own stupidity.
I suspect the PP's sarcasm was a bit too subtle for you - the point is, that to the average user, "update-paypal-security.info" *DOES* look legitimate.
This is a hard problem, and requires people to acquire skills that they should already have to begin with. I blame Microsoft for making it 'too easy' for people, and people for letting MS lead them by the hand.
Yeah, its trivil to configure apache to only service files if the $HTTP_REFERRER is an authorized site. You can also do this to serve the correct image for authorized pages, and to serve something else to unauthorized ones. The point is to drive a message home to people who make web pages, to NOT put images on their page that are hosted on a server that isnt theirs. Serving low-bandwidth images which help to convey this message is one way of doing that.
offer a buyer the option to *NOT* purchase Windows.
Of course, most people who are smart enough to realize they don't want Windows (or even recognize the difference between hardware and software, really) probably also recognize that they can build a much better machine at a better or comparable price buying parts locally or from Newegg and also avoid the nonstandard cases, mounting brackets and other crap that Dell puts in their machines.
So really, getting a maker of cheap consumer-grade proprietary hardware to offer anything other than a cheap consumer-grade proprietary OS with it is probably moot.
You seem to have confused *USING* "Open Source" software, with *INCORPORATING IT INTO PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE YOU ARE DEVELOPING AND NOT COMPLYING WITH THE LICENSE UNDER WHICH YOU OBTAINED IT*
Using vi or emacs to edit the source code for your (proprietary) program places absolutely no licensing requirements on your program. That is an ENTIRELY different situation that extracting pieces of the source code for vi or emacs and including them in your closed-source 'text editing' program.
If you really think you get to sue MS if there is a trojan in their software (ignoring for a moment that most of there software *are* trojans), then you have been smoking too much of the wacky weed.
"transmitter" and theres the rub - the "transmitters" are the same people making the proprietary software, eg, they only let you talk to them using their own software.
That is what needs to get out of the way. The right way would be for the IRS to make available an electronic communcation method that could be used for direct transmission from individuals filing their *own* tax data. They'd need to allow for authentication/identification/access control/etc. And the individuals would be responsible for the accuracy of what they submit, wether they prepare the data by hand in a text editor or use a special-purpose program to do so.
It isnt the software, its that there has to be an "e-file provider" (eg a business entity) that provides the efile service for its "customers". Individual end-user software cannot talk directly to the IRS, only the "provider's" servers can
The tricky part is, that the individual(s) running the software would have to do that, unless the developer of this software wants to set up servers and systems for e-filing, which they probably would then have to charge for.
The big PIA, is that an individual cannot automatically electronically communicate their own tax return data directly to the IRS. They must go through an 'efile provider', who may or may not charge them. I'm not talking about the calculations, or the decisions about what forms to file or what numbers to put on them - I'm simply talking about, after you've determine all that (possibly even by hand), simply electronically transmitting the data that would be on the forms directly to some IRS server from your own machine, no third party involved. But only efile 'providers' (who the IRS assumes are going to be filing on behalf of other people, as opposed to just themselves, and so puts all sorts of hoops to jump through to allow you to become one) can do that.
Why should CA send MS-Word files to anyone? They would send them in whatever eligible open format they choose, which the recipient can choose whichever tool capable of reading them they want. If MS opts to not provide such a tool, then one will have to be obtained elsewhere. This may hopefully force MS to actually compete fairly, and provide the features its customers want, instead of forcing 'features' on them that prevent them from interoperating with anything else.
MS can either kick and scream fighting it, or they can get onboard - interoperability is on the way in and vendor lock-in is on the way out.
That there are not multiple vendors of 'Word Processing' software is directly due to Microsoft illegal maintentance and extension of their monopoly, not the market's fault. It is also a very unhealthy situation, and anything that promotes there to truly be multiple real vendors is a Good Thing.
And incompatibility between the several dozen versions of MS Word is at least as bad as what you attribute to ODF. Note that the bill doesnt require 'ODF'. It merely requires that the format publically documented for royalty-free use and implementation, as well as a few other criteria, but the article, and in fact the slashdot summary speak for themselves - perhaps you need to read it over again. It doesnt specifically require ODF (although ODF would in fact meet the criteria). MS is free to *really* publically document their formats for royalty-free implementation, and then they would qualify. If MS doesnt want to do that, they can take their ball and go home.
The linux kernel does not have a graphical user interface. Perhaps some window manager or application (that might run on linux, or *bsd, or anything else, but which is assuredly not *PART* of linux) might have such an interface, but then it would be *that* application that would be violating the patent, not "Linux".
And given the response to the SCO business and the attention being paid to where code comes from, if some MS shill did in fact contribute code which violated an MS patent to a Free Software project, it would be traceable back to them, and when it was shown they worked for MS, *they* would be the ones getting the heat (and the code removed, of course), not the other contributors, the project lead, or its users.
Yeah, but apparently they attempt (with some success) to check if your are in Canada, and dont sell MP3 if they think you are in the US. The labels arent going to pay much attention, really, until its available at least in the US and/or Worldwide.
"We apologize, but www.puretracks.com is only available to Canadian residents"
is confusion (sometimes intentional) between the concepts of "Open Source" and "Free Software" (and, occasionally, between the concepts of "Free Software" and "proprietary software that is given away for free"). "Open Source" never had any sort of 'halo'.
Richard Stallman could surely explain far more eloquently that I could - perhaps/. should interview RMS. (The usual submit questions of which the highest moderated get sent to him type of deal).
"If you have your own DNS..." there is no need for it to forward to your ISP's DNS at all, it can talk to the roots (whats what named.root is about) directly, and follow delegations from there. And yes, delegation-only is a good thing, but in that case, its only relevant (or needed) to counteract stuff Verisign/Netsol puts in the TLD zones themselves.
First off, I assume the problem is with telnetd, not telnet.
Second, anyone that would still use telnetd on a unix system is not competent to be a unix admin in this day and age. (And no, Im not talking about using the telnet *client* to access hardware devices such as routers locally or to connect to SMTP for testing, etc; Im talking only about allowing inbound login from the public Internet via telnet to a unix system where security is evem remotely important)
No, doing those things dont cause one to be 'mistaken' for a spammer, doing those things cause you to *be* a spammer. (Although certainly not the only things) The only way not to be a spammer is closed-loop verified subscriptions. And you've got to face that people simply are not going to voluntarily subscribe to advertising. (Making it a condition for receiving some other service is just another way of spamming)
I dont hav any bluetooth devices, nor have I ever used or even seen one up close.
However, the post seems to suggest that you can either have it on, and your device promiscuously communicates with everything, or off, and it talks to nothing.
It seems odd to me that there wouldnt be some soft of 'device whitelist', where you could first start with it promiscous, have it negotiate and identify communication with specific devices (such as a headset), and then switch it to 'on, but only for already-identified devices', where it would still work with your headset, but would automatically ignore/refuse communication from anything else.
Yes, it might help. Yes, I know it will never happen. But if it *were* to ever happen, the 'whatever OS you plan to use' part wouldnt exist, period. Noone at the 'DBI' would be aware of the existence of anything other than Windows (and you can bet MSFT would do everything it could to ensure that), and you'd have to agree to always use 'antivirus' and 'software firewall' crap software (or worse whatever crap MS incorporates into their latest platform), and anyone found to be using anything without that (which would include anything other than Windows) would lose their license/access/etc. Bureaucracy (which the 'DBI' would be) will never be smarter than the clued individual (or for that matter even your average Joe Sixpack)
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that you licensing the patent only protects you, it does not protect others who might run your code, or even (as per their GPL rights) modify and/or redistribute.
If you want to include patented code in something you release with the GPL, you need to get the patent holder to issue a perpetual free license for the patent to anyone anywhere that might legitimately obtain the code, so that they have their GPL rights without having to seperately obtain patent licenses.
There are *not* trivial measures. You cannot mandate that every email reader/client in the world implemented any particular verification scheme. If its so trivial *you* do it. Heck, feel free to begin how to detect if a message 'looks' like a paypal message (but isnt really).
Its not that it would be so difficult to verify that a particular message really is from paypal. However, thats solving the wrong problem. You have to be able to detect the ones that 'Joe Sixpack' is going to *think* are from Paypal but are not. The other option is for Joe Sixpack to learn to actually verify each message that he thinks are from paypal, really are.
Someone one said "A fool and his money are soon parted".
Joe Sixpack needs to get off his ass, and actually learn something about the tool (yes its a TOOL, not a toy) he is using to send/receive REAL money to/from other people. If he is too lazy/ignorant/unmotivated to do that, then he will get ripped off, and its not ebay, paypal, or the government's job to protect him from his own stupidity.
I suspect the PP's sarcasm was a bit too subtle for you - the point is, that to the average user, "update-paypal-security.info" *DOES* look legitimate.
This is a hard problem, and requires people to acquire skills that they should already have to begin with. I blame Microsoft for making it 'too easy' for people, and people for letting MS lead them by the hand.
Yeah, its trivil to configure apache to only service files if the $HTTP_REFERRER is an authorized site. You can also do this to serve the correct image for authorized pages, and to serve something else to unauthorized ones. The point is to drive a message home to people who make web pages, to NOT put images on their page that are hosted on a server that isnt theirs. Serving low-bandwidth images which help to convey this message is one way of doing that.
offer a buyer the option to *NOT* purchase Windows.
Of course, most people who are smart enough to realize they don't want Windows (or even recognize the difference between hardware and software, really) probably also recognize that they can build a much better machine at a better or comparable price buying parts locally or from Newegg and also avoid the nonstandard cases, mounting brackets and other crap that Dell puts in their machines.
So really, getting a maker of cheap consumer-grade proprietary hardware to offer anything other than a cheap consumer-grade proprietary OS with it is probably moot.
GNU and RMS are not opposed to *commercial* software. They are opposed to *proprietary* *closed-source* software.
# Commercial
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
You seem to have confused *USING* "Open Source" software, with *INCORPORATING IT INTO PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE YOU ARE DEVELOPING AND NOT COMPLYING WITH THE LICENSE UNDER WHICH YOU OBTAINED IT*
Using vi or emacs to edit the source code for your (proprietary) program places absolutely no licensing requirements on your program. That is an ENTIRELY different situation that extracting pieces of the source code for vi or emacs and including them in your closed-source 'text editing' program.
If you really think you get to sue MS if there is a trojan in their software (ignoring for a moment that most of there software *are* trojans), then you have been smoking too much of the wacky weed.
"transmitter" and theres the rub - the "transmitters" are the same people making the proprietary software, eg, they only let you talk to them using their own software.
That is what needs to get out of the way. The right way would be for the IRS to make available an electronic communcation method that could be used for direct transmission from individuals filing their *own* tax data. They'd need to allow for authentication/identification/access control/etc. And the individuals would be responsible for the accuracy of what they submit, wether they prepare the data by hand in a text editor or use a special-purpose program to do so.
It isnt the software, its that there has to be an "e-file provider" (eg a business entity) that provides the efile service for its "customers". Individual end-user software cannot talk directly to the IRS, only the "provider's" servers can
The tricky part is, that the individual(s) running the software would have to do that, unless the developer of this software wants to set up servers and systems for e-filing, which they probably would then have to charge for.
The big PIA, is that an individual cannot automatically electronically communicate their own tax return data directly to the IRS. They must go through an 'efile provider', who may or may not charge them. I'm not talking about the calculations, or the decisions about what forms to file or what numbers to put on them - I'm simply talking about, after you've determine all that (possibly even by hand), simply electronically transmitting the data that would be on the forms directly to some IRS server from your own machine, no third party involved. But only efile 'providers' (who the IRS assumes are going to be filing on behalf of other people, as opposed to just themselves, and so puts all sorts of hoops to jump through to allow you to become one) can do that.
Why should CA send MS-Word files to anyone? They would send them in whatever eligible open format they choose, which the recipient can choose whichever tool capable of reading them they want. If MS opts to not provide such a tool, then one will have to be obtained elsewhere. This may hopefully force MS to actually compete fairly, and provide the features its customers want, instead of forcing 'features' on them that prevent them from interoperating with anything else.
MS can either kick and scream fighting it, or they can get onboard - interoperability is on the way in and vendor lock-in is on the way out.
That there are not multiple vendors of 'Word Processing' software is directly due to Microsoft illegal maintentance and extension of their monopoly, not the market's fault. It is also a very unhealthy situation, and anything that promotes there to truly be multiple real vendors is a Good Thing.
And incompatibility between the several dozen versions of MS Word is at least as bad as what you attribute to ODF. Note that the bill doesnt require 'ODF'. It merely requires that the format publically documented for royalty-free use and implementation, as well as a few other criteria, but the article, and in fact the slashdot summary speak for themselves - perhaps you need to read it over again. It doesnt specifically require ODF (although ODF would in fact meet the criteria). MS is free to *really* publically document their formats for royalty-free implementation, and then they would qualify. If MS doesnt want to do that, they can take their ball and go home.
The linux kernel does not have a graphical user interface. Perhaps some window manager or application (that might run on linux, or *bsd, or anything else, but which is assuredly not *PART* of linux) might have such an interface, but then it would be *that* application that would be violating the patent, not "Linux".
And given the response to the SCO business and the attention being paid to where code comes from, if some MS shill did in fact contribute code which violated an MS patent to a Free Software project, it would be traceable back to them, and when it was shown they worked for MS, *they* would be the ones getting the heat (and the code removed, of course), not the other contributors, the project lead, or its users.
Yeah, but apparently they attempt (with some success) to check if your are in Canada, and dont sell MP3 if they think you are in the US. The labels arent going to pay much attention, really, until its available at least in the US and/or Worldwide.
"We apologize, but www.puretracks.com is only available to Canadian residents"
is confusion (sometimes intentional) between the concepts of "Open Source" and "Free Software" (and, occasionally, between the concepts of "Free Software" and "proprietary software that is given away for free"). "Open Source" never had any sort of 'halo'.
/. should interview RMS. (The usual submit questions of which the highest moderated get sent to him type of deal).
Richard Stallman could surely explain far more eloquently that I could - perhaps
"If you have your own DNS..." there is no need for it to forward to your ISP's DNS at all, it can talk to the roots (whats what named.root is about) directly, and follow delegations from there. And yes, delegation-only is a good thing, but in that case, its only relevant (or needed) to counteract stuff Verisign/Netsol puts in the TLD zones themselves.
First off, I assume the problem is with telnetd, not telnet.
Second, anyone that would still use telnetd on a unix system is not competent to be a unix admin in this day and age. (And no, Im not talking about using the telnet *client* to access hardware devices such as routers locally or to connect to SMTP for testing, etc; Im talking only about allowing inbound login from the public Internet via telnet to a unix system where security is evem remotely important)
Just evaluate the TCP packet signatures and identify MS platforms, and deny all traffic from it. Malware would stop dead in its tracks.
You completely and horrifically misunderstand the theory behind global warming. Do some research.
No, doing those things dont cause one to be 'mistaken' for a spammer, doing those things cause you to *be* a spammer. (Although certainly not the only things) The only way not to be a spammer is closed-loop verified subscriptions. And you've got to face that people simply are not going to voluntarily subscribe to advertising. (Making it a condition for receiving some other service is just another way of spamming)
What is this 'geo-map' command and where does one get it?
I dont hav any bluetooth devices, nor have I ever used or even seen one up close.
However, the post seems to suggest that you can either have it on, and your device promiscuously communicates with everything, or off, and it talks to nothing.
It seems odd to me that there wouldnt be some soft of 'device whitelist', where you could first start with it promiscous, have it negotiate and identify communication with specific devices (such as a headset), and then switch it to 'on, but only for already-identified devices', where it would still work with your headset, but would automatically ignore/refuse communication from anything else.
Yes, it might help. Yes, I know it will never happen. But if it *were* to ever happen, the 'whatever OS you plan to use' part wouldnt exist, period. Noone at the 'DBI' would be aware of the existence of anything other than Windows (and you can bet MSFT would do everything it could to ensure that), and you'd have to agree to always use 'antivirus' and 'software firewall' crap software (or worse whatever crap MS incorporates into their latest platform), and anyone found to be using anything without that (which would include anything other than Windows) would lose their license/access/etc. Bureaucracy (which the 'DBI' would be) will never be smarter than the clued individual (or for that matter even your average Joe Sixpack)