It doesnt matter... They cannot prohibit you from installing the GPL-licensed software on as many machines as you want, without paying them anything.
Or rather, they can, but the prohibition is void, becuase by doing so *they* would violate the provisions of the GPL license which gave them permission to do anything with the GPL software in the first place.
You already have the 'right to respond' - set up your own website/page and feel free to refute or debate anything you want.
I don't see why someone should have the right to respond at the expense of the person they are responding to.
Thats the beauty of the net - anyone and everyone has a right to publish their own opinion, as long as they pay for the resources they use.
Now, I can see if a professional news organization posts a critizism, that they might be motivited by their own desire to maintain a reputation of being fair to offer a *LINK* on their site to someone elses differing opinion (but not required to), but surely it's not right to require them to provide the resources for hosting that differing opinion.
I dont think they are asking them to interpret the terms - they are asking the FSF to review wether the terms are compatible with the GPL, or if they conflict with it (and as such, are rendered void since RH *has* to comply with the GPL when distributing linux)
RH is saying that if you signup one of your servers to participate in their support services, that they have a right to audit your site (which may be ok), but they seem to imply that if you have 5 other RH servers (that arent participating in their services), they have a right to backbill you (with penalty) as if those servers were participating.
Now, maybe its legally ok for them to ask you to agree to this - but it does seem at quesition wether its 'ethical', and how they can reconcile that with the GPL.
I would definately be interested to read the FSF's response when they publish it.
Oh yeah, those new copies of XP are going to work well on their old 386SX's. It would be so much worse if they could install free software that doesnt required the latest P4 with 2gigs of ram.
"out to make money" Nono - Microsoft is out to try to create a condition whereby anyone who wants to use a computer in the modern world HAS to use MS software to do so, and eventually, HAS to pay a recurring fee to MS for the privilege of doing so.
If MS, instead of giving "a billion dollars" of MS software to these nonprofits, gave them an actual billion dollars (string-free), and let them do with it what they want (which might include spending it on MS software, or might include buying a billion dollars worth of hardware, and running free software on it), then Id be impressed.
And yes, getting users 'used' to using MS software does tend to make it hard for them to choose anything else. Like someone else mentioned, the comparison to drug dealers giving out 'free samples' is apt.
Companies should be allowed to have published criteria for formats of resumes they will accept.
Im sure there are some common sense rules for dead-true resumes. I would hope they arent required to accept or file a resume printed on used toilet paper, or in 30 point type on a 4x8 foot sheet of plywood.
So same should there be some common sense rules for resumses - not required to accept or file resumes not in RFC-documented formats, for example, or perhaps even requiring them to be in plain text. Im sure the size of a DOC file for a given resume, compared to a plaintext version of the same resume, is at least similar to the comparison between a sheet of plyood as compared to a US-letter or A4 page of paper.
Allowing PDF format might be a consideration, since they could print those and add them to their dead-tree file. Of course, that would cost them money in ink and paper, which doesnt seem fair.
No, I think the best thing would be to ALLOW applicants to email resumes, but not require companies to supply the computer equipment or ink and paper to file them. If an applicant wants to force a company to file their resume, they should be required to pay for the paper and postage to send them a hardcopy.
Of course, nothing word prohbit a company from choosing to save or print/file resumes they got. So they still could if they wanted.
1. You can only rent the DVD after providing the video store with your ID and credit card, and they checkyour credit record. They also have a record of every movie you've rented. You have to remember to bring it back in time, or else get charged another $3 per day you are late.
2. You can pay $15 for a DVD, which you can watch as many times as you want, and in only one place unless you have DeCSS/etc and are able to copy it.
3. You can pay $3 for a DVD which will only work 48 hours, that you dont have to bring back within any particular time period (hopefully if the 'return for deposit' idea catches on to encourage recycling, you can save up the expired ones for a few months, and bring them back all at once, like soda cans), that if you have DeCSS/etc are are able to copy it, you can watch it as many times as you want.
Hrm.. Lemme guess, your ISP is listed on SPEWS becuase they like spammers money too much, and you dont like that SPEWS wont grant you an exception?
There is nothing irresponsible about SPEWS. They list exactly what they say they list. You (and anyone else) can choose to use it, or not. And, like it or not, rejecting mail from IP's addresses that are in SPEWS, *will* reject a *lot* of spam.
Feel free to point me to any *specific* IP address which appears in a SPEWS listing which you feel is 'irresponsible', and I will be happy to tell you why it isnt. Besides, who is SPEWS responsible to? Only to the admins that use it. If those admins didnt like they way SPEWS worked, they wouldnt use it. SPEWS is not, now should it be, responsible to anyone who wants to force anyone else to accept their email.
Only irresponsible ISP's don't care about being listed in any widely used blacklist. Eventually, as their customers become smarter, and realize this, they will slowly lose customers until they go out of business, or until their dropping cashflow forces them to become responsible.
SPEWS is *not* a *quick* fix to the overall spam problem. It is a *long* term idea. on NANAE often mention is made to 'two internets' forming - one that allows spam, and one which doesnt. In reality this will never happen, becuase the 'spam allowed' Internet will eventually become the 'spam only' Internet, and not even spammers want spam, so no one will pay to be connected to that one, so even as it forms it ceases to exist. Sort of like a cancer which is cut off.
Oh, and the reason the emarketers are emotional is becuase they know they are doomed, and they are desperate. The simple fact is, that NO ONE wants to receive unsolicited ads mixed in with what they *do* want to receive, and by definition the emarketers are annoying people.
People who dont like SPEWS generally fall into one or more of:
-Spammers (duh)
-ISP's that have spammers as customers, and dont want to turn them off becuase they care more about making money from the spammers that about the fact that the spammers are stealing resources from other ISP's.
-Customers of those ISP's that dont understand or care that their ISP is greedy and doesnt care about spam.
-Commercial 'anti spam' systems that focus on filtering spam, rather then blocking it or forcing spammers to be shut down (their business model depends on spam continuing to be sent)
You wont find any signifigant number of persons who dont like SPEWS that dont fall into one or more of those categories, either currently or previously. You *will* find LOTS of people who would never allow themselves to fall into one of those categories, who like how SPEWS works very much.
I think you misunderstand. RMS isnt asking anyone to call the linux KERNEL GNU/Linux. The Kernel (even if it is licensed under the GPL), is still just 'linux'
What RMS is asking, is that a complete operating system, which may include the linux kernel, and other software, but which MOST of the basic system software, especially the system library and compiler, ARE in fact part of the GNU project (glibc, gcc, etc), have the GNU prepended.
That said, and while I personally like RMS, even he has to admit that its quite a mouthfull to say, and probably will not become common usage, even among techies, let alone the average joe.
A complete rewrite of SMTP isnt gonna happen in this lifetime, or on this Internet.
Adding some sort of hideous PKI (that would require individuals to purchase certificates from someone like Verisign, no doubt) isnt the answer either.
One thing, which works fairly well, and works now, is SPEWS (www.spews.org). It makes it VERY unprofitable for an ISP to provide service to a spammer. That includes service that allows them to send, as well has the hosting of websites, domains, email addresses which the spammer can use to sell whatever they are pitching.
Another, would be the addition of some tweaks to popular MTA's (sendmail, postfix, qmail, exim), which would enable them to reject mail that is coming from IP's which are not 'authorized' by the responsible party for a paritular domain to originate mail from their domain, perhaps by way of an extension to DNS whereby the domain operator listed the authorized IP/networks. Now, this would require ISP's to support something like POPb4SMTP and/or SMTP AUTH, and for other ISPs to either stop blocking outbound port 25 or (better) support the MSA port 587, specifically and only for their OWN (properly authenticated) customers to use for submitting mail for delivery. Something like this could help to eliminate most of the forged spam. Spammers would *have* to register their own domains, and would be forced to use their own ISP's relay (and get shutdown by them rather quickly) or have their domain identified as a spam domain rather quickly, (and 'lists of spammer domains', similar to RBL's, could be setup, with far less risk of rejecting legitimate mail)
This is just compression of web content. Most webservers and browsers already support compression as part of the HTTP standard.
In any case, it will only improve WEB PAGE download times, it wont speedup downloads in general (eg, that ISO, MPEG, or ZIP file you want wont come any faster)
In short, this is just a marketing gimmick to fool nontechnical people into thinking they are getting something for their extra money.
So they know how to run Office without Windows, using the wine libraries.
My question is - so why can't WINE itself do this? And, will it ever be able to do it, if CodeWeavers is _selling_ a seperate product? Eg, if wine could do this for free, no one would buy the CrossOver product.
True, CodeWeavers has to have money (I suppose) - but as nice as this is, I just wonder if it being available at charge will prevent it from ever becoming part of wine itself.
You ever see those portable camping/survival radios/flashlights with a built in hand-operated generator? This idea could be used for these radios/along with rechargable batteries. (Also - even if the main usage was a night, the soldier could fold out a small solar pack and let the unit charge all day so as to be ready to last all night)
You have to join their program, and to do that you HAVE to give them a credit card number.. Its a 'free trial' scam. So its useless if you dont already have at least decent enough credit to get a card, and will probably put you in more debt as you try vainly to get it cancelled and get them to stop billing you..
Uhm.. UUNET is only in charge of their own network. They are an ISP, and if one of their customers is sending spam then it has to be reported to them so they can get cut off.
UUNET isnt 'in charge' of anything other than that.. They arent 'in charge' of spam - each ISP is responsible for use of its own network.
Only mail that actually originated from (or was relayed through) a UUNET IP address should be reported to abuse@uunet.com - if you are (or were) sending ALL of your spam there then all you are doing is wasting their time..
I'm still waiting for the ability to turn Java and/or Javascript on or off by default, and then either specify specific sites to permit one or both, or specific sites to deny from.. I hate it as a global option.. Some sites I have to use require one (or both) to work properly, and while they are sluggish and choppy due to this they at least are using it in a responsible manner. I would like to be able to say "deny java and javascript by default for all sites", and then list specific domains I want to use it on..
Im currently/still downloading NS6 (er, 'installing' it, that is), so I dont know yet wether it supports that.. If it does I've switched, at least until Mozilla has a release that qualifies as 'final' (eg bugs fixed, debugging code turned off)..
Slashdot Mirror
It doesnt matter... They cannot prohibit you from installing the GPL-licensed software on as many machines as you want, without paying them anything.
Or rather, they can, but the prohibition is void, becuase by doing so *they* would violate the provisions of the GPL license which gave them permission to do anything with the GPL software in the first place.
You already have the 'right to respond' - set up your own website/page and feel free to refute or debate anything you want.
I don't see why someone should have the right to respond at the expense of the person they are responding to.
Thats the beauty of the net - anyone and everyone has a right to publish their own opinion, as long as they pay for the resources they use.
Now, I can see if a professional news organization posts a critizism, that they might be motivited by their own desire to maintain a reputation of being fair to offer a *LINK* on their site to someone elses differing opinion (but not required to), but surely it's not right to require them to provide the resources for hosting that differing opinion.
I dont think they are asking them to interpret the terms - they are asking the FSF to review wether the terms are compatible with the GPL, or if they conflict with it (and as such, are rendered void since RH *has* to comply with the GPL when distributing linux)
RedHat doesnt have anywhere close to a monopoly on any market that it produces products for.
Microsoft has monopolies (ones that have been found guilt of illegally maintaining, even) in several markets.
Actually, I see his point.
RH is saying that if you signup one of your servers to participate in their support services, that they have a right to audit your site (which may be ok), but they seem to imply that if you have 5 other RH servers (that arent participating in their services), they have a right to backbill you (with penalty) as if those servers were participating.
Now, maybe its legally ok for them to ask you to agree to this - but it does seem at quesition wether its 'ethical', and how they can reconcile that with the GPL.
I would definately be interested to read the FSF's response when they publish it.
Oh yeah, those new copies of XP are going to work well on their old 386SX's. It would be so much worse if they could install free software that doesnt required the latest P4 with 2gigs of ram.
"out to make money" Nono - Microsoft is out to try to create a condition whereby anyone who wants to use a computer in the modern world HAS to use MS software to do so, and eventually, HAS to pay a recurring fee to MS for the privilege of doing so.
If MS, instead of giving "a billion dollars" of MS software to these nonprofits, gave them an actual billion dollars (string-free), and let them do with it what they want (which might include spending it on MS software, or might include buying a billion dollars worth of hardware, and running free software on it), then Id be impressed.
And yes, getting users 'used' to using MS software does tend to make it hard for them to choose anything else. Like someone else mentioned, the comparison to drug dealers giving out 'free samples' is apt.
Properly setup honeypots do not allow themselves to be used to break into other live systems.
Companies should be allowed to have published criteria for formats of resumes they will accept.
Im sure there are some common sense rules for dead-true resumes. I would hope they arent required to accept or file a resume printed on used toilet paper, or in 30 point type on a 4x8 foot sheet of plywood.
So same should there be some common sense rules for resumses - not required to accept or file resumes not in RFC-documented formats, for example, or perhaps even requiring them to be in plain text. Im sure the size of a DOC file for a given resume, compared to a plaintext version of the same resume, is at least similar to the comparison between a sheet of plyood as compared to a US-letter or A4 page of paper.
Allowing PDF format might be a consideration, since they could print those and add them to their dead-tree file. Of course, that would cost them money in ink and paper, which doesnt seem fair.
No, I think the best thing would be to ALLOW applicants to email resumes, but not require companies to supply the computer equipment or ink and paper to file them. If an applicant wants to force a company to file their resume, they should be required to pay for the paper and postage to send them a hardcopy.
Of course, nothing word prohbit a company from choosing to save or print/file resumes they got. So they still could if they wanted.
1. You can only rent the DVD after providing the video store with your ID and credit card, and they checkyour credit record. They also have a record of every movie you've rented. You have to remember to bring it back in time, or else get charged another $3 per day you are late.
2. You can pay $15 for a DVD, which you can watch as many times as you want, and in only one place unless you have DeCSS/etc and are able to copy it.
3. You can pay $3 for a DVD which will only work 48 hours, that you dont have to bring back within any particular time period (hopefully if the 'return for deposit' idea catches on to encourage recycling, you can save up the expired ones for a few months, and bring them back all at once, like soda cans), that if you have DeCSS/etc are are able to copy it, you can watch it as many times as you want.
Hrm.. Lemme guess, your ISP is listed on SPEWS becuase they like spammers money too much, and you dont like that SPEWS wont grant you an exception?
There is nothing irresponsible about SPEWS. They list exactly what they say they list. You (and anyone else) can choose to use it, or not. And, like it or not, rejecting mail from IP's addresses that are in SPEWS, *will* reject a *lot* of spam.
Feel free to point me to any *specific* IP address which appears in a SPEWS listing which you feel is 'irresponsible', and I will be happy to tell you why it isnt. Besides, who is SPEWS responsible to? Only to the admins that use it. If those admins didnt like they way SPEWS worked, they wouldnt use it. SPEWS is not, now should it be, responsible to anyone who wants to force anyone else to accept their email.
Only irresponsible ISP's don't care about being listed in any widely used blacklist. Eventually, as their customers become smarter, and realize this, they will slowly lose customers until they go out of business, or until their dropping cashflow forces them to become responsible.
SPEWS is *not* a *quick* fix to the overall spam problem. It is a *long* term idea. on NANAE often mention is made to 'two internets' forming - one that allows spam, and one which doesnt. In reality this will never happen, becuase the 'spam allowed' Internet will eventually become the 'spam only' Internet, and not even spammers want spam, so no one will pay to be connected to that one, so even as it forms it ceases to exist. Sort of like a cancer which is cut off.
Oh, and the reason the emarketers are emotional is becuase they know they are doomed, and they are desperate. The simple fact is, that NO ONE wants to receive unsolicited ads mixed in with what they *do* want to receive, and by definition the emarketers are annoying people.
People who dont like SPEWS generally fall into one or more of:
-Spammers (duh)
-ISP's that have spammers as customers, and dont want to turn them off becuase they care more about making money from the spammers that about the fact that the spammers are stealing resources from other ISP's.
-Customers of those ISP's that dont understand or care that their ISP is greedy and doesnt care about spam.
-Commercial 'anti spam' systems that focus on filtering spam, rather then blocking it or forcing spammers to be shut down (their business model depends on spam continuing to be sent)
You wont find any signifigant number of persons who dont like SPEWS that dont fall into one or more of those categories, either currently or previously. You *will* find LOTS of people who would never allow themselves to fall into one of those categories, who like how SPEWS works very much.
I think you misunderstand. RMS isnt asking anyone to call the linux KERNEL GNU/Linux. The Kernel (even if it is licensed under the GPL), is still just 'linux'
What RMS is asking, is that a complete operating system, which may include the linux kernel, and other software, but which MOST of the basic system software, especially the system library and compiler, ARE in fact part of the GNU project (glibc, gcc, etc), have the GNU prepended.
That said, and while I personally like RMS, even he has to admit that its quite a mouthfull to say, and probably will not become common usage, even among techies, let alone the average joe.
Heh. You're presuming that though thought hasnt already deterioratied.
And as far as where we would be - we'd be in a Microsoft World.
A complete rewrite of SMTP isnt gonna happen in this lifetime, or on this Internet.
Adding some sort of hideous PKI (that would require individuals to purchase certificates from someone like Verisign, no doubt) isnt the answer either.
One thing, which works fairly well, and works now, is SPEWS (www.spews.org). It makes it VERY unprofitable for an ISP to provide service to a spammer. That includes service that allows them to send, as well has the hosting of websites, domains, email addresses which the spammer can use to sell whatever they are pitching.
Another, would be the addition of some tweaks to popular MTA's (sendmail, postfix, qmail, exim), which would enable them to reject mail that is coming from IP's which are not 'authorized' by the responsible party for a paritular domain to originate mail from their domain, perhaps by way of an extension to DNS whereby the domain operator listed the authorized IP/networks. Now, this would require ISP's to support something like POPb4SMTP and/or SMTP AUTH, and for other ISPs to either stop blocking outbound port 25 or (better) support the MSA port 587, specifically and only for their OWN (properly authenticated) customers to use for submitting mail for delivery. Something like this could help to eliminate most of the forged spam. Spammers would *have* to register their own domains, and would be forced to use their own ISP's relay (and get shutdown by them rather quickly) or have their domain identified as a spam domain rather quickly, (and 'lists of spammer domains', similar to RBL's, could be setup, with far less risk of rejecting legitimate mail)
A betting pool has started on how long after Gold is released it will turn into Lead (How long until the first major security hole will be found)
An anonymous wager has been placed for 5 minutes..
Injket printers are pretty much all consumer grade CRAP anyway. I would never buy one.
I'll stick with my laser
This is just compression of web content.
Most webservers and browsers already support compression as part of the HTTP standard.
In any case, it will only improve WEB PAGE download times, it wont speedup downloads in general (eg, that ISO, MPEG, or ZIP file you want wont come any faster)
In short, this is just a marketing gimmick to fool nontechnical people into thinking they are getting something for their extra money.
MS Word? No.. Wordstar (and Wordperfect) came first. IMNSHO, Wordperfect was better.
So they know how to run Office without Windows, using the wine libraries.
My question is - so why can't WINE itself do this? And, will it ever be able to do it, if CodeWeavers is _selling_ a seperate product? Eg, if wine could do this for free, no one would buy the CrossOver product.
True, CodeWeavers has to have money (I suppose) - but as nice as this is, I just wonder if it being available at charge will prevent it from ever becoming part of wine itself.
You ever see those portable camping/survival radios/flashlights with a built in hand-operated generator? This idea could be used for these radios/along with rechargable batteries. (Also - even if the main usage was a night, the soldier could fold out a small solar pack and let the unit charge all day so as to be ready to last all night)
Uhm.. The cellphone would use GPS to determine your position, and then sends that information, via the CELL TOWER, to the 911 systems via landline
It doesnt have to send anything to the GPS satellite..
Uh.. Yeah.. they know SOMEONE read it, but they have no idea who, if you dont put your name and address on the reply card..
But I agree with the person that mentioned the real costs of sending out postal advertising, as opposed to the rip-off that email SPAM is..
You can NOT get a free credit report there.
You have to join their program, and to do that you HAVE to give them a credit card number.. Its a 'free trial' scam. So its useless if you dont already have at least decent enough credit to get a card, and will probably put you in more debt as you try vainly to get it cancelled and get them to stop billing you..
Uhm.. UUNET is only in charge of their own network. They are an ISP, and if one of their customers is sending spam then it has to be reported to them so they can get cut off.
UUNET isnt 'in charge' of anything other than that.. They arent 'in charge' of spam - each ISP is responsible for use of its own network.
Only mail that actually originated from (or was relayed through) a UUNET IP address should be reported to abuse@uunet.com - if you are (or were) sending ALL of your spam there then all you are doing is wasting their time..
There is no central organization in charge of spam, and even if there was it would be useless.. Go read http://maps.vix.com, http://www.mail-abuse.net and/or http://www.spamcop.net for real information on the topic of spam, and REAL things ISPs can do about it.
I'm still waiting for the ability to turn Java and/or Javascript on or off by default, and then either specify specific sites to permit one or both, or specific sites to deny from.. I hate it as a global option.. Some sites I have to use require one (or both) to work properly, and while they are sluggish and choppy due to this they at least are using it in a responsible manner. I would like to be able to say "deny java and javascript by default for all sites", and then list specific domains I want to use it on..
Im currently/still downloading NS6 (er, 'installing' it, that is), so I dont know yet wether it supports that.. If it does I've switched, at least until Mozilla has a release that qualifies as 'final' (eg bugs fixed, debugging code turned off)..