I'm a little concerned that Al Qaida is known as "The Base" in English.
Really? Known by whom? Although I know that that's what it translates to, this is the first time I've heard anyone refer to it as "The Base".
Every time I've seen it in the (English-language) news, they refer to it as "Al Qaida", not "The Base". Hmm. a quick search of "The Base" on Google news lists no references to Al Qaida as "The Base", but a search for "Al Qaida" reveals 28000 results. This leads me to believe that Al Qaida is NOT known as "The Base" in any English-speaking countries.
Perhaps you meant to say that "Al Qaida" translates to "The Base" in English?
This is just the sort of trivia I would expect a sysadmin to google.
You're kidding?
I've never done it either, but the answer was immediately obvious to me.
This isn't trivia, it's (at the very least) a test of logical thinking. If your sysadmin needed to google for it, they're not qualified to run your system.
That said, it's something I'd expect a *senior* admin to know, not someone who's entry-level.
Slackware users seem to have this odd puritanical notion that makeing things hard on yourself is a good thing.
As an admin of 40+ Slackware boxes (including my work and home desktops and my laptop), I have to say that's complete bunk. I like to make things as easy as possible, and that is one of the reasons I use Slackware.
In my opinion, anything that can be automated should be automated.
Funny, that's my opinion too - again, one of the reasons I love Slackware.
hehe.. there is a street performer in Edmonton, and one of his acts climaxes with the beheading of a Barney doll. As part of the lead up, he gets the audience to sing the "barney" song, and just before it all begins, he says "Kids, your family loves you. Your friends love you. Barney just wants your money."
the record companies still seem blind that they have a viable MP3 market because most consumers (with jobs) would rather pay $1 (with Jobs) than spend 20 minutes finding a song illegally or even bothering to rip their own CDs
The record cartel isn't blind - they see something that you don't: such a marketplace would open them up to competition, which would destroy their cartel.
Major record companies don't want the public to become accustomed to downloading music because it allows anyone to sell their music online. Their "piracy is bad" propaganda campaign is designed to make people equate "downloading" with "evil", so that people continue to purchase the shiny discs.
The *only* thing that record companies offer to the artists is global distribution, and they use that to screw artists out of every penny they can; the net effect of a record contract is that the record company gives the artist a loan at an effective 95% interest rate (they loan the money to the artist to make the record, then keep 95% of the sales, and take the repayment for the loan out of the artist's 5%.) What happens when the artists realize that they can get global exposure without the record labels? The end of the gravy-train.
Amazon allows the *public* to post their opinions. By definition it is a public venue.
It is a place to sell stuff.
If it is only a place to sell stuff, then why do they have the abiltity for the *public* to post their *opinions*?
There is a place for the sort of comments that found their way there, but Amazon doesn't do very well at fitting the bill.
Amazon fits the bill perfectly. Where else should one post their opinion of the book, which is available *at Amazon*?
Slashdot is better
So, people should fill/. with offtopic opinions of the author and his book, rather than the public opinion system run by Amazon for the express provision of people who wish to review the book? Forgive me if I think you haven't really thought this out.
one's own web page is even better
Why should people only be allowed to post their opinions on their own website, rather than in a public forum provided by a third party?
I have a hard time believing that you've thought through your position, which consists mainly of "the material is not actionable, but Amazon should be liable because they're allowing it to be posted."
He's not saying "why don't the game companies *CHANGE* their pricing model", he's saying "why don't game companies *ADD* add this as an *OPTION*"
The answer is pretty simple: because it would mean a rewrite of their accounting software, and they don't believe that the cost of doing that would be offset by the number of people who would use it.
It's hypocritical for Stallman to insist that Linux distros be called "GNU Linux", instead of "oo.o/Mozilla/KDE/[X.org|XFree86]/GNU/Linux", because each of those tools/packages is just as important to a modern distro as the GNU stuff.
Why doesn't he insist that you include Mozilla, KDE or (at the *very* least) X in the name? Because it would be too goddamn long, that's why - and an interesting parallel can be drawn between his refusal to call it oo.o/Mozilla/KDE/[X.org|XFree86]/GNU/Linux, and the BSD advertising clause that he disliked (because when you start requiring this sort of thing, it gets ridiculous in very short order.)
Stallman just wants top billing. He says "oh, you *can* call it that if you want", but ignores the fact that he's not doing what he wants others to do.
As soon as he starts calling it "oo.o/Mozilla/KDE/[X.org|XFree86]/GNU/Linux", I'll start calling it something other than "Linux".
Funny, my first thoughts were along the lines of "ahh - it's the perfect protection against piracy - they give them a movie so bad that nobody would want to pirate it!"
I think that the chipset/driver availablity is only half the battle. While many cards have the problem of the vendor not supporting Linux (rather than the other way around,) there are still issues with Linux's wireless support.
One thing I've noticed is that each driver package (Prism, Atheros, etc.) seems to have their own API. Case in point: wpa_supplicant. When you compile it, you have to specifiy which chipset you want it to use, and have the driver source for that available, which demonstrates (in my mind) very poor programming practices. Imagine if ifconfig or dhcpd had to be compiled with support for each individual ethernet card's driver, and any time you changed your ethernet card you'd have to recompile - is that something you'd accept as 'normal'? There should be a clear separation between driver and client software.
I appreciate that the cards each have different capabilities, but there should be a standard way of exposing them, rather than having to make the client software specifically supports each chipset (which is the job of the driver.)
For the purposes of this abuse of the LPGL, the owners and copyrights of material on the CD are irrelevant.
No, they really aren't. The owners are relevant because only the owners have a cause of action. The copyright status is relevant because without registration, only actual damages can be obtained. As the software is given away *for free*, that means that actual damages are $0. The *ONLY* remedy that could be granted is an order barring Sony from distributing the software.
The rights conferred by the LGPL apply between the recipient of the material and the distributor.
Actually, that's irrelevant.
They should have checked (yes I know that's hard, but copyright law doesn't care about "hard").
Wrong, copyright law *DOES* care about "hard". Sony was expected to perform due dilligence. Due dilligence includes things like vetting the contract and license from First4Internet. It does not include things such as reverse-engineering the software and scanning the result against every piece of software in existance, which could also be dual-licensed, in an attempt to see if there might be a match somewhere.
If you believe otherwise, please explain how Walmart, Best Buy, Amazon, and *EVERY OTHER RETAILER* that distributed these CDs are also not liable, as they distributed the software too.
as a recipient of the software from Sony, your beef would be with Sony, not F4I.
As a recipient of the software, you don't have a beef with *anyone*. Only the *authors* can bring suit for copyright infringement.
Everything I posted is relevant to the issue at hand. You claiming "it's irrelevant" doesn't change that. All you're doing is showing your ignorance of copyright law.
those people can obtain damages on the basis of sales already made.
No, they can't. That's the whole point of my post. You can only claim *actual* damages unless you've registered your copyright. The actual damages in this case is $0.
copyright exists whether registered or not.
Copyright might exist (please show where I said it didn't) - but unless you register your copyright, all you can sue for is *actual* damages, which (in this case) don't exist.
so if I download copyrighted material via Bittorrent I'm not liable for copyright infringement?
If you truly believe that you're downloading the material with the consent of the copyright holder, and you didn't know, and shouldn't have known that you were breaking the law, then yes, you'd not be liable for copyright infringement.
Good luck trying to show that you *really* believe that the people you're downloading from were not the copyright holder, though.
Yes, it most certainly is. If you believe otherwise, you know nothing about how the courts, or copyright laws, work.
Do you have to register your copyright to claim damages?
You have to register your copyright to claim punitive damages. If you do not register, all you can be held for is actual damages and profits. What are the actual damages WRT GPL'ed code? Hint it rhymes with "nero"
Except after the initial exposure of this rootkit in their products, Sony bigwigs were on NPR radio broadcast saying essentially (paraphrased) "What they don't know won't hurt them"
They were talking about the malware itself. Please provide a quote in which Sony talks about the LGPL portion (which is what we're discussing here.)
Plus the factoids coming out that this rootkit may have possibly been distributed by Sony for over a year now.
If you are alleging that Sony knew that the malware contained LGPL code since 1994, please provide a source.
They should have done due diligence on their own product before shipping.
And how do you know they didn't? Due dilligence generally doesn't include reverse-engineering software you're licensing, and screening it against every possible piece of Free software that might exist anywhere on the planet.
he work was preformed by First4Internet as agents of Sony
BZZT! Thanks for playing.
This software is First4Internet's *PRODUCT*, which they are licensing to Sony. They will license it to anyone who pays for it.
These both seem to indicate they are liable.
Liable for what, exactly?
Did Sony knowingly violate the LGPL? No. Did Sony intend to commmit copyright infringement? No. Is Sony still distributing the software? No. Did the software authors register their copyright? No.
Sony is not legally liable for any copyright violation, and as they didn't know that the code wasn't First4Internet's, then they're not even in violation of the *spirit* of the LGPL, either.
Slashdot Mirror
Naw, those aren't breasts.
These are breasts.
</impression>
I'm a little concerned that Al Qaida is known as "The Base" in English.
Really? Known by whom? Although I know that that's what it translates to, this is the first time I've heard anyone refer to it as "The Base".
Every time I've seen it in the (English-language) news, they refer to it as "Al Qaida", not "The Base". Hmm. a quick search of "The Base" on Google news lists no references to Al Qaida as "The Base", but a search for "Al Qaida" reveals 28000 results. This leads me to believe that Al Qaida is NOT known as "The Base" in any English-speaking countries.
Perhaps you meant to say that "Al Qaida" translates to "The Base" in English?
I think you misunderstand the author's point.
She's saying that it's open source that is the despot here - she's suggesting that we should throw Linux CDs into the water, and keep MS products.
This is just the sort of trivia I would expect a sysadmin to google.
You're kidding?
I've never done it either, but the answer was immediately obvious to me.
This isn't trivia, it's (at the very least) a test of logical thinking. If your sysadmin needed to google for it, they're not qualified to run your system.
That said, it's something I'd expect a *senior* admin to know, not someone who's entry-level.
I would have failed your questions.
If you would have failed those questions, then you're not qualified to be a Linux admin. It's as simple as that.
I would have passed the Windows equivalent of your questions.
No, you wouldn't have. For two of those questions, the "Windows equivalent" are the questions verbatim.
If you would fail me on an interview because I couldn't answer those questions, you'd be making a huge, horrible mistake.
No, if she hired you to be a Linux admin, she'd be making a huge, horrible mistake.
Slackware users seem to have this odd puritanical notion that makeing things hard on yourself is a good thing.
As an admin of 40+ Slackware boxes (including my work and home desktops and my laptop), I have to say that's complete bunk. I like to make things as easy as possible, and that is one of the reasons I use Slackware.
In my opinion, anything that can be automated should be automated.
Funny, that's my opinion too - again, one of the reasons I love Slackware.
And even if nothing happens to hiim, at least we now know where another litigious lunatic gets his inspiration from.
The thought of using one of my own computers and not having absolute, immediate control over it, makes my skin crawl.
If you need absolute control, why are you running Windows in the first place?
He went to the same place as...
If you'd watched the show, you'd know that Scottie is a she (and a very attractive one,) not a he.
hehe.. there is a street performer in Edmonton, and one of his acts climaxes with the beheading of a Barney doll. As part of the lead up, he gets the audience to sing the "barney" song, and just before it all begins, he says "Kids, your family loves you. Your friends love you. Barney just wants your money."
I heartily recommend it to anyone who has a sense of humor.
How do you sleep at night?
On top of a pile of money, surrounded by many beautiful ladies.
the record companies still seem blind that they have a viable MP3 market because most consumers (with jobs) would rather pay $1 (with Jobs) than spend 20 minutes finding a song illegally or even bothering to rip their own CDs
The record cartel isn't blind - they see something that you don't: such a marketplace would open them up to competition, which would destroy their cartel.
Major record companies don't want the public to become accustomed to downloading music because it allows anyone to sell their music online. Their "piracy is bad" propaganda campaign is designed to make people equate "downloading" with "evil", so that people continue to purchase the shiny discs.
The *only* thing that record companies offer to the artists is global distribution, and they use that to screw artists out of every penny they can; the net effect of a record contract is that the record company gives the artist a loan at an effective 95% interest rate (they loan the money to the artist to make the record, then keep 95% of the sales, and take the repayment for the loan out of the artist's 5%.) What happens when the artists realize that they can get global exposure without the record labels? The end of the gravy-train.
Amazon is not a public venue.
/. with offtopic opinions of the author and his book, rather than the public opinion system run by Amazon for the express provision of people who wish to review the book? Forgive me if I think you haven't really thought this out.
Amazon allows the *public* to post their opinions. By definition it is a public venue.
It is a place to sell stuff.
If it is only a place to sell stuff, then why do they have the abiltity for the *public* to post their *opinions*?
There is a place for the sort of comments that found their way there, but Amazon doesn't do very well at fitting the bill.
Amazon fits the bill perfectly. Where else should one post their opinion of the book, which is available *at Amazon*?
Slashdot is better
So, people should fill
one's own web page is even better
Why should people only be allowed to post their opinions on their own website, rather than in a public forum provided by a third party?
I have a hard time believing that you've thought through your position, which consists mainly of "the material is not actionable, but Amazon should be liable because they're allowing it to be posted."
I do not see a problem with him expressing his point of view
So.. suing people is "expressing his point of view", while people actually *POSTING* their point of view is not?
You're essentially saying "the only real expression is legal action."
Whatever it is you're on, you either need to up or cut the dose.
He's not saying "why don't the game companies *CHANGE* their pricing model", he's saying "why don't game companies *ADD* add this as an *OPTION*"
The answer is pretty simple: because it would mean a rewrite of their accounting software, and they don't believe that the cost of doing that would be offset by the number of people who would use it.
It's hypocritical for Stallman to insist that Linux distros be called "GNU Linux", instead of "oo.o/Mozilla/KDE/[X.org|XFree86]/GNU/Linux", because each of those tools/packages is just as important to a modern distro as the GNU stuff.
Why doesn't he insist that you include Mozilla, KDE or (at the *very* least) X in the name? Because it would be too goddamn long, that's why - and an interesting parallel can be drawn between his refusal to call it oo.o/Mozilla/KDE/[X.org|XFree86]/GNU/Linux, and the BSD advertising clause that he disliked (because when you start requiring this sort of thing, it gets ridiculous in very short order.)
Stallman just wants top billing. He says "oh, you *can* call it that if you want", but ignores the fact that he's not doing what he wants others to do.
As soon as he starts calling it "oo.o/Mozilla/KDE/[X.org|XFree86]/GNU/Linux", I'll start calling it something other than "Linux".
Funny, my first thoughts were along the lines of "ahh - it's the perfect protection against piracy - they give them a movie so bad that nobody would want to pirate it!"
I think that the chipset/driver availablity is only half the battle. While many cards have the problem of the vendor not supporting Linux (rather than the other way around,) there are still issues with Linux's wireless support.
One thing I've noticed is that each driver package (Prism, Atheros, etc.) seems to have their own API. Case in point: wpa_supplicant. When you compile it, you have to specifiy which chipset you want it to use, and have the driver source for that available, which demonstrates (in my mind) very poor programming practices. Imagine if ifconfig or dhcpd had to be compiled with support for each individual ethernet card's driver, and any time you changed your ethernet card you'd have to recompile - is that something you'd accept as 'normal'? There should be a clear separation between driver and client software.
I appreciate that the cards each have different capabilities, but there should be a standard way of exposing them, rather than having to make the client software specifically supports each chipset (which is the job of the driver.)
John Lennon could still be alive today if he was a mouse. .. because he'd be so small that Chapman would have missed?
This discovery is about extending life, not making you bulletproof.
I'm wondering if that might have been one of Taco's thoughts when he was debating posting this with his distaste for "naval" gazing..
/.'ing." :o)
"Damn upstarts - let's see how they handle a good
For the purposes of this abuse of the LPGL, the owners and copyrights of material on the CD are irrelevant.
No, they really aren't. The owners are relevant because only the owners have a cause of action. The copyright status is relevant because without registration, only actual damages can be obtained. As the software is given away *for free*, that means that actual damages are $0. The *ONLY* remedy that could be granted is an order barring Sony from distributing the software.
The rights conferred by the LGPL apply between the recipient of the material and the distributor.
Actually, that's irrelevant.
They should have checked (yes I know that's hard, but copyright law doesn't care about "hard").
Wrong, copyright law *DOES* care about "hard". Sony was expected to perform due dilligence. Due dilligence includes things like vetting the contract and license from First4Internet. It does not include things such as reverse-engineering the software and scanning the result against every piece of software in existance, which could also be dual-licensed, in an attempt to see if there might be a match somewhere.
If you believe otherwise, please explain how Walmart, Best Buy, Amazon, and *EVERY OTHER RETAILER* that distributed these CDs are also not liable, as they distributed the software too.
as a recipient of the software from Sony, your beef would be with Sony, not F4I.
As a recipient of the software, you don't have a beef with *anyone*. Only the *authors* can bring suit for copyright infringement.
Everything I posted is relevant to the issue at hand. You claiming "it's irrelevant" doesn't change that. All you're doing is showing your ignorance of copyright law.
those people can obtain damages on the basis of sales already made.
No, they can't. That's the whole point of my post. You can only claim *actual* damages unless you've registered your copyright. The actual damages in this case is $0.
copyright exists whether registered or not.
Copyright might exist (please show where I said it didn't) - but unless you register your copyright, all you can sue for is *actual* damages, which (in this case) don't exist.
so if I download copyrighted material via Bittorrent I'm not liable for copyright infringement?
If you truly believe that you're downloading the material with the consent of the copyright holder, and you didn't know, and shouldn't have known that you were breaking the law, then yes, you'd not be liable for copyright infringement.
Good luck trying to show that you *really* believe that the people you're downloading from were not the copyright holder, though.
Is "intent" an element of copyright infringment?
Yes, it most certainly is. If you believe otherwise, you know nothing about how the courts, or copyright laws, work.
Do you have to register your copyright to claim damages?
You have to register your copyright to claim punitive damages. If you do not register, all you can be held for is actual damages and profits. What are the actual damages WRT GPL'ed code? Hint it rhymes with "nero"
Except after the initial exposure of this rootkit in their products, Sony bigwigs were on NPR radio broadcast saying essentially (paraphrased) "What they don't know won't hurt them"
They were talking about the malware itself. Please provide a quote in which Sony talks about the LGPL portion (which is what we're discussing here.)
Plus the factoids coming out that this rootkit may have possibly been distributed by Sony for over a year now.
If you are alleging that Sony knew that the malware contained LGPL code since 1994, please provide a source.
They should have done due diligence on their own product before shipping.
And how do you know they didn't? Due dilligence generally doesn't include reverse-engineering software you're licensing, and screening it against every possible piece of Free software that might exist anywhere on the planet.
he work was preformed by First4Internet as agents of Sony
BZZT! Thanks for playing.
This software is First4Internet's *PRODUCT*, which they are licensing to Sony. They will license it to anyone who pays for it.
These both seem to indicate they are liable.
Liable for what, exactly?
Did Sony knowingly violate the LGPL? No.
Did Sony intend to commmit copyright infringement? No.
Is Sony still distributing the software? No.
Did the software authors register their copyright? No.
Sony is not legally liable for any copyright violation, and as they didn't know that the code wasn't First4Internet's, then they're not even in violation of the *spirit* of the LGPL, either.