if the guys who developed it (even if it is open source) abandon it you are pretty much in the same situation.
No, you're really not, because you have the source code. You *can* take it and run with it, or *any* other company can pick it up and continue development.
Support through forums and such
This just shows that you don't really understand the open source model.
It still would be "derived from the Program or any part thereof". So, that doesn't work.
Isn't that what SCO is claiming against IBM? That because AIX was a derivative work of SysV, that it will always be a derivative work of SysV, even if there's no longer any SysV code in it?
And IBM is saying that no, that's not the case. It's only a derivative work if it's paired with the original code.
If Daimaou wrote the code prior to the IP agreement than the code isn't his to release to the company. The GPL license holders own it.
Actually this is incorrect. Unless Daimaou signed the copyright over to the original authors, he retained copyright.
If Daimaou wrote the code after signing the IP agreement than he couldn't release code to GPL as he isn't the owner.
I think you mean "under the GPL", you do not release code "to" a license, you release code "under" a license.
And your statement is true, but is just a technicality - *he* may not release the code under the GPL, but his employer can, and in fact *must* release it under the GPL (if they're releasing it at all.)
Daimaou could potentially be held liable for any damages the company could prove due to the IP release.
Seriously though, here's what my brain thinks of this:
IBM(?) owns the copyright to the Developerworks software. Your employer now owns the copyright to the modifications you made. If your employer has distributed your code, they must do so under the terms of the GPL. Your employer may apply for (and even receive) patents on the modifications, but *cannot* restrict anyone from using them under the GPL (as per the terms of the GPL.)
If you know they're disributing the code, you should contact IBM.
You are using different standards of freedom from the parent poster
True enough.
and then saying he doesn't understand the definition of "freedom"
Please show me where I said that. Nowhere in that post did I ever say that he didn't understand the definition of "freedom."
It's a silly argument to make.
Yes, and it was done to illustrate a point.
He's correct in saying that releasing it under a "Non-Commercial Use" license isn't meeting nearly anyones definition of free
No, he's not. It meets *lots* of people's definition of free. If your only definition of free is "anyone can do anything", then you must agree that there is no such thing as a free country, as nobody is allowed absolute freedom (for example, go kill someone, and find out how quickly you'll be punished.)
The point boils down to this:
Free for non-commercial use means that it's free for non-commercial use. It doesn't stop being free for non-commercial use just because you want to sell it.
Which is entirely beside the point. If they want to *sell* something, they have to create it, or get permission from the author. If it's valuable enough for them, they will.
What actually happens is this: Someone's looking over icon collections. They see a cool one, "Oh, that's neat." "Oh, wait- non-commercial. Can't use it. Damn..."...and then they move on, and the artist never even knew.
Except that it doesn't actually happen that way. If a company wants to distribute something enough, they *will* ask.
I take pictures. I release them under a the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 2.0 license. If people want to use them to create art, they're welcome to do so (and many have.)
If someone wants to use them commercially, they have to ask me for my terms. If the photo's important enough to them, they will (and have.) In some cases, I've granted the permission for free; in others, I've asked for payment.
Your assertion that the conversation doesn't happen isn't actually borne out in the real world.
the advocation of non-commercial restrictions, as if they were a good idea.
Maybe it's because people believe that they *are* a good idea?
Suppose you make an icon set and place it under one of the Creative Commons licenses that has the non-commercial restriction. This means that Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake and all the other commercial Linux distributions can't put your icon set on their CD.
First of all, no it doesn't. What it means is that Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake, etc can't put your icon set on CDs that they *sell*. They're perfectly free to include it in a downloadable ISO, or some other means.
Second of all, if someone's making money of something *I* made, why should it not be me? (Or, why is it such a big deal if they have to contact me first?)
It means that only people who contact you directly can use your icon set.
Yes, well let's see: there's Red Hat, Mandrake, Suse... who else? I can see how difficult it is for *all these people* to contact me - man, how could I ever manage the time to talk to them all? There are clearly tens of people who are selling Linux commercially.
That's hardly freedom.
Bullshit. They're perfectly free to make their own icons.
Making threats will do nothing more than sour them on the GPL and open source in general.
What if you infriged the copyright of some of the companies who don't obey GPL. Would they be nice? Hell no, you would have the police, the BSA, lawyers and all the shit over you in no time.
So.. you're saying that if you sour them on the GPL, then this (hypothetical) company *won't* send the police, BSA, etc?
You'll have to convince me - I don't believe that for a second.
.. assuming that there is willful infringement in every case, and that the companies involved will not comply with the letters. This is a pretty big assumption.
I guess you flunked out of charm school, and I guess you've never heard of the old adage "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar", so I'll spell it out for you here:
Making threats against a neutral party will usually make them a hostile party.
If they are neutral and you threaten them, you're damaging your own cause, because you'll be souring them on OSS and the GPL. If they're hostile and you threaten them, then you don't gain anything. If they're neutral and you ask them nicely, they just might comply. If they're hostile and you ask them nicely, you haven't lost anything.
By sending the letters, the companies who are doing this understand that we're not all rabid loser anti-corporate zealots. Making threats will do nothing more than sour them on the GPL and open source in general.
Most (all?) Japanese cars have a "feature" that the door won't lock unless you're holding the handle up (open, whatever.)
I heard that this was a measure to prevent people from locking their keys in their car. The Japanese car manufacturers decided that if people have to lock the door, then hold the handle in the open position as they close the door, it will prevent them from accidentally locking their keys in the car.
Sounds nice in theory... until the day I locked the keys in my Civic. It was then that I noticed that because I couldn't lock the car door without holding up the handle, that I had gotten into the habit of *always* holding up the handle while closing the door, even when I didn't want to lock it.
I've known a lot of people who have locked their keys in their Japanese car, they told me the same thing.
So, instead of being a mechanism to prevent people from accidentally locking their keys in their car, it was instead a mechanism to train people to hold their door handle up when closing the car door.
You can't fix a behavioural problem with a technological solution.
They're saying CDs *CAN* use magnetism (which is possible)
Please explain. CDs *don't* use magnetism, and *can't* use magnetism, as they're non-magnetic. (Try it - touch a magnet to a CD, the CD won't move at all.) CD's certainly don't (and indeed can't) use magnetism to store data.
who modded parent as insightful?
I'm guessing the same people who didn't mod you up.
I did not say that Microsoft was exempt from quality control on their coding.
I never said you did.
I said they are not a security company.
Which I replied to, by stating that whether they are a security company or not is *IRRELEVANT* to this discussion.
You shouldn't expect the same level of competancy this soon.
Why not? This is (again) a *KNOWN* vulnerability from 8 years ago. They knew about it because they fixed in 8 years ago. It was fixed in all previous versions. And now it's not.
Are you seriously attempting to claim that we should not expect the same level of competancy that MS itself had 8 years ago?
If so, why the hell not?
Expecting perfection from a 2 year old will not lead to the product you are looking for.
Well, MS was incorporated almost 30 years ago - are you implying that they employ coders that are two years old? If so, it would certainly explain their code quality.
You can fix the pipe, check it, it won't leak. Then two weeks later it will start back up
Yes, because code actually *breaks* over time, right? You can test it for something, and then some time down the road, the exact same code will execute differently.
I'm sorry you don't see how this relates to patching software as it is essentially the same task to the end user.
I don't see it because it's not the same thing. You obviously don't understand software (in general) or this specific exploit (in specific) *AT ALL*, or you wouldn't be making these asinine comments.
As for reintroducing an old problem, have you ever tried to fix a leaky pipe?
Yes, I have. What does this have to do with the conversation at all?
But to continue your analogy:
When fixing a leaky pipe, do you attempt to fix one part of it, then turn the water back on and then leave it without checking that the pipe doesn't leak? Of course not.
seems clear you don't grasp the size of the problem
Slashdot Mirror
"Hey kid, you look 11, and judging by the fact that you're blowing candles out at a Chuck E Cheese, I will wager your birthday is TODAY!"
:o)
:o)
Isn't that the last thing that Jeffrey Jones said before he got arrested?
"Lock him up and throw away the key!"
I guess so.
... when you send money to CompTIA, you're sending money to further software patents
Since this is being used as a legal argument in an ongoing case, and hasn't been dismissed entirely, it's pointless for laymen like us to speculate.
:o)
Not really; there's no problem with drawing parallels between the two instances.
I'm just point out to Rei that he's backing SCO's point of view. Does he really want to live in a world where SCO is right?
if the guys who developed it (even if it is open source) abandon it you are pretty much in the same situation.
No, you're really not, because you have the source code. You *can* take it and run with it, or *any* other company can pick it up and continue development.
Support through forums and such
This just shows that you don't really understand the open source model.
It still would be "derived from the Program or any part thereof". So, that doesn't work.
Isn't that what SCO is claiming against IBM? That because AIX was a derivative work of SysV, that it will always be a derivative work of SysV, even if there's no longer any SysV code in it?
And IBM is saying that no, that's not the case. It's only a derivative work if it's paired with the original code.
Personally, I believe IBM's lawyers over SCO's.
If Daimaou wrote the code prior to the IP agreement than the code isn't his to release to the company. The GPL license holders own it.
Actually this is incorrect. Unless Daimaou signed the copyright over to the original authors, he retained copyright.
If Daimaou wrote the code after signing the IP agreement than he couldn't release code to GPL as he isn't the owner.
I think you mean "under the GPL", you do not release code "to" a license, you release code "under" a license.
And your statement is true, but is just a technicality - *he* may not release the code under the GPL, but his employer can, and in fact *must* release it under the GPL (if they're releasing it at all.)
Daimaou could potentially be held liable for any damages the company could prove due to the IP release.
Perhaps, it depends on his contract.
Seriously though, here's what my brain thinks of this:
IBM(?) owns the copyright to the Developerworks software.
Your employer now owns the copyright to the modifications you made.
If your employer has distributed your code, they must do so under the terms of the GPL.
Your employer may apply for (and even receive) patents on the modifications, but *cannot* restrict anyone from using them under the GPL (as per the terms of the GPL.)
If you know they're disributing the code, you should contact IBM.
Isn't it possible to write a plugin that chould shoehorn CSS2 support into IE7?
Yes., and it's possible to do it almost entirely in Javascript.
You are using different standards of freedom from the parent poster
True enough.
and then saying he doesn't understand the definition of "freedom"
Please show me where I said that. Nowhere in that post did I ever say that he didn't understand the definition of "freedom."
It's a silly argument to make.
Yes, and it was done to illustrate a point.
He's correct in saying that releasing it under a "Non-Commercial Use" license isn't meeting nearly anyones definition of free
No, he's not. It meets *lots* of people's definition of free. If your only definition of free is "anyone can do anything", then you must agree that there is no such thing as a free country, as nobody is allowed absolute freedom (for example, go kill someone, and find out how quickly you'll be punished.)
The point boils down to this:
Free for non-commercial use means that it's free for non-commercial use. It doesn't stop being free for non-commercial use just because you want to sell it.
it's not worth it to them
...and then they move on, and the artist never even knew.
Which is entirely beside the point. If they want to *sell* something, they have to create it, or get permission from the author. If it's valuable enough for them, they will.
What actually happens is this: Someone's looking over icon collections. They see a cool one, "Oh, that's neat." "Oh, wait- non-commercial. Can't use it. Damn..."
Except that it doesn't actually happen that way. If a company wants to distribute something enough, they *will* ask.
I take pictures. I release them under a the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 2.0 license. If people want to use them to create art, they're welcome to do so (and many have.)
If someone wants to use them commercially, they have to ask me for my terms. If the photo's important enough to them, they will (and have.) In some cases, I've granted the permission for free; in others, I've asked for payment.
Your assertion that the conversation doesn't happen isn't actually borne out in the real world.
as I said, it's not freedom.
Except that it *is* freedom.
if you have to ask for permission then it's not free
Well, people aren't allowed to murder one another. Or steal. Or rape and pillage. Therefore nobody is free.
the advocation of non-commercial restrictions, as if they were a good idea.
Maybe it's because people believe that they *are* a good idea?
Suppose you make an icon set and place it under one of the Creative Commons licenses that has the non-commercial restriction. This means that Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake and all the other commercial Linux distributions can't put your icon set on their CD.
First of all, no it doesn't. What it means is that Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake, etc can't put your icon set on CDs that they *sell*. They're perfectly free to include it in a downloadable ISO, or some other means.
Second of all, if someone's making money of something *I* made, why should it not be me? (Or, why is it such a big deal if they have to contact me first?)
It means that only people who contact you directly can use your icon set.
Yes, well let's see: there's Red Hat, Mandrake, Suse... who else? I can see how difficult it is for *all these people* to contact me - man, how could I ever manage the time to talk to them all? There are clearly tens of people who are selling Linux commercially.
That's hardly freedom.
Bullshit. They're perfectly free to make their own icons.
Denmark is full of clog wearing porn stars who own chocolate factories.
Why am I just being told this now??!?!?!
Good post otherwise, but this isn't true.
Thank you, but I respectfully disagree. Threats mean nothing unless they can be backed with force.
Lawyers often threaten precisely because even hostile parties will sometimes cave when presented with a threat.
The fact that you're willing to spend money on a lawyer means (to most people) that you've got that force.
What if you infriged the copyright of some of the companies who don't obey GPL. Would they be nice? Hell no, you would have the police, the BSA, lawyers and all the shit over you in no time.
So.. you're saying that if you sour them on the GPL, then this (hypothetical) company *won't* send the police, BSA, etc?
You'll have to convince me - I don't believe that for a second.
.. assuming that there is willful infringement in every case, and that the companies involved will not comply with the letters. This is a pretty big assumption.
I guess you flunked out of charm school, and I guess you've never heard of the old adage "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar", so I'll spell it out for you here:
Making threats against a neutral party will usually make them a hostile party.
If they are neutral and you threaten them, you're damaging your own cause, because you'll be souring them on OSS and the GPL.
If they're hostile and you threaten them, then you don't gain anything.
If they're neutral and you ask them nicely, they just might comply.
If they're hostile and you ask them nicely, you haven't lost anything.
By sending the letters, the companies who are doing this understand that we're not all rabid loser anti-corporate zealots. Making threats will do nothing more than sour them on the GPL and open source in general.
Most (all?) Japanese cars have a "feature" that the door won't lock unless you're holding the handle up (open, whatever.)
I heard that this was a measure to prevent people from locking their keys in their car. The Japanese car manufacturers decided that if people have to lock the door, then hold the handle in the open position as they close the door, it will prevent them from accidentally locking their keys in the car.
Sounds nice in theory... until the day I locked the keys in my Civic. It was then that I noticed that because I couldn't lock the car door without holding up the handle, that I had gotten into the habit of *always* holding up the handle while closing the door, even when I didn't want to lock it.
I've known a lot of people who have locked their keys in their Japanese car, they told me the same thing.
So, instead of being a mechanism to prevent people from accidentally locking their keys in their car, it was instead a mechanism to train people to hold their door handle up when closing the car door.
You can't fix a behavioural problem with a technological solution.
Are they compact? Are they discs?
Are floppy discs compact? (They're more compact than CDs) Are they discs?
For that matter, is a quarter compact? Is it a disc?
I think maybe you need to re-think your criteria.
minidiscs are magneto optical
They're not CDs.
They're saying CDs *CAN* use magnetism (which is possible)
Please explain. CDs *don't* use magnetism, and *can't* use magnetism, as they're non-magnetic. (Try it - touch a magnet to a CD, the CD won't move at all.) CD's certainly don't (and indeed can't) use magnetism to store data.
who modded parent as insightful?
I'm guessing the same people who didn't mod you up.
I did not say that Microsoft was exempt from quality control on their coding.
I never said you did.
I said they are not a security company.
Which I replied to, by stating that whether they are a security company or not is *IRRELEVANT* to this discussion.
You shouldn't expect the same level of competancy this soon.
Why not? This is (again) a *KNOWN* vulnerability from 8 years ago. They knew about it because they fixed in 8 years ago. It was fixed in all previous versions. And now it's not.
Are you seriously attempting to claim that we should not expect the same level of competancy that MS itself had 8 years ago?
If so, why the hell not?
Expecting perfection from a 2 year old will not lead to the product you are looking for.
Well, MS was incorporated almost 30 years ago - are you implying that they employ coders that are two years old? If so, it would certainly explain their code quality.
You can fix the pipe, check it, it won't leak. Then two weeks later it will start back up
Yes, because code actually *breaks* over time, right? You can test it for something, and then some time down the road, the exact same code will execute differently.
I'm sorry you don't see how this relates to patching software as it is essentially the same task to the end user.
I don't see it because it's not the same thing. You obviously don't understand software (in general) or this specific exploit (in specific) *AT ALL*, or you wouldn't be making these asinine comments.
As for reintroducing an old problem, have you ever tried to fix a leaky pipe?
Yes, I have. What does this have to do with the conversation at all?
But to continue your analogy:
When fixing a leaky pipe, do you attempt to fix one part of it, then turn the water back on and then leave it without checking that the pipe doesn't leak? Of course not.
seems clear you don't grasp the size of the problem
I'd actually say the same thing about you.
You might forget that MS is not a security company.
Nobody said they were - but why do you think that just because they're not a security company that they should be exempt from good coding practices?
Security is one of many priorities they have
Yes, and they're failing at it - tremendously. This is a *known* attack, from 8 years ago. It's a beginner's mistake.
The rest of your post is just irrelevant nonsense.
I've been ready to kill people over that game.
Sounds like this