As 99% of businesses are concerned about security and intrusion, you can bet all their servers will be DRM-locked in some form or fashion.
So the GPL3 will require that those businesses have to be provided with a copy of any keys required to modify their own version. Not keys to anybody else's version. If they don't want the keys they can destroy them. Nobody else is entitled to a copy. Why would this be a problem?
They'd have to sue hackers (crackers, whatever) for their actual unauthorised access to a computer system etc. rather than for bypassing an effective copyright control mechanism but that seems like common sense anyway. I can't see why this should be a problem either.
Say I run a net café and I want to lock down my computers to only run software I've signed to prevent malware and untrustworthy patrons more messing up the computers. According to the GPLv3, I can't do that. I'd have to give up my private key to anyone using the computers.
Okay, I have to say that personally I think you're completely wrong. The GPL3 only requires that you provide the keys to anyone you distribute the software to. If you sold them the computers, or gave them away or possibly even if you rented them out for people to take away then sure that would be distribution. But that isn't the case for a net café.
However, if you really feel that the GPL3 terms could have the effect you describe then contact the FSF about it, because that's certainly not the effect they're aiming for.
The 'rights' to determine code usage should belong to the writer of each code segment; not just the original contributor.
But they do. If you're not going to use the original authors' code (or anyone else's without permission) then you can do what you like. But that original author does get to restrict distribution of their code, just as you say they should be able to, so if you want to use their code then you're going to have to play by their terms.
If the device is used to perform a critical function (i.e. drive by wire, hospital equipment, etc) I think at least a certification organization should be able to control over what software can be run.
I just don't buy that we need the manufacturer to protect us from a rogue hospital altering the software. The hospital have physical possesion of their medical equipment and are quite capable of negligently altering it, but most of us are willing to assume that they won't do so. Why should we be so terrified of them negligently adjusting the software? Ditto for similar 'critical' equipment.
Only the hospital the software is actually distributed to is required to be given a copy of the key that lets them alter it. GPL3 doesn't require anyone else to have a copy. If the hospital can't face the responsibility of having the key then they're allowed to destroy it. The manufacturer jsut can't withhold it from them in the first place, that's all.
The buffer that Sony needs for that initial shock of the launch is going to be rather large and it is worrisome that they have not started building that buffer yet.
Interesting. I'm not familiar with the manufacturing process myself. How many units do you feel they need and how far in advance of launch do you estimate they should have started production in order to have them ready?
Are you suffering from the misapprehension that Zonk is somehow making these stories up out of wholecloth? A lot of negative Sony articles are getting posted, but i suspect that's because a lot of negative Sony articles are being submitted.
I expect there are plenty of negative stories out there but this isn't a story at all.
Zonk contrasts a genuine statement from Sony that they haven't started producing PS3s yet with a statement by Zonk himself in a previous Slashdot summary where he referred to "Phil Harrison, saying that the PS3 is in full production mode". But the linked interview didn't back that up - he talked about dev kits being delivered.
There seems to be some sort of desperate implication that Sony are leaving things too late. Maybe they really are, but nothing is provided to support that. The Sony guy sounds relaxed enough about the schedule. There's no link to anyone with knowledge of the manufacturing process suggesting that they're likely to have problems. There's no link to previous console production schedules showing this one to be unusual.
Have you read the comments? Again, no actual explanation but an almost universal condemnation of Sony's action. Whatever it was. My favourite is the one, modded up, claiming that this "news about them tops the previous news" and congratulates them for their "incompetance" (sic). Okay, cheap spelling flame, but seriously WHAT NEWS?
Honestly, remind us how much you hate rootkits. I agree. Point out if you feel you have to that the PS3 is still planned to be expensive. Yes, sure, no change since yesterday. But pretending there's a story here is absurd. This whole thing is bizarre. There is no story.
Yes. Even the submitter agrees that the question posed by the article, the question that forms the basis of the summary, the question that is stated as the headline, "isn't particularly helpful". This isn't just silly, it's absurd.
Stop and really think about it from an angle outside the everything should be free attitude and look for the real issue.
The sensible angle to look at it from is "what am I trying to achieve in licensing my software?"
If you want users of your software to receive the right to modify it then these terms are likely to suit your aims.
If you want manufacturers to be able to limit the ability of recipients to modify your code then the GPL is probably not a good license for you, and never was.
so, suppose Tivo leases the hardware instead of letting you buy it. Then everything would be ok right?
Possibly, it would really depend on how the court interprets distribution. However, don't imagine that judges are drooling imbeciles that will fall for a sale dressed up as a lease. They have a lot of experience in this area and generally recognise a sale when they see one.
Even if the linked in GPL code comprises.0005% of the total codebase the ENTIRE codebase becomes GPL. Crazy isn't it?
That's not really accurate, but if the courts afford copyright protection to that.0005% of the code, and if they hold that your product is a derived work, then you will be liable for infringing copyright. If you think that's a bad bargain then don't use the GPL code. It's as simple as that.
I missed oh, 8 out of 12 board meetings due to being on airplanes (doing stuff for Open Source) and otherwise being busy. And that really pissed people off.
That shouldn't piss people off but it is a good reason to not re-elect you. It's better that someone with the time to attend the meetings is on the Board (provided that they are also otherwise suited to the position). That in no way denigrates the other things you do with your time.
You can require that anyone calling themselves an independant rating agency actually does the rating, and examines the media itself.
So if they don't call themselves "an independant rating angency" then the law wouldn't apply to them?
The courts WILL uphold their right to give an opinion on any game they choose to , whether they've played through it or not. Just like I can, just like you can. That is a first amendment right. No question.
The courts WILL uphold the rights of game companies to display that opinion on their games if they choose to. That is a first amendment right. No question.
That's all there is to this. There is no chance whatsoever of this law surviving in court. It is a waste of money to pay people to draft it, vote on it, get it pritned up, fight it out in court and then shred it when they're done. It achieves nothing.
I'm actually all for the ESRB actually being required to play the games they rate.
By law? An act that forebids people from expressing an opinion - sorry but that's what a "rating" is - unless they've met the governments requirements? Whether you're for it or not, this whole thing is a disgraceful waste of tax revenues.
Haven't seen the ones on peanut butter sandwich or putting toys out for kids to play with. I still vote for US patent 6368227 "method of swinging on a swing"
"A method of swing on a swing is disclosed, in which a user positioned on a standard swing suspended by two chains from a substantially horizontal tree branch induces side to side motion by pulling alternately on one chain and then the other."
imagine a world where there's an open source electronic voting software package that everybody used... wouldn't you want the voting machine to be able to reject software that wasn't say verified by a voting auditing board and signed?
I'm unsure whether you're trying to give an example of something the GPL 3 does allow or of something it doesn't. Under the GPL 3 the owners of the machine (presumably the elections board) would be able to verify new software, sign it and use it accordingly. It just says that the hardware manufacturers can't abrogate that right to themselves. That seems like a good thing to me.
the same thing could be true of open source ATM software. would you want your ATM to whine like HAL having his memory yanked when malware was loaded onto it, or would you want it to refuse to run?
Again, the issue under discussion is who gets to control the keys. Not whether there can be any.
I am completely against DRM, I think it's one of the most stupid an idiotic ideas ever implemented, but you have to allow people to choose what they want to do.
If you have to allow people to choose what they want to do then you have to not use DRM. Which seems to be the position the FSF are taking too.
So forget about this whole "community input" thing. Input has been given, and then duly ignored.
If it really was Linus who said that then it's a ridiculous comment for him to make. You might as well say that there's no community input to the kernel if Linus refuses to accept my latest brilliant idea. Discussion and input don't mean promising to do whatever someone else says.
Is that relevant? For the most part, surely private investigators are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.
and according to the guinea pig (I'm attending the conference) he signed a waiver and Steve used only legal databases
How did the guinea pig determine that he only used 'legal databases'? Did he participate in the actual information gathering or is this based on an extremely detailed account of how every piece of information was gathered?
Presumption of innocence means that he can't be found guilty without a formal trial, right to defend himself etc. It doesn't mean nobody can get arrested as long as they say they didn't do it:)
That's obviously struck a raw nerve with someone. Does anyone actually know anything about the "show controls" thing? I'm assuming it's a very early alpha test that wasn't supposed to go live yet and will be disabled again round about now. Right?
Re:Wait... why does this make them evil?
on
Microsoft Sued Over WGA
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Good end evil don't come into it.
Unacceptable behaviour isn't justified by saying that the perpetrator was acting in his own best interests rather than out of a desire to hurt people.
If the electricity company thinks I'm fiddling the meter to get out of paying them what I should then there are some acts that are acceptable for them to resolve that and some that aren't. I'd say that entering my premises on the pretext of fixing a dangerous defect in the system and while they're here hiding a camera that relays images to them would be unacceptable.
You may well not like the analogy or you may draw the line of acceptable versus unacceptable at a different point to me, but either way the issue isn't resolved by saying that they're not evil and they're just out to protect their own interests. We have to make judgments on what is and isn't acceptable in pursuit of those interests.
To me, Microsoft have gone way over the line. You may disagree. But don't try to reduce it to a comic book battle of good versus evil and then accuse me of calling them evil.
That's not to say I'm in favor of this... but having those standards in place, I feel, would greatly help PC developers.They'd be shooting for a 2008b hardware configuration when developing their game rather than shooting in the dark.
It would help game developers. It wouldn't help PC developers except in the sense of having a standard to beat, not one to comply with.
Nobody wants to be advertising that they're exactly the same spec as the competition. They want to be saying that they're ahead of the competition, that they have aspects of next year's standards before it's even been finalised. That they can run all the standard game features, and some more too. Once even one company does that the others aren't even only the same as the competition, they're lagging behind.
Slashdot Mirror
So the GPL3 will require that those businesses have to be provided with a copy of any keys required to modify their own version. Not keys to anybody else's version. If they don't want the keys they can destroy them. Nobody else is entitled to a copy. Why would this be a problem?
They'd have to sue hackers (crackers, whatever) for their actual unauthorised access to a computer system etc. rather than for bypassing an effective copyright control mechanism but that seems like common sense anyway. I can't see why this should be a problem either.
Okay, I have to say that personally I think you're completely wrong. The GPL3 only requires that you provide the keys to anyone you distribute the software to. If you sold them the computers, or gave them away or possibly even if you rented them out for people to take away then sure that would be distribution. But that isn't the case for a net café.
However, if you really feel that the GPL3 terms could have the effect you describe then contact the FSF about it, because that's certainly not the effect they're aiming for.
But they do. If you're not going to use the original authors' code (or anyone else's without permission) then you can do what you like. But that original author does get to restrict distribution of their code, just as you say they should be able to, so if you want to use their code then you're going to have to play by their terms.
I just don't buy that we need the manufacturer to protect us from a rogue hospital altering the software. The hospital have physical possesion of their medical equipment and are quite capable of negligently altering it, but most of us are willing to assume that they won't do so. Why should we be so terrified of them negligently adjusting the software? Ditto for similar 'critical' equipment.
Only the hospital the software is actually distributed to is required to be given a copy of the key that lets them alter it. GPL3 doesn't require anyone else to have a copy. If the hospital can't face the responsibility of having the key then they're allowed to destroy it. The manufacturer jsut can't withhold it from them in the first place, that's all.
Interesting. I'm not familiar with the manufacturing process myself. How many units do you feel they need and how far in advance of launch do you estimate they should have started production in order to have them ready?
I expect there are plenty of negative stories out there but this isn't a story at all.
Zonk contrasts a genuine statement from Sony that they haven't started producing PS3s yet with a statement by Zonk himself in a previous Slashdot summary where he referred to "Phil Harrison, saying that the PS3 is in full production mode". But the linked interview didn't back that up - he talked about dev kits being delivered.
There seems to be some sort of desperate implication that Sony are leaving things too late. Maybe they really are, but nothing is provided to support that. The Sony guy sounds relaxed enough about the schedule. There's no link to anyone with knowledge of the manufacturing process suggesting that they're likely to have problems. There's no link to previous console production schedules showing this one to be unusual.
Have you read the comments? Again, no actual explanation but an almost universal condemnation of Sony's action. Whatever it was. My favourite is the one, modded up, claiming that this "news about them tops the previous news" and congratulates them for their "incompetance" (sic). Okay, cheap spelling flame, but seriously WHAT NEWS?
Honestly, remind us how much you hate rootkits. I agree. Point out if you feel you have to that the PS3 is still planned to be expensive. Yes, sure, no change since yesterday. But pretending there's a story here is absurd. This whole thing is bizarre. There is no story.
Yes. Even the submitter agrees that the question posed by the article, the question that forms the basis of the summary, the question that is stated as the headline, "isn't particularly helpful". This isn't just silly, it's absurd.
The sensible angle to look at it from is "what am I trying to achieve in licensing my software?"
If you want users of your software to receive the right to modify it then these terms are likely to suit your aims.
If you want manufacturers to be able to limit the ability of recipients to modify your code then the GPL is probably not a good license for you, and never was.
Possibly, it would really depend on how the court interprets distribution. However, don't imagine that judges are drooling imbeciles that will fall for a sale dressed up as a lease. They have a lot of experience in this area and generally recognise a sale when they see one.
That's not really accurate, but if the courts afford copyright protection to that
Huge restrictions on use of code? It guarantees the right of recipients to reuse code.
You're allowed your wallet precisely so that you can buy all those things on board the plane. And then again on the next plane. Buy airline stock now.
That shouldn't piss people off but it is a good reason to not re-elect you. It's better that someone with the time to attend the meetings is on the Board (provided that they are also otherwise suited to the position). That in no way denigrates the other things you do with your time.
So if they don't call themselves "an independant rating angency" then the law wouldn't apply to them?
The courts WILL uphold their right to give an opinion on any game they choose to , whether they've played through it or not. Just like I can, just like you can. That is a first amendment right. No question.
The courts WILL uphold the rights of game companies to display that opinion on their games if they choose to. That is a first amendment right. No question.
That's all there is to this. There is no chance whatsoever of this law surviving in court. It is a waste of money to pay people to draft it, vote on it, get it pritned up, fight it out in court and then shred it when they're done. It achieves nothing.
Every possible combination in chess games. Should take them a while
By law? An act that forebids people from expressing an opinion - sorry but that's what a "rating" is - unless they've met the governments requirements? Whether you're for it or not, this whole thing is a disgraceful waste of tax revenues.
Haven't seen the ones on peanut butter sandwich or putting toys out for kids to play with. I still vote for US patent 6368227 "method of swinging on a swing"
"A method of swing on a swing is disclosed, in which a user positioned on a standard swing suspended by two chains from a substantially horizontal tree branch induces side to side motion by pulling alternately on one chain and then the other."
Which, of course, is what people said about the original GPL and its aims too. Is it winning that fight? Perhaps not, but it hasn't lost it either.
I'm unsure whether you're trying to give an example of something the GPL 3 does allow or of something it doesn't. Under the GPL 3 the owners of the machine (presumably the elections board) would be able to verify new software, sign it and use it accordingly. It just says that the hardware manufacturers can't abrogate that right to themselves. That seems like a good thing to me.
Again, the issue under discussion is who gets to control the keys. Not whether there can be any.
If you have to allow people to choose what they want to do then you have to not use DRM. Which seems to be the position the FSF are taking too.
If it really was Linus who said that then it's a ridiculous comment for him to make. You might as well say that there's no community input to the kernel if Linus refuses to accept my latest brilliant idea. Discussion and input don't mean promising to do whatever someone else says.
Is that relevant? For the most part, surely private investigators are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.
and according to the guinea pig (I'm attending the conference) he signed a waiver and Steve used only legal databases
How did the guinea pig determine that he only used 'legal databases'? Did he participate in the actual information gathering or is this based on an extremely detailed account of how every piece of information was gathered?
Presumption of innocence means that he can't be found guilty without a formal trial, right to defend himself etc. It doesn't mean nobody can get arrested as long as they say they didn't do it
That's obviously struck a raw nerve with someone. Does anyone actually know anything about the "show controls" thing? I'm assuming it's a very early alpha test that wasn't supposed to go live yet and will be disabled again round about now. Right?
Good end evil don't come into it.
Unacceptable behaviour isn't justified by saying that the perpetrator was acting in his own best interests rather than out of a desire to hurt people.
If the electricity company thinks I'm fiddling the meter to get out of paying them what I should then there are some acts that are acceptable for them to resolve that and some that aren't. I'd say that entering my premises on the pretext of fixing a dangerous defect in the system and while they're here hiding a camera that relays images to them would be unacceptable.
You may well not like the analogy or you may draw the line of acceptable versus unacceptable at a different point to me, but either way the issue isn't resolved by saying that they're not evil and they're just out to protect their own interests. We have to make judgments on what is and isn't acceptable in pursuit of those interests.
To me, Microsoft have gone way over the line. You may disagree. But don't try to reduce it to a comic book battle of good versus evil and then accuse me of calling them evil.
It would help game developers. It wouldn't help PC developers except in the sense of having a standard to beat, not one to comply with.
Nobody wants to be advertising that they're exactly the same spec as the competition. They want to be saying that they're ahead of the competition, that they have aspects of next year's standards before it's even been finalised. That they can run all the standard game features, and some more too. Once even one company does that the others aren't even only the same as the competition, they're lagging behind.