First, not all of the changes were to dual license code.
Second, Jiri cannot decide which licenses software that he doesn't own is distributed under. In this case he can decide which license he wants to use for his act of distributing, but he cannot set the terms on code he doesn't own.
Some was, some wasn't. Jiri changed both. Regardless it's a moot point because he isn't the owner of the code, he cannot dictate the terms to the code. What he can do is choose which terms he wants to distribute under, but he cannot pass that code along and set the terms for the people he passes it to.
Before you reply, note that I'm talking about code that Jiri didn't write here. Code that he doesn't have any standing to set the terms on.
If Theo didn't want people copying his code and redistributing it under another license, he should have used the GPL.
Because then the GPL advocates be satisfied and wouldn't feel compelled to break the law and remove the current license from the code? Sort of like saying "We won't force you to do anything as long as you do what we want."
What clause in the BSD license do you think allows you to remove that license?
Not to mention paying the city for lost revenue due to meter removal isn't meeting the goal of the meters. The point, according to the article, is to reduce downtown parking. The purpose of the meter is to disincentivize people from parking, not to make money.
Re:If the journalist was stupid enough to sign it.
on
AMD NDA Scandal
·
· Score: 1
Replace "that" with "than" or "rather than".
Your free press certainly doesn't sound any freer than what AMD is suggesting.
Re:If the journalist was stupid enough to sign it.
on
AMD NDA Scandal
·
· Score: 1
So what you're saying is that a reporter should be completely in the dark and uninformed about everything that to learn a lot and only be able to discuss some of it? About issues that are not public safety, corruption, or illegal?
Out of curiosity where do you stand on shield laws that reporters are saying they need to protect confidential sources? I mean the source is part of the story, any failure to report on the source would be completely contrary to the entire basis under which the free press operates.
No kidding. Ten paragraphs to state they that can report that a report was made about an NDA. No new information like a copy of the NDA. Nothing at all. Just to say that somebody said something.
Re:If the journalist was stupid enough to sign it.
on
AMD NDA Scandal
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
First, I don't see anything in the article that shows they have anything new that would allow them to confirm anything. All they've done is repeated the same story that AMD is using a rabid NDA. But let us go ahead and assume that such a thing exists. AMD decided to let this guy (and others) attend the conference, and even went so far as to pay for the trip. When they decide to take a tour of a manufacturing facility they want an NDA that includes:
"any confidential information from this visit would need written approval from corporate communications before it could be used".
While the article goes on to imply that that statement is the equivalent of agreeing to let AMD rape the reporter's baby, I just don't see it. They are bringing these guys into a private building where trade secrets are in use and don't want it all published in some article or blog.
I fail to see the egregiousness here. What's more I don't see how anyone with even half a brain would see anything wrong here. Please explain what exactly AMD is trying to "get away" with?
Assuming the noise is random, and the object isn't, then these should be pretty close to what the same picture taken with the same optical equipment in a vacuum would produce with a slight bias towards the center of the noise. That is, if your noise is evenly distributed between 0.0 and 5.0, then averaging a few hundred slices through time would result in a fixed noise of 2.5 across the board. Which is the same thing as no noise.
There are things this wouldn't be useful for. Mainly anything that might be changing quickly. Like a light chart. Or some objects that emit in wavelengths that are absorbed by the atmosphere.
What I read of that was that the number of claims have gone down by 50%. But the claims that are made are now costing 23% less than they did before this practice started. But I may not have read it correctly. Regardless, it's a win for the health care industry and consumers.
Yes you can, and if you're wrong, you can find that they own your house when the lawsuit is over.
Unlikely. And yes I know you can create an imaginary situation involving a totally insane home owner and multiple gang rapes that will lead to substantial damages being assessed to the home owner. However a sane home owner acting reasonably to protect their property will not lose their home in a situation like this. At most they'll lose a friend.
WTF do people think that entering a store makes you the ownser's slave?
Make you a slave? No. Mean you have to abide by their rules? Yes. They can detain you if they think you are stealing their goods. They can preserve evidence by taking shopping bags and bag packs and what not. What's more these people aren't police. They don't have to abide by the fourth amendment. There have been several court cases that have found this to be true. One example is sited at Volokh.com:
Does a user have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their files -- including images of child pornography -- posted on a password-protected website? In a decision handed down last week, Judge Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts concluded that the answer is "yes." At the same time, Judge Stearns refused to suppress the evidence in the particular case, finding that its collection was the fruits of a private search by a tipster. The case is United States v. D'Andrea.
Are you referring to the Declaration of Independence? "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? That's not part of the constitution and not really grounds for a court case based on what it says.
Property owners have exceptional leeway in ensuring that their property is used as they choose to use it.
The funniest part of all these subthreads is that elsewhere in this story someone actually posted the applicable Ohio statute and the store has explicit rights to detain the person.
They're not suspended. But courts have found that sometimes one person's rights outweigh another persons. For example my right to own my property and use it as I please outweighs your right to bring your congregation into my living room to give your sermons.
Or detain you until the police arrive at which point you are searched against your will. States have laws allowing businesses to do that specific thing.
If someone comes into my home carrying a couple of bags and as they are leaving I believe that have put my property in their bag, I can prevent them from leaving and call the police. And getting all irate in someone else's home is a really bad idea because you start to approach the self defense/king of his castle/etc and may end up dead and the home owner gets off without a problem.
That's so funny that you write this. The reality is, and this is supported by research, if a doctor makes a habit of, when he screws up, admitting it and talks with the patient over their options the number of malpractice suits goes down:
Colorado's largest malpractice insurer, COPIC, for example, has enrolled 1,800 physicians in a disclosure program under which they immediately express remorse to patients when medical care goes wrong and describe in detail what happened.
Malpractice claims against these 1,800 doctors have dropped 50 percent since 2000, while the cost of settling these doctors'claims has fallen 23 percent.
If you want to enter that private property you do. People have the right to be secure in their homes and businesses. If you are on my property I can say you can't bring a gun. I can say you can't wear a blue hat. I can say I might search your bags before you leave. If on your way out of a store the proprietor asks to look in your bag and you think that is an invasion your remedy is to return the items you bought, get your money back and leave.
Once you incorporate this fact into your reasoning, it should be clear to you where you are going wrong. There isn't some "spooky action at a distance" between you and third-parties just because you happen to be the copyright holder. They receive a license from me, which I can grant them if a license you give me permits it. You do not set the license terms globally, you set the license terms for people receiving a license directly from you.
You are completely wrong. This isn't a debate where the person who comes up with the most long winded argument wins. My statements aren't arguments trying to convince you, I'm trying to explain the way it actually works. Given that you can't be civil, I'm going to end my participation here as it doesn't hurt me that you misunderstand how US copyright law works.
For physics, the thing I always found best was lots of real world examples. Don't explain mechanical advantage- set up a pulley system and let them lift a car.
That's the wrong idea. The right idea is setup a small series of mechanical examples showing how the pulley system provides advantage. Then provide them with the math. Then have them figure out what pulley system they'll need to lift a car one handed. Then setup up two such systems and tie a rope around each arm. Then drop the lifts out from underneath the cars. If they did their math correctly, they'll still be able to clap after the exercise.
But Vista can support it. It just doesn't by default. Vista doesn't need it and shouldn't use it. Furthermore, given that it is an old feature that exists solely to work around broken network stacks, it is completely reasonable to assume that any modern OS supports a network stack that is sufficiently functional so as not to need it.
We don't know why they are using it, but because they are they probably have a reason. DHCP is not part of the IP protocol. An IP stack that passes packets on an unconfigured interface is neither broken nor not broken. The behavior is undefined.
When the DHCP server in question was written, Vista probably wasn't around, and therefore it wasn't needed.
You know what's even more amazing? That someone had the foresight to include this option in the RFC years before Microsoft even began work on Vista. Or not. Maybe that option has nothing to do with Vista. A developer writing a DHCP server who chooses not to implement that part of the spec is merely choosing a partial implementation.
It's like the SMTP protocol. RFC 2821 compliant servers must accept EHLO while clients are not required to use it but should. If the client developer chooses not to, then they are just choosing an incomplete implementation but they are not buggy nor broken.
I also disagree that Microsoft gained a technical benefit from enabling it: why write brittle code when it's just as easy to write more robust code?
If I was going to guess, I'd say that MS chose to set the broadcast flag because some third party IP stacks/offloaders/accelerators need it.
Care to elaborate? Argument by assertion is silly.
"Sigh. Of course it does." Sound familiar? If not read up this thread a post or two.
It's like this:
I write Program A and distribute it with this notice:
You can redistribute this program under the terms of the Right Handed License (RHL), alternately you may use the terms of License B.
The Right Handed License: You may only distribute this program on CD-R and you may only handle the media with your right hand.
License B: Pamela Anderson is frighteningly ugly. You can give this to other people however the hell you want as long as this notice is retained.
You receive Program A from me and being of the opinion that Pamela Anderson is the modern incarnation of Aphrodite, you decide to redistribute it under the of the RHL. So you burn it to CD-R and taking care to only touch it with your right hand you pass it to Bob. Now Bob sure thinks it is stupid to only use his right hand for things, and not caring one whit about Pamela Anderson, he can choose to redistribute under License B when he gives it to Wanda.
Why is this? Because I own the program and only I can set the terms that people can redistribute under. Absolutely nothing you do can change those terms. It doesn't matter what the two licenses are. It doesn't matter if the terms are mutually exclusive or not. Regardless of which license the giver was using when distributing the code to someone, they have the choice of either license or even a third license if they want to contact me and negotiate one.
If you co-mingle your code into with mine you can distribute your parts of the code under whatever license you choose as long as that license is compatible with mine. But if you ever want to sue over a violation of your license you'd better be able to identify exactly which code is yours.
The stupidity here and what is bugging most people is the fact that on code that is licensed GPL and something else, it pretty much makes enforcement of the GPL impossible. Anyone picking to distribute code licensed in this fashion under the GPL are only obligating themselves to distributing the source for three years, they aren't binding anyone who receives the code and redistributes it to the same terms. And you'll be saying "but that doesn't make any sense." You're right, it doesn't. It doesn't have to. It's not a computer program or a work of engineering. Add in the fact that the other license may be less onerous and more open than the GPL. It's exactly like when Stallman got his underwear in a knot over Ghostscript being distributed under a non GPL license, one of the killer apps of the day was suddenly not useful for advancing his political agenda.
The only time the GPL is really ever binding is when the owner of the code is an idealogue or when the code in question is made up of many interdependant parts owned by many different people. As long as there is a single person or a small group who owns the rights to the code there is always the possibility of negotiating a different license.
I read it exactly right. Servers do not have to implement it, but clients are certainly not required to operate without it since that is the very purpose of it's existence: clients that cannot operate without it.
Given that you can turn it off, it makes me think that MS knew it could be a problem but whatever benefit they get from enabling it outweighed the possible downsides. But they were smart enough to include the switch to use the other behavior. To me it sounds like the staff at the ISP are being dicks. Seriously there's no other answer here.
1: MS is up to old tricks (which isn't flat MS bashing, MS does have a reputation for illicit practices)
2: MS made a legitimate mistake, and this is just a bug. It wouldn't be the first time, and all programmers make mistakes. That said, that it still just so happens to work with MS servers but not Linux servers seems to point away from this option, but I can't say for sure, as light on the details as this story is.
I've heard it's this: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/92823 3, in which case Microsoft doesn't have a bug at all. The problem lies on the dhcp server side because unimplemented optional parts of the dhcp protocol are causing the servers to fail rather than ignore that option.
Slashdot Mirror
First, not all of the changes were to dual license code.
Second, Jiri cannot decide which licenses software that he doesn't own is distributed under. In this case he can decide which license he wants to use for his act of distributing, but he cannot set the terms on code he doesn't own.
Some was, some wasn't. Jiri changed both. Regardless it's a moot point because he isn't the owner of the code, he cannot dictate the terms to the code. What he can do is choose which terms he wants to distribute under, but he cannot pass that code along and set the terms for the people he passes it to.
Before you reply, note that I'm talking about code that Jiri didn't write here. Code that he doesn't have any standing to set the terms on.
Because then the GPL advocates be satisfied and wouldn't feel compelled to break the law and remove the current license from the code? Sort of like saying "We won't force you to do anything as long as you do what we want."
What clause in the BSD license do you think allows you to remove that license?
Not to mention paying the city for lost revenue due to meter removal isn't meeting the goal of the meters. The point, according to the article, is to reduce downtown parking. The purpose of the meter is to disincentivize people from parking, not to make money.
Replace "that" with "than" or "rather than".
Your free press certainly doesn't sound any freer than what AMD is suggesting.
So what you're saying is that a reporter should be completely in the dark and uninformed about everything that to learn a lot and only be able to discuss some of it? About issues that are not public safety, corruption, or illegal?
Out of curiosity where do you stand on shield laws that reporters are saying they need to protect confidential sources? I mean the source is part of the story, any failure to report on the source would be completely contrary to the entire basis under which the free press operates.
No kidding. Ten paragraphs to state they that can report that a report was made about an NDA. No new information like a copy of the NDA. Nothing at all. Just to say that somebody said something.
While the article goes on to imply that that statement is the equivalent of agreeing to let AMD rape the reporter's baby, I just don't see it. They are bringing these guys into a private building where trade secrets are in use and don't want it all published in some article or blog.
I fail to see the egregiousness here. What's more I don't see how anyone with even half a brain would see anything wrong here. Please explain what exactly AMD is trying to "get away" with?
Assuming the noise is random, and the object isn't, then these should be pretty close to what the same picture taken with the same optical equipment in a vacuum would produce with a slight bias towards the center of the noise. That is, if your noise is evenly distributed between 0.0 and 5.0, then averaging a few hundred slices through time would result in a fixed noise of 2.5 across the board. Which is the same thing as no noise.
There are things this wouldn't be useful for. Mainly anything that might be changing quickly. Like a light chart. Or some objects that emit in wavelengths that are absorbed by the atmosphere.
What I read of that was that the number of claims have gone down by 50%. But the claims that are made are now costing 23% less than they did before this practice started. But I may not have read it correctly. Regardless, it's a win for the health care industry and consumers.
Unlikely. And yes I know you can create an imaginary situation involving a totally insane home owner and multiple gang rapes that will lead to substantial damages being assessed to the home owner. However a sane home owner acting reasonably to protect their property will not lose their home in a situation like this. At most they'll lose a friend.
Make you a slave? No. Mean you have to abide by their rules? Yes. They can detain you if they think you are stealing their goods. They can preserve evidence by taking shopping bags and bag packs and what not. What's more these people aren't police. They don't have to abide by the fourth amendment. There have been several court cases that have found this to be true. One example is sited at Volokh.com:
Are you referring to the Declaration of Independence? "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? That's not part of the constitution and not really grounds for a court case based on what it says.
Property owners have exceptional leeway in ensuring that their property is used as they choose to use it.
The funniest part of all these subthreads is that elsewhere in this story someone actually posted the applicable Ohio statute and the store has explicit rights to detain the person.
They're not suspended. But courts have found that sometimes one person's rights outweigh another persons. For example my right to own my property and use it as I please outweighs your right to bring your congregation into my living room to give your sermons.
Or detain you until the police arrive at which point you are searched against your will. States have laws allowing businesses to do that specific thing.
If someone comes into my home carrying a couple of bags and as they are leaving I believe that have put my property in their bag, I can prevent them from leaving and call the police. And getting all irate in someone else's home is a really bad idea because you start to approach the self defense/king of his castle/etc and may end up dead and the home owner gets off without a problem.
If you want to enter that private property you do. People have the right to be secure in their homes and businesses. If you are on my property I can say you can't bring a gun. I can say you can't wear a blue hat. I can say I might search your bags before you leave. If on your way out of a store the proprietor asks to look in your bag and you think that is an invasion your remedy is to return the items you bought, get your money back and leave.
You are completely wrong. This isn't a debate where the person who comes up with the most long winded argument wins. My statements aren't arguments trying to convince you, I'm trying to explain the way it actually works. Given that you can't be civil, I'm going to end my participation here as it doesn't hurt me that you misunderstand how US copyright law works.
That's the wrong idea. The right idea is setup a small series of mechanical examples showing how the pulley system provides advantage. Then provide them with the math. Then have them figure out what pulley system they'll need to lift a car one handed. Then setup up two such systems and tie a rope around each arm. Then drop the lifts out from underneath the cars. If they did their math correctly, they'll still be able to clap after the exercise.
We don't know why they are using it, but because they are they probably have a reason. DHCP is not part of the IP protocol. An IP stack that passes packets on an unconfigured interface is neither broken nor not broken. The behavior is undefined.
You know what's even more amazing? That someone had the foresight to include this option in the RFC years before Microsoft even began work on Vista. Or not. Maybe that option has nothing to do with Vista. A developer writing a DHCP server who chooses not to implement that part of the spec is merely choosing a partial implementation.
It's like the SMTP protocol. RFC 2821 compliant servers must accept EHLO while clients are not required to use it but should. If the client developer chooses not to, then they are just choosing an incomplete implementation but they are not buggy nor broken.
If I was going to guess, I'd say that MS chose to set the broadcast flag because some third party IP stacks/offloaders/accelerators need it.
"Sigh. Of course it does." Sound familiar? If not read up this thread a post or two.
It's like this:
I write Program A and distribute it with this notice:
You can redistribute this program under the terms of the Right Handed License (RHL), alternately you may use the terms of License B.
You receive Program A from me and being of the opinion that Pamela Anderson is the modern incarnation of Aphrodite, you decide to redistribute it under the of the RHL. So you burn it to CD-R and taking care to only touch it with your right hand you pass it to Bob. Now Bob sure thinks it is stupid to only use his right hand for things, and not caring one whit about Pamela Anderson, he can choose to redistribute under License B when he gives it to Wanda.
Why is this? Because I own the program and only I can set the terms that people can redistribute under. Absolutely nothing you do can change those terms. It doesn't matter what the two licenses are. It doesn't matter if the terms are mutually exclusive or not. Regardless of which license the giver was using when distributing the code to someone, they have the choice of either license or even a third license if they want to contact me and negotiate one.
If you co-mingle your code into with mine you can distribute your parts of the code under whatever license you choose as long as that license is compatible with mine. But if you ever want to sue over a violation of your license you'd better be able to identify exactly which code is yours.
The stupidity here and what is bugging most people is the fact that on code that is licensed GPL and something else, it pretty much makes enforcement of the GPL impossible. Anyone picking to distribute code licensed in this fashion under the GPL are only obligating themselves to distributing the source for three years, they aren't binding anyone who receives the code and redistributes it to the same terms. And you'll be saying "but that doesn't make any sense." You're right, it doesn't. It doesn't have to. It's not a computer program or a work of engineering. Add in the fact that the other license may be less onerous and more open than the GPL. It's exactly like when Stallman got his underwear in a knot over Ghostscript being distributed under a non GPL license, one of the killer apps of the day was suddenly not useful for advancing his political agenda.
The only time the GPL is really ever binding is when the owner of the code is an idealogue or when the code in question is made up of many interdependant parts owned by many different people. As long as there is a single person or a small group who owns the rights to the code there is always the possibility of negotiating a different license.
I read it exactly right. Servers do not have to implement it, but clients are certainly not required to operate without it since that is the very purpose of it's existence: clients that cannot operate without it.
Given that you can turn it off, it makes me think that MS knew it could be a problem but whatever benefit they get from enabling it outweighed the possible downsides. But they were smart enough to include the switch to use the other behavior. To me it sounds like the staff at the ISP are being dicks. Seriously there's no other answer here.
I've heard it's this: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/9282