Do you use Linux to record the MP3? Maybe this is more a question for the Ask Slashdot section, but it would be interesting to discuss how well Linux works for internet radio.
If the author wants to create a distribution oriented towards dumb new users he is free to do so. He could design that distribution so that all applications have a consistent look, there is no command line and no choice of window manager. All that can be accomplished by creating a Linux distribution without the need to change Linux itself.
I do not understand what's wrong with these 7 words. I do not even know which words they are. But I am sure this is not to protect children because children know them for sure. It must be to protect non-native English speakers in case they find out the dirty truths of English too soon.:-)
Most objects made with screws are machines, not pieces of art. Similarly, most source programs which have been purposedly obfuscated are not intended for humans. It is true that artists sometimes use screws or C code in their works. So someone will have to decide whether a bunch of metal and screws (or a bunch of C statements) is a piece of art (thus protected), a form of scientific communication (thus protected too) or a machine (restricted.) I understand this court decision as meaning "source code used as a form of scientific communication is free speech." Next time, someone will be charged because even though it was source code, it was not intended for scientific communication. (Nor it was a piece of art...)
If all source code is allowed to be exported, then executables will be exported in assembly with no comments and assembled overseas. It would be as much obfuscated as possible so that it in essence will be equivalent to compiled code. If the Government claims this is not valid, then all sources will have to be subject to a panel of experts which will decide whether the source code was really intended for humans or not. Of course, this will create a mess even bigger than the one we have now. So I guess, unless the Government changes their ideas about crypto stuff, this court decission will have no real impact.
It is weird that someone can patent an algorithm for a type of computer that does not exist and it may never exist. I guess every gadget in sci-fi books and films is patentable too. Is the algorithm used in Star Trek's holodeck patented yet?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you use Linux to record the MP3? Maybe this
is more a question for the Ask Slashdot section,
but it would be interesting to discuss how well
Linux works for internet radio.
If the author wants to create a distribution
oriented towards dumb new users he is free to do
so. He could design that distribution so that all
applications have a consistent look, there is no
command line and no choice of window manager. All
that can be accomplished by creating a Linux
distribution without the need to change Linux itself.
I do not understand what's wrong with these 7 :-)
words. I do not even know which words they are.
But I am sure this is not to protect children
because children know them for sure. It must be
to protect non-native English speakers in case
they find out the dirty truths of English too soon.
Most objects made with screws are machines, not pieces of art. Similarly, most source programs which have been purposedly obfuscated are not intended for humans.
It is true that artists sometimes use screws or
C code in their works. So someone will have to decide whether a bunch of metal and screws (or a bunch of C statements) is a piece of art (thus protected), a form of scientific communication (thus protected too) or a machine (restricted.)
I understand this court decision as meaning "source code used as a form of scientific communication is free speech."
Next time, someone will be charged because even though it was source code, it was not intended for scientific communication. (Nor it was a piece of art...)
If all source code is allowed to be exported, then
executables will be exported in assembly with no
comments and assembled overseas. It would be
as much obfuscated as possible so that it in
essence will be equivalent to compiled code.
If the Government claims this is not valid, then
all sources will have to be subject to a panel of
experts which will decide whether the source code
was really intended for humans or not.
Of course, this will create a mess even bigger
than the one we have now. So I guess, unless
the Government changes their ideas about crypto
stuff, this court decission will have no real
impact.
It is weird that someone can patent an algorithm
for a type of computer that does not exist and
it may never exist.
I guess every gadget in sci-fi books and films
is patentable too. Is the algorithm used in
Star Trek's holodeck patented yet?
You could just use the Bible: Each character
in a C program is substituted by a verse from
the Bible.
Now, would anyone be able to call a subset of
the Bible "machine code"?