Proprietary (closed) source companies have a tremendous advantage over open source software when it comes to violating intellectual property. Who will ever know if they did it? A source code "comparator" eliminates that crucial advantage
Not really.. Open-source software usually has a nice setup with mailing-lists, CVS, etc. Most of the code is well accounted-for. The same is not as true with a lot of proprietary software.
Remember, it's not enough that two pieces of code match to prove an infringement in court. In fact, the court will most likely take into consideration the fact defending code is open-source, and the burden of proving that they originated the code would be increased for the plaintiff.
Also, failing to prove that they originated the code could leave them open to a countersuit in which the tables would be turned against them, since they obviously had access to the open-sourced code.
SCO was unaware of the origins of much of the code and this "explains how they could wheel out the old malloc() code and the BPF (Berkeley Packet Filter) code, not realising that both were now under BSD licences - and in fact they hadn't even written the BPF code," Dr Toomey said.
The SCO Group (not old SCO) hasn't written any code in SysV UNIX.
Anyway.. One could hope that when this is all over, the UNIX sources will be bought up from the carcass of SCOX and open-sourced, finally putting it out of its misery..
That is, as long as SysV UNIX doesn't have more stolen code in addition to the BSD code we all know about..
The sooner the zombie of UNIX is put to rest, the better for all the live Unices.
So there is a readily observable split between the physicists and other people along the line of ethics and politics that isn't easily explained away, but is apparent non the less.
I agree. However, the fact that there is a split does not answer the question of what the reason for why there should be such a split.
That being said.. I am quite glad many physicists and other scientists are taking a stand for their ethics. I personally would not work on weapons, but people should act responsibly because they choose to and not because such an ethic is imposed on their group.
I would hardly argue that quantum mechanics is a 'bug'.. why would it be?
As for Bostrom's argument.. it's a largely irrelevant piece of metaphysics, IMHO.
Assuming his argument (3) that we are living in a simulation, holds true, there must exist at least one civilisation such that it is not living in a simulation, only running one. Is there any empirical way of discerning which civilization we belong to? If yes, it is not a true simulation, in which case arguments against (2), not running a simulation, are weakened. If no, then all this is just meaningless metaphysics, to which I would apply Occams Razor and be done with it.
So did the American people recognize that something wrong was being committed in their names? Yes. Did they act to stop it? Yes.
So.. could someone please explain to me why the USA is now best-friends with Pakistan? Musharraf ousted an elected civilian regime and replaced it with a military dictatorship. This was harshly criticized by the international community, including the USA.
Come 9/11 and we're suddenly best friends?
This entire "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "ends-justify-the-means" mentality is exactly the same reasoning that caused the USA to back Pinochet in Chile.
Re:Lies, statistics, and analysts
on
Java vs .NET
·
· Score: 1
Check out SWT for a better Java GUI option.
I believe the original poster was alluding to SWT when he added the condidtion part of the API spec, which SWT is not.
I for one would be happy to see this happen.. but given how Sun shuns anything touched by IBM.. It doesn't seem likely..
Re:What would make the ultimate player...
on
MPlayer 1.0Pre1 Is Here
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I thought that these days the DVD-ROM firmware controls the number of available region changes, not OS or the playback software.
Yup.. of course, that doesn't stop programs like the one mentioned above from sitting inbetween the firmware and the OS/playback software and giving it different numbers.
However, there are quite a lot of places where you can get region-free firmware.. Flash once and liberate your drive from geographical restrictions forever!
this does bring up one interesting issue for the RIAA though - what happens if the woman downloaded the song, went out and then went out and bought it. she may have still left the song available for download for others, but it would make for a nasty case for them PR-wise if they're trying to ping someone who actually does own the music.
Not really an issue.. AFAIK the RIAA hasn't yet gone after anyone for downloading music. Rather they've been going after folks who have been distributing music on P2P networks.
That's where the money is: For downloading, the damages you incur is simply the retail cost (=$X) of the music you've downloaded. If you distribute on the other hand, the damages are X*N where N is some number of people who've downloaded the music from you, which the RIAA can exaggerate in court.
When did America become this country of limp wristed wussies who were afraid to speak their minds because they might be sued by some big corporation? Yeah, they might sue, and you might have to defend a lawsuit if what you speak is not the truth. What one must do to speak out on any given subject, including this one, is to educate oneself!
"I think America is one of the great conformist nations of the world - maybe the world leader when it comes to conformity." I read that in a Terry Gilliam interview, and I tend to agree with him. Americans view themselves as far more free-thinking than they are.
Ask yourself: When did you last criticize your boss? How was it recieved? Now.. go work in a few European countries for a while and ask yourself the same questions. Those of you who have will know what he means.
This is about challenging the DMCA, which offsets due process by allowing subpoenas to be ordered by copyright holders without the approval of a judge.
The question of "Jane Doe" being guilty of file-sharing or not is irrelevant. The terms of the ISP are irrelevant as well.
Also: ISPs don't really care about copyright infringement. File sharing gets them customers. Chasing child pornographers is fine by them too, the nuciance it causes for them is far smaller than the potential loss of public good-will.
But who owns the copyright to the code that was original licensed under the old-fashioned BSD license? Berkeley or SCO? If Berkeley, then SCO can't file the suit. Intriguing.
SCO. Berkeley has as little claim to the software as RMS does to anything you GPL (that is, no claim at all). Unless of course you sign over the copyrights to them.
Anyway.. even if true, none of all this is really significant to the actual issues at hand because: IBM did not submit this code into Linux.
And damages would be impossible to collect anyway because the code was already released under an open-source license. Thus the damages would have to be calculated from whatever loss was incurred by the loss of the "advertising clause", which is presumably very little, or nothing.
And that money would have to come from SGI, or whoever included it in the kernel.
In the screenshot, the linux code shown is clearly in C.
Could it be that same (BSD) routine was reimplemented in Linux and in SCO Unix, and in assembly language in the latter?
And could it be that SCO:s clumsy obfuscation attempt was done to conceal the fact that this code was probably not copied "line-for-line" as it was written in a different language??
Contrary to the popular belief, the SCO case never was and never will be about the GPL.
Oh.. because the sixth counterclaim (Paragraphs 74-79 of the Counterclaim) in "Defendant IBM's answer to the amended complaint and counterclaim-plaintiff IBM's counterclaims against SCO" is exactly about that. Header: Sixth Counterclaim: Breach of the GNU General Public License
Re:Pushing the limits of computing
on
Contiki Ported To x86
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Steady on old boy. The jaguar was a 64-bit console, and a damn fine one at that.
Well.. let's be really correct here, it was a 32/64-bit machine. (32 bit processor)
In my book it counts as a 32-bit machine, but in any case, it's quite a far cry from an 8-bit machine.
Slashdot Mirror
Proprietary (closed) source companies have a tremendous advantage over open source software when it comes to violating intellectual property. Who will ever know if they did it? A source code "comparator" eliminates that crucial advantage
Not really.. Open-source software usually has a nice setup with mailing-lists, CVS, etc. Most of the code is well accounted-for. The same is not as true with a lot of proprietary software.
Remember, it's not enough that two pieces of code match to prove an infringement in court.
In fact, the court will most likely take into consideration the fact defending code is open-source, and the burden of proving that they originated the code would be increased for the plaintiff.
Also, failing to prove that they originated the code could leave them open to a countersuit in which the tables would be turned against them, since they obviously had access to the open-sourced code.
SCO was unaware of the origins of much of the code and this "explains how they could wheel out the old malloc() code and the BPF (Berkeley Packet Filter) code, not realising that both were now under BSD licences - and in fact they hadn't even written the BPF code," Dr Toomey said.
The SCO Group (not old SCO) hasn't written any code in SysV UNIX.
Anyway.. One could hope that when this is all over, the UNIX sources will be bought up from the carcass of SCOX and open-sourced, finally putting it out of its misery..
That is, as long as SysV UNIX doesn't have more stolen code in addition to the BSD code we all know about..
The sooner the zombie of UNIX is put to rest, the better for all the live Unices.
So there is a readily observable split between the physicists and other people along the line of ethics and politics that isn't easily explained away, but is apparent non the less.
I agree.
However, the fact that there is a split does not answer the question of what the reason for why there should be such a split.
That being said.. I am quite glad many physicists and other scientists are taking a stand for their ethics.
I personally would not work on weapons, but people should act responsibly because they choose to and not because such an ethic is imposed on their group.
I consider tolerance the most important virtue.
Why would scientists have a different set of ethics than, say, workers in munitions factories?
I would hardly argue that quantum mechanics is a 'bug'.. why would it be?
As for Bostrom's argument.. it's a largely irrelevant piece of metaphysics, IMHO.
Assuming his argument (3) that we are living in a simulation, holds true, there must exist at least one civilisation such that it is not living in a simulation, only running one. Is there any empirical way of discerning which civilization we belong to?
If yes, it is not a true simulation, in which case arguments against (2), not running a simulation, are weakened.
If no, then all this is just meaningless metaphysics, to which I would apply Occams Razor and be done with it.
Another appreciator of the Netherlands..
Jules: "Oh man, I'm going, that's all there is to it. I'm f___ing going."
So did the American people recognize that something wrong was being committed in their names? Yes. Did they act to stop it? Yes.
So.. could someone please explain to me why the USA is now best-friends with Pakistan?
Musharraf ousted an elected civilian regime and replaced it with a military dictatorship.
This was harshly criticized by the international community, including the USA.
Come 9/11 and we're suddenly best friends?
This entire "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and
"ends-justify-the-means" mentality is exactly the same reasoning that
caused the USA to back Pinochet in Chile.
Check out SWT for a better Java GUI option.
I believe the original poster was alluding to SWT when he added the condidtion part of the API spec, which SWT is not.
I for one would be happy to see this happen.. but given how Sun shuns anything touched by IBM.. It doesn't seem likely..
I thought that these days the DVD-ROM firmware controls the number of available region changes, not OS or the playback software.
Yup.. of course, that doesn't stop programs like the one mentioned above from sitting inbetween the firmware and the OS/playback software and giving it different numbers.
However, there are quite a lot of places where you can get region-free firmware..
Flash once and liberate your drive from geographical restrictions forever!
Yeah, but he's ethnically a Swede.. Like Linus!
(6% of the finnish population..)
this does bring up one interesting issue for the RIAA though - what happens if the woman downloaded the song, went out and then went out and bought it. she may have still left the song available for download for others, but it would make for a nasty case for them PR-wise if they're trying to ping someone who actually does own the music.
Not really an issue.. AFAIK the RIAA hasn't yet gone after anyone for downloading music. Rather they've been going after folks who have been distributing music on P2P networks.
That's where the money is: For downloading, the damages you incur is simply the retail cost (=$X) of the
music you've downloaded. If you distribute on the other hand, the damages are X*N where N is some number of people who've downloaded the music from you, which the RIAA can exaggerate in court.
When did America become this country of limp wristed wussies who were afraid to speak their minds because they might be sued by some big corporation? Yeah, they might sue, and you might have to defend a lawsuit if what you speak is not the truth. What one must do to speak out on any given subject, including this one, is to educate oneself!
"I think America is one of the great conformist nations of the world - maybe the world leader when it comes to conformity."
I read that in a Terry Gilliam interview, and I tend to agree with him. Americans view themselves as far more free-thinking than they are.
Ask yourself: When did you last criticize your boss? How was it recieved?
Now.. go work in a few European countries for a while and ask yourself the same questions. Those of you who have will know what he means.
I can't see the point of getting pissed off and arguing over the lies SCO is spouting. At some point, you just stop listening.. you know?
I'd like to see more focus on what they're actually doing.
What has actually happened?
Sued IBM, their case is crap.
Got countersued, IBM:s counterclaims seem like an accurate description of reality.
Got sued by RedHat, whose claims seem reasonable too.
Sent letters to 1500 linux users asking for money, didn't get any.
VPs sell stock.
Shows off some code, none of which is infringing.
Not much to get upset about, now is there?
This is not about ISPs giving up information.
This is about challenging the DMCA, which offsets due process by allowing subpoenas to be ordered by copyright holders without the approval of a judge.
The question of "Jane Doe" being guilty of file-sharing or not is irrelevant. The terms of the ISP are irrelevant as well.
Also: ISPs don't really care about copyright infringement. File sharing gets them customers. Chasing child pornographers is fine by them too, the nuciance it causes for them is far smaller than the potential loss of public good-will.
How do you prove that someone is computer literate enough to know they were doing something wrong?
Nobody has to prove this.
Ignorance has always been a very poor excuse for not following the law.
It's not the elements that are the problem, it's the compounds..
:-)
There *IS* an official nomenclature, but it's unwieldy..
A very simple example: xylene, p-methyltolulene, and o,p-dimethylbenzene are all the same thing.
You could call water "oxane" if you like.
And then there are things like steroisomers which make it all even more complicated.
Of course, unlike astronomers, we can work around
the problem by just drawing the structure instead.
Look at that!
/. where quoted copyright law is accordance with common sense are too rare.
The moments on
But who owns the copyright to the code that was original licensed under the old-fashioned BSD license? Berkeley or SCO? If Berkeley, then SCO can't file the suit. Intriguing.
SCO. Berkeley has as little claim to the software as RMS does to anything you GPL (that is, no claim at all). Unless of course you sign over the copyrights to them.
Anyway.. even if true, none of all this is really significant to the actual issues at hand because:
IBM did not submit this code into Linux.
And damages would be impossible to collect anyway because the code was already released under an open-source license. Thus the damages would have to be calculated from whatever loss was incurred by the loss of the "advertising clause", which is presumably very little, or nothing.
And that money would have to come from SGI, or whoever included it in the kernel.
Wow. Most short-lived story ever.
:-)
Well.. there was that one about SCO showing off infringing code..
Maybe you already did.. but it's still a ridiculous idea.
In the screenshot, the linux code shown is clearly in C.
Could it be that same (BSD) routine was reimplemented in Linux and in SCO Unix, and in assembly language in the latter?
And could it be that SCO:s clumsy obfuscation attempt was done to conceal the fact that this code was probably not copied "line-for-line" as it was written in a different language??
if these things were legalised, that industry would vanish overnight, and put many government workers and their cronies out of jobs.
So, you're claiming the government can't find another way to spend $10 billion?
Riiight...
What kind of third-party code are they talking about here?
Userland applications or device drivers?
As so many others undoubtedly already have remarked, an application, however shoddily written,
should not bring down the whole OS.
If they're talking device drivers.. well, that's a different issue entirely.
On the other hand, if this is the case, what the heck is that MS certification process for?
Contrary to the popular belief, the SCO case never was and never will be about the GPL.
Oh.. because the sixth counterclaim (Paragraphs 74-79 of the Counterclaim)
in "Defendant IBM's answer to the amended complaint and counterclaim-plaintiff IBM's counterclaims against SCO" is exactly about that.
Header: Sixth Counterclaim: Breach of the GNU General Public License
Steady on old boy. The jaguar was a 64-bit console, and a damn fine one at that.
Well.. let's be really correct here, it was a 32/64-bit machine.
(32 bit processor)
In my book it counts as a 32-bit machine, but in any case, it's quite a far cry from an 8-bit machine.