Uhhh... Yeah it is going to happen, and it does happen. By definition, anybody extradited from the United States was in the United States before being extradited. If you commit a murder in Canada, and go back to the States, the authorities will ship you back to Canada to stand trial - citizen or not...
The GPL will not prevent the distribution of technologies, ideas or methods. The GPL may prevent some methods of distribution of particular implementations and expressions of technologies, ideas or methods.
If you don't like having to distribute source, you can write a new implementation of the same methods from scratch. You can't do that with patented methods.
I don't believe Stallman helps himself, the Free Software Foundation, or the Open Source world by playing this game, but I understand where he is coming from.
He probably doesn't ask the BSD folks to call it GNU/FreeBSD or GNU/OpenBSD because the GNU tools are not a fundamental part of the FreeBSD or OpenBSD operating systems.
What organization is responsible for the following executables on your Linux box?:
ls
rm
cp
cat
bash
grep
gcc
Try doing a:
[pkobly@hatari man]$ find . -name *.bz2 -exec bash -c 'bzcat {} | grep "Copyright.*Free Software" > \ /dev/null; if [[ $? == 0 ]]; then echo {}; fi' \;
From the man directory of your Linux box. How many fundamental parts of the operating system are owned by the Free Software Foundation?
Try doing this on a BSD box. How does this change your results?
Having the second firewall also prevents the servers "getting out" on the internet, becuase we removed the
defualt route from the firewalls, so they do not know where the gateway to the internet is.
Removing the default route does not effectively prevent traffic from the servers getting out to the internet, nor does it effectively prevent traffic from the internet getting to the servers. A properly configured firewall can do that, but just removing default routes is not sufficient.
Why is it that there is an assumption of exclusivity among religions in these survey / census questions? Why do we make the assumption that a person belongs to one, or no religion?
Have you even read the Bhagavad Gita? Have you read any religious texts outside of the Bible? How do you justify the suggestion that Hinduism and Buddhism, for example, are "just hateful mockeries of things pure"?
Have you even read the Bible? Part of the "mystery" of the story of Jesus was that God so loved us that he sent his only son to become "just a mere man" as you so dismissively refer to Muhammad.
He has a duty to the shareholders of GWL to present a one-sided report, supporting an Americanization of the health-care system. He has a conflicting duty to Albertans to produce the fair report that we paid for.
Mazankowski should have refused to chair the committee to produce that report. That he didn't is an inexcusable breach of ethics.
Doctors and nurses are private, self employed. They are NOT state employees as in the UK or Canada.
I don't know about the UK, but in Canada, doctors are not necessarily employees of the state. GP's bill the government directly for services provided, but are responsible for the business costs in keeping their clinics open.
You can choose to see the doctor YOU WANT, when you want. You can go see a different doctor each time if you want.
As is also the case in Canada. This is a common misconception about the Canadian healthcare system, used by Americans arguing against the socialization of health care. There is no truth to it whatsoever.
Doctors have specific medical reasons - continuity of care, prevention of prescription shopping (hop from doctor to doctor seeking narcotics prescriptions) - for wanting you to continue to go to the same doctor, but you certainly have the choice of going to another doctor.
The GNU General Public License
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under
the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed
only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord
with Subsection b above.)
3. c) does not apply here, as they are a commercial entity.
So, the following are true.
Distribution is an exclusive right of copyright holders (17 USC)
xStore is not the copyright holder of some of the software on the machine.
The copyright holder chooses to license his exclusive distribution right under the terms of the GPL.
xStore is distributing this software in "object code or executable form"
The distribution is commercial in nature
As a result, xStore must either provide the source code with the machine or provide a written offer of the source code - whether or not they are distributing a modified or derivative work.
Look, if there were a long-standing tradition of selling customers' computers in for repairs, that still wouldn't make it legal. Regardless of the context of the sale of the company, the company can't sell something it doesn't own, or that it has contractually agreed not to sell.
That's an argument best resolved by the person doing the encryption - encrypt with a family members key or st. It is an incredibly paternalistic suggestion that we ought to adopt key escrow because somebody might encrypt something in a manner contrary to his or his estate's interests.
The personal information was exchanged, with money for goods and/or services, with the condition that it may be used only by egghead.com, and that they may not sell it. It may be considered an asset, but it is an asset with encumbrances on its use and resale.
NT on AXP was a promising project. Digital did a lot of good work on the FX!32 x86 emu stuff. Unfortunately, it was not ready, it got pushed out, and it was a poor deployment platform.
Further, the partnership between Digital (later Compaq) and M$ was problematic... Digital was doing a good chunk of the porting work - M$ sent them code modifications, they got the code mods to work on AXP. Apparently there was an unmanageable amount of code churn in the base NT system.
Eventually, both companies decided the project wasn't worth the hassle, given the decidedly lacklustre sales and interest.
I worked with NT-AXP for about a year. We then moved those machinesw to Tru64 (shitty answer, I know, but better than NT-AXP).
OEM's (A slimy group of money grubbing semi-legal organizations, who couldnt give a fuck about their customers (in general)).
If Microsoft won't allow OEM's to change the applications that show up on the desktop (one of the minor issues at trial), what makes you think they'll let the OEM's change the default "Smart Tags"?
That the license was not actually changed. Rights of distribution of modified and derivative packages are exclusive rights. If these rights are not explicitly granted or transferred by the copyright owner, they remain exclusively in the hands of the copyright owner. Darren did not grant or transfer these rights. The license text change does not constitute a change in what is allowed under the license.
From page 773 - in his discussion of the absolutely hilariously inept TigerSuite package:
Ping Scanner: Recall that Ping sends a packet to a remote or local host, requesting an echo reply. If the echo is returned, the host is up, and at the very least, listening to TCP port 7; therefore, it may be vulnerable to a Ping flood.
The TigerSuite package, described by the author as "Designed using proprietary coding and technologies" is laughable. It is a Windows GUI wrapping around whois, nslookup, telnet, traceroute, ping, and a weak port scanner that doesn't even appear to support nmap style half-scans. There are a couple of what are termed "penetrators," that are little more than DOS flood attacks, and, in some cases, buffer overrun exploitation tools that work on old, fixed buffer overruns.
What is marginally useful in the book/cd is that there is a relatively wide assortment of script kiddy tools collected on the CD. These tools are not, for the most part, discussed in the book, but it is somewhat useful to have them around for experiments...
The complaint here is about Gibson's misplaced blame and his pathetic "solution." Gibson's "solution" of crippling Windows boxes so it's more difficult to spoof IPs is why we experience as much difficulty with spoofing as we do.
Because Windows makes it difficult to spoof, the ISPs can get away with ignorant and incompetent router administration, with little fear of it kicking them in the ass.
The current situation at most ISPs trusts the machines plugged into them to be well behaved. This is not a reasonable trust. Just because Windows doesn't spoof easily doesn't mean I can't grab another box from another vendor (or hell - build my own) and tell it to spoof.
Simple answer: if you are an ISP, don't route packets coming in on the wrong interface.
The unstable GCC build that was included in Red Hat was *not* a private undistributed test build. If you read the no-redist email above, you would see that the only way you would have had access to this stuff was from a link from one of Mr. Reed's emails.
The no-mod/no-deriv change does apply to all versions of ipf and not just test builds.
That said, if Red Hat wants to shoot themselves in the foot and lose credibility because of insufficient testing of a fundamental component of the software they release, that's their problem. That software should still be available for those who know what they're doing to help diagnose and fix issues, and to move it from a test build or beta to stable. This isn't closed source, commercial software. We shouldn't disappear for periods of time, hiding intermediary builds, and suddenly reappear with a build we claim works.
The transparency afforded by most Open Source/Free Software projects is just as important as the fact that we can read/modify source at stable releases.
But hey, if you think that hiding the process is the best way to go about improving stability and security, you can go back to your Windows box.
The no-redist license applies only to the test builds. The no-mod/no-deriv license that was initially mentioned applies to all revs of the software. And yeah, he was probably technically within his rights. Since he did not explicitly grant permission to distribute derived works, and since that is an exclusive right of the copyright holder, this is just a clarification, and not a change...
You are also unable to *fix existing problems* and redistribute the fixed version to your customers. Where does this leave you if Mr. Reed disappears (on vacation, hit by a bus, loses interest in maintaining ipf)? This eliminates the redundancy that is so often touted as a major advantage of open source/free software.
Odd that a *huge* telecom company would choose the unproven alternative of Windows for network management and circuit design of your transport networks, snubbing the mainstays of that market - OpenVMS and UNIX. Strange that while everyone else in that market is screaming for Solaris and Linux, that you seem completely lashed to the mast of the unproven technology of Windows... Particularly strange given that four years ago, everyone was screaming for NT. What could have caused the change of heart? Could it be the failed experiment using NT for network management/provisioning?
But hey, if you can't provision that circuit because your NM box running NT is down, you can just tell the customer - "I'm sorry, you'll have to wait half an hour while the system reboots." And they'll nod knowingly and understandingly, and if they're smart, they'll take their business to somebody that's got a clue.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhhh... Yeah it is going to happen, and it does happen. By definition, anybody extradited from the United States was in the United States before being extradited. If you commit a murder in Canada, and go back to the States, the authorities will ship you back to Canada to stand trial - citizen or not...
The GPL will not prevent the distribution of technologies, ideas or methods. The GPL may prevent some methods of distribution of particular implementations and expressions of technologies, ideas or methods.
If you don't like having to distribute source, you can write a new implementation of the same methods from scratch. You can't do that with patented methods.
He probably doesn't ask the BSD folks to call it GNU/FreeBSD or GNU/OpenBSD because the GNU tools are not a fundamental part of the FreeBSD or OpenBSD operating systems.
What organization is responsible for the following executables on your Linux box?:
ls
rm
cp
cat
bash
grep
gcc
Try doing a:
[pkobly@hatari man]$ find . -name *.bz2 -exec bash -c 'bzcat {} | grep "Copyright.*Free Software" > \
/dev/null; if [[ $? == 0 ]]; then echo {}; fi' \;
From the man directory of your Linux box. How many fundamental parts of the operating system are owned by the Free Software Foundation?
Try doing this on a BSD box. How does this change your results?
defualt route from the firewalls, so they do not know where the gateway to the internet is.
Removing the default route does not effectively prevent traffic from the servers getting out to the internet, nor does it effectively prevent traffic from the internet getting to the servers. A properly configured firewall can do that, but just removing default routes is not sufficient.
Why is it that there is an assumption of exclusivity among religions in these survey / census questions? Why do we make the assumption that a person belongs to one, or no religion?
Have you even read the Bible? Part of the "mystery" of the story of Jesus was that God so loved us that he sent his only son to become "just a mere man" as you so dismissively refer to Muhammad.
Don Mazankowski is a Director of Great West Lifeco, a holding company for Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company, an American HMO. A company for which he is a director has a direct financial interest in the advice that he provides to the Alberta Government.
He has a duty to the shareholders of GWL to present a one-sided report, supporting an Americanization of the health-care system. He has a conflicting duty to Albertans to produce the fair report that we paid for.
Mazankowski should have refused to chair the committee to produce that report. That he didn't is an inexcusable breach of ethics.
Doctors and nurses are private, self employed. They are NOT state employees as in the UK or Canada.
I don't know about the UK, but in Canada, doctors are not necessarily employees of the state. GP's bill the government directly for services provided, but are responsible for the business costs in keeping their clinics open.
You can choose to see the doctor YOU WANT, when you want. You can go see a different doctor each time if you want.
As is also the case in Canada. This is a common misconception about the Canadian healthcare system, used by Americans arguing against the socialization of health care. There is no truth to it whatsoever.
Doctors have specific medical reasons - continuity of care, prevention of prescription shopping (hop from doctor to doctor seeking narcotics prescriptions) - for wanting you to continue to go to the same doctor, but you certainly have the choice of going to another doctor.
Look. Follow the bouncing ball.
The GNU General Public License
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under
the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed
only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord
with Subsection b above.)
3. c) does not apply here, as they are a commercial entity.
So, the following are true.
Distribution is an exclusive right of copyright holders (17 USC)
xStore is not the copyright holder of some of the software on the machine.
The copyright holder chooses to license his exclusive distribution right under the terms of the GPL.
xStore is distributing this software in "object code or executable form"
The distribution is commercial in nature
As a result, xStore must either provide the source code with the machine or provide a written offer of the source code - whether or not they are distributing a modified or derivative work.
xStore has not done this
Thus, xStore is in breach of contract.
Look, if there were a long-standing tradition of selling customers' computers in for repairs, that still wouldn't make it legal. Regardless of the context of the sale of the company, the company can't sell something it doesn't own, or that it has contractually agreed not to sell.
That's an argument best resolved by the person doing the encryption - encrypt with a family members key or st. It is an incredibly paternalistic suggestion that we ought to adopt key escrow because somebody might encrypt something in a manner contrary to his or his estate's interests.
The personal information was exchanged, with money for goods and/or services, with the condition that it may be used only by egghead.com, and that they may not sell it. It may be considered an asset, but it is an asset with encumbrances on its use and resale.
I don't want to run into my mom on IRC...
NT on AXP was a promising project. Digital did a lot of good work on the FX!32 x86 emu stuff. Unfortunately, it was not ready, it got pushed out, and it was a poor deployment platform.
Further, the partnership between Digital (later Compaq) and M$ was problematic... Digital was doing a good chunk of the porting work - M$ sent them code modifications, they got the code mods to work on AXP. Apparently there was an unmanageable amount of code churn in the base NT system.
Eventually, both companies decided the project wasn't worth the hassle, given the decidedly lacklustre sales and interest.
I worked with NT-AXP for about a year. We then moved those machinesw to Tru64 (shitty answer, I know, but better than NT-AXP).
OEM's (A slimy group of money grubbing semi-legal organizations, who couldnt give a fuck about their customers (in general)).
If Microsoft won't allow OEM's to change the applications that show up on the desktop (one of the minor issues at trial), what makes you think they'll let the OEM's change the default "Smart Tags"?
That the license was not actually changed. Rights of distribution of modified and derivative packages are exclusive rights. If these rights are not explicitly granted or transferred by the copyright owner, they remain exclusively in the hands of the copyright owner. Darren did not grant or transfer these rights. The license text change does not constitute a change in what is allowed under the license.
From page 773 - in his discussion of the absolutely hilariously inept TigerSuite package:
Ping Scanner: Recall that Ping sends a packet to a remote or local host, requesting an echo reply. If the echo is returned, the host is up, and at the very least, listening to TCP port 7; therefore, it may be vulnerable to a Ping flood.
The TigerSuite package, described by the author as "Designed using proprietary coding and technologies" is laughable. It is a Windows GUI wrapping around whois, nslookup, telnet, traceroute, ping, and a weak port scanner that doesn't even appear to support nmap style half-scans. There are a couple of what are termed "penetrators," that are little more than DOS flood attacks, and, in some cases, buffer overrun exploitation tools that work on old, fixed buffer overruns.
What is marginally useful in the book/cd is that there is a relatively wide assortment of script kiddy tools collected on the CD. These tools are not, for the most part, discussed in the book, but it is somewhat useful to have them around for experiments...
Allow the PS2 to fall into American hands, they will use them to do nasty things like *build an illegal National Missile Defence System*.
Junior anarchists aren't going to subsidize a playground for corporate whores forever.
The complaint here is about Gibson's misplaced blame and his pathetic "solution." Gibson's "solution" of crippling Windows boxes so it's more difficult to spoof IPs is why we experience as much difficulty with spoofing as we do.
Because Windows makes it difficult to spoof, the ISPs can get away with ignorant and incompetent router administration, with little fear of it kicking them in the ass.
The current situation at most ISPs trusts the machines plugged into them to be well behaved. This is not a reasonable trust. Just because Windows doesn't spoof easily doesn't mean I can't grab another box from another vendor (or hell - build my own) and tell it to spoof.
Simple answer: if you are an ISP, don't route packets coming in on the wrong interface.
The unstable GCC build that was included in Red Hat was *not* a private undistributed test build. If you read the no-redist email above, you would see that the only way you would have had access to this stuff was from a link from one of Mr. Reed's emails.
The no-mod/no-deriv change does apply to all versions of ipf and not just test builds.
That said, if Red Hat wants to shoot themselves in the foot and lose credibility because of insufficient testing of a fundamental component of the software they release, that's their problem. That software should still be available for those who know what they're doing to help diagnose and fix issues, and to move it from a test build or beta to stable. This isn't closed source, commercial software. We shouldn't disappear for periods of time, hiding intermediary builds, and suddenly reappear with a build we claim works.
The transparency afforded by most Open Source/Free Software projects is just as important as the fact that we can read/modify source at stable releases.
But hey, if you think that hiding the process is the best way to go about improving stability and security, you can go back to your Windows box.
The no-redist license applies only to the test builds. The no-mod/no-deriv license that was initially mentioned applies to all revs of the software. And yeah, he was probably technically within his rights. Since he did not explicitly grant permission to distribute derived works, and since that is an exclusive right of the copyright holder, this is just a clarification, and not a change...
You are also unable to *fix existing problems* and redistribute the fixed version to your customers. Where does this leave you if Mr. Reed disappears (on vacation, hit by a bus, loses interest in maintaining ipf)? This eliminates the redundancy that is so often touted as a major advantage of open source/free software.
"if you can see them you've authenticated to the ACL and passed"
Or you're using smbclient or a non-Microsoft SMB/CIFS client, in which case you can see the shares regardless of who you are...
Odd that a *huge* telecom company would choose the unproven alternative of Windows for network management and circuit design of your transport networks, snubbing the mainstays of that market - OpenVMS and UNIX. Strange that while everyone else in that market is screaming for Solaris and Linux, that you seem completely lashed to the mast of the unproven technology of Windows... Particularly strange given that four years ago, everyone was screaming for NT. What could have caused the change of heart? Could it be the failed experiment using NT for network management/provisioning?
But hey, if you can't provision that circuit because your NM box running NT is down, you can just tell the customer - "I'm sorry, you'll have to wait half an hour while the system reboots." And they'll nod knowingly and understandingly, and if they're smart, they'll take their business to somebody that's got a clue.