My syslog daemon (in Debian sarge) doesn't have a switch to tell it what hosts are OK to listen to. It just has a big on-off switch for accepting connections from the network (which seems to mean anything but localhost).
Well, I've got to say that I switched from the stable 2.4 kernel to the unstable 2.6 one to use netconsole, and so far 2.6 hasn't crashed and I haven't been able to see how far into the panic I'll get the messages. The system is being slashdotted now, maybe that will help.
Writing another client daemon would not be a big job. This is at most a 200-line program. No doubt a Perl hacker could do it in one line - but I might lose my lunch from looking at that:-)
You have to differentiate "press" from "release". You get a signal for both. It's really only legitimate to signal a key press when the first key in the chord is released.
Never mind, you did. But I can't read it. It would be best to map the most used keys to the easiest ones to press. It's something like ETAMINSHRDLU... in English, there are papers about that on the net.
It's probably easiest to use the "event" interface to decode the device, and push key events back into X using XTest. I have found it to work for all manner of USB dials and game controllers. You can probably make a code paddle work this way if you're into CW. Imagine CW over IRC:-) There is also an ioctl to push key events back into the Linux console. You can do it all in user-mode, no kernel hacking required.
The site went down hard and Serverbeach's rapid reboot button isn't working this morning. It'll be up later. Looks like a kernel issue - I'll debug it.
You can directly sue users. You can directly sue the Fortune 500, they probably all have a Windows system somewhere. And sue Microsoft too. You'd better have a great investor before you start, because otherwise MS is going to have better attorneys than you.
You probably can't stop people from using Windows until you win, and maybe not then. Judges do not grant every legal motion.
In that case the cost involved would be the total replacement of the software. Of the various costs that you might bear, this is one of the easier ones to quantify. Liability costs can be much higher.
But, because of the open nature of the code, any infringements that do exist in the code would probably be moot, because the patent holders have not shown due diligence in protecting their patents
You are talking about the Doctrine of Laches. Look it up on the web. Generally it takes a 6-year delay of prosecution, although it has been won for less and lost for more. It's not easy to win a laches case. You can lose your shirt while doing so.
Well, in the U.S. it isn't necessary to figure out who is responsible for the infringement before you decide who to sue, because the patent title says that use is one of the infringing acts you can sue for. This is why there is even a question that users can be sued, we would just love to have a court rule that they can't be.Bruce
In Microsoft's case, we know that they have offered to indemnify their customers regarding patent risk in their software. So, even if MS has something to hide, the customer is theoretically off of the hook. In practice, the customer is potentially in the position of having to sue Microsoft in order to get them to make good on their indemnity. Even the Federal Government doesn't have much luck at suing MS, so the customer can only hope that MS pays without a fight.
Most other companies could not offer to pay their own indemnities, and many of them believe this is covered by their liability insurance when that may actually not be the case.
So, I think it still turns out that code that is open for all to view is better.Bruce
Imagine if my lawyer does some research and finds out that my technology potentially violates several patents. And then I tell him, don't tell me, I want to be protected.
This would be covered under attorney-client privilege. Neither you nor your attorney can be made to testify about what your attorney told you. However, what I tell you as a consultant rather than an attorney is not similarly protected. I have indeed told some customers that they should not see my findings because my findings were not favorable for a court case they were considering. What they didn't see, they would not have to testify about. They agreed, thanked me for being so careful regarding their interest, and happily paid me for a report I never delivered!
In this case, if you know you are infringing, the amount of damages you may have to pay goes up by more than three times. That's how the law works. It sure isn't OSRM's fault.
Yet it seems customers (perhaps Daimler/Chrysler, since they're now sensitive to the issue), would start demanding that proprietary software they buy gets audited for IP rights.
They could demand this, but what they would get would be indemnification or insurance. Their motivation is to reduce their legal risk, so either of these would be acceptable.
You really can never complete a patent search. Because of the vagueness of patent claims, it is difficult to say conclusively that a patent can't be asserted against a particular body of code.
It does not help that IBM, HP, and MS violate each others patents, because they are already cross-licensed with each other.
They can't enforce their patents against each other except in unusual cases. MS contract with HP allows MS to enforce against HP in regard to specific free software, as we learned in the infamous memo, but that memo is all that we know of the MS-HP cross license. We do not know of any similar carve-out that would allow HP to enforce against Microsoft.
You can sue anyone. Indeed, lawsuits are generally brought against a list of defendants and "John Does 1 through 1000", so that more defendants can be added later. So, suing all known kernel mailing list subscribers would not be impossible.
Because of the way patent law works, if you don't intend to license every patent you find, and that's insane because most of them are not inventions, it is best not to look.
Slashdot Mirror
I must confess to being surprised that syslog can't just be told to accept packets only from a list of IPs.
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
A lot of folks here wouldn't get the joke. :-)
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Never mind, you did. But I can't read it. It would be best to map the most used keys to the easiest ones to press. It's something like ETAMINSHRDLU... in English, there are papers about that on the net.
Bruce
Please publish your keying pattern.
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
You probably can't stop people from using Windows until you win, and maybe not then. Judges do not grant every legal motion.
Bruce
Bruce
You are talking about the Doctrine of Laches. Look it up on the web. Generally it takes a 6-year delay of prosecution, although it has been won for less and lost for more. It's not easy to win a laches case. You can lose your shirt while doing so.
Bruce
Well, in the U.S. it isn't necessary to figure out who is responsible for the infringement before you decide who to sue, because the patent title says that use is one of the infringing acts you can sue for. This is why there is even a question that users can be sued, we would just love to have a court rule that they can't be.Bruce
Most other companies could not offer to pay their own indemnities, and many of them believe this is covered by their liability insurance when that may actually not be the case.
So, I think it still turns out that code that is open for all to view is better.Bruce
This would be covered under attorney-client privilege. Neither you nor your attorney can be made to testify about what your attorney told you. However, what I tell you as a consultant rather than an attorney is not similarly protected. I have indeed told some customers that they should not see my findings because my findings were not favorable for a court case they were considering. What they didn't see, they would not have to testify about. They agreed, thanked me for being so careful regarding their interest, and happily paid me for a report I never delivered!
In this case, if you know you are infringing, the amount of damages you may have to pay goes up by more than three times. That's how the law works. It sure isn't OSRM's fault.
Bruce
They could demand this, but what they would get would be indemnification or insurance. Their motivation is to reduce their legal risk, so either of these would be acceptable.
You really can never complete a patent search. Because of the vagueness of patent claims, it is difficult to say conclusively that a patent can't be asserted against a particular body of code.
Bruce
They can't enforce their patents against each other except in unusual cases. MS contract with HP allows MS to enforce against HP in regard to specific free software, as we learned in the infamous memo, but that memo is all that we know of the MS-HP cross license. We do not know of any similar carve-out that would allow HP to enforce against Microsoft.
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Sorry about the comment title. Mozilla filled in the form field for me :-)