I would have a problem with my posts really being in the public domain because I don't want to be misquoted. I'd like an open license that keeps someone from putting words in my mouth.
Over on Technocrat.net I state a posting copyright policy that explicitly allows me to make later use of the postings in something like Katz' book. I also use the policy to put content into Open Source. The posters got to see that policy before they made their posts. Given that this is probably not the last book of this kind, it might be a good idea for Slashdot to modify its posting policy and not simply rely on fair use without telling the poster what might happen. Get your plans out in the open!
The technocrat.net comment copyright policy is that you own your comment, and you also grant us a separate and independent copyright to your comment. So you can do whatever you want with it, and so can we. We have used this to release all of our 1999 comments under the open publication license, with none of the non-free options. I could have told you that you can't reach the authors after the fact:-) . It's not even possible with free software, no less slashdot.
It's really off-topic here, but OK. Software that I had written was in question. I write it as a contribution to the free software community exclusively. I do not want to be somebody else's unpaid employee, which is what I effectively am when somebody takes my software and does not return anything to the community or to me - does not distribute their modifications, does not distribute source code at all. That is the quid-pro-quo implicit in free software. If people want to use it in a way that is outside of the GPL, they are welcome to get a commercial license from me, so that there is some return to the community for the software - I'll take the money and use it for some free software cause. So, the point here is that I do not consider free software to be a gift. It's part of an exchange. Generally, that exchange means that I get more, and better, free software in return for my efforts. OK, your question didn't get moderated off-topic, so maybe my reply won't be. Thanks Bruce
Selective Availability was turned off during Desert Storm because the military didn't have enough of the special cryptographic GPS units and had to use consumer GPS units instead. Imagine some poor military officer hitting all of the boat stores and snapping up those things.
Selective availability can be defeated using differential GPS. I got a Trimble dual differential receiver for a good price at a West Marine clearance sale, and my GPS reads out to a few meters uncertainty rather than 100 meters. Broadband jamming requires a whole lot of power and is thus less effective. Signal strength at any one frequency = power / bandwidth. GPS jamming is easier because there are a number of discrete frequencies. Military GPS uses spread spectrum with an undisclosed spreading sequence, so you must cover all frequencies in a wide band. It also uses tricks like processing gain to recover a usable signal in the presence of a lot of noise.
Hm. Anyone have a simple explanation of processing gain? I'm not enough of an RF person.
No way would I have gotten Troll to change its license without the public outcry. They had no reason to do so except that the community didn't like it. The day they fixed their license I publicly endorsed it. Regarding Apple, that was even worse. ESR had gotten up on stage and endorsed it! That took major fire-fighting on my part to undo. And the most ironic thing about it is that even after Eric's endorsement, the Open Source Initiative board has still refused to certify the license even though I thought version 1.1, which addresses all of my criticism, was fine. So, Eric really should not have been up there endorsing version 1.0.
I can only profess to be neutral regarding Be using GPL software. I'm not out to encourage them to use it as you think I should be, I'd just as well see their customers use an Open Source OS. Thanks
I think you're over-reacting (but then half of Slashdot is). I didn't smear anyone. The article clearly stated that it was an accident they made unintentionaly. But the fact is, they were in infringement, and liable to various sorts of legal hassle if I were a different sort of person. Instead they got the incident written up and it's over.
Regardless of what you think of my motives and Open Source in general, I have the right to enforce my license, just as Be would if I wasn't complying with their license. That has nothing to do with whether the software is Open Source or not.
I don't freeload music and I don't want other people to do that. What made you think I did?
I am sick of us having to chase these things down. Publicity is an effective tool for stopping that. At no time did I threaten to sue Be, and I knew I didn't have to, but I don't know the same thing about the next guy who comes along. I must actively enforce my copyright or the next fellow will have a big loophole to step through.
Isn't there a BSD tar? If not, there are a number that you can commercially license. Getting a commercial license only seems fair if you're producing proprietary software.
I should have written more carefully: The object code was distributed, not source. Thus, I didn't have to "break" into anything, unless you consider the "strings" command and "nm" to be breaking in.
The question of whether or not disassembling someone else's code to look for an infringement is legal is an interesting one, though. I reject the analogy that it's like breaking into someone's home to look for stolen property. It's more like looking into the window of their car when they've parked it in front of your home.
Consider it this way: these are the ones I caught. Electric Fence is distributed with just about every OS other than Microsoft (and maybe even that) and not every one is complying with the license. I want to get my message to the ears of the people I haven't caught yet.
Yes, doing it in the aftermath might have been nicer, though. Maybe I screwed up.
If BeOS supports LD_PRELOAD in their run-time linker, you can put Electric Fence in its own dynamic library and set LD_PRELOAD in the environment to load it. You can even make a shell wrapper that does this and runs your executable.
A settlement was never in question. I'm not interested in prosecuting them and obviously they were going to fix the problem as soon as they heard of it.
I made it very clear they were attempting to comply with the LGPL and the problem was no doubt unintentional. Consider it shock treatment for other businesses that might be in the same situation. I now have to sign a release for Be, which I will do, so that they can continue to distribute released software. You don't want to get your company in this situation unnecessarily.
Actually, I called it in to them about the same time I posted the message. They called me back not long ago. But the point is that people who use free software in their commercial products have to be more careful.
I've heard from Be. They will solve the problem. They will be more careful in the future.
There is some software already going to the CD-presser and the retail channel, and I asked their attorney to write a release that will let them continue to distribute that. I will sign it.
I would not have put this in the public eye except that it's something that people have to be more careful about - be sure you know whose software you are using and what license it has - you ignore that at your peril. Thus, I publicized this example.
I quite delibrately made an example of them, so that other people would not make the same mistake. I made it very clear that they did not have bad intent, and they have already promised to fix the problem. Companies have to exercise due dilligence on the software that they use.
Slashdot Mirror
I think in the long run it might prove less expensive for it to have been a U.S. Space Station. Those extra shuttle flights and delays add up.
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
The technocrat.net comment copyright policy is that you own your comment, and you also grant us a separate and independent copyright to your comment. So you can do whatever you want with it, and so can we. We have used this to release all of our 1999 comments under the open publication license, with none of the non-free options. I could have told you that you can't reach the authors after the fact :-) . It's not even possible with free software, no less slashdot.
It's really off-topic here, but OK. Software that I had written was in question. I write it as a contribution to the free software community exclusively. I do not want to be somebody else's unpaid employee, which is what I effectively am when somebody takes my software and does not return anything to the community or to me - does not distribute their modifications, does not distribute source code at all. That is the quid-pro-quo implicit in free software. If people want to use it in a way that is outside of the GPL, they are welcome to get a commercial license from me, so that there is some return to the community for the software - I'll take the money and use it for some free software cause. So, the point here is that I do not consider free software to be a gift. It's part of an exchange. Generally, that exchange means that I get more, and better, free software in return for my efforts. OK, your question didn't get moderated off-topic, so maybe my reply won't be. Thanks Bruce
Selective availability can be defeated using differential GPS. I got a Trimble dual differential receiver for a good price at a West Marine clearance sale, and my GPS reads out to a few meters uncertainty rather than 100 meters. Broadband jamming requires a whole lot of power and is thus less effective. Signal strength at any one frequency = power / bandwidth. GPS jamming is easier because there are a number of discrete frequencies. Military GPS uses spread spectrum with an undisclosed spreading sequence, so you must cover all frequencies in a wide band. It also uses tricks like processing gain to recover a usable signal in the presence of a lot of noise.
Hm. Anyone have a simple explanation of processing gain? I'm not enough of an RF person.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
No way would I have gotten Troll to change its license without the public outcry. They had no reason to do so except that the community didn't like it. The day they fixed their license I publicly endorsed it. Regarding Apple, that was even worse. ESR had gotten up on stage and endorsed it! That took major fire-fighting on my part to undo. And the most ironic thing about it is that even after Eric's endorsement, the Open Source Initiative board has still refused to certify the license even though I thought version 1.1, which addresses all of my criticism, was fine. So, Eric really should not have been up there endorsing version 1.0 .
I can only profess to be neutral regarding Be using GPL software. I'm not out to encourage them to use it as you think I should be, I'd just as well see their customers use an Open Source OS. Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
I don't freeload music and I don't want other people to do that. What made you think I did?
I am sick of us having to chase these things down. Publicity is an effective tool for stopping that. At no time did I threaten to sue Be, and I knew I didn't have to, but I don't know the same thing about the next guy who comes along. I must actively enforce my copyright or the next fellow will have a big loophole to step through.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
The question of whether or not disassembling someone else's code to look for an infringement is legal is an interesting one, though. I reject the analogy that it's like breaking into someone's home to look for stolen property. It's more like looking into the window of their car when they've parked it in front of your home.
Thanks
Bruce
You might have that one backwards, actually.
Bruce
Yes, doing it in the aftermath might have been nicer, though. Maybe I screwed up.
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
My copyright string is in the .o file, with my name in it.
Hm. Am I allowed to reverse engineer copyrighted code in order to find evidence of a copyright violation? :-)
Thanks
Bruce
There is some software already going to the CD-presser and the retail channel, and I asked their attorney to write a release that will let them continue to distribute that. I will sign it.
I would not have put this in the public eye except that it's something that people have to be more careful about - be sure you know whose software you are using and what license it has - you ignore that at your peril. Thus, I publicized this example.
Thanks
Bruce
I quite delibrately made an example of them, so that other people would not make the same mistake. I made it very clear that they did not have bad intent, and they have already promised to fix the problem. Companies have to exercise due dilligence on the software that they use.
Thanks
Bruce
My copyright string is embedded in their software, with my name in it.