The later post from Mandrake-cooker states that that one is not the problem (although you are correct in saying that if you required written authorisation from every contributor it would be a nightmare). What that paragraph does say is that you will require permission from the XFree86 Project (not each and every developer) if you wish to advertise.
The problem is the later three paragraphs. Paragraph 1 says that you must include 2 and 3. Paragraph 2 says you must include 3. 3 says you must include an acknowledgement.
Nothing to see here - I believe Mandrake are brewing a storm in a teacup. The crux of the license change is that if you redistribute source or binary code, then you must also distribute a notice (along with any other third party notices) that says some of your product was written by the XFree86 team.
What's wrong with that? You are still allowed to modify and redistribute the code to your heart's content, as long as you acknowledge the original authors. Wouldn't you want your work acknowledged?
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter
on
SCOoby Snacks
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I think this is a better way to look at it:
Suppose you write an essay about the history of bicycles. I publish an encyclopaedia, and ask for permission to publish your article in it, which you give me. This is added alongside my encyclopaedic article on bicycles.
Later, I write a book about bicycles, and include my article in it.
You claim, that since my article about bicycles was published with your essay about bicycles, that you own the encyclopaedia. Since you own the encyclopaedia, you also own my article. Since you own my article, you own my book.
Now you demand that I pay you for my book.
This is SCO's complaint against IBM in a nutshell.
Yah, I just changed the settings to my work address. As soon as they get Woosh working properly at Glenfield (it's not exactly the sticks, guys, come on!) I can ditch Jetstream.:)
The problem with this strategy is that if you *do* pay them, you legitimise their claim. That sort of thing is exactly what they want. It gives them ammunition to fire at IBM and others.
It's in your best interests *not* to pay: if they do eventually manage to prove that they own Linux, you're no worse off then than you are now. If they don't (which is almost certainly the outcome), then you've saved yourself the money.
I don't - I work for Vodafone.:) But in this fight at least, I think Vodafone, Telecom, TelstraClear and the other smaller companies really need to stick together.
I work for a telco in NZ; one of our partners received an email yesterday from SCO as a heads-up. I'm actively trying to contact our finance and legal departments to make sure we don't pay any invoices. We will be a target: there are only three big telcos here, they'll be sure to hit all of us.
Vote with the only thing that counts: your wallet. If consumers refuse to buy castrated devices, then they won't manufacture them. More important that whinging about it is spreading awareness, and a bit of discipline not to buy it no matter how shiny it looks!
Not everyone in the whole wide world has a broadband Internet connection. And not everyone has any hope of getting one any time soon.
I don't exactly live in the sticks (western suburbs of Sydney), but I think I'm going to be just about the first person in my area to get ADSL. The DSLAM has gone live within the last two weeks. About two thirds of the homes in my suburb have one cable system (from a possible two), and no-one further west has any. The homes that don't have cable won't be getting ADSL for a good few years either. ADSL here is also limited in speed -- 512k is about the most anyone can reasonably afford; 1.5M costs nearly $120/month.
The point is, HailStorm/.NET are not going to work over a modem. I don't see a big threat from them any time soon in Australia! Who the hell wants to pay $120/mth just to be able to type a document!!??
I think not; no more enforceable than any other ban on the internet.
In any case, how is it possible, even in principle, to discern the difference between encrypted traffic, and traffic in a protocol that you simply don't understand. Obviously there are going to be exceptions to this, but most types of binary data are going to be unintelligible unless you already know what kind of information they represent.
For that you would need to capture a beginning-to-end transmission, which implies that you're already under tight surveillance. In that case I don't think there's much you can do. However, even the more paranoid Americans would have to admit that governments can't be everywhere all the time.
Not at all; I work in the mobile telecommunications industry here in Australia & New Zealand. We both use GSM primarily, and I can tell you for a fact that the reason Motorola phones don't have a big market share is because they're simply not very good!
Compared to the Ericssons or the Nokias, they are a) big, b) ugly, and c) unreliable.
Having said that, my dad had a Motorola handbag-style analog for years and it was great. I guess Motorola lost their happy thoughts somewhere along the way.
If (or more likely when) content protection finally makes it into Windows, does MS have any plans to allow end users to protect their own data -- for privacy -- or will the tools necessary to create protected files only be available to big corporations or others with lots of money/clout?
Slashdot Mirror
The later post from Mandrake-cooker states that that one is not the problem (although you are correct in saying that if you required written authorisation from every contributor it would be a nightmare). What that paragraph does say is that you will require permission from the XFree86 Project (not each and every developer) if you wish to advertise.
The problem is the later three paragraphs. Paragraph 1 says that you must include 2 and 3. Paragraph 2 says you must include 3. 3 says you must include an acknowledgement.
Nothing to see here - I believe Mandrake are brewing a storm in a teacup. The crux of the license change is that if you redistribute source or binary code, then you must also distribute a notice (along with any other third party notices) that says some of your product was written by the XFree86 team.
What's wrong with that? You are still allowed to modify and redistribute the code to your heart's content, as long as you acknowledge the original authors. Wouldn't you want your work acknowledged?
Actually, I think this is a better way to look at it:
Suppose you write an essay about the history of bicycles. I publish an encyclopaedia, and ask for permission to publish your article in it, which you give me. This is added alongside my encyclopaedic article on bicycles.
Later, I write a book about bicycles, and include my article in it.
You claim, that since my article about bicycles was published with your essay about bicycles, that you own the encyclopaedia. Since you own the encyclopaedia, you also own my article. Since you own my article, you own my book.
Now you demand that I pay you for my book.
This is SCO's complaint against IBM in a nutshell.
Yah, I just changed the settings to my work address. As soon as they get Woosh working properly at Glenfield (it's not exactly the sticks, guys, come on!) I can ditch Jetstream. :)
The problem with this strategy is that if you *do* pay them, you legitimise their claim. That sort of thing is exactly what they want. It gives them ammunition to fire at IBM and others.
It's in your best interests *not* to pay: if they do eventually manage to prove that they own Linux, you're no worse off then than you are now. If they don't (which is almost certainly the outcome), then you've saved yourself the money.
I don't - I work for Vodafone. :) But in this fight at least, I think Vodafone, Telecom, TelstraClear and the other smaller companies really need to stick together.
I work for a telco in NZ; one of our partners received an email yesterday from SCO as a heads-up. I'm actively trying to contact our finance and legal departments to make sure we don't pay any invoices. We will be a target: there are only three big telcos here, they'll be sure to hit all of us.
I'd use a release version of Windows ;-)
Vote with the only thing that counts: your wallet. If consumers refuse to buy castrated devices, then they won't manufacture them. More important that whinging about it is spreading awareness, and a bit of discipline not to buy it no matter how shiny it looks!
I don't exactly live in the sticks (western suburbs of Sydney), but I think I'm going to be just about the first person in my area to get ADSL. The DSLAM has gone live within the last two weeks. About two thirds of the homes in my suburb have one cable system (from a possible two), and no-one further west has any. The homes that don't have cable won't be getting ADSL for a good few years either. ADSL here is also limited in speed -- 512k is about the most anyone can reasonably afford; 1.5M costs nearly $120/month.
The point is, HailStorm/.NET are not going to work over a modem. I don't see a big threat from them any time soon in Australia! Who the hell wants to pay $120/mth just to be able to type a document!!??
In any case, how is it possible, even in principle, to discern the difference between encrypted traffic, and traffic in a protocol that you simply don't understand. Obviously there are going to be exceptions to this, but most types of binary data are going to be unintelligible unless you already know what kind of information they represent.
For that you would need to capture a beginning-to-end transmission, which implies that you're already under tight surveillance. In that case I don't think there's much you can do. However, even the more paranoid Americans would have to admit that governments can't be everywhere all the time.
Compared to the Ericssons or the Nokias, they are a) big, b) ugly, and c) unreliable.
Having said that, my dad had a Motorola handbag-style analog for years and it was great. I guess Motorola lost their happy thoughts somewhere along the way.
If (or more likely when) content protection finally makes it into Windows, does MS have any plans to allow end users to protect their own data -- for privacy -- or will the tools necessary to create protected files only be available to big corporations or others with lots of money/clout?