1: SCO approaches IBM to get bought 2: IBM refuses 3: SCO sues IBM for... whatever 4: IBM complains but does not want to pay 5: SCO targets more and more Linux, which is a good way to pressure IBM 6: IBM still refuses, people ask where is the evidence 7: SCO does not want to show obvious evidence
It is in SCO's best interest to not say what's supposedly copied in Linux, because they want to get bought by IBM; they hope that:
8: IBM seeing its Linux business threatened buys SCO, because it's going to cost them less than a lawsuit (that they might loose) and a few quarters worth of sales.
You see, we need a balance between security and freedom. Obviously the previous balance wasn't good enough because Downtown Manhattan and the Pentagon were given a serious blow. Civil liberties are not ENDOWED rights, they need to be restricted to keep people safe, in times such as these. It is not A BORN right to be allowed to drive in downtown manhattan. Privacy is not a BORN right... it's a civil liberty.
You know what ?
Civil liberties are endowed rights in democratic countries.
Does making a law prevent terrorists from being terrorists ? Terrorists break the law anyway so why make a law that restricts the civil liberties ?
Look a what's happening now: "Terrorists use encryption so we'll ban encryption" was one of the first ones. "Terrorists use gambling internet sites so we must ban them " was next.
Recently "Al Jazeera is carying crypted messages from Bin Laden so we must stop showing their images" : isn't is called censorship in really democratic countries?
Outlawing encryption limits the rights of the good citizens, but does not prevent terrorists from using it.
Not showing Al Jazeera images is preventing the people in the US from having a different opinion of the propaganda that's going on now on your TVs, but certainly does not prevent terrorists to watch Al Jazeera on satelite TV (you know, they broadcast in the US too).
The government use terrorists as an excuse to limit civil rights; this is really unacceptable.
There is no balance to achieve. (anyone want to ban guns here to reduce criminality ?)
Open source is not available to commercial companies. The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source.
What ?
* Open source is not GPL: you can use open source (as Microsoft does with BSD code) without open sourcing your sotfware.
* Even with the GPL, you dont make "the rest of your software" open source but only derivatives (with the usual no-so-clear line between derivatives and linked s/w). The phrase really reads as: "if we make only one open-sourced software, we will have to give all our softwares for free (windows xxx, office and others)".
Their strategy (FUD on the whole open-source software) seems to be not only recurrent but more and more disinformative than ever (see Allchin's statements...)
The worst part is that most people believe them without checking their statements:-(
2. Does DeCSS have both speech and non-speech elements?
No. DeCSS itself has no non-speech elements. It is a set of instructions written in a specific professional language that expresses ideas to those who can read that language. Computer programmers and scientists communicate using programming languages because these languages are an unambiguous mode of expression.
Translation: an algorithm is a form of speech.
But AFAIK, DeCSS (as many programs) has 2 parts: the algorithm and the parameters (the decoding key). Are the parameters a form of speech ? I wouldn't think so.
Just like for pay-tv descramblers (eg. Nagra based), you can distribute the program that does the decoding, but you are not supposed to distribute the specific keys for the channels you want to see (Premiere, Canal+) ?
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.
This declaration is supposed to be our ideal as a responsible society. Now of course you might want to disagree, but remember that "the disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts" as the declaration reads in the preamble.
Take medical records. If you're in an accident, do you want an ambulance driver to be able to access your medical records online? I think you do.
I would prefer that the ambulance driver focuses on the driving rather than trying to access my medical record online.
At least I would have a better chance to be alive when the ambulance arrives in the hospital;-)
I don't understand why people criticise Echelon all the time. Prima Facie, it may appear insidious and dangerous, but really it is just a branch of the modern military, and a legitimate form of defense.
I think the point there is not that Echelon is used for military purposes, but that it can be used for non-military purposes.
It is just as saying that a thing is good because is as good uses (read thing=gun or whatever controversial topic). It can be bad is you misuse it.
At the end of the day, Echelon is controlled by our democratic governments, and the information it reveals is used responsibly. We very rarely give information out to companies or the public, unlike the french.
I wouldn't be so sure about that: it is well known that Echelon was used to spy on French companies to help US companies to win businesses. So please be moderate on theese:-|
And yes, as long as such a system is used by democratic government, this should not be a problem.
But you know, the NSA (or any agency) sometimes does things that the government does not approve (officially). And you can also doubt that a government would no be tempted by using such systems to help its citizens (even if is seems not moral for other countries).
To get back to the "good use - bad use" that I was mentionning, Echelon is as bad (as good) as the government that uses it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure the RIAA is behind this
I think that's exactly what SCO wants:
... whatever
:-(
1: SCO approaches IBM to get bought
2: IBM refuses
3: SCO sues IBM for
4: IBM complains but does not want to pay
5: SCO targets more and more Linux, which is a good way to pressure IBM
6: IBM still refuses, people ask where is the evidence
7: SCO does not want to show obvious evidence
It is in SCO's best interest to not say what's supposedly copied in Linux, because they want to get bought by IBM; they hope that:
8: IBM seeing its Linux business threatened buys SCO, because it's going to cost them less than a lawsuit (that they might loose) and a few quarters worth of sales.
The longer this story lasts, the best for SCO
Any "trois etoiles chef" amongst us ?
You know what ?
Civil liberties are endowed rights in democratic countries. Does making a law prevent terrorists from being terrorists ? Terrorists break the law anyway so why make a law that restricts the civil liberties ?
Look a what's happening now: "Terrorists use encryption so we'll ban encryption" was one of the first ones. "Terrorists use gambling internet sites so we must ban them " was next. Recently "Al Jazeera is carying crypted messages from Bin Laden so we must stop showing their images" : isn't is called censorship in really democratic countries?
Outlawing encryption limits the rights of the good citizens, but does not prevent terrorists from using it. Not showing Al Jazeera images is preventing the people in the US from having a different opinion of the propaganda that's going on now on your TVs, but certainly does not prevent terrorists to watch Al Jazeera on satelite TV (you know, they broadcast in the US too).
The government use terrorists as an excuse to limit civil rights; this is really unacceptable. There is no balance to achieve. (anyone want to ban guns here to reduce criminality ?)
See how Microsoft tries to mix all the concepts:
Open source is not available to commercial companies. The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source.
What ?
* Open source is not GPL: you can use open source (as Microsoft does with BSD code) without open sourcing your sotfware.
* Even with the GPL, you dont make "the rest of your software" open source but only derivatives (with the usual no-so-clear line between derivatives and linked s/w). The phrase really reads as: "if we make only one open-sourced software, we will have to give all our softwares for free (windows xxx, office and others)".
Their strategy (FUD on the whole open-source software) seems to be not only recurrent but more and more disinformative than ever (see Allchin's statements...)
The worst part is that most people believe them without checking their statements :-(
Actually, soap is not the best lubricant to enter through a backdoor ;-)
2. Does DeCSS have both speech and non-speech elements?
No. DeCSS itself has no non-speech elements. It is a set of instructions written in a specific professional language that expresses ideas to those who can read that language. Computer programmers and scientists communicate using programming languages because these languages are an unambiguous mode of expression.
Translation: an algorithm is a form of speech.
But AFAIK, DeCSS (as many programs) has 2 parts: the algorithm and the parameters (the decoding key). Are the parameters a form of speech ? I wouldn't think so.
Just like for pay-tv descramblers (eg. Nagra based), you can distribute the program that does the decoding, but you are not supposed to distribute the specific keys for the channels you want to see (Premiere, Canal+) ?
Just my $0.02
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads :
This declaration is supposed to be our ideal as a responsible society. Now of course you might want to disagree, but remember that "the disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts" as the declaration reads in the preamble.
Take medical records. If you're in an accident, do you want an ambulance driver to be able to access your medical records online? I think you do.
I would prefer that the ambulance driver focuses on the driving rather than trying to access my medical record online. At least I would have a better chance to be alive when the ambulance arrives in the hospital ;-)
I think the point there is not that Echelon is used for military purposes, but that it can be used for non-military purposes. It is just as saying that a thing is good because is as good uses (read thing=gun or whatever controversial topic). It can be bad is you misuse it.
I wouldn't be so sure about that: it is well known that Echelon was used to spy on French companies to help US companies to win businesses. So please be moderate on theese :-|
And yes, as long as such a system is used by democratic government, this should not be a problem. But you know, the NSA (or any agency) sometimes does things that the government does not approve (officially). And you can also doubt that a government would no be tempted by using such systems to help its citizens (even if is seems not moral for other countries).
To get back to the "good use - bad use" that I was mentionning, Echelon is as bad (as good) as the government that uses it.