> I know I'm in a minority here on serial ports...
You are undoubtedly in a minority, but not a minority of one. I was not entirely joking. I prefer to have at least two serial ports. I was surprised and pleased to learn that the machine as even one (not that I can afford such a thing anyway).
> You shoud try digging before making > unsubstantiated claims.
You should try paying attention.
> They say quite explicitly on the download page > (did you read the page beyond the list of the > most common binaries?) that the source code is > available...
That's BOINC. I was referring to the LIGO client. Two different pieces of software.
>...clearly indicates distribution under GPL.
No. It clearly indicates that BOINC is distributed under the LGPL. That's why LIGO (among others) can link closed-source clients to it.
> And how exactly do you verify that it is coming > from signed binaries from the site?
Ok, I'll bite. How exactly do they verify that it is coming from signed binaries from the site? They must be able to or there would be no point in keeping the client source secret, right?
> The real way, and this is the way that SETI at > el do it, is to assign duplicate data > occasionally and randomly and pick out any > results that aren't the same.
What is the excuse for keeping the client source secret if they cannot authenticate the clients anyway? Why is it bad for people to compile clients from source downloaded from the site but ok for them to use patched binaries or totally fake clients?
>...in this case there's something to be said for > a manufacturer locking out shitty peripherals so > they don't kill your system. It saves them one > more support headache.
Nonsense. This way they will get a call every time someone tries to use an unapproved card. Without this silliness they would only get called when someone used an unapproved device _and_ has a problem. In both cases the answer is "We don't support that card".
> Because Ultracade won't be able to use the > trademark if it's tied to someone else's > copyrighted material unless that, too, is part > of the agreement.
If the owner of the copyright blocks them from using the trademark it will lapse. Trademarks are not like copyrights. You must use them or lose them.
If what he is trying to register as a trademark is truly the MAME logo and if the MAME authors have been using it publically for years his application should be rejected. The MAME authors (and anyone else who has been using the logo) should file objections, attaching evidence of their use. Go to the USPTO Web site to learn how. You do not have to have a lawyer, though if you wish to spend the money to consult one you are likely to get better results.
The MAME authors might want to contact some of the Free Software support organizations for legal assistance.
> Ok, ok, that's, I'm sure, not the proper term as > applied to trademark law. But still, doesn't the > principle of prior-use also carry weight in > trademark law?
Yes. The fact that MAME has been in widespread use for years means that the simple string of letters "MAME" will not infringe his trademark. He will only be able to enforce it against marks that are nearly identical to the one he is trying to register.
Everyone who is distributing anything labeled MAME should file objections. Go to the USPTO Web site to learn how. You do not need a lawyer.
> Wouldn't it just require the MAME authors to > step up and object to the copyright > registration?
It's a trademark, not a copyright. And, yes, the MAME authors can and should object, as can and should anyone who has sold or otherwise distributed MAME or anything labeled MAME.
Odds are that one of your users has "sally5" as his password and a directory named "Sally" in $HOME. The attacker will crack his account and then start trying for privilege escalation. Maybe he won't find it...
Why do you need "always on" for just email? I've found a mail server using my ISP as a smarthost plus dial on demand adequate for email and news for years. I only went to DSL because it provides faster Web access and doesn't tie up my phone line while I'm reading Slashdot (and it's only $12/month more than dialup).
> The only reason the claim to ownership is there > is so that if your machine is the one that > analyzes the parcel of data that reveals Gravity > Waves, you can't take credit away from the > Project by claiming that you discovered it.
Nonsense. Even if a single parcel was able to "reveal gravity waves" they would be the first to know. The results must be sent back to them for comparison with other results before anything can be "revealed".
> Also, that would probably make it illegal to > alter the data, which would render the @home > process illegal.
If they are relying on toothless threats of breach of contract litigation to assure data integrity their project is worthless.
> The same goes for client source code, if the > programs were modify so that the data was > analyzed differently than everyone else's, it > would be useless to compare to the others.
If they are relying on secrecy of source to assure the integrity of their client binaries they are in for a rude surprise. People patch binaries all the time. It would be quite straightforward to release the client source under the GPL but accept uploads only from signed binaries downloaded from their site.
Hmm. Developing a dbms would be very expensive. So would buying one. The point is to sell hardware, not software. what was the name of that Open Source DBMS again?
This is clear. Your fraudulent dummy corporations would not only not protect you, they'd get you in worse trouble. Look up "piercing the corporate veil".
> If one can create a new company as easily as one > creates a new domain name, some interesting (and > some not so pleasant) things might occur.
It doesn't work that way. There is more to creating a corporation that the courts will recognize than merely filling out some forms.
Slashdot Mirror
> ...but if white noise creates enough difference
> to get a copyright...
"Difference" is not sufficient.
> ...the companies didnt have to OWN the
> information they collected, which is an extremely
> strange concept if you think about it.
No one OWNS information.
> If I were to make my own MP3 silent tune of
> exactly the same length and put it online, would
> I be infringing their copyright?
No.
a) The work contains no protected elements.
b) Independent invention is a complete defense.
Verification isn't the only way to authenticate. You can deliver the fingerprint via some out-of-band channel such as snail-mail.
> I know I'm in a minority here on serial ports...
You are undoubtedly in a minority, but not a minority of one. I was not entirely joking. I prefer to have at least two serial ports. I was surprised and pleased to learn that the machine as even one (not that I can afford such a thing anyway).
...how many serial ports does it have?
> You shoud try digging before making
...clearly indicates distribution under GPL.
> unsubstantiated claims.
You should try paying attention.
> They say quite explicitly on the download page
> (did you read the page beyond the list of the
> most common binaries?) that the source code is
> available...
That's BOINC. I was referring to the LIGO client. Two different pieces of software.
>
No. It clearly indicates that BOINC is distributed under the LGPL. That's why LIGO (among others) can link closed-source clients to it.
> And how exactly do you verify that it is coming
> from signed binaries from the site?
Ok, I'll bite. How exactly do they verify that it is coming from signed binaries from the site? They must be able to or there would be no point in keeping the client source secret, right?
> The real way, and this is the way that SETI at
> el do it, is to assign duplicate data
> occasionally and randomly and pick out any
> results that aren't the same.
What is the excuse for keeping the client source secret if they cannot authenticate the clients anyway? Why is it bad for people to compile clients from source downloaded from the site but ok for them to use patched binaries or totally fake clients?
It was a *joke*, son.
It doesn't "blow the atmosphere away". It wrecks the ozone layer and changes the climate.
> ...in this case there's something to be said for
> a manufacturer locking out shitty peripherals so
> they don't kill your system. It saves them one
> more support headache.
Nonsense. This way they will get a call every time someone tries to use an unapproved card. Without this silliness they would only get called when someone used an unapproved device _and_ has a problem. In both cases the answer is "We don't support that card".
> Because Ultracade won't be able to use the
> trademark if it's tied to someone else's
> copyrighted material unless that, too, is part
> of the agreement.
If the owner of the copyright blocks them from using the trademark it will lapse. Trademarks are not like copyrights. You must use them or lose them.
If what he is trying to register as a trademark is truly the MAME logo and if the MAME authors have been using it publically for years his application should be rejected. The MAME authors (and anyone else who has been using the logo) should file objections, attaching evidence of their use. Go to the USPTO Web site to learn how. You do not have to have a lawyer, though if you wish to spend the money to consult one you are likely to get better results.
The MAME authors might want to contact some of the Free Software support organizations for legal assistance.
> Ok, ok, that's, I'm sure, not the proper term as
> applied to trademark law. But still, doesn't the
> principle of prior-use also carry weight in
> trademark law?
Yes. The fact that MAME has been in widespread use for years means that the simple string of letters "MAME" will not infringe his trademark. He will only be able to enforce it against marks that are nearly identical to the one he is trying to register.
Everyone who is distributing anything labeled MAME should file objections. Go to the USPTO Web site to learn how. You do not need a lawyer.
> Wouldn't it just require the MAME authors to
> step up and object to the copyright
> registration?
It's a trademark, not a copyright. And, yes, the MAME authors can and should object, as can and should anyone who has sold or otherwise distributed MAME or anything labeled MAME.
Odds are that one of your users has "sally5" as his password and a directory named "Sally" in $HOME. The attacker will crack his account and then start trying for privilege escalation. Maybe he won't find it...
> What do you use?
I use Privoxy. Either it blocks all popups or I never visit sites that have them (I'd certainly never go back to such a site).
Why do you need "always on" for just email? I've found a mail server using my ISP as a smarthost plus dial on demand adequate for email and news for years. I only went to DSL because it provides faster Web access and doesn't tie up my phone line while I'm reading Slashdot (and it's only $12/month more than dialup).
> The only reason the claim to ownership is there
> is so that if your machine is the one that
> analyzes the parcel of data that reveals Gravity
> Waves, you can't take credit away from the
> Project by claiming that you discovered it.
Nonsense. Even if a single parcel was able to "reveal gravity waves" they would be the first to know. The results must be sent back to them for comparison with other results before anything can be "revealed".
> Also, that would probably make it illegal to
> alter the data, which would render the @home
> process illegal.
If they are relying on toothless threats of breach of contract litigation to assure data integrity their project is worthless.
> The same goes for client source code, if the
> programs were modify so that the data was
> analyzed differently than everyone else's, it
> would be useless to compare to the others.
If they are relying on secrecy of source to assure the integrity of their client binaries they are in for a rude surprise. People patch binaries all the time. It would be quite straightforward to release the client source under the GPL but accept uploads only from signed binaries downloaded from their site.
> if it had happened from a distance of 10 light
> years away, we would be talking about mass
> extinction here on earth.
Only if it had hit the side opposite the one we are on.
No thanks. I don't donate to people who claim to own data.
They also make no mention of license terms or client source availability.
> You're as likely to find a landline in a college
> dorm as you're an old typewriter...
Well, I'm definitely not an old typewriter...
> Maybe that's why Sun is hinting at its own db?
Hmm. Developing a dbms would be very expensive. So would buying one. The point is to sell hardware, not software. what was the name of that Open Source DBMS again?
> To most people using those databases it is all
> about service and services as well as custom
> built frontends.
Service and custom front-ends are incompatible with Free Software how?
I suspect that many organizations could add the features they need to PostgreSQL for less than what they pay Oracle each year.
> What does Oracle's stubbornness imply for the
> industry as a whole, with multicore chips coming
> to the fore so strongly?"
PostgreSQL is coming along nicely...
> If you want to support the Open-Source Software
> movement but don't live in a PayPal-accepted
> country, what are your alternatives?"
Pick a developer (preferably not a big-name one) and mail him a check or money order.
> IANAL
This is clear. Your fraudulent dummy corporations would not only not protect you, they'd get you in worse trouble. Look up "piercing the corporate veil".
> If one can create a new company as easily as one
> creates a new domain name, some interesting (and
> some not so pleasant) things might occur.
It doesn't work that way. There is more to creating a corporation that the courts will recognize than merely filling out some forms.