> Look at the broader picture. All that stuff out > there on sourceforge. Someone in some cubicle at > some business decides some obscure project is > useful, and starts using it.
What bearing does that have on buying Free Software from a respectable company such as Red Hat or IBM?
> If the code was open source though, who do you > go after?
Whoever made and distributed the unauthorized copies.
> The people profiting from it - the end user.
The end user is not liable unless he can be proven to have known about the copyright infringement in advance. Copyright regulates copying, not use.
> Makes absolute sense. In fact, it was the lack > of this sort of protection that has kept the > company I work for away from OSS.
Silly. The risk is exactly the same for closed-source.
> And the Sheriffs hear this as, "Guys, I want > $300,000 to bring your site back up." That IS > extortion.
What if he had said "Guys, I don't want to do this any more. I'm not bringing the site back up at all." Would that be extortion?
The fact is he had no obligation to run the site at all. If the sheriff wanted guaranteed hosting for his site he damn well could have contracted for it.
Bullshit. If the site had been for a private organization and they had asked the sheriff to arrest the guy they would have been told to take it to civil court even if there had been a written contract. Arresting and imprisoning someone over such a thing is an outrage.
> there's no real reason for them to always spin > every action as "bringing pain to linux and > linux users."
Yes there is. They would like to convince investors that they are going to "own Linux". There are people out there that believe that Linux is the "next big thing" and that if SCO can own it they will be the next Microsoft. These people do, of course, not understand that the Linux that can be owned is not the true Linux.
It won't affect cell phones and wireless networks. It will affect ham radio and other HF services. You will be able to receive the signals with a properly designed receiver. Whether or not you will be able to decrypt them will depend on how good a job the industry does on security.
The Solar System formed out of a single gas and dust cloud resulting from one or more supernovas. This cloud had a characteristic isotopic composition. The carbon these researchers have found has a different composition and so must have originated in a different dust cloud.
The GPL does not say that you must accept it before distributing. It says that by distributing you indicate acceptance. It is not at all clear that proclaiming your disbelief in the validity of the license while complying with its terms would constitute a violation.
Here is the relevant portion of the GPL:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
In order to revoke SCO's license the Nmap authors must show that SCO has copied, modified, sublicensed, or distributed Nmap other than as expressly provided under the GPL. Have they done so?
The Nmap authors must show that SCO has violated the terms under which they have licensed Nmap to SCO, not the terms under which someone else has licensed another work. The fact that the Nmap and Linux licenses happen to be identically worded is irrelevant. Violation of the Linux license is not violation of the Nmap license.
>...at least until a legislative change was made, > such as making ICANN into a government regulatory > agency similar to the FCC. Mind you, that might be > a good thing.
So you are looking forward to being required to get a license for your Web site and a permit for your mail server? I'm sure Verisign will be ready to expedite the application process for their customers.
My 7th Edition manuals (copyright 1979) indicate that crypt(1) used Enigma and crypt(3) used DES. I agree that something else must have been used early on, but I can't say for sure that it was Enigma.
Slashdot Mirror
Package: mozilla-firebird
Priority: optional
Section: web
Installed-Size: 30560
Maintainer: Eric Dorland
Architecture: i386
Version: 0.7-7
Non-infringing use. Fair use has to do with copyright.
> Pamela Jones, former editor of the popular
> Groklaw.net Web site...
Still editing as of half an hour ago.
> Look at the broader picture. All that stuff out
> there on sourceforge. Someone in some cubicle at
> some business decides some obscure project is
> useful, and starts using it.
What bearing does that have on buying Free Software from a respectable company such as Red Hat or IBM?
> If the code was open source though, who do you
> go after?
Whoever made and distributed the unauthorized copies.
> The people profiting from it - the end user.
The end user is not liable unless he can be proven to have known about the copyright infringement in advance. Copyright regulates copying, not use.
> Makes absolute sense. In fact, it was the lack
> of this sort of protection that has kept the
> company I work for away from OSS.
Silly. The risk is exactly the same for closed-source.
Being from Sault Ste. Marie Michigan, I learned to call them Canadian Soldiers.
> As reader Nekura2025 asks "Um, doesn't that apply
> to all digital cameras?"
Yes. So what? They can enforce it or not as they choose.
> And the Sheriffs hear this as, "Guys, I want
> $300,000 to bring your site back up." That IS
> extortion.
What if he had said "Guys, I don't want to do this any more. I'm not bringing the site back up at all." Would that be extortion?
The fact is he had no obligation to run the site at all. If the sheriff wanted guaranteed hosting for his site he damn well could have contracted for it.
Bullshit. If the site had been for a private organization and they had asked the sheriff to arrest the guy they would have been told to take it to civil court even if there had been a written contract. Arresting and imprisoning someone over such a thing is an outrage.
> How long do you think it'll be till spam is custom
> fitted to groups?
Targetted spam would be a distinct improvement.
> ...other easily imagined data mining opportunities
> could open the doors for information abuse and
> misinterpretation of individual ties.
Surely that's the whole point of Friendster and its competitors?
> There's nothing indicating that this is real. "An
> anonymous whistleblower"? What does that mean?
I take it to mean that Eric knows who it is but has agreed to keep the individual's identity secret.
> OSI know who the whistleblower is, but they claim
> they don't so they can't be forced to reveal his
> identity in court.
Where do you see such a claim?
It takes no effort to use such skills if you actually have them.
Illegal how?
> there's no real reason for them to always spin
> every action as "bringing pain to linux and
> linux users."
Yes there is. They would like to convince investors that they are going to "own Linux". There are people out there that believe that Linux is the "next big thing" and that if SCO can own it they will be the next Microsoft. These people do, of course, not understand that the Linux that can be owned is not the true Linux.
It won't affect cell phones and wireless networks. It will affect ham radio and other HF services. You will be able to receive the signals with a properly designed receiver. Whether or not you will be able to decrypt them will depend on how good a job the industry does on security.
The Solar System formed out of a single gas and dust cloud resulting from one or more supernovas. This cloud had a characteristic isotopic composition. The carbon these researchers have found has a different composition and so must have originated in a different dust cloud.
The chip is neat, but the article is very heavy on the hype. The only new thing here is putting everything including the antenna on one chip.
And conventional radars do not cost "millions of dollars".
The GPL does not say that you must accept it before distributing. It says that by distributing you indicate acceptance. It is not at all clear that proclaiming your disbelief in the validity of the license while complying with its terms would constitute a violation.
Here is the relevant portion of the GPL:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.
In order to revoke SCO's license the Nmap authors must show that SCO has copied, modified, sublicensed, or distributed Nmap
other than as expressly provided under the GPL. Have they done so?
The Nmap authors must show that SCO has violated the terms under which they have licensed Nmap to SCO, not the terms under which someone else has licensed another work. The fact that the Nmap and Linux licenses happen to be identically worded is irrelevant. Violation of the Linux license is not violation of the Nmap license.
> ...at least until a legislative change was made,
> such as making ICANN into a government regulatory
> agency similar to the FCC. Mind you, that might be
> a good thing.
So you are looking forward to being required to get a license for your Web site and a permit for your mail server? I'm sure Verisign will be ready to expedite the application process for their customers.
Get yourself a DVD player and some Legos and build a _big_ jukebox.
What ad-viewing?
My 7th Edition manuals (copyright 1979) indicate that crypt(1) used Enigma and crypt(3) used DES. I agree that something else must have been used early on, but I can't say for sure that it was Enigma.
Or the security.
No, because it requires me to install proprietary software which does _not_ contribute to the free functioning of the marketplace of ideas.