> What everyone seems to forget is that the code Mr. > Aivazian submitted might have nothing to do with > SCO's source.
No one is forgetting that. The point is that work that SCO contends could only have been done by IBM was in fact done by SCO employees with SCO's knowledge and approval.
> Most of the comments I have read so far speak of > A's contributions as being SCO's contributions: > "This article is interesting because it shows > that some of the code allegedly added by IBM was > in fact added by SCO itself."
Correct, if A was acting in his capacity as an SCO employee when he wrote the code.
The private key _isn't_ in the header. That's just the reporter garbling things in the usual reporter fashion. What is in the header is a message (probably the md5sum of the message body) encrypted with the domain private key. When you receive a message you look up the originating domain in dns, retrieve the public key, and decrypt the message. If it matches the md5sum of the message body you accept the message.
Slashdot Mirror
Zero-time should be the instant of the Big Bang. By the time 256 bit cpus are standard we should know that accurately.
What makes you think your phone is off just because you pushed the 'off' button?
Yes. I'm part of that 5%.
> In either case the mail message headers will
> indicate where is the source of the message...
Not true. Headers can be forged.
> What everyone seems to forget is that the code Mr.
> Aivazian submitted might have nothing to do with
> SCO's source.
No one is forgetting that. The point is that work that SCO contends could only have been done by IBM was in fact done by SCO employees with SCO's knowledge and approval.
> Most of the comments I have read so far speak of
> A's contributions as being SCO's contributions:
> "This article is interesting because it shows
> that some of the code allegedly added by IBM was
> in fact added by SCO itself."
Correct, if A was acting in his capacity as an SCO employee when he wrote the code.
You also assume (erroneously) that everyone uses either Gnome or KDE.
What is missing is what is always missing from newspaper articles: research, fact-checking and concern for accuracy.
> You're trying to argue that what you do is
> "better' than what a cracker does based solely on
> your "intentions."
So you don't consider what Linus Torvalds does 'better' than what a cracker does? Hint: hacking has nothing to do with breaking into computers.
> ...whole thing to implode like a cow patty.
We can only hope.
> ...hackers and other cyberterrorists...
So hackers are now not only to be equated with crackers but with "terrorists" as well?
> The definition of "financial gain" only applies
> to title 17 of the US Code.
It makes it clear that the authors of Title 17 considered exchange of copyrights to constitute "financial gain".
> It doesn't apply to the Constitution,...
The authors of Title 17 would not have used that definition had they not believed it to be Constitutional.
The question would be ruled irrelevant. The judge has no interest in a witness's opinion about the law.
> The Collaborative User Experience (CUE) team in
> IBM Research has spent nearly a decade studying
> email.
And they've almost reinvented Gnus.
> ...for Linux users the ability to click on a URL
> in an e-mail and have it actually launch in your
> default web browser (how novel).
"Novel"? I don't recall ever _not_ being able to do so with Gnus.
The proposal has nothing to do with IP numbers.
> Because most people don't want to read a 20 page
> description on how to make it work right.
People who can't (or won't) understand gnupg should not be running mail servers.
> My guess it will either be a script that calls
> gnupg...
So you just want a "point and grunt" interface? Those already exist.
> A large "trusted-mail encryption" database?
No. There is no need for such a database.
> I expect that some tools will be available to
> generate the keypair.
Why would you need special tools? What's wrong with Gnupg and PGP?
The private key _isn't_ in the header. That's just the reporter garbling things in the usual reporter fashion. What is in the header is a message (probably the md5sum of the message body) encrypted with the domain private key. When you receive a message you look up the originating domain in dns, retrieve the public key, and decrypt the message. If it matches the md5sum of the message body you accept the message.
> I think the only way to make this work is to put
> control in the hands of an international body.
Why does anyone need to be put "in control"?
> The text of the article has to be wrong - they say
> the private key is delivered as a message header!
> Hmm, not very private...
That just means that the reporter is ignorant and careless. In other words, the usual kind.
I would expect to get the public key from the DNS.
They can't fold. IBM is not going to drop it's counterclaims no matter what.
Looks to me like the author of that Web page does not understand the GPL.
Zero. It's a not for profit corporation.