> The XXXXX Internet Acceptable Use Policy > prohibits the transmission of copyrighted > material over our IP network, or the storage of > copyrighted material on our servers.
Idiots. Everything you write is automatically copyrighted the instant you write it. They are forbidding you to use their services at all.
Why the Xs? Are you ashamed to say who your ISP is?
> Sooner or later somebody is going to take apart > the program and start change the math involved > which would increase the advantage but absolutly > kill reproducability.
And they are going to do that to the present closed source client. Nothing about releasing the client source would require them to accept results from clients not downloaded from their site.
> This advisory came 4 months late. While I'm glad > this person contacted Seti first before releasing > the advisory, I cannot believe that it took them > two months to fix a bufer overflow!
> Unless I specify otherwise, any communication I > send you is intended for you, and you only.
Bullshit. Unless I entered into a contract with you to keep the communication secret I am free to reveal its contents to whomever I please.
> If you forward it to someone else, or, say, post > it online for all to read, I can sue you.
Only for copyright infringement. Do you register the copyrights on all your communications?
> It's quite similar to how you may not > tape-record a conversation without my > permission.
Very similar: that isn't true either.
> MS could quite easily slap him with a > cease-and-desist letter...
Anyone can slap anyone with a cease-and-desist letter. I could send you one demanding that you do some research before posting to Slashdot. And you could ignore it.
Actually, it doesn't. The MS employee who says "it's ok" must be one who is authorized to say that, or at least one who a reasonable person would expect to be so authorized (such as the guy who gave the OP his CDs).
> As far as the law cares, MS is _ONE_ person.
You figure that if the janitor at the local MS sales office says it's ok you can start selling copies of Microsoft Office out of your dorm room?
> Yes, in a rational world, corporations would be > held to the same standards as everyone else.
In this case they are. No copyright holder is bound by the restrictions in his own license. It's perfectly legal to license software to different people under different terms. It's also perfectly legal to distribute software under no license at all.
They are being stupid and lazy by distributing CDs labeled "Illegal without a license" and then not providing licenses, though. As others noted, anyone who accepts those CDs and then gets audited could be sued. On the other hand, if they sued and lost it would blow a big hole in their claim that no one is ever in legal possession of Microsoft software without a license.
I didn't say he made any money from the cotton gin. I said he became wealthy and famous. I don't think he would have gotten that $134,000 musket contract as just another 33 year old Yale graduate with big ideas.
> One of the most significant inventions of the > nineteenth century was the cotton gin. Perhaps it > was a harbinger of things to come that the > intellectual property content of the cotton gin > was never effectively protected from copiers.
Yet the invention was wildly successful and the inventor became wealthy and famous. This implies that the inventor's monopoly need not be perfect.
> Ownership of ideas is far less easily protected.
Ownership of ideas is not protected at all. Copyrights protect expressions of ideas while patents protect inventions: configurations of matter.
> In the case of an idea, however, we have chosen > to strike a different balance in recognition of > the chaos that could follow from having to trace > back all the thoughts implicit in one's current > undertaking and pay a royalty to the originator > of each one.
Again the confounding of ideas and inventions.
> So rather than adopting that obviously > principled but unworkable approach,
I see nothing obvious about the notion that ownership of ideas should be protected. Quite the contrary.
> Still sure you want to war-dial them? > (Unless you do something clever to hide your > tracks, which might bring the RIAA and the phone > company down on you.)
It's not illegal for each of 100,000 people to call the number once a day.
> "If there is an important security software that > we need urgently, for example, we are more likely > to buy it, than spend time deciding whether we > should develop it in India in open source," > Shourie added.
It being completely inconceivable to him that he might be able to _buy_ Free Software...
> Selling most GPL'd games would be illegal anyway > if you wanted to make any sort of profit...
This is not true. You may sell GPL software for whatever the market will bear. You are merely required to license the software to your customers under the terms of the GPL.
> This is important because it says whether or not > programming can be regulated, in that, is the > programmer competent? As my Software Engineering > professor pointed out, programming is the only > life-or-death profession which is unregulated. > How do you feel about your antilock breaks?
You evidently labor under the delusion that corporations are required to employ licensed engineers to design such things as automobiles.
> I'd love to see Texas lay the law down on the > clueless, and license those of us that really do > this for a living. Then all those waiters and such > can go back to doing things they can do well.
What makes you think they'd give you a license? Have you passed the EIT test, spent N years working under the "supervision" of a registered engineer, and past the licensing test?
> The converse, of course, is to claim that any duff > who can pass courses, give the answers that the > professor wants to hear, and make it to class on > time on days when there is an exam can be an > engineer.
Not sufficent in Texas. He must also spend years kissing the ass of of someone who already has the piece of paper granting him permission to call himself an engineer.
> However, there are layers and layers of smug > 'achivers' out there who went through their > intellectual hazing, and they'll be damned if > they're gonna let anybody get into 'the system' > who hasn't been similarly hazed.
Not as long as there is money to be made doing it.
> Someone with a computer engineering degree from a > 4 year university is an accredited engineer. > Someone with an IS, IT, MIS, ITM degree is _not_ > an engineer. Sorry but if you wanted to be an > engineer, you should have studied engineering.
But the state of Texas says that you are not an engineer unless you have a piece of paper from them saying so no matter what you have studied or how many degrees you have.
Re:The meaning of Profeesional Engineer in Texas
on
Are Programmers Engineers?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
> If you are a licensed Professional Engineer (PE) > in the state of Texas, you can be held liable > for any damages on a project.
You are liable for your negligence whether you are licensed or not.
> How many 'software' engineers in Texas are > willing to put their reputations on the line > (and stand up to civil lawsuits) if they have > made a coding mistake?
How many software engineers are willing to work as "associates" for low wages for years while the senior partners take all the credit and all the money in hopes of eventually being granted the recommendation they must have in order to get a license?
Slashdot Mirror
> The article also discusses how Linux is pushing
> for greater acceptability
Linux is neither a person nor an organization. It can't "push" for anything.
> The XXXXX Internet Acceptable Use Policy
> prohibits the transmission of copyrighted
> material over our IP network, or the storage of
> copyrighted material on our servers.
Idiots. Everything you write is automatically copyrighted the instant you write it. They are forbidding you to use their services at all.
Why the Xs? Are you ashamed to say who your ISP is?
> Connotation is such a funny thing. In this
> context, "use" and "exploit" would mean
> basically the same thing...
They do not mean exactly the same thing. In this context the difference is important.
> Maybe that sort of thinking is just inherent to
> lawyers.
Precise use of language is inherent to lawyers. You might want to look up the meaning of "exploit". It isn't necessarily a dirty word.
> ...this as illegal(internet provider would be
> international, so only international trade laws
> would be used...
This is utter nonsense.
> It was April 12, 1994, before e-mail even existed
> in its current form.
What planet is this guy from?
I don't remember. The name alone is enough to drive me away. What kind of an illiterate would name his business "Yahoo!"?
> Sooner or later somebody is going to take apart
> the program and start change the math involved
> which would increase the advantage but absolutly
> kill reproducability.
And they are going to do that to the present closed source client. Nothing about releasing the client source would require them to accept results from clients not downloaded from their site.
> This advisory came 4 months late. While I'm glad
> this person contacted Seti first before releasing
> the advisory, I cannot believe that it took them
> two months to fix a bufer overflow!
Shrug. Closed source: what do you expect?
Extradition has nothing to do with civil lawsuits.
> IANAL
This is clear.
> Unless I specify otherwise, any communication I
> send you is intended for you, and you only.
Bullshit. Unless I entered into a contract with you to keep the communication secret I am free to reveal its contents to whomever I please.
> If you forward it to someone else, or, say, post
> it online for all to read, I can sue you.
Only for copyright infringement. Do you register the copyrights on all your communications?
> It's quite similar to how you may not
> tape-record a conversation without my
> permission.
Very similar: that isn't true either.
> MS could quite easily slap him with a
> cease-and-desist letter...
Anyone can slap anyone with a cease-and-desist letter. I could send you one demanding that you do some research before posting to Slashdot. And you could ignore it.
> Actually, (IANAL-RU?), it does.
Actually, it doesn't. The MS employee who says "it's ok" must be one who is authorized to say that, or at least one who a reasonable person would expect to be so authorized (such as the guy who gave the OP his CDs).
> As far as the law cares, MS is _ONE_ person.
You figure that if the janitor at the local MS sales office says it's ok you can start selling copies of Microsoft Office out of your dorm room?
> Yes, in a rational world, corporations would be
> held to the same standards as everyone else.
In this case they are. No copyright holder is bound by the restrictions in his own license. It's perfectly legal to license software to different people under different terms. It's also perfectly legal to distribute software under no license at all.
They are being stupid and lazy by distributing CDs labeled "Illegal without a license" and then not providing licenses, though. As others noted, anyone who accepts those CDs and then gets audited could be sued. On the other hand, if they sued and lost it would blow a big hole in their claim that no one is ever in legal possession of Microsoft software without a license.
I didn't say he made any money from the cotton gin. I said he became wealthy and famous. I don't think he would have gotten that $134,000 musket contract as just another 33 year old Yale graduate with big ideas.
> One of the most significant inventions of the
> nineteenth century was the cotton gin. Perhaps it
> was a harbinger of things to come that the
> intellectual property content of the cotton gin
> was never effectively protected from copiers.
Yet the invention was wildly successful and the inventor became wealthy and famous. This implies that the inventor's monopoly need not be perfect.
> Ownership of ideas is far less easily protected.
Ownership of ideas is not protected at all. Copyrights protect expressions of ideas while patents protect inventions: configurations of matter.
> In the case of an idea, however, we have chosen
> to strike a different balance in recognition of
> the chaos that could follow from having to trace
> back all the thoughts implicit in one's current
> undertaking and pay a royalty to the originator
> of each one.
Again the confounding of ideas and inventions.
> So rather than adopting that obviously
> principled but unworkable approach,
I see nothing obvious about the notion that ownership of ideas should be protected. Quite the contrary.
> Still sure you want to war-dial them?
> (Unless you do something clever to hide your
> tracks, which might bring the RIAA and the phone
> company down on you.)
It's not illegal for each of 100,000 people to call the number once a day.
> ...our machines can develop neurosis and what kind
> of therapy exist.
April 1st was two days ago.
> "If there is an important security software that
> we need urgently, for example, we are more likely
> to buy it, than spend time deciding whether we
> should develop it in India in open source,"
> Shourie added.
It being completely inconceivable to him that he might be able to _buy_ Free Software...
> This raises quite a few questions though, the
> legality of the software first...
> Selling most GPL'd games would be illegal anyway
> if you wanted to make any sort of profit...
This is not true. You may sell GPL software for whatever the market will bear. You are merely required to license the software to your customers under the terms of the GPL.
> In western Nebraska, being a good welder is
> actually prestigous.
There are places where it isn't?
> This is important because it says whether or not
> programming can be regulated, in that, is the
> programmer competent? As my Software Engineering
> professor pointed out, programming is the only
> life-or-death profession which is unregulated.
> How do you feel about your antilock breaks?
You evidently labor under the delusion that corporations are required to employ licensed engineers to design such things as automobiles.
They aren't.
> I'd love to see Texas lay the law down on the
> clueless, and license those of us that really do
> this for a living. Then all those waiters and such
> can go back to doing things they can do well.
What makes you think they'd give you a license? Have you passed the EIT test, spent N years working under the "supervision" of a registered engineer, and past the licensing test?
> The converse, of course, is to claim that any duff
> who can pass courses, give the answers that the
> professor wants to hear, and make it to class on
> time on days when there is an exam can be an
> engineer.
Not sufficent in Texas. He must also spend years kissing the ass of of someone who already has the piece of paper granting him permission to call himself an engineer.
> However, there are layers and layers of smug
> 'achivers' out there who went through their
> intellectual hazing, and they'll be damned if
> they're gonna let anybody get into 'the system'
> who hasn't been similarly hazed.
Not as long as there is money to be made doing it.
> Someone with a computer engineering degree from a
> 4 year university is an accredited engineer.
> Someone with an IS, IT, MIS, ITM degree is _not_
> an engineer. Sorry but if you wanted to be an
> engineer, you should have studied engineering.
But the state of Texas says that you are not an engineer unless you have a piece of paper from them saying so no matter what you have studied or how many degrees you have.
> If you are a licensed Professional Engineer (PE)
> in the state of Texas, you can be held liable
> for any damages on a project.
You are liable for your negligence whether you are licensed or not.
> How many 'software' engineers in Texas are
> willing to put their reputations on the line
> (and stand up to civil lawsuits) if they have
> made a coding mistake?
How many software engineers are willing to work as "associates" for low wages for years while the senior partners take all the credit and all the money in hopes of eventually being granted the recommendation they must have in order to get a license?