But a news organization would do it in a
heartbeat if they believed this information
would be a "scoop" of some sort. They would do
it if they believed that people really want to
know this stuff. What I don't understand is,
why don't they think the public is interested?
Because they've seen reports like the one that started this thread and think they already know what the Linux "market share" is. They're suits. They can't imagine dollar volume not being the definitive measure of success.
A service provider should either have the
independent expertise to meet their contractual
obligations or subcontract it to someone else in
the form of a contract.
So you would put Cheap Bytes out of business and force people to choose between a $250 Pink Tie boxed set and downloading Debian over a modem?
If it is good wine I would by all I can at 2$ a
bottle. The problem is that more frequently then
not you do "get what you pay for" with wine and
many other things.
Heh. Reminds me of the study I read about recently where a guy swapped the labels on cheap Algerian wines and expensive French ones and offered them to a group of wine tasters. I think you can guess the results.
If anybody anywhere gets sued (and as you said,
merely having to defend yourself is losing)
because they distributed free software, and
there was no valid warranty disclaimer, then
WE HAVE ALL LOST.
Well, you know there is going to be a lawsuit sooner or later no matter what we do.
Multiple legal professionals have told me that
warrantees must be effectively disclaimed or
they will be dismissed by the judge.
Have you asked them how warranty law applies to things being given away?
Why does a license need to mention warrantees at all? Perhaps disclaimers of liability should be a private matter between buyer and seller, like the price.
What about other rights, such as the right to publish benchmarks? It might be better not to refer to copyright law, though, as it varies with jurisdiction and is subject to the whims of legislatures. Perhaps it would be best to enumerate the permitted restrictions.
"Will you take it more seriously when a free software developer gets used and loses because the GPL isn't a contract and the disclaimer of warranty has no legal effect?"
If I sell you a copy of my work there is a contract. If I give it to you there is no contract because there is no consideration. Furthermore, creating a contract is likely to _increase_ your exposure because it opens up the possibility of strict liability.
What Microsoft et al are trying to dodge with their waivers of liability is product liability, where the manufacturer is held to be "strictly liable": the plaintiff need only prove that he was injured due to a defect in the product. There is no need to prove negligence.
If you give your software away, product liability cannot apply because there is no product. Your only exposure would be under general liability. Here the standard of proof is much stricter: the plaintiff must not only prove that he was injured due to a defect, he must also prove that the defect was the result of negligence.
There is no product liability for gifts. When you sell a copy of your software you can execute a seperate waiver if you wish to evade responsibility for your work. It need not be part of the license.
You may have a point when installing software but
it is my understanding that most if not all
software in commercial distributions lie under a
GPL license.
You do not understand correctly.
You should be able to agree to GPL once to cover
all the GPL software about to be installed.
You do not need to agree to the GPL at all to install GPLd software.
the time is coming when you won't be able to
distribute software unless you have presented
the license to the user and their assent is
necessary to access the software. Even free
software.
Nonsense. Prior assent is only needed when the license requires the user to give up rights she would have were there no license at all. No Free Software license does this.
You also make it sound like I would be forbidden to distribute software without a "click-through". In fact, the worst that could happen is that some license provisions might not be enforceable without prior assent. I can think of no such provisions that I would want to enforce anyway.
Zimbabwe is afraid some of the corn will end up
planted instead of eaten -- and growing patented
corn is a no-no, of course! If the corn is
planted even once, it may contaminate all future
crops grown in those fields or any fields
nearby, leading to huge lawsuits - and then the
fields are contaminated, exacerbating the food
shortage.
a) Plant patents pre-date genetic engineering: much of the none-"GM" corn they are receiving will have been grown from patented seed.
b) "GM" corn (maize, in Europe) varieties are hybrids. The seed companies do not need to file lawsuits to protect their patents as hybrids do not reproduce themselves. The yield from planting the donated "GM" corn would be extremely disappointing and the problem self-limiting.
c) The putative lawsuits would have to be filed in Zimbabwe. I doubt that they would get far.
What that means is, things the size of
OpenOffice or Linux or Emacs require a huge time
investment to even reach the point where you
could spot these kinds of exploits or bugs.
It requires a huge time investment to even reach the point where you have a high probability of spotting most of these kinds of exploits. However, it requires only a small investment of time to have a modest probability of spotting some of them in some small part of the code. With many people looking at random parts of the code, it isn't long before they are found (six hours in this case).
They would maintain a database of "approved"
code, and users would pay them small
subscription fees and get all their code through
them.
It's called the Debian archive, and it's free. Debian's Openssl does not contain this exploit.
And all it does so far as I can tell is tell an
application designer how to play nice with
everyone else.
No. It tells a Debian maintainer who chooses to add an application (of which he is not usually the designer) to the archive what he _must_ do.
Until operating systems have a generic installer
Debian has one.
and application designers don't have to do any
more tell this installer "here are my files, i
need to store this config info, and these are my
dependncies, do what you will"
That is what the Debian package management system does. It is the job of the Debian maintainer, not the program author, to package the program so that it complies with Debian policy and functions properly with the package management system. Familiarity with Debian policy is one of the requirements for becoming a Debian maintainer.
let the one who knows the details be the one to
handle them.
That would be the Debian maintainer. There are about a thousand of us.
The day I get blasted with an ad for Coke beamed directly into my head while walking down the street is the day that the guy running the beam gets his machine blasted somewhere that it won't fit very well.
Re:Ignorance is bliss.
on
WarTalking Arrest
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Most people don't need their egos fed 24/7 and
are able to take a dose of humility just fine
thanks. Those who can't... well... they're the
stuff assholes are made of.
You may disagree that intentional hacking can
fall into such a grey area, sometimes described
as analogous to checking the locks and then
walking into an unlocked house.
Which is trespass, which is not generally a felony.
Why is this the standard in the computing, but
not in the real world?
Because the legislators and judged haven't a fscking clue about what computers and networks are or how they work. And they aren't interested in learning.
No it isn't. "Breaking" means exactly what it says. Furthermore, allowing your machine to exchange radio signals with someone else's machine is not "entering" by any stretch of the imagination.
SMART-1 Is Not First With Ion Propulsion
on
Back to the Moon?
·
· Score: 2
Slashdot Mirror
But a news organization would do it in a
heartbeat if they believed this information
would be a "scoop" of some sort. They would do
it if they believed that people really want to
know this stuff. What I don't understand is,
why don't they think the public is interested?
Because they've seen reports like the one that started this thread and think they already know what the Linux "market share" is. They're suits. They can't imagine dollar volume not being the definitive measure of success.
A service provider should either have the
independent expertise to meet their contractual
obligations or subcontract it to someone else in
the form of a contract.
So you would put Cheap Bytes out of business and force people to choose between a $250 Pink Tie boxed set and downloading Debian over a modem?
Only the copyright owner has standing to sue for infringement. All that the FSF can offer is support.
If it is good wine I would by all I can at 2$ a
bottle. The problem is that more frequently then
not you do "get what you pay for" with wine and
many other things.
Heh. Reminds me of the study I read about recently where a guy swapped the labels on cheap Algerian wines and expensive French ones and offered them to a group of wine tasters. I think you can guess the results.
If anybody anywhere gets sued (and as you said,
merely having to defend yourself is losing)
because they distributed free software, and
there was no valid warranty disclaimer, then
WE HAVE ALL LOST.
Well, you know there is going to be a lawsuit sooner or later no matter what we do.
Multiple legal professionals have told me that
warrantees must be effectively disclaimed or
they will be dismissed by the judge.
Have you asked them how warranty law applies to things being given away?
Why does a license need to mention warrantees at all? Perhaps disclaimers of liability should be a private matter between buyer and seller, like the price.
What about other rights, such as the right to publish benchmarks? It might be better not to refer to copyright law, though, as it varies with jurisdiction and is subject to the whims of legislatures. Perhaps it would be best to enumerate the permitted restrictions.
"Will you take it more seriously when a free software developer gets used and loses because the GPL isn't a contract and the disclaimer of warranty has no legal effect?"
If I sell you a copy of my work there is a contract. If I give it to you there is no contract because there is no consideration. Furthermore, creating a contract is likely to _increase_ your exposure because it opens up the possibility of strict liability.
No. Make that
"An open source license cannot restrict any rights that would be available for a copyrighted work in the absence of a license."
Fair use is something else entirely.
What Microsoft et al are trying to dodge with their waivers of liability is product liability, where the manufacturer is held to be "strictly liable": the plaintiff need only prove that he was injured due to a defect in the product. There is no need to prove negligence.
If you give your software away, product liability cannot apply because there is no product. Your only exposure would be under general liability. Here the standard of proof is much stricter: the plaintiff must not only prove that he was injured due to a defect, he must also prove that the defect was the result of negligence.
There is no product liability for gifts. When you sell a copy of your software you can execute a seperate waiver if you wish to evade responsibility for your work. It need not be part of the license.
You may have a point when installing software but
it is my understanding that most if not all
software in commercial distributions lie under a
GPL license.
You do not understand correctly.
You should be able to agree to GPL once to cover
all the GPL software about to be installed.
You do not need to agree to the GPL at all to install GPLd software.
The question here is whether we should amend the
Open Source Definition so that it is clear
whether click-wrap licenses are allowable or not.
I strongly doubt that any software laboring under such a license will ever be part of Debian.
the time is coming when you won't be able to
distribute software unless you have presented
the license to the user and their assent is
necessary to access the software. Even free
software.
Nonsense. Prior assent is only needed when the license requires the user to give up rights she would have were there no license at all. No Free Software license does this.
You also make it sound like I would be forbidden to distribute software without a "click-through". In fact, the worst that could happen is that some license provisions might not be enforceable without prior assent. I can think of no such provisions that I would want to enforce anyway.
Zimbabwe is afraid some of the corn will end up
planted instead of eaten -- and growing patented
corn is a no-no, of course! If the corn is
planted even once, it may contaminate all future
crops grown in those fields or any fields
nearby, leading to huge lawsuits - and then the
fields are contaminated, exacerbating the food
shortage.
a) Plant patents pre-date genetic engineering: much of the none-"GM" corn they are receiving will have been grown from patented seed.
b) "GM" corn (maize, in Europe) varieties are hybrids. The seed companies do not need to file lawsuits to protect their patents as hybrids do not reproduce themselves. The yield from planting the donated "GM" corn would be extremely disappointing and the problem self-limiting.
c) The putative lawsuits would have to be filed in Zimbabwe. I doubt that they would get far.
What that means is, things the size of
OpenOffice or Linux or Emacs require a huge time
investment to even reach the point where you
could spot these kinds of exploits or bugs.
It requires a huge time investment to even reach the point where you have a high probability of spotting most of these kinds of exploits. However, it requires only a small investment of time to have a modest probability of spotting some of them in some small part of the code. With many people looking at random parts of the code, it isn't long before they are found (six hours in this case).
They would maintain a database of "approved"
code, and users would pay them small
subscription fees and get all their code through
them.
It's called the Debian archive, and it's free. Debian's Openssl does not contain this exploit.
MAV is singularly unimaginative. 'Electric Sparrow' is the obvious better choice.
They could have said `well-known'. They could
have said `famous'. They could even have said
`ubiquitous'.
No. They had to say 'notorious'. It's legalese for 'well-known'.
I never figured what [cruft] does
It reports the differences (if any) between what is actually on your system and what the package management system thinks is there.
if only there was a simple program to get rid of
this old junk I'm not using anymore!
Have you tried
'apt-get remove --purge packagename'>?
And all it does so far as I can tell is tell an
application designer how to play nice with
everyone else.
No. It tells a Debian maintainer who chooses to add an application (of which he is not usually the designer) to the archive what he _must_ do.
Until operating systems have a generic installer
Debian has one.
and application designers don't have to do any
more tell this installer "here are my files, i
need to store this config info, and these are my
dependncies, do what you will"
That is what the Debian package management system does. It is the job of the Debian maintainer, not the program author, to package the program so that it complies with Debian policy and functions properly with the package management system. Familiarity with Debian policy is one of the requirements for becoming a Debian maintainer.
let the one who knows the details be the one to
handle them.
That would be the Debian maintainer. There are about a thousand of us.
Physics majors, any answers?
A simple metal helmet should protect you. In fact, tinfoil might be sufficient.
The day I get blasted with an ad for Coke beamed directly into my head while walking down the street is the day that the guy running the beam gets his machine blasted somewhere that it won't fit very well.
Most people don't need their egos fed 24/7 and
are able to take a dose of humility just fine
thanks. Those who can't... well... they're the
stuff assholes are made of.
They are also the stuff politicians are made of.
You may disagree that intentional hacking can
fall into such a grey area, sometimes described
as analogous to checking the locks and then
walking into an unlocked house.
Which is trespass, which is not generally a felony.
Why is this the standard in the computing, but
not in the real world?
Because the legislators and judged haven't a fscking clue about what computers and networks are or how they work. And they aren't interested in learning.
And that is breaking and entering.
No it isn't. "Breaking" means exactly what it says. Furthermore, allowing your machine to exchange radio signals with someone else's machine is not "entering" by any stretch of the imagination.
Look at http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/tech/sep.html