I think its great you pay for your software and you like the product you buy. What annoys me is when companies let people get away with using products for free just to increase the user base, cutting out other cheaper alturnatives which would have been tried IF people had to pay for the software. Sorry to everyone else here, but I am PRO product activiation. Irs about time people see the true price of the software they use, rather than getting a free ride. More people that try and use alturnatives the more "acceptable" it will be not to use the "professional" product.
Well the great thing about laws is they can be changed. If enough people believe they should be able to download music in the fashion.... Already more people in the US use P2P than voted for bush, if the level were say to rise to 80%, it would not matter how bought the politicans were, they would have to side with the people because the people can voite, not companies.
Sorry no it was NOT the printing press that set the words of Christ free it was the splinter group known as "protestants", who believed that everyone could talk to god, should hear, understand and read his words. So they translated the bible. The printing press sure help but that was many years later.
Yup your probably right, but it was a reply to the parent, and I just could not leave the "it hasn't affected me" line alone, is the only thing running on the internet of importance TCP port 80, let alone SMTP, NNTP and those are still TCP,... UDP... Personally I don't care about being moderated, I would much prefer people to reply to me insted.
Its underperforming because everyone hates them and wants to move their business somewhere else, now versign get to sit back a just take a cut of every.com/.net reg, while doing very little, though I do admit I prefer the idea of having a neutral registry. I just don't trust verisign and never will again.
Whats so bad about it? Ok off the top of my head.....
1) I cannot turn it off. 2) Its in English (not the native tounge of the reader). 3) It breaks the autocomplete url functionality because every time I typo a url it is added to my history, where as they are not added when a domain is not found. Making the right sites harder and harder to find. 4) Search engine is paid for adverts. 5) http is not the only protocol on the planet, its just one port of many. 6) Why does verisign have the right to the wildcard, surely this is a valuable commonity and should have been sold off to the highest bidder?
If they got a court enjuction and MS could not distribute its product without the technology then yes it would have to stop supplying it or face fines......
Thats the way the cookie crumbles, if you don't wanna pay for a licence and your product enfringes a patent you have to stop its distribution NOW, not when you have a patent work arround.
MS plays the patent game all the time its kind of nice to see it reversed.
James
PS, That does not mean I think this kind of crap is patentable, just if the game is played this way.. tuff....
Why can't Microsoft just licence the patent? Its interesting to see to matter what happens and what it costs microsoft will aways prefer to get round something that pay for it, even if it would be cheaper to pay for it.
And the place for it IS in the browser not the DNS, makes me with MSIE had a search on badly typed domain name feature, that way MS would have bitch slapped Verisign.
What angers me is the assumption by him that the internet is the WWW, that is just one protocol, the DNS changes may have been find for http, but it hurt every other protocol! If people need a spell corrector for www mistyped domain names the place for that is in the browser, not in the DNS. The astonisting thing is the way he feels has the right to run it, why should Versign have the monopoly right to own the wildcard entry. If there is to be a sitefinder, I want the record auctioned off with no renewal right. ICANN says the need cash well that would give them more than enough.
This still has the problem with mail relays and hosts not visable on the internet, just listing the IP address of good hosts isn't really good enough, IPs can be spoofed too. Servers need there own public/private key, every message they send on behalf of a domain is then signed with that key, relays don't touch the signing, but can still transfer the message, at the other end the signature is checked against the valid keys for that domain (which could be stored in the DNS or some other method). If the message is tampered with the signature will not match the body of the message. If your server gets its key stolen, you can just generate another one. The main problem is, lots of people produces mail server software, getting them all on board is a problem, which is why people suggest lame ideas like using just the IP, spam will only be defeated when we "replace" SMTP, I say replace, because an Improved SMTP could use many of the features, but if it supports a legacy SMTP server that one could be used to abuse the whole system.
See this is where they are a bit dumb, GPL is a licence agreement, if GPL is provided invalid, you and I would not have a valid licence for using the code, the code however would still be copyright to who every orginally owned the code and they could choice to relicence a version however they wanted, and they still can, that is how troll tech and perl dual licence.
If SCO prove GPL to be invalid you end up with alot of source code owned by different people, which you cannot use without all their agreement, hence SCO still don't get they toll.....
Personally i think at worse parts of the GPL licence may be considered unenforceable, many windows GPL programs have click through GPL licences, which I find kind of cool.
No the ATA claim it is there consitutional right to call me, underfree speech, just because they wish to call me to sell me shit, is of know relevence what so over. So, under that interpretation of free speach I should be able to call them to tell them the sky is blue, there is no special interpectation of free speech to selling stuff.
However people do not understand the right to free speech correctly, its the right to hold any view say and publish what you like. This can even be false (if it is false though you could be held lyable under other laws), BUT you can still say it! The think you have NO right to do is to force other people to listen to what you say. The ATA are effectively saying, we have the right to force people to listen to (atleast) the first 10 seconds of our call. Porn one its free speech right to be published not to require everyone in the states to buy it.
Personally you would have thought it would make sence for the the ATA to have a list of numbers for people who arn't interested in buying shit over the phone. Which would mean they could target the people who are!
Personally I think SCO knows they are in trouble, there code works on x86, as linux does, and linux IMHO is better, so I think they had to try something, but it is does through desperation rather than malice.
I agree with you about the cost of software, I one thing I think you missed is commerical software never had a competitor like open source before. In the past if you had a product with 5 years history it was near impossible for any company to catch up with you as they go broke before they have even equalled you. When they go broke everything they have done is locked up and lost. With opensource however people/companies may come and go, however the source code lives on. Cool code from other tools can be added, and the strongest lives on. I think thats why Microsoft as desperate to a) get people to rent the software and b) add features like drm that have vendor lockin.
You can switch now, every hosting company I have seen honours the exisiting part of your paid up period. So if you have 6 months left your your be charged one years renewal, but you won't need to worry about it for 18 months.
Ok perhaps I was not quite clear enough, IBM and SGI, (probably) don't have the right to redistrubed the source code for SVR4, sure they can hand out objects based on the code....
It is impossible for you to be a toll taker on GPLed software. If there is a patent issue etc the software cannot be GPL. The licence was specifically designed for this. If SCO proves it can take a toll on linux because it has code in there, "Linux" cannot be GPL, the other GPL sections of the code then cannot be linked with the Non-GPL code, hence that complete set of code cannot be used until the offending code is removed, and which point SCO cannot ask for a toll. SCO will never get a Toll from linux.
If you bought a copy of Office and warezed copies of it on the internet with your licence key microsoft are more than likely to disable your key from future updates and if they found out who you are you would be lucky to just have the licence revoked.
In this case just because you have the right to use a bit of source code I have licenced to you does not mean you have the right to sub-licence it to someone else.... (I am ignoring here about code already in the Public domain etc).
Slashdot Mirror
I think its great you pay for your software and you like the product you buy. What annoys me is when companies let people get away with using products for free just to increase the user base, cutting out other cheaper alturnatives which would have been tried IF people had to pay for the software. Sorry to everyone else here, but I am PRO product activiation. Irs about time people see the true price of the software they use, rather than getting a free ride. More people that try and use alturnatives the more "acceptable" it will be not to use the "professional" product.
James
Audacity is a good alturnative to Auditon (Cool Edit). It doesn't quite have some of the functions of Auditon, but its getting there.
James
Well the great thing about laws is they can be changed. If enough people believe they should be able to download music in the fashion.... Already more people in the US use P2P than voted for bush, if the level were say to rise to 80%, it would not matter how bought the politicans were, they would have to side with the people because the people can voite, not companies.
James
Sorry no it was NOT the printing press that set the words of Christ free it was the splinter group known as "protestants", who believed that everyone could talk to god, should hear, understand and read his words. So they translated the bible. The printing press sure help but that was many years later.
James
Yup your probably right, but it was a reply to the parent, and I just could not leave the "it hasn't affected me" line alone, is the only thing running on the internet of importance TCP port 80, let alone SMTP, NNTP and those are still TCP, ... UDP ... Personally I don't care about being moderated, I would much prefer people to reply to me insted.
James
Its underperforming because everyone hates them and wants to move their business somewhere else, now versign get to sit back a just take a cut of every .com/.net reg, while doing very little, though I do admit I prefer the idea of having a neutral registry. I just don't trust verisign and never will again.
James
Whats so bad about it? Ok off the top of my head.....
1) I cannot turn it off.
2) Its in English (not the native tounge of the reader).
3) It breaks the autocomplete url functionality because every time I typo a url it is added to my history, where as they are not added when a domain is not found. Making the right sites harder and harder to find.
4) Search engine is paid for adverts.
5) http is not the only protocol on the planet, its just one port of many.
6) Why does verisign have the right to the wildcard, surely this is a valuable commonity and should have been sold off to the highest bidder?
James
Even better, Virus Writters should sue people for copyright infringement!
James
If they got a court enjuction and MS could not distribute its product without the technology then yes it would have to stop supplying it or face fines......
James
Thats the way the cookie crumbles, if you don't wanna pay for a licence and your product enfringes a patent you have to stop its distribution NOW, not when you have a patent work arround.
.. tuff....
MS plays the patent game all the time its kind of nice to see it reversed.
James
PS, That does not mean I think this kind of crap is patentable, just if the game is played this way
Why can't Microsoft just licence the patent? Its interesting to see to matter what happens and what it costs microsoft will aways prefer to get round something that pay for it, even if it would be cheaper to pay for it.
James
But you can lose patents if you don't inforce them.
James
And the place for it IS in the browser not the DNS, makes me with MSIE had a search on badly typed domain name feature, that way MS would have bitch slapped Verisign.
James
What angers me is the assumption by him that the internet is the WWW, that is just one protocol, the DNS changes may have been find for http, but it hurt every other protocol! If people need a spell corrector for www mistyped domain names the place for that is in the browser, not in the DNS. The astonisting thing is the way he feels has the right to run it, why should Versign have the monopoly right to own the wildcard entry. If there is to be a sitefinder, I want the record auctioned off with no renewal right. ICANN says the need cash well that would give them more than enough.
James
This still has the problem with mail relays and hosts not visable on the internet, just listing the IP address of good hosts isn't really good enough, IPs can be spoofed too. Servers need there own public/private key, every message they send on behalf of a domain is then signed with that key, relays don't touch the signing, but can still transfer the message, at the other end the signature is checked against the valid keys for that domain (which could be stored in the DNS or some other method). If the message is tampered with the signature will not match the body of the message. If your server gets its key stolen, you can just generate another one. The main problem is, lots of people produces mail server software, getting them all on board is a problem, which is why people suggest lame ideas like using just the IP, spam will only be defeated when we "replace" SMTP, I say replace, because an Improved SMTP could use many of the features, but if it supports a legacy SMTP server that one could be used to abuse the whole system.
James
See this is where they are a bit dumb, GPL is a licence agreement, if GPL is provided invalid, you and I would not have a valid licence for using the code, the code however would still be copyright to who every orginally owned the code and they could choice to relicence a version however they wanted, and they still can, that is how troll tech and perl dual licence.
If SCO prove GPL to be invalid you end up with alot of source code owned by different people, which you cannot use without all their agreement, hence SCO still don't get they toll.....
Personally i think at worse parts of the GPL licence may be considered unenforceable, many windows GPL programs have click through GPL licences, which I find kind of cool.
James
No the ATA claim it is there consitutional right to call me, underfree speech, just because they wish to call me to sell me shit, is of know relevence what so over. So, under that interpretation of free speach I should be able to call them to tell them the sky is blue, there is no special interpectation of free speech to selling stuff.
However people do not understand the right to free speech correctly, its the right to hold any view say and publish what you like. This can even be false (if it is false though you could be held lyable under other laws), BUT you can still say it! The think you have NO right to do is to force other people to listen to what you say. The ATA are effectively saying, we have the right to force people to listen to (atleast) the first 10 seconds of our call. Porn one its free speech right to be published not to require everyone in the states to buy it.
Personally you would have thought it would make sence for the the ATA to have a list of numbers for people who arn't interested in buying shit over the phone. Which would mean they could target the people who are!
James
Particularly because patents were orginally put in place to increase the availablity of new "technology" not decrease it.
James
Personally I think SCO knows they are in trouble, there code works on x86, as linux does, and linux IMHO is better, so I think they had to try something, but it is does through desperation rather than malice.
I agree with you about the cost of software, I one thing I think you missed is commerical software never had a competitor like open source before. In the past if you had a product with 5 years history it was near impossible for any company to catch up with you as they go broke before they have even equalled you. When they go broke everything they have done is locked up and lost. With opensource however people/companies may come and go, however the source code lives on. Cool code from other tools can be added, and the strongest lives on. I think thats why Microsoft as desperate to a) get people to rent the software and b) add features like drm that have vendor lockin.
James
However the copyright comments were removed. One thing the BSD licence requires is the copyright comments are retained.
James
You can switch now, every hosting company I have seen honours the exisiting part of your paid up period.
So if you have 6 months left your your be charged one years renewal, but you won't need to worry about it for 18 months.
The 5 domains I have are not with Verislime.
James
Note how ICANN gave them 36 hours to do it, time for the caches to clear etc yet verisign play it right up to the wire.
James
Ok perhaps I was not quite clear enough, IBM and SGI, (probably) don't have the right to redistrubed the source code for SVR4, sure they can hand out objects based on the code....
James
It is impossible for you to be a toll taker on GPLed software. If there is a patent issue etc the software cannot be GPL. The licence was specifically designed for this. If SCO proves it can take a toll on linux because it has code in there, "Linux" cannot be GPL, the other GPL sections of the code then cannot be linked with the Non-GPL code, hence that complete set of code cannot be used until the offending code is removed, and which point SCO cannot ask for a toll. SCO will never get a Toll from linux.
James
If you bought a copy of Office and warezed copies of it on the internet with your licence key microsoft are more than likely to disable your key from future updates and if they found out who you are you would be lucky to just have the licence revoked.
In this case just because you have the right to use a bit of source code I have licenced to you does not mean you have the right to sub-licence it to someone else.... (I am ignoring here about code already in the Public domain etc).
James