Have you read the 20th Anniversary edition? He covers the GNU/Linux phenomenon, and the only complete about-turn he does is to admit that debugging is almost linearly paralellisable.
If that were true, then I'd never use the licence - I don't want to be snowed under with megabytes of garbage that's based on my code. Spammers all over the world would write spam that's "based on my code" and send it to me, claiming that I can't opt out because of my licence... it would be a nightmare.
This has probably already been said, but I'm going to put it my way, because I think it's clear. I think this matches the situation that they are postulating:
I write EmbeddedFoo, using no GPL'd code
I adapt EmbeddedFoo to run under Linux, using some GPL'd code, and call it GnuFoo.
GnuFoo is covered by the GPL, and all the code in it is GPL'd.
I do not have to release the source to EmbeddedFoo, even though much of the code in it is licenced under the GPL in GnuFoo. I still retain copyright to all the code I created, and no court would ever find EmbeddedFoo to be in violation of the GPL.
What I have done is granted others the right to modify and distribute GnuFoo and it's source code. I have not signed away my own rights to do whatever I like with the code that I created, including closed-source commercial exploitation of it.
Are all maps protected by copyright? Yes, essentially all maps (except U.S. government publications) are subject to copyright protection.
It's not a definitive treatise on the subject, I admit. And, like I said, they get around it 90% of the time by contracting the work to a private company and buying the IP.
Interesting take, but I wasn't talking about college bedroom Napster users, I was talking about the DeCSS authors, and their successors who will produce DeSDMI, or whatever. I copied a couple of CDs onto tape when I was a poor student, sure, but I've never used Napster, and would not consider acquiring major record label material illigitimately. I buy VHS and DVD movies, CD albums, and have registered most of the shareware that I use. I have copied tracks from CD onto minidisc for playing in my car, and this will probably be impossible with DVD-Audio. I therefore consider myself to have a modicum of moral high ground to stand on.
3. Overwrite all your data with a good random or pseudorandom stream of data.
I think creating a stream of plausable-looking data, ie. with a similar bit distribution to the original data, would be better. If you overwrite with random data enough times, the original data may become partially visible therough statistical analysis.
Try here: http://www.hithere.com/murphy/origin.htm although it doesn't actually say. I think it went something like "If something can be done a right way and a wrong way, someone's going to do it the wrong way".
I know what you mean, Godwin's Law and all that, but censorship is the beginning of a slippery slope; it is indicative of a repressive regime that may, if unchecked, move on to greater excesses. They do, after all, have a poor record with regard to Aboriginal rights, as does the USA re. native Indians and other coloureds, and as do we re. Jews (the Nazis didn't invent anti-semitism, you know, King Edward I was one of the pioneers of that field).
An example of that is taxpayer funding of Free Software.
I presume you mean the GPL issue recently discussed. IMO, that's better than taxpayer funding of closed-source software. Technically, neither should be possible, because the federal government can't hold copyright, so they can't enforce the GPL on code that federal employees create. However, they get around it by contracting the work to a private company, then buying the IP rights, which is a huge loop-hole. The other problem is when a federal employee makes modifications to GPL'd code, but the public domain modifications are then difficult to separate from the original work.
My point is that copyright is a bargain, a bit of give and take on both sides, and they are just taking. The law prohibits me from freely copying and distributing the material, but also guarantees me certain freedoms in what I can do with the material. The recording companies are claiming the protection of copyright law, while denying the fair use of the mateiral. It's wrong, and I'm not going to just ignore it.
In your January 22 article about the DataPlay storage device, the author writes: "How long this claim, and its copyright-protection features, survive contact with the anti-intellectual-property-rights types remains to be seen". I believe this is misunderstanding the philosophy behind the opposition to SDMI. The big media corporations have consistently and repeatedly abused the rights of both the artists and their consumers, both by lobbying for new laws such as the DMCA and the "Sony Bono" Copyright Extension Act, and by twisting existing copyright law and ignoring international copyright treaties with such abuses as region coding of DVDs (which has been carried over to DVD Audio, making a mockery of their reasons for using it on DVD movies). Fair Use and the first sale principle are being eroded or bypassed entirely, with the introduction of the "You're buying a licence, not a copy" model, which, if effective, will remove the need for the recording companies to respect the consumer side of copyright law.
You're never hurting the fat cat - it's the little guy that gets the blame.
So your solution is to buy into the fat cat's system, to go along with the Big Five, and let them flout the principles of copyright law? To buy music that you can only play on one device, that you can't lend, that you can't tape to play in your car, and that will stop working before it comes in danger of not being copyrighted any more? We are talking about nothing less than the death of the public domain - not that it isn't already nailed up in the coffin and gagged, that is.
then they can't use the GPL, or make any modifications to GPL'd code. AFAIK, the federal government doesn't hold copyright on anything it creates, as it belongs to the people. Anything created is in the public domain, such as maps and stuff. I know they use various contracts with private companies to get around this, but that's beside the point, I'm talking theory here. How does that affect government workers modifying GPL'd code? The modifications are public domain, so that doesn't compromise the GPL, and the public domain sections of the code could in theory be extracted and used freely without GPL restrictions. This latter option is difficult, as GPL'd modifications to the PD code may have been made. So the GPL does in practice make it difficult for federal workers to create code in the public domain, if they also use the GPL. The PD sections would have to be archived separately and made available to the public.
True. PRZ is a well-known figure, and with his background, (some) people are going to trust him when he says "There are no back-doors". But that's a bad policy, and I'm sure he understands it, after all he could be locked in a dark cupboard and replaced by an android. Leaving doesn't look like a cop-out in that light.
Even if he does stay on, and there are no back doors, NAI have him as a figurehead to say "There are no back doors", and many people will believe him, who whould not believe any other NAI employee. By resigning, he is denying NAI the fallback plan of having a PRZ to rubber-stamp a closed-source product as being back-door free. Therefore, his best option for making NAI release the source is to resign.
"
We spoke to our patent attorney, a fellow whose name was Stuart Lubitz, but Lubitz said he did not want to write a patent on a computer. He said they weren't worth it and essentially he refused at that time to write a patent."
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that illegal under the DMCA?
And now your 5 point bonus question: Why is DVD-Audio region coded?
If that were true, then I'd never use the licence - I don't want to be snowed under with megabytes of garbage that's based on my code. Spammers all over the world would write spam that's "based on my code" and send it to me, claiming that I can't opt out because of my licence... it would be a nightmare.
- I write EmbeddedFoo, using no GPL'd code
- I adapt EmbeddedFoo to run under Linux, using some GPL'd code, and call it GnuFoo.
- GnuFoo is covered by the GPL, and all the code in it is GPL'd.
- I do not have to release the source to EmbeddedFoo, even though much of the code in it is licenced under the GPL in GnuFoo. I still retain copyright to all the code I created, and no court would ever find EmbeddedFoo to be in violation of the GPL.
What I have done is granted others the right to modify and distribute GnuFoo and it's source code. I have not signed away my own rights to do whatever I like with the code that I created, including closed-source commercial exploitation of it.Bingo! Here's the Library of Congress link: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html#piu
Interesting take, but I wasn't talking about college bedroom Napster users, I was talking about the DeCSS authors, and their successors who will produce DeSDMI, or whatever. I copied a couple of CDs onto tape when I was a poor student, sure, but I've never used Napster, and would not consider acquiring major record label material illigitimately. I buy VHS and DVD movies, CD albums, and have registered most of the shareware that I use. I have copied tracks from CD onto minidisc for playing in my car, and this will probably be impossible with DVD-Audio. I therefore consider myself to have a modicum of moral high ground to stand on.
It's actual size, if displayed on in 8192x6144 resolution.
Try here: http://www.hithere.com/murphy/origin.htm although it doesn't actually say. I think it went something like "If something can be done a right way and a wrong way, someone's going to do it the wrong way".
I know what you mean, Godwin's Law and all that, but censorship is the beginning of a slippery slope; it is indicative of a repressive regime that may, if unchecked, move on to greater excesses. They do, after all, have a poor record with regard to Aboriginal rights, as does the USA re. native Indians and other coloureds, and as do we re. Jews (the Nazis didn't invent anti-semitism, you know, King Edward I was one of the pioneers of that field).
Oops.
Dunno how big they are, but here's a picture of one. And the other side.
My point is that copyright is a bargain, a bit of give and take on both sides, and they are just taking. The law prohibits me from freely copying and distributing the material, but also guarantees me certain freedoms in what I can do with the material. The recording companies are claiming the protection of copyright law, while denying the fair use of the mateiral. It's wrong, and I'm not going to just ignore it.
Gnome merge with Suse to form Gnose!
Microsoft merge with Red Hat to form MicroHat!
VIA merge with Syntegra to form VIAgra!
My response to byte.com's article:
In your January 22 article about the DataPlay storage device, the author writes: "How long this claim, and its copyright-protection features, survive contact with the anti-intellectual-property-rights types remains to be seen". I believe this is misunderstanding the philosophy behind the opposition to SDMI. The big media corporations have consistently and repeatedly abused the rights of both the artists and their consumers, both by lobbying for new laws such as the DMCA and the "Sony Bono" Copyright Extension Act, and by twisting existing copyright law and ignoring international copyright treaties with such abuses as region coding of DVDs (which has been carried over to DVD Audio, making a mockery of their reasons for using it on DVD movies). Fair Use and the first sale principle are being eroded or bypassed entirely, with the introduction of the "You're buying a licence, not a copy" model, which, if effective, will remove the need for the recording companies to respect the consumer side of copyright law.
then they can't use the GPL, or make any modifications to GPL'd code. AFAIK, the federal government doesn't hold copyright on anything it creates, as it belongs to the people. Anything created is in the public domain, such as maps and stuff. I know they use various contracts with private companies to get around this, but that's beside the point, I'm talking theory here. How does that affect government workers modifying GPL'd code? The modifications are public domain, so that doesn't compromise the GPL, and the public domain sections of the code could in theory be extracted and used freely without GPL restrictions. This latter option is difficult, as GPL'd modifications to the PD code may have been made. So the GPL does in practice make it difficult for federal workers to create code in the public domain, if they also use the GPL. The PD sections would have to be archived separately and made available to the public.
True. PRZ is a well-known figure, and with his background, (some) people are going to trust him when he says "There are no back-doors". But that's a bad policy, and I'm sure he understands it, after all he could be locked in a dark cupboard and replaced by an android. Leaving doesn't look like a cop-out in that light.
Even if he does stay on, and there are no back doors, NAI have him as a figurehead to say "There are no back doors", and many people will believe him, who whould not believe any other NAI employee. By resigning, he is denying NAI the fallback plan of having a PRZ to rubber-stamp a closed-source product as being back-door free. Therefore, his best option for making NAI release the source is to resign.
It's your id that counts (3790 in your case - so you've been here a little bit longer than me).
If the camera is most sensitive to red light, then maybe a white LED would do the trick, or orange. Not so cool as blue, though.