"It's a court asking to see video of a crime so that they can arrest some people for bashing an officers head in." If there was an informant - a fact I don't recall...
"It's a court asking to see video of a crime", which is wrong, which you'd know if you RTFA.
"This is NOT the same thing as the government suppressing journalism or controlling what information reaches the public as this is spun to sound. "What this is is wanting to identify the people who were legally protesting, so that official and unofficial lists are updated. It would have a chilling effect, though.
"...they're asking him to show them evidence that could lead to the arrest of criminals."Repeating this doesn't make it true.
Perhaps the advantage is preservation of a right? Are there other rights you would consider it "silly" to go to jail to protect? In actuality only the State of CA recognizes this right, and the Feds seem to want to go out of there way under this administration to squash any sense of state's rights.
Technically correct, you admit, but then you make an argument for the "popular" but admittedly technically *incorrect* answer. You must be in management!
"but as far as I read it, the only situations where the the new GPLv3 draft causes a problem are essentially similar to the Microsoft/Novell one. I suppose we could all think up names for hypothetical corporations to discuss the case, but why bother?"
Currently the Microsoft/Novell deal is at the forefront, yes. The point of "if someone (anyone) were to..." was to abstract the discussion and extend its range.) This is not just about MS/Novell, and this is *not* just about others doing exactly what they did.
By the way, I think perhaps you meant to say, "the only situations where the the new GPLv3 draft prevents a problem are essentially similar to the Microsoft/Novell one."
Konqueror as a file manager is the single thing I miss most when running WinXP. The ability to have a shell open (and follow dir changes as I navigate); simple multiple screen splitting; it is a joy. QT is well designed, and KParts are sweet, but in terms of use Konqueror is why I switched from Gnome.
Linus is, I grant you, a figurehead. I wonder who does more kernel development, Linus or Redhat? How about IBM? How about Linus vs Novell? Yeah. His historical significance is immense but his value as a figurehead to me (and who the hell am I, anyway), is in decline.
The original post was in regards to distribution of patent encumbered GPLed code, and the effect of the GPL3 there upon. The question at this point isn't if there is patent infringing code already present, but rather, what would be the consequences if someone (anyone) were to implement and market patent encumbered GPLed code.
"What I mean is that the goals of giving away software and maintaining control over it are, at some level, not entirely compatible."
I think that depends on what you want. If you want to make software Free, and then maintain control enough to insure it is Free, and that it will stay Free, then there is no conflict. If you want to eat your cake and have it, too, then that is a problem...
It wouldn't prevent you from porting to a closed operating system, so long as people who use the software on the closed system aren't prevented from using the source code you provided. If the OS would allow your code to run, but wouldn't grant my modifications to run, that would be the same problem as tivo. Think "totally locked down", DRM controlled OS, and yes, that would be a problem.
So they are going to distribute software that is patented, and that their users have no rights under patent law to use? Maybe the CDs will make pretty wall decorations? Protect coffee tables?
Actually it would be more correct to suggest that I agree with your strawman, but I had to point out that it was a strawman, since I read the article. "I swear, slashdot would be more interesting, if I actually read the article." Blocking illegal sites really has nothing to do with the blocking as refered to in the article.
Even worse, they are complaining that they were being blocked because someone else using the same host sells megaphones, which could be used to yell "fire" in a theater.
Phishing is an illegal activity. No one is saying not to block off unlawful web sites. Likewise, no one is saying to not block kiddie porn. What people are saying is, don't block all the websites hosted by a company that doesn't even have spammers as customers, but that sells mailing list software that could be abused by spammers.
Likewise, if people are selling illegal drugs from a website, block them. But someone who sells grow lamps from a website should not cause everyone from the hosting company to be blocked, even though grow lamps could be used to grow illegal as well as legal plants.
It was funny when "drug site" blocking software blocked the DEA's site, though. Kinda makes you wonder WTF? If it is illegal content, that is one thing. The trouble starts when people want to block legal content "for the good" of people trying to reach said legal content.
It does seem like false advertising. I'm also concerned about well funded interests buying control and implementing commercial and political filtering policies. The first is illegal. The second should be made illegal. Imagine if the telephone companies "blacklisted" all the environmental activists telephone numbers? Or consumer groups? Or political action groups (of one flavor *or* the other)?
At the risk of being redundant (posting this to other similar replies):
Does the Washington Post count?
Security Fix
Brian Krebs on Computer Security
"Indeed, as I reported earlier, in his hotel room on the eve of that presentation, Maynor showed me a live demo of him exploiting the built-in Macbook drivers to break into the machine from another laptop -- without a third party card plugged in."
Try the first URL in the article and search for Washington Post, then follow the links to the story.
Does the Washington Post count?
Security Fix
Brian Krebs on Computer Security
"Indeed, as I reported earlier, in his hotel room on the eve of that presentation, Maynor showed me a live demo of him exploiting the built-in Macbook drivers to break into the machine from another laptop -- without a third party card plugged in."
Try the first URL in the article and search for Washington Post, then follow the links to the story.
Washington Post: "Apple's Fox said that prior to the Black Hat demo, SecureWorks did contact Apple about a wireless flaw in FreeBSD, the open-source code upon which Apple's OS X operating system is based. In January, FreeBSD released a patch to fix the problem, which according to the accompanying advisory, related to a flaw in the way FreeBSD systems scanned for wireless networks that could be exploited to allow attackers to take complete control over the targeted machine."
The Washington Post seems to disagree with your version of history:
"Update on the Apple Macbook Claims
Apple today issued a statement strongly refuting claims put forth by researchers at SecureWorks that Apple's Macbook computer contains a wireless-security flaw that could let attackers hijack the machines remotely. "
Slashdot Mirror
"It's a court asking to see video of a crime", which is wrong, which you'd know if you RTFA.
"This is NOT the same thing as the government suppressing journalism or controlling what information reaches the public as this is spun to sound. "What this is is wanting to identify the people who were legally protesting, so that official and unofficial lists are updated. It would have a chilling effect, though.
"...they're asking him to show them evidence that could lead to the arrest of criminals."Repeating this doesn't make it true.
Perhaps the advantage is preservation of a right? Are there other rights you would consider it "silly" to go to jail to protect? In actuality only the State of CA recognizes this right, and the Feds seem to want to go out of there way under this administration to squash any sense of state's rights.
You might be joking, but thats why I first went into Physics.
Technically correct, you admit, but then you make an argument for the "popular" but admittedly technically *incorrect* answer. You must be in management!
"Well by all means, go right ahead and discourage people from trying to see your point of view."
Sorry, never mind. I thought you were serious. My mistake.
"but as far as I read it, the only situations where the the new GPLv3 draft causes a problem are essentially similar to the Microsoft/Novell one. I suppose we could all think up names for hypothetical corporations to discuss the case, but why bother?"
Currently the Microsoft/Novell deal is at the forefront, yes. The point of "if someone (anyone) were to..." was to abstract the discussion and extend its range.) This is not just about MS/Novell, and this is *not* just about others doing exactly what they did.
By the way, I think perhaps you meant to say, "the only situations where the the new GPLv3 draft prevents a problem are essentially similar to the Microsoft/Novell one."
Konqueror as a file manager is the single thing I miss most when running WinXP. The ability to have a shell open (and follow dir changes as I navigate); simple multiple screen splitting; it is a joy. QT is well designed, and KParts are sweet, but in terms of use Konqueror is why I switched from Gnome.
Linus is, I grant you, a figurehead. I wonder who does more kernel development, Linus or Redhat? How about IBM? How about Linus vs Novell? Yeah. His historical significance is immense but his value as a figurehead to me (and who the hell am I, anyway), is in decline.
I honestly don't see how Linus is that relevant.
The original post was in regards to distribution of patent encumbered GPLed code, and the effect of the GPL3 there upon. The question at this point isn't if there is patent infringing code already present, but rather, what would be the consequences if someone (anyone) were to implement and market patent encumbered GPLed code.
"What I mean is that the goals of giving away software and maintaining control over it are, at some level, not entirely compatible."
I think that depends on what you want. If you want to make software Free, and then maintain control enough to insure it is Free, and that it will stay Free, then there is no conflict. If you want to eat your cake and have it, too, then that is a problem...
It wouldn't prevent you from porting to a closed operating system, so long as people who use the software on the closed system aren't prevented from using the source code you provided. If the OS would allow your code to run, but wouldn't grant my modifications to run, that would be the same problem as tivo. Think "totally locked down", DRM controlled OS, and yes, that would be a problem.
So they are going to distribute software that is patented, and that their users have no rights under patent law to use? Maybe the CDs will make pretty wall decorations? Protect coffee tables?
Actually it would be more correct to suggest that I agree with your strawman, but I had to point out that it was a strawman, since I read the article. "I swear, slashdot would be more interesting, if I actually read the article." Blocking illegal sites really has nothing to do with the blocking as refered to in the article.
Even worse, they are complaining that they were being blocked because someone else using the same host sells megaphones, which could be used to yell "fire" in a theater.
Phishing is an illegal activity. No one is saying not to block off unlawful web sites. Likewise, no one is saying to not block kiddie porn. What people are saying is, don't block all the websites hosted by a company that doesn't even have spammers as customers, but that sells mailing list software that could be abused by spammers. Likewise, if people are selling illegal drugs from a website, block them. But someone who sells grow lamps from a website should not cause everyone from the hosting company to be blocked, even though grow lamps could be used to grow illegal as well as legal plants.
It was funny when "drug site" blocking software blocked the DEA's site, though. Kinda makes you wonder WTF? If it is illegal content, that is one thing. The trouble starts when people want to block legal content "for the good" of people trying to reach said legal content.
It does seem like false advertising. I'm also concerned about well funded interests buying control and implementing commercial and political filtering policies. The first is illegal. The second should be made illegal. Imagine if the telephone companies "blacklisted" all the environmental activists telephone numbers? Or consumer groups? Or political action groups (of one flavor *or* the other)?
"Open Source" might not be a verb yet, but it will be. Might need to concatenate it down to "opensource", first, though.
At the risk of being redundant (posting this to other similar replies): Does the Washington Post count? Security Fix Brian Krebs on Computer Security "Indeed, as I reported earlier, in his hotel room on the eve of that presentation, Maynor showed me a live demo of him exploiting the built-in Macbook drivers to break into the machine from another laptop -- without a third party card plugged in." Try the first URL in the article and search for Washington Post, then follow the links to the story.
Does the Washington Post count? Security Fix Brian Krebs on Computer Security "Indeed, as I reported earlier, in his hotel room on the eve of that presentation, Maynor showed me a live demo of him exploiting the built-in Macbook drivers to break into the machine from another laptop -- without a third party card plugged in." Try the first URL in the article and search for Washington Post, then follow the links to the story.
Washington Post: "Apple's Fox said that prior to the Black Hat demo, SecureWorks did contact Apple about a wireless flaw in FreeBSD, the open-source code upon which Apple's OS X operating system is based. In January, FreeBSD released a patch to fix the problem, which according to the accompanying advisory, related to a flaw in the way FreeBSD systems scanned for wireless networks that could be exploited to allow attackers to take complete control over the targeted machine."
The Washington Post seems to disagree with your version of history: "Update on the Apple Macbook Claims
Apple today issued a statement strongly refuting claims put forth by researchers at SecureWorks that Apple's Macbook computer contains a wireless-security flaw that could let attackers hijack the machines remotely. "
Actually Apple tried to force the researchers to state that there were no holes in Apple drivers. Seems wrong to me.