If so, a lot of back-issues of technical journals could be considered contraband under the law. Whee!
Actually, wouldn't that be an idea on how to show to the public the effects of the DMCA? Use a well-known (and bad) encryption algorithm for copyright protection, then sue some respected scientific journals that explain why the algorithm is bad (and maybe also the libraries where you find those journals) for publishing circumvention devices?
But then again, courts would probably see a difference between code that is printed on paper and code that is saved on a computer. I guess the latter is "more executable" or something.
Yes, I know that's just one quote, not "some quotes", I wanted to comment on another as well, but someone else was faster then me so I removed it after previewing.
I believe that the M in RMS is Mathew, an interesting question to accompany this would be, how does RMS prefer to be refered in person, and/or online, Rick, Richard, RMS etc.
Interesting, a Google search for "Richard Mathew Stallman" will also return some results. Any other suggestions?
I don't remember how I found this out, and I don't know if it's correct, but when you do a Google search for "Richard Martin Stallman", it returns a few results that refer to RMS.
There is another big security problem with a central logon service. If someone manages to get access to your Passport login information, he can use all Passport-using sites with your authentication, not just the sites for which you created the account.
If someone manages to get access to your webmail account, he can read your mail. This alone is bad, but if your webmail service is Hotmail, your webmail account is actually a Passport account. The attacker can now not only read your mail, he can also use your authentication for all kinds of other services that use Passport, even if you never intended to use your account for those services.
This isn't a big issue yet, because the attacker could just as well create his own account. Logging in with your identification on a site which you have not used yet usually doesn't make sense. But if Passport manages to become the authorative source of authentication (think of trusted realname indentification, digital signature services, etc.), this might become a real security problem.
If you know of some programs you think are hard to use, fix them!
And how exactly am I supposed to do this? The problem with usability is that testing is difficult (and/or expensive). With a piece of "technical" code, you can look which is more stable, which has a better architecture, which runs faster, etc. With usability, such simple tests are not possible, and there are often good arguments for more than one design.
Just one example, menubars: Should each window have its own, or should they be a global menubar on the screen's top edge? There are valid arguments for both possibilities. The choice of open source projects in those cases is far too often to leave the choice to the user. This might be the right decision in some cases, but in many cases, I think it is not. Effectively, it means giving the job of the interface designer to the user.
There are also problems with convincing the maintainers that there actually is a problem. Too many developers simply don't realize that their software has a bad usability.
I wonder if it will be banned to use such things on aircrafts. After all, the use of electronic devices is restricted, especially the use of devices that transmit data. But I guess it might be hard to turn off these things...
BTW, this is already a problem with Bluetooth. Some mobile devices can't turn off the bluetooth sender, making it illegal to use them on aircrafts (normally it's ok to use them except during takeoff and landing).
Actually, this will happen. Current processors are designed so that with each cycle they load and decode the instructions they're going to execute (and, of course, the data the instruction is going to work on). When the instruction is completed, it's thrown away. This is highly inefficient for loops, because the same code is loaded again and again. Think about audio or video decoders -- the same decoding instrcutions are reloaded all the time.
Future processors will, at least partly, be reconfigurable, that is they will load a set of instructions and save it, and then have to load the data only. This is supposed to be the optimum between a hardware-only implementation (fastest, but can't change when, for example, encodings change) and current "software-only" implementations (most flexible, but processors must (re)load instructions in each cycle).
Take a look at, for example, PACT if you're interested in this technology, they're one of the companies developing such processors.
It's all there. Anything cool you've ever used, and then some, is there.
See, that's the problem. Any feature you can imagine, it's there. But what is missing is design. There isn't any human interface design in either KDE or GNOME, both are just a collection of human interface features.
Design is about making choices, and sometimes about leaving some things out. Open source can hardly leave things out, and too often leaves design choices to the user. They call this flexibility, but it is not. Flexibility is the possibility to do what you want, without breaking the design. A common argument at this point is, what if people don't like the design? Shouldn't they have the possibility to change it? Well, I think they shouldn't, they're free to use something else.
What do you do if you want to write software but don't like the design of LISP? You probably use some other language, and don't try to make LISP more "flexible" by adding in the syntactic features and design ideas of other languages. But this is precisely what KDE and GNOME are doing to human interfaces, which is why I am sceptical about the success of open source of the desktop.
Guys (and gals), listen to me: When you're paying attention to Mundie or Ballmer or Gates, and then bitching about how evil they are... You're not writing code.
So? What if I currently don't want to write code? What if I currently want to discuss with others?
I'm not out there to write code all day and destroy Microsoft. I'm coding because it's fun. But sometimes I don't feel like writing code. If you want, you can pay me for coding anyway, but if you don't, please don't expect me to code for your goals.
This is the one thing I dislike most about the "open source community" - the expectation of some people that we are a single group, with the single goal to destroy Microsoft and proprietary software in general. This might be your goal, but it's not mine. You're free to have those goals, but please stop accusing me for not having them.
Trying to create a new infrastructure is only going to add a level of complexity that is going to keep people out. It needs to be as easy as possible, which means using ways that people are already familiar with.
Well, yes, that was what I was trying to say.
Note that I wanted to say it needs to be easy, not that a new infrastructure adds complexity (it shouldn't). I guess I should have quoted the second sentence only:)
Trying to create a new infrastructure is only going to add a level of complexity that is going to keep people out. It needs to be as easy as possible, which means using ways that people are already familiar with.
Well, yes, that was what I was trying to say. Have you taken a look at the MathML examples? I wouldn't want to write MathML in soucecode.
To an average user, I think editing source code is much more complex than having a good editor that suits the task (like a spreadsheet for charts). For formulas, LaTeX seems pretty good (at least better than visual editors where you have to switch between mouse and keyboard all the time), but you can't publish LaTeX on the web.
Have a complicated formula with fractions and everything else? Create it as a gif, and have a way to add that, maybe as a link at the bottom of the entry.
Then what if someone wants to print the article? If there were MathML, the formula could be rendered again, in a more suitable print resolution. Having images works for the web, but makes reuse for other media much harder. If the articles are to be usable and readable not just on the web, users must submit the actual content, not just an image. Also remember that images of formulas are not readable by people with visual disabilities.
Oh, and BTW how do users create the link? With current browsers, by adding appropriate markup in the source code of your article. This is not exactly user-friendly.
An encyclopedia on computer science might work very well with source code. But we're talking about a full encyclopedia here, with all kinds of other topics, and the people that are experts in those are often not computer experts in the way we are. If all you offer them is the text entry field that current browsers offer (like the comment entry field on Slashdot) many of them might not contribute.
One thing that such efforts will really need in order to succeed is a better infrastructure for editing articles, and a better publishing method than just plain HTML. Just take a look at the formuals in Wikipedia's physics section. It's ok for simple things, but what happens when they come to integrals, or just square roots? Write sqrt(...)?
Where's TeX for the web? Yes, MathML is there, but what about good editors and rendering engines?
And formulas aren't the only problem. What about figures, charts, tables, multimedia content and all that stuff? Edit everything in sourcecode? Current web browsers have nothing but a plain text editors in web forms, unless you use annoying plugins. Of course, you can include images, but then all data except the visualization is lost.
Before these projects can really take off, a new infrastructure for content editing and viewing needs to take off. The technical infrastructure (HTTP, XML) exists and works, but the applications are still missing.
Essentially the article says "The more obscure, the better, but don't forget to also use other methods." I don't really agree with this. It's not wrong, but simply "hiding" your server by using a non-standard port can give you a false feeling of being secure. You cannot hide a server, one day, it will be found.
There are different kinds of obscurity. Security through obscured implementation is bad, because it hides from you how your system works.
Security through hiding from potential attackers what implementation you are using, and how you're using it is not bad. Hiding where you're using it can help, but it's not the most important thing to do.
They announce to reduce headcounts in a socially acceptable way and in close cooperation with the empolyee's council
This is of course a good thing, but seriously, what else would you expect them to announce? And don't forget that they're essentially still firing those people, most of the "playing nice" is required by German law anyway.
So this is not, IMO a sudden panic measure but an act of careful planning for times getting harsher.
Well, it's probably both. I think Suse is just another of the companies that wanted to grow too fast during the new economy and Linux hype, and now they are realizing it didn't work, and won't work anytime soon.
My guess is that they are in financial trouble. Not bankrupt, but in trouble. They were planning an IPO, but they came too late and were smart enough to cancel it. But their long-term plans probably were done with that extra cash in mind. And, let's be realistic, their move to the US market wasn't exactly a success.
If you write closed source code and you download GPLed source code, PACMAN and his viral friends are going to come and get you.
And how exactly are "PACMAN" supposed to find you? Neither do they have the possibility to look at your code and see if you've copied something, nor do any GPL projects I know of require a registration to get the source. (And even if the official source did, you could just get the code somewhere else).
And since when is it illegal to look at others code to get some ideas? As long as you don't just copy, there's nothing wrong about this. You're also free to write a song even if you've listened to someone else's music before.
On the other hand, There's a law against Breaking and Entering my house.
There are also laws against copying copyrighted material without a license.
Now, in a sense, my house has poor protection
Even if it had no protection, even if you left the doors open all day, it would still be illegal to enter your house without your consent.
Even without the DMCA, it was illegal to copy content that was copyrighted, unless you had a license (or a fair use right). What was not illegal was speaking about copying content, or thinking about it.
You would not want a law that protects you real estate by making it illegal to simply take a look at your house's locks and windows. You would not want a law that protects your house by making it illegal to own a bulldozer. You would not want a law that makes it illegal to test how breakable different types of glass are.
It seems that in Germany law firms can write cease and desist letters to businesses they think are infringing another company's trademarks, without being employed by the latter, and demand payment from the company on the receiving end of the letter.
IANAL, but I've just read the German law, and this is definitely not legal, at least not the way they've done this.
It is not forbidden to act on behalf of someone without being ordered to do so (this is called "Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag", which means "doing business without being ordered to do so"), but if you're doing that, you...
must not act against the interest of the person you work for
are liable for any damages you cause if you did not act in the person's interest
must inform the person on whose behalf you act as soon as possible
if there is no immediate danger, you must not only inform them, but also await their consent.
I don't know how exactly these laws are applied to lawyers, but I'm quite sure it's not legal for any lawyer to act on behalf of a someone who's not his client.
BTW, I'm quite sure similar laws exist in the U.S. and most other countries. Otherwise how could you (legally) do someone a favor before he knows about it? Suppose you see someone's computer catching fire while he's not there. This law makes sure you can legally turn it off, even if the owner want's it to be running 24 hours, as you can suppose the owner is more interested in not having his house burn down than in having his computer online all day. (This is also a typical case of "immediate danger", so you don't have to await consent).
No. Abmahnungen (cease-and-desist letters) can be sent for various reasons, including trademark infringement.
It is also possible to send such letters on behalf of the public, to enforce consumer protection laws, but this can be done only by organizations that are registered as consumer protection organizations, and they only get registered if they're non-profit (I think). Most law firms are however working for profit, and thus cannot sue on behalf of the public.
(There has been a case recently where a "consumer protection organization" has lost their right to sue because they were also doing business for profit. Read this article (german) if you're interested.)
Also, a lawyer can't just act on behalf of someone who is not their client.
It is however possible - and I guess that's what Adobe did - to hire a law firm to "protect your trademarks", and them let them do so on their own, without asking you about each and every case.
Disclaimer: I am German, and live in Germany, but IANAL.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, wouldn't that be an idea on how to show to the public the effects of the DMCA? Use a well-known (and bad) encryption algorithm for copyright protection, then sue some respected scientific journals that explain why the algorithm is bad (and maybe also the libraries where you find those journals) for publishing circumvention devices?
But then again, courts would probably see a difference between code that is printed on paper and code that is saved on a computer. I guess the latter is "more executable" or something.
Yes, I know that's just one quote, not "some quotes", I wanted to comment on another as well, but someone else was faster then me so I removed it after previewing.
Isn't it nice how the report"explains" how EuroLinux carefully advised opponents on how to write their objections, what arguments to use etc.?
"Extracts from this guidance that were frequently found in the responses or appeared to influence the responses [...]".
Interesting, a Google search for "Richard Mathew Stallman" will also return some results. Any other suggestions?
I think it's Richard Martin Stallman.
I don't remember how I found this out, and I don't know if it's correct, but when you do a Google search for "Richard Martin Stallman", it returns a few results that refer to RMS.
There is another big security problem with a central logon service. If someone manages to get access to your Passport login information, he can use all Passport-using sites with your authentication, not just the sites for which you created the account.
If someone manages to get access to your webmail account, he can read your mail. This alone is bad, but if your webmail service is Hotmail, your webmail account is actually a Passport account. The attacker can now not only read your mail, he can also use your authentication for all kinds of other services that use Passport, even if you never intended to use your account for those services.
This isn't a big issue yet, because the attacker could just as well create his own account. Logging in with your identification on a site which you have not used yet usually doesn't make sense. But if Passport manages to become the authorative source of authentication (think of trusted realname indentification, digital signature services, etc.), this might become a real security problem.
And how exactly am I supposed to do this? The problem with usability is that testing is difficult (and/or expensive). With a piece of "technical" code, you can look which is more stable, which has a better architecture, which runs faster, etc. With usability, such simple tests are not possible, and there are often good arguments for more than one design.
Just one example, menubars: Should each window have its own, or should they be a global menubar on the screen's top edge? There are valid arguments for both possibilities. The choice of open source projects in those cases is far too often to leave the choice to the user. This might be the right decision in some cases, but in many cases, I think it is not. Effectively, it means giving the job of the interface designer to the user.
There are also problems with convincing the maintainers that there actually is a problem. Too many developers simply don't realize that their software has a bad usability.
...would of course be Penguin Racer.
Rumors are that some people still prefer politeness to religous information-must-want-to-be-free zealotry.
I wonder if it will be banned to use such things on aircrafts. After all, the use of electronic devices is restricted, especially the use of devices that transmit data. But I guess it might be hard to turn off these things...
BTW, this is already a problem with Bluetooth. Some mobile devices can't turn off the bluetooth sender, making it illegal to use them on aircrafts (normally it's ok to use them except during takeoff and landing).
Actually, this will happen. Current processors are designed so that with each cycle they load and decode the instructions they're going to execute (and, of course, the data the instruction is going to work on). When the instruction is completed, it's thrown away. This is highly inefficient for loops, because the same code is loaded again and again. Think about audio or video decoders -- the same decoding instrcutions are reloaded all the time.
Future processors will, at least partly, be reconfigurable, that is they will load a set of instructions and save it, and then have to load the data only. This is supposed to be the optimum between a hardware-only implementation (fastest, but can't change when, for example, encodings change) and current "software-only" implementations (most flexible, but processors must (re)load instructions in each cycle).
Take a look at, for example, PACT if you're interested in this technology, they're one of the companies developing such processors.
But by doing so, Bob won't lose any of his property. "Intellectual property" isn't taken away from anyone, it is copied.
Oh, you mean Tomb Raider?
Duh. If there is no copyright law, that commercial software will be just as free as any software that is now protected by the GPL.
See, that's the problem. Any feature you can imagine, it's there. But what is missing is design. There isn't any human interface design in either KDE or GNOME, both are just a collection of human interface features.
Design is about making choices, and sometimes about leaving some things out. Open source can hardly leave things out, and too often leaves design choices to the user. They call this flexibility, but it is not. Flexibility is the possibility to do what you want, without breaking the design. A common argument at this point is, what if people don't like the design? Shouldn't they have the possibility to change it? Well, I think they shouldn't, they're free to use something else.
What do you do if you want to write software but don't like the design of LISP? You probably use some other language, and don't try to make LISP more "flexible" by adding in the syntactic features and design ideas of other languages. But this is precisely what KDE and GNOME are doing to human interfaces, which is why I am sceptical about the success of open source of the desktop.
So? What if I currently don't want to write code? What if I currently want to discuss with others?
I'm not out there to write code all day and destroy Microsoft. I'm coding because it's fun. But sometimes I don't feel like writing code. If you want, you can pay me for coding anyway, but if you don't, please don't expect me to code for your goals.
This is the one thing I dislike most about the "open source community" - the expectation of some people that we are a single group, with the single goal to destroy Microsoft and proprietary software in general. This might be your goal, but it's not mine. You're free to have those goals, but please stop accusing me for not having them.
Note that I wanted to say it needs to be easy, not that a new infrastructure adds complexity (it shouldn't). I guess I should have quoted the second sentence only :)
Well, yes, that was what I was trying to say. Have you taken a look at the MathML examples? I wouldn't want to write MathML in soucecode.
To an average user, I think editing source code is much more complex than having a good editor that suits the task (like a spreadsheet for charts). For formulas, LaTeX seems pretty good (at least better than visual editors where you have to switch between mouse and keyboard all the time), but you can't publish LaTeX on the web.
Then what if someone wants to print the article? If there were MathML, the formula could be rendered again, in a more suitable print resolution. Having images works for the web, but makes reuse for other media much harder. If the articles are to be usable and readable not just on the web, users must submit the actual content, not just an image. Also remember that images of formulas are not readable by people with visual disabilities.
Oh, and BTW how do users create the link? With current browsers, by adding appropriate markup in the source code of your article. This is not exactly user-friendly.
An encyclopedia on computer science might work very well with source code. But we're talking about a full encyclopedia here, with all kinds of other topics, and the people that are experts in those are often not computer experts in the way we are. If all you offer them is the text entry field that current browsers offer (like the comment entry field on Slashdot) many of them might not contribute.
One thing that such efforts will really need in order to succeed is a better infrastructure for editing articles, and a better publishing method than just plain HTML. Just take a look at the formuals in Wikipedia's physics section. It's ok for simple things, but what happens when they come to integrals, or just square roots? Write sqrt(...)?
Where's TeX for the web? Yes, MathML is there, but what about good editors and rendering engines?
And formulas aren't the only problem. What about figures, charts, tables, multimedia content and all that stuff? Edit everything in sourcecode? Current web browsers have nothing but a plain text editors in web forms, unless you use annoying plugins. Of course, you can include images, but then all data except the visualization is lost.
Before these projects can really take off, a new infrastructure for content editing and viewing needs to take off. The technical infrastructure (HTTP, XML) exists and works, but the applications are still missing.
Essentially the article says "The more obscure, the better, but don't forget to also use other methods." I don't really agree with this. It's not wrong, but simply "hiding" your server by using a non-standard port can give you a false feeling of being secure. You cannot hide a server, one day, it will be found.
There are different kinds of obscurity. Security through obscured implementation is bad, because it hides from you how your system works.
Security through hiding from potential attackers what implementation you are using, and how you're using it is not bad. Hiding where you're using it can help, but it's not the most important thing to do.
This is of course a good thing, but seriously, what else would you expect them to announce? And don't forget that they're essentially still firing those people, most of the "playing nice" is required by German law anyway.
Well, it's probably both. I think Suse is just another of the companies that wanted to grow too fast during the new economy and Linux hype, and now they are realizing it didn't work, and won't work anytime soon.
My guess is that they are in financial trouble. Not bankrupt, but in trouble. They were planning an IPO, but they came too late and were smart enough to cancel it. But their long-term plans probably were done with that extra cash in mind. And, let's be realistic, their move to the US market wasn't exactly a success.
And how exactly are "PACMAN" supposed to find you? Neither do they have the possibility to look at your code and see if you've copied something, nor do any GPL projects I know of require a registration to get the source. (And even if the official source did, you could just get the code somewhere else).
And since when is it illegal to look at others code to get some ideas? As long as you don't just copy, there's nothing wrong about this. You're also free to write a song even if you've listened to someone else's music before.
There are also laws against copying copyrighted material without a license.
Even if it had no protection, even if you left the doors open all day, it would still be illegal to enter your house without your consent.
Even without the DMCA, it was illegal to copy content that was copyrighted, unless you had a license (or a fair use right). What was not illegal was speaking about copying content, or thinking about it.
You would not want a law that protects you real estate by making it illegal to simply take a look at your house's locks and windows. You would not want a law that protects your house by making it illegal to own a bulldozer. You would not want a law that makes it illegal to test how breakable different types of glass are.
The DMCA is such a law.
From the article:
IANAL, but I've just read the German law, and this is definitely not legal, at least not the way they've done this.
It is not forbidden to act on behalf of someone without being ordered to do so (this is called "Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag", which means "doing business without being ordered to do so"), but if you're doing that, you...
I don't know how exactly these laws are applied to lawyers, but I'm quite sure it's not legal for any lawyer to act on behalf of a someone who's not his client.
BTW, I'm quite sure similar laws exist in the U.S. and most other countries. Otherwise how could you (legally) do someone a favor before he knows about it? Suppose you see someone's computer catching fire while he's not there. This law makes sure you can legally turn it off, even if the owner want's it to be running 24 hours, as you can suppose the owner is more interested in not having his house burn down than in having his computer online all day. (This is also a typical case of "immediate danger", so you don't have to await consent).
No. Abmahnungen (cease-and-desist letters) can be sent for various reasons, including trademark infringement.
It is also possible to send such letters on behalf of the public, to enforce consumer protection laws, but this can be done only by organizations that are registered as consumer protection organizations, and they only get registered if they're non-profit (I think). Most law firms are however working for profit, and thus cannot sue on behalf of the public.
(There has been a case recently where a "consumer protection organization" has lost their right to sue because they were also doing business for profit. Read this article (german) if you're interested.)
Also, a lawyer can't just act on behalf of someone who is not their client.
It is however possible - and I guess that's what Adobe did - to hire a law firm to "protect your trademarks", and them let them do so on their own, without asking you about each and every case.
Disclaimer: I am German, and live in Germany, but IANAL.