No, because corporations answer to their shareholders or are privately owned. An independent entity can be funded by the government, as long as funding is guaranteed to be independent of the entity's actions.
An example is the BBC in the UK. As I understand it, the BBC is funded directly by the proceeds of television licenses. The only way to change the BBC's funding is to change to the amount of money paid for a TV license, in which case the British public get angry. Such a change cannot be hidden as the BBC effectively directly bills each member of the public.
Soldiers can still vote if the overseas voting system is developed and run by an independent entity, with independent funding. Soldiers may have to trust the Pentagon with their well being, but hat trust should NOT have to extend to trusting the Pentagon with their vote.
What is the Pentagon doing developing voting systems? As a major recipient of government money, with no funding guarantees, wouldn't it have a significant vested interest in election results?
This is probably why SCO didn't explicity threaten legal action in their press release.
"When asked why the media release which provided this information had not specifically told commercial Linux users - whom O'Shaughnessy said were SCO's target - to take out a licence or else face the consequences,..."
- from the SMH Article
The Australian Copyright Council advises people to be very careful when alleging copyright infringement, as it is easy to fall foul of defamation laws or section 202 of the copyright act.
"In some circumstances, letters claiming that someone has infringed copyright can result in problems under the
law of defamation or under section 202 of the Copyright Act (which prohibits the making of groundless threats of
legal proceedings). Therefore, it is advisable to have a letter of demand drafted by a lawyer."
- Australian Copyright Council
Consequently, SCO's press release would probably have been vetted by a lawyer.
Unfortunately Mr O'Shaughnessy may have blown it with his unvetted response to the SMH journalist (continuation of the first quote)
"... he said "in effect, this is what is being said." "
- from the SMH Article
So there you go, straight from the mouth of the boss of SCO Australia. Pay up or we sue you. Does this make him personably liable for defamation or prosecution under section 202? Does anyone who actually knows what they are talking about want to comment?
Except half the Windows programs out there refuse to run as a regular user, as they expect to have write access to system level directories. Consequently it is generally not practical to run Windows as a regular user.
Perhaps this is a chance for a return to major websites as a cottage industry? The MSNs of this world have huge overheads and desire for huge profits. Consequently there is an opening for companies with tiny overheads and a desire for a modest profit (enough to support the owner). After all, on the Internet noone knows you're a dog, and they don't know your server is living in a spare room.
Can anyone please tell me what is open about 'open labs'?
From their web site:
Because it is based on our OpenSynth(TM) platform, NEKO 64(TM) frees you from all of the frustrating limitations imposed by closed, proprietary systems, while still maintaining the virtues of an all-in-one keyboard instrument.
and from their developers page:
The OpenSynth(TM) Developer program is open to any software or hardware controller developer with a compatible product offering. Open Labs offers many opportunities to developers to market their products including software bundling, eCommerce via the Open Labs website, and exposure at tradeshows as well as in marketing materials.
Apart from the above quotes, I cannot find any of the usual 'open source' characterstics, such as souce code. Also, the product seems to run MS Windows XP as its operating system.
I'm intrigued to know what is open about this product, apart from the name. Am I missing something? Perhaps 'open' is just a term which is open (sorry!) to wide interpretation?
If you trust the FSF, and you know you only ever want to release your code under the GPL, ask the FSF if they will accept your code as a donation. That way they become the copyright holder and are authorised to take action.
You are able to continue devlopment as before, since the code will still be GPL'd. You will have lost the right to sell your software under a license other than the GPL though.
"A consortium of Linux developers called the Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) launched a $10 million legal fund to protect any Linux user from SCO's courtroom hounds. The OSDL's roster includes: Cisco (Nasdaq: CSCO), Dell (Nasdaq: DELL), Ericsson, Fujitsu, Hitachi, HP, IBM, Intel (Nasdaq: INTC), Nokia, Red Hat, Sun Microsystems (Nasdaq: SUNW), Toshiba, and others."
source
It's intersting that the GPL, a license designed to encourage voluntary cooperation between programers is now encouraging cooperation between lawyers as well. If there is strength in a distributed coding effort, is there as much strength in a distributed legal effort?
Are you guys all crazy, blind or something? Can't you SEE it!!??
You think those explosions in the Australian outback are a coincidence? That ain't a fractionator mate, it's a launch tower! Those weren't gas explosions, they were rocket fuel!!!
Think Dubya is being a mongrel by not signing Kyoto? It's not that he doesn't like it, just that it is irrelevant, 'cause he won't be here!!! Is he a bastard for tearing up the ABM treaty? He needs that gone so he can get his launch vehicles away! Dick's affilation with big business is just a front for the collection of global fatcats who will be riding the rocketship to freedom, away from environmental disaster.
Up until now the only bit we haven't been able to figure out has been the destination. Now we know! It's Mars!!! First stop will be the moon, from where Dubya and friends will move onto their new Martian Utopia while the rest of us fry back here on earth!!!
As I write this, I'm boucing through the outback, in a ute with my comrades, tinfoil akubra on my head. Our objective is to save civilisation from this menace . It's a tough mission, but someone's gotta do it. Wish us well and pray for us as we roll towards our destiny...
Also a good engineer never says 'never'. He only talks in probabilites of outcomes and 'probabilities within specification'. That was the point of the orginal comment.
I would content that a good engineer SHOULD 'pie-in-the-sky' as a thought experment. Extremes can expose shortcomings in a design or suggest a better way of doing things. A bad engineer gets sucked into actually building a pie-in-the-sky, without doing it in increments.
I agree that the IPv6 address space is big enough, but it is wrong (and bad engineering) to pretent it is the ultimate answer in some regard.
>There are so many IPv6 addresses that humanity will never run out of them--never, ever.
Is this like: "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."?
What *if* molecular nanotechnoloy takes off? Humanity then decides to build a large space based object, which will be built by a massive number of 'replicators', each working within a 100nm per side cube. (Raw material will come from a passing asteroid.) It is decided that each replicator is to be individually addressable. The number of IP addresses required is then (<linear size>^3)/((100nm)^3). 2^128 addresses will be required to build a 700km cube.
Sure this far fetched, and there are lots of other technologies which need to be invented before something like this can happen, but lots of today's things were far fetched in recent history.
The percentage of online Americans not admitting to downloading music files on the Internet has increased and the numbers who are downloading files on any given day have not changed since the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) began filing suits in September against those suspected of copyright infringement. Furthermore, a fifth of those who admit they continue to download or share files online say they are going underground more often because of the suits.
A new nationwide phone survey of 1,358 Internet users from November 18-December 14 by the Pew Internet & American Life Project showed that the percentage of music file downloaders hiding their activities had increased to 15% from 0% when the Project last reported on downloading from a survey conducted during March 12-19 and April 29-May 20. On an average day during the spring survey, 4% of Internet users said they downloaded files. In the November-December survey just 3% were underground on any given day during the survey period.
[snip]
Furthermore, in the Pew Internet Project survey, the percentage of Internet users who admit they share files such as music, video, picture files or computer games with others online dropped from 28% in a June 2003 survey to 20% in the November-December survey. Compared to music downloading, the drop in those who say they share music (does this sentence actually make sense to anyone???) or other types of media files was less pronounced. This may reflect the large amount of media attention focused on the recording industry's attempts specifically to force music downloading and sharing underground, while efforts to bury those who circulate copyrighted images or programs have been less visible. Additionally, there may be a fraction of Internet users who are simply less likely to admit to either downloading music or sharing files due to the negative media portrayal of the activity. (Hey, they told the truth!)
While multiple factors may have contributed to the move underground, every nook of the music downloading world has continued business as usual, including the parts of the population that were the most prolific users of online file-sharing networks. Steep drops in admitting to downloading were recorded among students, broadband users, young adults (those ages 18-29) and Internet veterans. The groups that recorded the greatest move to new P2P networks were women (58% moved to new networks), those with some college education (61% moved) and parents with children living at home (58% moved). The survey was conducted among those 18 and older.
We will not be offering the Windows Server 2003 DDK as a download on the WHDC Web site. However, it is part of the standard MSDN(R) subscription download and is included with MSDN subscriptions, starting with the April 2003 edition.
That hardly seems freely available.
I agree unrestricted port access is a security hole, but a hardware developer's requirements are different to a software developer's. If the operating system is to be 'locked down', there needs to be some way to allow hardware developers to bypass the 'safeguards'.
I'm just not interested in that option. My point is that MS has saved me the hassle of justifying my position to those that I want to migrate to Free Software.
Sure, copying Windows XP may be 'sticking it' to MS, but a much more effective (and legal) way to 'stick it' to MS to to eliminate their software entirely.
Windows as a Hardware Development Platform
on
Windows 98 Phased Out
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I suspect MS has just lost a lot of hardware developers. Win98 was the last MS operating system that allowed direct access to the I/O ports and memory. This allowed the hardware to be built and a quick and dirty software system to be hacked up in user space.
This is no longer the case. Instead hardware designers will be required to get bogged down in driver developement, just to get the first few bits into and out of their systems. In my limited experience with MS Windows driver development, DDK information is 'restricted' and 'quick and dirty' tests are no longer possible.
It looks like I will be learning how to write a linux device driver (or reverting to a DOS replacement).
One of my family has asked me to set up a computer. When I suggested a Free operating system, the first question was 'what's wrong with Windows?' Apart from nebulous philosophical issues, in which they have little interest, I couldn't really give a simple answer. (The truth is Windows 98 is/was enough for their needs)
Now the answer is simple. That unused copy of Windows 98 doesn't work any more as it is riddled with unfixable security holes. Also I can't make a copy of the latest MS Windows as it requires registration. (Thanks again MS for saving me the trouble of defending my aversion to copying proprietary software!)
You are free to *use* software while ignoring the GPL.
The GPL only kicks in when you *distribute* copies of the software. In this case if you choose to ignore the GPL, copyright law defaults to 'you are not allowed to distribute the software'. Hence the *only* legal way to distribute (note: I didn't say 'use') GPL'd software is to agree to the GPL.
Unless they have patents, there is nothing they can do to stop someone from building a microscope using their plans. The only thing they can do is stop you from copying the plans themselves (under copyright law).
John D. Alexander, the inventor of the disk scanner, also has a 'free' STM design on the web. Incidentally, this guy took out a patent on the disk scanner, then withdrew the patent application! Now that's a smart way to make sure others cannot lock up a design with patents (or he just ran out of money).
My point exactly! Rather than using a 'really nice spectrum analyser', it would be fun to use a relatively cheap ADC with no mixer. Sure, for practical uses dynamic range will be a problem (or analog bandpass filtering will be required), but it would still be a fun thing to do.
Slashdot Mirror
(Actually I'd rather keep the rover.)
Like this sort of extreme measure? :-)
An example is the BBC in the UK. As I understand it, the BBC is funded directly by the proceeds of television licenses. The only way to change the BBC's funding is to change to the amount of money paid for a TV license, in which case the British public get angry. Such a change cannot be hidden as the BBC effectively directly bills each member of the public.
Soldiers can still vote if the overseas voting system is developed and run by an independent entity, with independent funding. Soldiers may have to trust the Pentagon with their well being, but hat trust should NOT have to extend to trusting the Pentagon with their vote.
What is the Pentagon doing developing voting systems? As a major recipient of government money, with no funding guarantees, wouldn't it have a significant vested interest in election results?
The Australian Copyright Council advises people to be very careful when alleging copyright infringement, as it is easy to fall foul of defamation laws or section 202 of the copyright act.
Consequently, SCO's press release would probably have been vetted by a lawyer.Unfortunately Mr O'Shaughnessy may have blown it with his unvetted response to the SMH journalist (continuation of the first quote)
So there you go, straight from the mouth of the boss of SCO Australia. Pay up or we sue you. Does this make him personably liable for defamation or prosecution under section 202? Does anyone who actually knows what they are talking about want to comment?The SCO case against IBM will fail. SCO will then divert it's efforts into a meritless copyright case based on 'error.h'.
Except half the Windows programs out there refuse to run as a regular user, as they expect to have write access to system level directories. Consequently it is generally not practical to run Windows as a regular user.
Perhaps this is a chance for a return to major websites as a cottage industry? The MSNs of this world have huge overheads and desire for huge profits. Consequently there is an opening for companies with tiny overheads and a desire for a modest profit (enough to support the owner). After all, on the Internet noone knows you're a dog, and they don't know your server is living in a spare room.
I'm intrigued to know what is open about this product, apart from the name. Am I missing something? Perhaps 'open' is just a term which is open (sorry!) to wide interpretation?
You are able to continue devlopment as before, since the code will still be GPL'd. You will have lost the right to sell your software under a license other than the GPL though.
It's intersting that the GPL, a license designed to encourage voluntary cooperation between programers is now encouraging cooperation between lawyers as well. If there is strength in a distributed coding effort, is there as much strength in a distributed legal effort?
You think those explosions in the Australian outback are a coincidence? That ain't a fractionator mate, it's a launch tower! Those weren't gas explosions, they were rocket fuel!!! Think Dubya is being a mongrel by not signing Kyoto? It's not that he doesn't like it, just that it is irrelevant, 'cause he won't be here!!! Is he a bastard for tearing up the ABM treaty? He needs that gone so he can get his launch vehicles away! Dick's affilation with big business is just a front for the collection of global fatcats who will be riding the rocketship to freedom, away from environmental disaster.
Up until now the only bit we haven't been able to figure out has been the destination. Now we know! It's Mars!!! First stop will be the moon, from where Dubya and friends will move onto their new Martian Utopia while the rest of us fry back here on earth!!!
As I write this, I'm boucing through the outback, in a ute with my comrades, tinfoil akubra on my head. Our objective is to save civilisation from this menace . It's a tough mission, but someone's gotta do it. Wish us well and pray for us as we roll towards our destiny...
I would content that a good engineer SHOULD 'pie-in-the-sky' as a thought experment. Extremes can expose shortcomings in a design or suggest a better way of doing things. A bad engineer gets sucked into actually building a pie-in-the-sky, without doing it in increments.
I agree that the IPv6 address space is big enough, but it is wrong (and bad engineering) to pretent it is the ultimate answer in some regard.
Is this like: "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."?
What *if* molecular nanotechnoloy takes off? Humanity then decides to build a large space based object, which will be built by a massive number of 'replicators', each working within a 100nm per side cube. (Raw material will come from a passing asteroid.) It is decided that each replicator is to be individually addressable. The number of IP addresses required is then (<linear size>^3)/((100nm)^3). 2^128 addresses will be required to build a 700km cube.
Sure this far fetched, and there are lots of other technologies which need to be invented before something like this can happen, but lots of today's things were far fetched in recent history.
The percentage of online Americans not admitting to downloading music files on the Internet has increased and the numbers who are downloading files on any given day have not changed since the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) began filing suits in September against those suspected of copyright infringement. Furthermore, a fifth of those who admit they continue to download or share files online say they are going underground more often because of the suits.
A new nationwide phone survey of 1,358 Internet users from November 18-December 14 by the Pew Internet & American Life Project showed that the percentage of music file downloaders hiding their activities had increased to 15% from 0% when the Project last reported on downloading from a survey conducted during March 12-19 and April 29-May 20. On an average day during the spring survey, 4% of Internet users said they downloaded files. In the November-December survey just 3% were underground on any given day during the survey period.
[snip]
Furthermore, in the Pew Internet Project survey, the percentage of Internet users who admit they share files such as music, video, picture files or computer games with others online dropped from 28% in a June 2003 survey to 20% in the November-December survey. Compared to music downloading, the drop in those who say they share music (does this sentence actually make sense to anyone???) or other types of media files was less pronounced. This may reflect the large amount of media attention focused on the recording industry's attempts specifically to force music downloading and sharing underground, while efforts to bury those who circulate copyrighted images or programs have been less visible. Additionally, there may be a fraction of Internet users who are simply less likely to admit to either downloading music or sharing files due to the negative media portrayal of the activity. (Hey, they told the truth!)
While multiple factors may have contributed to the move underground, every nook of the music downloading world has continued business as usual, including the parts of the population that were the most prolific users of online file-sharing networks. Steep drops in admitting to downloading were recorded among students, broadband users, young adults (those ages 18-29) and Internet veterans. The groups that recorded the greatest move to new P2P networks were women (58% moved to new networks), those with some college education (61% moved) and parents with children living at home (58% moved). The survey was conducted among those 18 and older.
Thanks. I'll look into it.
I agree unrestricted port access is a security hole, but a hardware developer's requirements are different to a software developer's. If the operating system is to be 'locked down', there needs to be some way to allow hardware developers to bypass the 'safeguards'.
Sure, copying Windows XP may be 'sticking it' to MS, but a much more effective (and legal) way to 'stick it' to MS to to eliminate their software entirely.
This is no longer the case. Instead hardware designers will be required to get bogged down in driver developement, just to get the first few bits into and out of their systems. In my limited experience with MS Windows driver development, DDK information is 'restricted' and 'quick and dirty' tests are no longer possible.
It looks like I will be learning how to write a linux device driver (or reverting to a DOS replacement).
Now the answer is simple. That unused copy of Windows 98 doesn't work any more as it is riddled with unfixable security holes. Also I can't make a copy of the latest MS Windows as it requires registration. (Thanks again MS for saving me the trouble of defending my aversion to copying proprietary software!)
Full steam ahead for a Debian installation.
The GPL only kicks in when you *distribute* copies of the software. In this case if you choose to ignore the GPL, copyright law defaults to 'you are not allowed to distribute the software'. Hence the *only* legal way to distribute (note: I didn't say 'use') GPL'd software is to agree to the GPL.
Unless they have patents, there is nothing they can do to stop someone from building a microscope using their plans. The only thing they can do is stop you from copying the plans themselves (under copyright law).
John D. Alexander, the inventor of the disk scanner, also has a 'free' STM design on the web. Incidentally, this guy took out a patent on the disk scanner, then withdrew the patent application! Now that's a smart way to make sure others cannot lock up a design with patents (or he just ran out of money).
My point exactly! Rather than using a 'really nice spectrum analyser', it would be fun to use a relatively cheap ADC with no mixer. Sure, for practical uses dynamic range will be a problem (or analog bandpass filtering will be required), but it would still be a fun thing to do.
I would like to see the same thing done with an Analog-to-Digital converter. It would be fun to be able to direct sample a 2.4GHz WLAN signal!