The primary question of the article was "Is this legal or actionable with respect to the GPL?"
Even if the FSF knew about it, what could they do? There has to be a clear violation of the wording of the GPL, not just some gut reaction.
So the question stands: What can be done about this type of situation given what we know?
If there is something that can be done, then talk about reporting them.
FWIW: The BSD advertising clause would require at least one comment remain in the code, the original authors name. That would at least give someone a hint as to where the code came from when trying to interpret the "garbage" source.
I always liked TWAIN drivers (those nice drivers for capturing images from scanners, cameras and whatever.
Technology Without An Interesting Name.
Re:Bought and Paid For
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
I've put them on notice that I'll vote in someone else if they dare pass this scam.
That's Right! Now all I have to do is convince everyone else in my voting district to do what I want and I'll be able to carry through with my threat. Let me see... How could I do that? I know, I'll buy a lot of advertising time, push my agenda, sling mud at my enemy, buy votes,... Basically I'll do all the things I hate the corporations for doing.....
OK, My turn. It's been a while since I actually read that document (like, over a year) So I refresh.
Figures 17 and 18 (Pg 58, 59).
The virtual address is 48 bits marked as sign extended, not reserved MBZ. I guess they could add a Level 5 page map and go to a 56 bit virtual and a Level 6 page table for 64 bit virtual. Then they could run into the same problem that *Motorola had 68000 -> 68020.
I think this is what I was remembering when I said the OS would have to be rewritten to use more memory.
As for Physical addressing, Figure 13 PTE (p. 51)shows 4kb Pages using 28 bit base pointer with 12 bit offset for total of 40 bit physical. With 12 bits reserved, you could extend that to 52 bit physical.
However, Figure 14 (P. 53) PDE shows the 2MB page directory entry with 19 bit base and 21 offset for 40 total, but with another 9 bits not used. This 40 plus the previously unused 12 to 52. Plus the new unused 9 gets you to 61. Almost there, but only in 2MB page mode.
Once again the OS would have to be rewritten to use more memory.
* 68000 used 24 of 32 bits, ignoring the high bits. Some programmers tried to use them for other things. When 68020 came out and started using those bits, the old code wouldn't run and had to be rewritten.
I guess the idea is that NOW would be a good time for other interested parties to speak to the court about the merits of such a request rather than after it is granted or rejected.
The 40 bit address and 48 bit virtual limits are inherent in the page table mappings. (See the
AMD Spec)
I found it dissapointing that these limits were in the design up front without apparent room for expansion (free bits to be used in the future) This means that when they do decide to expand the addressing range, they will have to redisign the page table layout and force OS writers to change their code to use it. It would have been nicer to have expansion room built in to the page table design and simply have the CPU implementation have limited pinouts.
While I'm griping, I'll also mention that the X86-16 (Virtual real mode) support has been dropped when in 64 bit mode. I know that noone uses it much anymore, but there are still old legacy games that I have that run in DOS mode and it would be nice to be able to support them.
Hammer has 40 bits of addressing space (as you mentioned) and 48 bits of virtual space (memory map tables) so it's not quite out of the memory limit woods yet.
64 Bits has other advantages. File and partition sizes can now be extended more easily. File limits of 2 and 4 GB were common before (Linux had this problem until recent patches) Large files are usefull in databases.
One could claim that Scientific calculations are where the true advantages lie. But most complex calculations might not even fit well with 64 (or even 128) bit values (cryptography). Most programs have custom integer/floating point libraries that handle large values, and will likely continue to need these libraries even with 64 or 128 bit CPUs. A jump to 128 bit CPU wouldn't help much here, and wouldn't mean much to the database vendors who are still happily trying to fill up a 64 bit address space.
We're not really ready for 128 yet. Tho only major advantage of 128 would be in data bus size, to move more data into the cache per fetch. Some processors already do this for speed reasons.
Only two in 10 films ever retrieve their production and marketing investment from domestic theatrical exhibition.
Could this be because four out of five movies put out by the movie industry are drek and people aren't willing to pay the umpteen bucks the movie companies want for them?
Maybe the best thing the movie industry could do for their own financial security is MAKE BETTER MOVIES!
You've got all these Bowfingers out there trying to make something out of nothing with bad writing and bad acting, and then trying to cover it up with expensive effects and advertising. CLUE: A thousand bucks worth of quality script is worth more than a hundred thousand bucks in overhyped advertising.
It amounts to the same thing. If the owner does not agree ahead of time to not collect fees, then their technology is not accepted as a standard. If the owner agrees, then their technology can be accepted as a standard. It is still up to the owner of the technology deciding not to collect fees BEFORE their technology can be considered for a standard. The owner decides that, not the W3C.
... whether to allow companies to charge royalty fees if their technologies are used in a standard
The consortium cannot tell a company whether it can charge fees for its technology. I think what they meant was that the Consortium will not accept a technology as a standard if there are fees involved. That's a bit different.
I'd guess the hope is that once OpenGL 2.0 stablizes, then OpenGL 1.3 compatibility can be dropped and we're back to two standards.
THEN, maybe Micorsoft and the OpenGL group can try come to terms and maybe bring DirectX compatibility closer to OpenGL (Or vs/vs) and have a single standard.
It sounded like Microsoft wanted to come into compliance with OpenGL before, but dropped it because the OpenGL group moved too slowly. (Insert your own M$ conspiricy theory here, but I suspect they really honestly tried, and if a good opportunity arose, would come back and try again).
I got an old DEC Server 3000 Model 500 last year as a give away. (150 MHz 61064, Turbochannel). I tried for a while to get Linux to run on it, but to no good. After much searching around, I discovered that the Linux kernel had never been completely ported to turbochannel. (some attempts were started but apparently never completed).
I eventually went to NetBSD 1.5 and it booted up and worked fine. It's still alive.
I thought it would be fun, but was a bit dissapointed to discover that it was on the order of a tenth the speed of my Cyrix PR233 machine. I thought an Alpha at 150 could at least keep up with a ~180 MHz X86 processor, but NOOOOOOOO.
Oh, well. It still makes a good Postgresql server.
I suppose you think the owner of a newspaper should not publish their opinions in the editorials either, but in the Classified section so they appear the same as every one else.
I'm saying (in somewhat sarcastic mode, I appoligize for that) that as the owner/operator of the site, Taco has exactly the right to place his opinion in the article heading rather than wait and put it into a comment. He DOES have that privledge. And he did so with a strong disclaimer as well. I have no problem with his editorial style.
Besides, on the purely logistical side, he probably reviews hundreds of submissions each day. It's much easier to add your quick comment, post it and go on, than to have to remember what you were thinking and go back to the article later and post a comment.
Taco does run the site. He does have higher editorial rights than the rest of us. Don't like it? Go run your own site and watch the people compain about your editorial style. I have done this (small, local site but hey...), and you know what? You can't please everyone no matter how hard you try. So just pick a style and go with it. Screw the complainers (like you).
That's right. He has no right to express his opinion outright on his own site like that. If only he had prefaced it with some kind of disclaimer like:
Obviously since SF is owned by the same parent company as Slashdot, I'm biased and corrupt and you should ignore my opinions on the subject, but while I don't particularly like this any more then anyone else,...
then it would be OK. It's almost like he thinks he has as much right as everyone else around here. Sheesh!
Lots of replys said the same as you, but you get the my reply...
There have been many good interesting stories/movies without flawed characters. I happen to like many of Harrison Fords characters, as well as many of Russel Crowes (prior) characters. These are strong capable characters faced with powerfull problems, not flawed characters facing every day struggles. It's sort of the Star Trek project: Take quality people and put them in extraordinary circumstances and see what they do.
I certainly liked "A beautiful mind". A wonderful character study and very educational. But as entertainment goes, give me "Proof of Life" or "LA Confidential".
Besides Crowe, who stars as Nash in ``A Beautiful Mind,'' the best actor nominees were Sean Penn as a retarded father seeking custody of his daughter in ``I Am Sam''; Will Smith as boxer Muhammad Ali in ``Ali''; Denzel Washington as a rakish bad cop in ``Training Day''; and Tom Wilkinson as a vigilante father in ``In the Bedroom.''
Why are most of the leading men portraying... uh, dammaged characters. Besides Ali (who later in real life suffers problems) these seem to all be retarded/schitzo/rakish/problematic characters somehow.
Hollywood loves problematic characters, hates problematic people.
Millions of people in third world countries dying because of patents on drugs.
Millions of people dying because of disease and starvation. Drugs might save them, Food might save them, Clean water might save them. Who owns the patents on food and water? It's a bigger problem than just drugs.
Kids and adults lacking intelligence due to patents on information which could enlighten the world.
People are born ignorant and learn things as they grow. They might learn reading, writing and arithmatic. They might learn science, history or art. They might learn corporate secrets. Do you know every thing there is to know? Is that because of patents/copyright or because of lack of time/interest?
Innovation controlled by big corperations using patents, and all for a profit, milk the old technology for 40 years or more until profits force you to change.
Yes, just imagin how advanced computers would be now without patents. Innovation would be slower, because companies could not expect to receive as much profit from the VERY EXPENSIVE RESEARCH that goes into these designs. Without some protection, the profit motive is gone. Without profit, the research doesn't get done.
Without patents, we'd still be using abacuses
Government controlled by companies like Enron who take advantage of the flaws in the system.
Criminals and organized crime taking advantage of capitalism, people being killed for a buck, and wars being faught over money issues.
Bulls Eye
Money needs to be made people say, just because you share an idea doesnt mean you'll turn that idea into a product. The product is what people buy, the service is what people pay for, not the idea or the information.
My opinion is, more focus should be on sharing information, less focus on competiton, more focus on ways to earn money from hard work and not from information, ideas, or earning money from having money.
Truth and honor. Unfortunately, the things you complain about are in the people, not the system. People want resources, power, influence, fame, whatever. and there are enough people of low concience who are willing to hurt others to get it. Cooperation breaks down in a round of Winner-take-All.
If we had enough people who believe in sharing, that would be good. But what do you do with the people who do not share, do not cooperate? Expel them? kill them? Oh, I know! Brainwash them! Now everyone is nice, friendly, cooperative, robotic.
People are the problem, not the system. Whatever the system is, some greedy bastard will get into it and screw it up.
I'd choose bandwidth billing without any filtering or limitations over a flat fee and lots of usage filtering (restricting servers, VPNs, other protocols). That way, you could do whatever you want, you just pay for what you use.
There is going to be some type of catch. which one would you rather have?
I don't know the whole in's and out's of their deal, but I heard HP was into the design with Intel early on. I'd bet that HP has certain IP rights guarenteed even if Intel decides not to continue with the architecture. HP could probably pick it up and go with it anyway.
Funny, but that's basicly what I said their problem was when I said:
They are facing the same problem that everyone trying to compete with them has been facing for a long time: compatibility with the installed software base
I was also saying to go with it anyway because long term it is a better solution even if it is not a short term profit center.
I also correctly specified X86-64 as (AMD's)64 bit extension to IA32. IA64 is the Itanium instruction set.
Intel is going to put a 64 bit architecture extension in upcoming Pentiums if it turns out the Itanium doesn't take off.
If it doesn't take off? It takes years to develop that kind of new architecture. By then AMD will have it swept.
Don't follow AMD. X86-64 is a follow on architecture, and whatever Intel comes up with wouldn't be much better even if it was different. Computers need to move away from that old decrepid IA32 instruction set eventually.
Intel has a new road and it is not entirely stupid. They are facing the same problem that everyone trying to compete with them has been facing for a long time: compatibility with the installed software base. Either you're compatible and can run IA32 or you're not and you have to come up with lots of other software (enter open source).
Eventually, CPUs needs to move to better architecture. backwards compatability is good during transition, but shouldn't hold you back too much. Go forth Intel and do what everyone else has had to do for a long time, (gasp) struggle for market share.
It's not about the amount.
These are students. Their primary concern is education and graduation. Along with that, they get (often as a part of financial aid) on campus or school related jobs.
The media lab offers work that is in a related field, the opportunity to see cutting edge research up close, the opportunity to work with the best researchers and learn how it's done. That is what they are mostly getting. that's why it is called Undergraduate Research Opportunities. Oh and by the way, they also get a little cash on the side.
How many of you have turned down more money to get a job that is more fun, in a more interesting area, or has better environment? I have. If these students want more money, they can quit school and get super wage jobs. That's not why they are there.
Slashdot Mirror
The primary question of the article was "Is this legal or actionable with respect to the GPL?"
Even if the FSF knew about it, what could they do? There has to be a clear violation of the wording of the GPL, not just some gut reaction.
So the question stands: What can be done about this type of situation given what we know?
If there is something that can be done, then talk about reporting them.
FWIW: The BSD advertising clause would require at least one comment remain in the code, the original authors name. That would at least give someone a hint as to where the code came from when trying to interpret the "garbage" source.
I always liked TWAIN drivers (those nice drivers for capturing images from scanners, cameras and whatever.
Technology Without An Interesting Name.
That's Right! Now all I have to do is convince everyone else in my voting district to do what I want and I'll be able to carry through with my threat.
Let me see... How could I do that? I know, I'll buy a lot of advertising time, push my agenda, sling mud at my enemy, buy votes,... Basically I'll do all the things I hate the corporations for doing.....
</SARCASM>
If oly it could work.
Figures 17 and 18 (Pg 58, 59).
The virtual address is 48 bits marked as sign extended, not reserved MBZ. I guess they could add a Level 5 page map and go to a 56 bit virtual and a Level 6 page table for 64 bit virtual. Then they could run into the same problem that *Motorola had 68000 -> 68020.
I think this is what I was remembering when I said the OS would have to be rewritten to use more memory.
As for Physical addressing, Figure 13 PTE (p. 51)shows 4kb Pages using 28 bit base pointer with 12 bit offset for total of 40 bit physical. With 12 bits reserved, you could extend that to 52 bit physical.
However, Figure 14 (P. 53) PDE shows the 2MB page directory entry with 19 bit base and 21 offset for 40 total, but with another 9 bits not used. This 40 plus the previously unused 12 to 52. Plus the new unused 9 gets you to 61. Almost there, but only in 2MB page mode.
Once again the OS would have to be rewritten to use more memory.
* 68000 used 24 of 32 bits, ignoring the high bits. Some programmers tried to use them for other things. When 68020 came out and started using those bits, the old code wouldn't run and had to be rewritten.
I guess the idea is that NOW would be a good time for other interested parties to speak to the court about the merits of such a request rather than after it is granted or rejected.
I found it dissapointing that these limits were in the design up front without apparent room for expansion (free bits to be used in the future) This means that when they do decide to expand the addressing range, they will have to redisign the page table layout and force OS writers to change their code to use it. It would have been nicer to have expansion room built in to the page table design and simply have the CPU implementation have limited pinouts.
While I'm griping, I'll also mention that the X86-16 (Virtual real mode) support has been dropped when in 64 bit mode. I know that noone uses it much anymore, but there are still old legacy games that I have that run in DOS mode and it would be nice to be able to support them.
Hammer has 40 bits of addressing space (as you mentioned) and 48 bits of virtual space (memory map tables) so it's not quite out of the memory limit woods yet.
64 Bits has other advantages. File and partition sizes can now be extended more easily. File limits of 2 and 4 GB were common before (Linux had this problem until recent patches) Large files are usefull in databases.
One could claim that Scientific calculations are where the true advantages lie. But most complex calculations might not even fit well with 64 (or even 128) bit values (cryptography). Most programs have custom integer/floating point libraries that handle large values, and will likely continue to need these libraries even with 64 or 128 bit CPUs. A jump to 128 bit CPU wouldn't help much here, and wouldn't mean much to the database vendors who are still happily trying to fill up a 64 bit address space.
We're not really ready for 128 yet. Tho only major advantage of 128 would be in data bus size, to move more data into the cache per fetch. Some processors already do this for speed reasons.
Could this be because four out of five movies put out by the movie industry are drek and people aren't willing to pay the umpteen bucks the movie companies want for them?
Maybe the best thing the movie industry could do for their own financial security is MAKE BETTER MOVIES!
You've got all these Bowfingers out there trying to make something out of nothing with bad writing and bad acting, and then trying to cover it up with expensive effects and advertising. CLUE: A thousand bucks worth of quality script is worth more than a hundred thousand bucks in overhyped advertising.
It amounts to the same thing. If the owner does not agree ahead of time to not collect fees, then their technology is not accepted as a standard. If the owner agrees, then their technology can be accepted as a standard. It is still up to the owner of the technology deciding not to collect fees BEFORE their technology can be considered for a standard. The owner decides that, not the W3C.
The consortium cannot tell a company whether it can charge fees for its technology. I think what they meant was that the Consortium will not accept a technology as a standard if there are fees involved. That's a bit different.
THEN, maybe Micorsoft and the OpenGL group can try come to terms and maybe bring DirectX compatibility closer to OpenGL (Or vs/vs) and have a single standard.
It sounded like Microsoft wanted to come into compliance with OpenGL before, but dropped it because the OpenGL group moved too slowly. (Insert your own M$ conspiricy theory here, but I suspect they really honestly tried, and if a good opportunity arose, would come back and try again).
I eventually went to NetBSD 1.5 and it booted up and worked fine. It's still alive.
I thought it would be fun, but was a bit dissapointed to discover that it was on the order of a tenth the speed of my Cyrix PR233 machine. I thought an Alpha at 150 could at least keep up with a ~180 MHz X86 processor, but NOOOOOOOO.
Oh, well. It still makes a good Postgresql server.
I'm saying (in somewhat sarcastic mode, I appoligize for that) that as the owner/operator of the site, Taco has exactly the right to place his opinion in the article heading rather than wait and put it into a comment. He DOES have that privledge. And he did so with a strong disclaimer as well. I have no problem with his editorial style.
Besides, on the purely logistical side, he probably reviews hundreds of submissions each day. It's much easier to add your quick comment, post it and go on, than to have to remember what you were thinking and go back to the article later and post a comment.
Taco does run the site. He does have higher editorial rights than the rest of us. Don't like it? Go run your own site and watch the people compain about your editorial style. I have done this (small, local site but hey...), and you know what? You can't please everyone no matter how hard you try. So just pick a style and go with it. Screw the complainers (like you).
Obviously since SF is owned by the same parent company as Slashdot, I'm biased and corrupt and you should ignore my opinions on the subject, but while I don't particularly like this any more then anyone else, ...
then it would be OK. It's almost like he thinks he has as much right as everyone else around here. Sheesh!
There have been many good interesting stories/movies without flawed characters. I happen to like many of Harrison Fords characters, as well as many of Russel Crowes (prior) characters. These are strong capable characters faced with powerfull problems, not flawed characters facing every day struggles. It's sort of the Star Trek project: Take quality people and put them in extraordinary circumstances and see what they do.
I certainly liked "A beautiful mind". A wonderful character study and very educational. But as entertainment goes, give me "Proof of Life" or "LA Confidential".
Why are most of the leading men portraying ... uh, dammaged characters. Besides Ali (who later in real life suffers problems) these seem to all be retarded/schitzo/rakish/problematic characters somehow.
Hollywood loves problematic characters, hates problematic people.
Millions of people dying because of disease and starvation. Drugs might save them, Food might save them, Clean water might save them. Who owns the patents on food and water? It's a bigger problem than just drugs.
Kids and adults lacking intelligence due to patents on information which could enlighten the world.
People are born ignorant and learn things as they grow. They might learn reading, writing and arithmatic. They might learn science, history or art. They might learn corporate secrets. Do you know every thing there is to know? Is that because of patents/copyright or because of lack of time/interest?
Innovation controlled by big corperations using patents, and all for a profit, milk the old technology for 40 years or more until profits force you to change.
Yes, just imagin how advanced computers would be now without patents. Innovation would be slower, because companies could not expect to receive as much profit from the VERY EXPENSIVE RESEARCH that goes into these designs. Without some protection, the profit motive is gone. Without profit, the research doesn't get done.
Without patents, we'd still be using abacuses
Government controlled by companies like Enron who take advantage of the flaws in the system.
Criminals and organized crime taking advantage of capitalism, people being killed for a buck, and wars being faught over money issues.
Bulls Eye
Money needs to be made people say, just because you share an idea doesnt mean you'll turn that idea into a product. The product is what people buy, the service is what people pay for, not the idea or the information.
My opinion is, more focus should be on sharing information, less focus on competiton, more focus on ways to earn money from hard work and not from information, ideas, or earning money from having money.
Truth and honor. Unfortunately, the things you complain about are in the people, not the system. People want resources, power, influence, fame, whatever. and there are enough people of low concience who are willing to hurt others to get it. Cooperation breaks down in a round of Winner-take-All.
If we had enough people who believe in sharing, that would be good. But what do you do with the people who do not share, do not cooperate? Expel them? kill them? Oh, I know! Brainwash them! Now everyone is nice, friendly, cooperative, robotic.
People are the problem, not the system. Whatever the system is, some greedy bastard will get into it and screw it up.
There is going to be some type of catch. which one would you rather have?
Not quite. Descent was out before that, and it is even more 3-D than Quake.
I don't know the whole in's and out's of their deal, but I heard HP was into the design with Intel early on. I'd bet that HP has certain IP rights guarenteed even if Intel decides not to continue with the architecture. HP could probably pick it up and go with it anyway.
But it also looks like they are already close to production. So maybe "it takes years" is a bit of a stretch.
They are facing the same problem that everyone trying to compete with them has been facing for a long time: compatibility with the installed software base
I was also saying to go with it anyway because long term it is a better solution even if it is not a short term profit center.
I also correctly specified X86-64 as (AMD's)64 bit extension to IA32. IA64 is the Itanium instruction set.
If it doesn't take off? It takes years to develop that kind of new architecture. By then AMD will have it swept.
Don't follow AMD. X86-64 is a follow on architecture, and whatever Intel comes up with wouldn't be much better even if it was different. Computers need to move away from that old decrepid IA32 instruction set eventually.
Intel has a new road and it is not entirely stupid. They are facing the same problem that everyone trying to compete with them has been facing for a long time: compatibility with the installed software base. Either you're compatible and can run IA32 or you're not and you have to come up with lots of other software (enter open source).
Eventually, CPUs needs to move to better architecture. backwards compatability is good during transition, but shouldn't hold you back too much. Go forth Intel and do what everyone else has had to do for a long time, (gasp) struggle for market share.
Let's hope they also mean restriction free as well as royalty free. Royalty is money. Patent Licenses can have other restrictions on usage.
These are students. Their primary concern is education and graduation. Along with that, they get (often as a part of financial aid) on campus or school related jobs.
The media lab offers work that is in a related field, the opportunity to see cutting edge research up close, the opportunity to work with the best researchers and learn how it's done. That is what they are mostly getting. that's why it is called Undergraduate Research Opportunities. Oh and by the way, they also get a little cash on the side.
How many of you have turned down more money to get a job that is more fun, in a more interesting area, or has better environment? I have. If these students want more money, they can quit school and get super wage jobs. That's not why they are there.