if by "economic system" you mean, "best for promoting a divide between the low, middle and high classes of society unlike any ever known to man" I'd tend to agree.
again. I will take your opinion with a grain of salt considering that the lawyers I have consulted seem to disagree with you. The common "use" of source is to make derivative works. Without explicitly prohibiting this from the common use he has explicitly stated that it is permited.
OpenIPF should fork IPF and they should leave the legal questions to the lawyers. No, I'm not saying they should ignore the license, and I'm not saying they should bet that Darren wont sue (although I'm willing to offer odds that he will if anyone wants to bet on it), I'm suggesting that they get a legal clarification, from a judge.
Excuse me, stop your flame for a moment, I clearly explained what my lawyers said. "use in both source and binary forms" can be argued to mean that derivative works are permited. Your opinion really doesn't matter, it is the lawyers opinions that matter and my lawyers have told me that Darren would lose if he tried to sue anyone who has made a derivative work of his code within the last eight years. This also means that if Darren does not change his license you are still permitted to make derivative works. Please note that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, if you are considering forking Darren's code I suggest you contact an lawyer. I except he will tell you the same thing as my lawyers have told you, but really it is a mute point because Darren is not going to sue you.
You obviously no nothing about being poor. The fact that you seem to think they have money for anything except the basic necessities in life shows you have never been poor. Their employer makes sure they have exactly that much money and no more. My guess is you have some sort of skills which results in your continuing employment. For your own benefit, I suggest you take all those skills off your resume and go and try to get a job. That's right, without a dollar in your pocket, go and try to get by without your skills and remember this whole time that you still have the advantage because assumably you can new skills faster because you know how to learn. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you haven't had a lot of breaks in life, but having crawled out of the gutter myself I can tell you that I have.
thanks for the defense. Morons like the AC before you misinform the people with mod points. Are they to be blamed for ignorant voting? No, I'd say that it is more likely the system should be blamed.
Darren's license will not stand up in court. For the last 8 years Darren has been very happy to watch people make changes to his code. Now he wants to retain control. Sorry, it doesn't work that way Darren. You should have told us eight years ago and we would have started our own project. The inability to make modified works makes your code useless, totally. Now, on the matter of a fork. You cannot stop it. Your removal of the words "with or without modification" from the BSD license is not enough. The words "use in source and binary forms is permitted" does not exclude making derivative works. I'm not just talking out my ass here, I have spoken with a number of copyright lawyers who are active in the Open Source community. If you sue, you will lose and you will waste a lot of money doing so. I believe you are aware of this (as you've indicated in other posts) and this is why you have specifically changed the license. Good for you, I wish you had done it eight years ago. Is this a moral thing to do? Well obviously that depends on how you feel about copyright in general. Stallman would disagree, but hey, that's Stallman. So you've bait and switched us all? You claim that you've done all the work and gotten nothing in return. I know how that feels, and I dont begrudge you for changing your license to retain a little more control, but dont try to be an indian giver. You may think you are doing nothing you're not entitled to do, after all, you wrote the code right? Well as I said, if you had made it clear that this was the case eight years ago we could have written some code too. Maybe yours would be better, maybe ours would be better, that's not the issue, the issue is that our code would have come without strings attached. Strings that say that we cant even fix bugs without your permission. Yes, by your interpretation, we can fix em on our private machine, sure, but we cant distribute those changes (actually, I'll inform you that patches are covered under fair use, but that's a poor substitute). Oh I hear you when you say that you'll accept any changes and distribute it for us. I hear you but I also hear the voice of time. Sooner or later you're going to blink out of existance Darren. And who do you think will own your copyright? Your wife, your son, your parents, that's *if* you have a will. Are they going to keep developing your code? Are they going to rerelease your code under a more liberal license? Or are they going to auction it off to the highest bidder who will then have the sole rights to make derivative works for the next 50 years? The fact is, if you close the source we are all left with an unchangable block of code that we cant make changes to. Remember here, I'm talking about your new license, with the specific conditions you have placed on derivative works (which at least was clear about the matter). Come on man, think about the big picture. If you are going to screw with the license, just close it now.
Which is one of the good reasons I should give up ranting:)
Tax slavery? Some people would argue that without the infrastructure of the government you would not be able to contract for the work you can with that infrastructure. Not only do I think these people are wrong, I would also like to point out that without any control over where our tax dollars go we cannot ensure that this is the case. For example, a lot of my hard earned dollars go to fund the military. Sure, we need to defend ourselves, but the US has more soldiers on foriegn soil than in their own country (and it is this country I happen to be paying my taxes to at the moment, in case you were wondering). I doubt a soldier would agree but isn't being forced to work all those extra hours that the government uses to fund an army just as bad as being conscripted into that army? Forced labour (which is what taxes are) is in the same boat as forced enlistment in my book.
You're rich, you're happy about it, fuck those poor worthless no talent idiots eh? sigh. I was a poor kid. I started on a c64 that was broken when we got it. The only reason I ever got a PC was because my parents sold the family home that they had spent 16 years paying off so we could move into a rent housing. I struggled, and I wasn't nearly as bad off as some people are. Sure, we went hungry now and then, but some people go hungry all the time. I had reason to learn that funky computer stuff. I'd be damned if I was going to be an unskilled worker with 3 kids.
The term "Wage Slavery" is not analogous to Slavery, I guess I can conceed this point. But imagine for a moment that you cant "quit at any time" as you so put it because, I dont know, you have a wife and family to feed? Maybe you and I have been spoiled and have some "expertise" which guarentees we can go and get another job any time we want, but a lot of people on minimum wage don't. They count themselves lucky to get the job they have and scrap by every week. To quit is to willfully make yourself hungry. That is not a voluntary agreement, that is holding someone hostage. Now if I did what most other people who get paid a salary do and am actively encouraged to do, namely buy things like cars and houses on credit and get myself into debt. I too would be threatening to empty my ample stomach by quitting my job.
This is my honest opinion. You may disagree with me.
"Profit Sharing" and "Stock Plans" tie the company's profit to the worker's financial well being. If the company does good, you do good, so you work harder to get a pay off. This means companies dont feel the need to hire managers to make sure people are working which pushes the burden of organisation onto the worker. But at the end of the day you're still working to make someone else rich. Salary + options slavery vs wage slavery. It's still slavery.
I have a laptop. I have a work computer and I have a home computer. My brother uses my home computer more than I do. My laptop gathers dust when I'm not on the road. Exactly why do you need that many computers? Surely you know a few deserving people who cant afford a PC. Surely you know someone with kids who slaves to pay the bills. You have the power to get someone (or his kids) started on the track out of poverty.
MacGyver would just find everything he needed conveniently lying around, then he'd reach into his pocket for his swiss army knife, not finding it he'd remember "ah darn, that's right, it's season three - no bombs, no knifes". Around then a million views switch over to watch The A-Team (who are co-incidentally blow torching together a tank).
does he give out autographs?
on
Duct Tape
·
· Score: 1
Ever get the feeling that Microsoft was that kid who knew the only way to win at Monopoly was to refuse to deal with any of the other players? Tis ironic really, my great grandpappy got gypped by the Parker brothers precisely because he didn't want to deal with them gits.
Open Source Software Initiatives: Legal, Business and Social Perspectives
Thursday June 7
6:00 pm - 8:45 pm
Santa Clara University School of Law
Bannan Hall Room 139
Chair: Visiting Professor Brian Fitzgerald
Santa Clara University School of Law
Panelists
William R. Lard, (SCU Law '82)
Sr. Director Licensing Strategy &
Architecture Sun Microsystems, Inc.
David Schellhase
Linuxcare
Yancy Lind
President and CEO, Lutris Technologies
Larry Rosen (SCU Law '94)
founding partner of ROSENLAW.COM, LLP
This Special Seminar is held in conjunction with the Santa Clara
University
High Tech Summer Law Program
The notion of open source software is an interesting concept from
a legal,
business and social perspective. More and more businesses are now becoming
reliant on open source products - what does this mean for strategic
business planning, legal liability and society in general? What is meant
by terms such as "free software", "open source" "open code" and "GPL
license"? How are these concepts integrating with and impacting upon
business and the further development of technology?
Event is free.
R.S.V.P. to: hightechlaw@scu.edu
or call: High Tech Law Office: 408-551-1868
This seminar aims to overview the concept of open source software as well
as key legal and business issues involved with using such software
including the:
- role, function and legal enforceability of open source licenses
- management of open source projects
- integration of open source products with proprietary software and hardware
- impact of software patenting on the open source movement
- utilization of open source products by the general consumer and
- preservation of the ethical or aspirational values of the open source movement
Brian Fitzgerald is a Visiting Professor at Santa Clara University teaching a seminar on Digital Property - see www.scu.edu/law/FacWebPage/Fitzgerald. He is Head of the School of Law and Justice at Southern Cross University in New South Wales, Australia.
Brian holds postgraduate law degrees from Oxford University and Harvard University. He is co-editor of one of Australia's leading texts on E Commerce, Software and the Internet - Going Digital 2000 - and has published articles on Law and the Internet in Australia, the United States, Europe and Japan. Over the past two years Brian has delivered seminars on information technology and the law in Australia, New Zealand, China, USA, Canada, Norway and the Netherlands. In October 1999 Brian delivered the Seventh Annual Tenzer Lecture - Software as Discourse: The Power of
Intellectual Property in Digital Architecture - at Cardozo Law School in New York.
Over the last year he has been involved in delivering papers and running sessions on law and technology issues throughout the USA including in Silicon Valley and New York (Fordham University Law School International Intellectual Property
Conference), in Europe/Amsterdam (WWW9 Conference), in Australia/Cairns (Ausweb2000) and Canada/Fredricton (NAWeb2000). In October 2000 he was invited as a part of the Distinguished Speaker series hosted by the Ontario wide Centre for Innovation Law and Policy to deliver an address on Digital Property at the University of Western Ontario Law School in London, Canada.
William R. Lard is Senior Director of Licensing Strategy & Architecture at Sun Microsystems, Inc. He has been an Attorney with Sun for nine years
handling software related matters. His current role is to establish the future direction of Sun's
overall technology licensing strategy and architecture. Prior positions at Sun included General Counsel, Java Software with responsibility for world wide licensing of Java Technology during the past five years, and four years as
Director of Sales and Marketing Legal Group for SunSoft, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sun
Microsystems, Inc. Chief Counsel for World Wide Operations at Apple Computer, Inc. for seven
years.
JD Santa Clara University, 1982, BS Business Administration San Jose State University, 1976.
David Schellhase currently is finishing a book entitled "In-House: The Practice of Law inside an Emerging Growth Company" (forthcoming, September 2001 from Glasser Legal Works). He was most recently general counsel of Linuxcare, Inc., a
provider of services for Linux and other open source software, and was previously general
counsel for The Vantive Corporation and Premenos Technology, two proprietary software companies. He has also been an attorney with Oracle Corporation and Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison. He received his JD in 1990 from Cornell and his BA in
European history in 1985 from Columbia.
Yancy Lind is President and CEO of Lutris Technologies. Yancy has 15 years of Silicon Valley experience. Prior to Lutris, Yancy spent two years at Shomiti Systems in the roles of VP of Marketing, VP of Sales, and VP of Engineering.
Prior to Shomiti, Yancy spent four years at Alantec, where he was Director of Marketing,
Director of Product Planning, and Manager of Channel Sales. Yancy also has held positions at Touch Communications, Ungermann-Bass, and 3Com. Yancy has an MS, Computer Science, with honors,
from California State University, Chico, and an AB, Philosophy, from the University of California, Berkeley.
Larry Rosen (SCU Law '94) is a founding partner of ROSENLAW.COM, LLP, a law firm in Redwood City that represents individuals and companies throughout the Bay Area. Larry specializes in technology licensing and other IP-related
transactions. Although he often represents companies that license proprietary software, his
primary goal is to encourage open source licensing. Larry is also executive director,
secretary and general counsel of Open Source Initiative, a non-profit corporation that reviews and approves open source licenses and that is responsible for promoting the Open Source Definition. You can read more about these
activities at www.rosenlaw.com and www.opensource.org
Professor Brian Fitzgerald
BA LLB BCL (Oxon) LLM (Harv)
Dean of Law School
Southern Cross University, NSW, Australia
PO Box 157
LISMORE NSW AUSTRALIA
Telephone 61 02 66 203 368
E-mail: bfitzger@scu.edu.au
Norton protects you against known viruses. Virus writers check their virus before releasing it (and yes, they still release it, no matter how much we tried to tell them that wasn't what it was all about) so they know the AV dont detect it. It is only after it has been discovered "in the wild" that the virus signatures are determined and the checker updated.
Slashdot Mirror
if by "economic system" you mean, "best for promoting a divide between the low, middle and high classes of society unlike any ever known to man" I'd tend to agree.
Socialism read it and dont open your mouth again until you know what you are talking about.
by contridiction:
by analogy:
by cause/effect:
by facts and circumstances:
see article.
I demand food and shelter. A nice internet connection would be good too :)
again. I will take your opinion with a grain of salt considering that the lawyers I have consulted seem to disagree with you. The common "use" of source is to make derivative works. Without explicitly prohibiting this from the common use he has explicitly stated that it is permited.
The issue is that Darren did not make it clear what his intentions were, nor has he done so for the last eight years.
OpenIPF should fork IPF and they should leave the legal questions to the lawyers. No, I'm not saying they should ignore the license, and I'm not saying they should bet that Darren wont sue (although I'm willing to offer odds that he will if anyone wants to bet on it), I'm suggesting that they get a legal clarification, from a judge.
Excuse me, stop your flame for a moment, I clearly explained what my lawyers said. "use in both source and binary forms" can be argued to mean that derivative works are permited. Your opinion really doesn't matter, it is the lawyers opinions that matter and my lawyers have told me that Darren would lose if he tried to sue anyone who has made a derivative work of his code within the last eight years. This also means that if Darren does not change his license you are still permitted to make derivative works. Please note that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, if you are considering forking Darren's code I suggest you contact an lawyer. I except he will tell you the same thing as my lawyers have told you, but really it is a mute point because Darren is not going to sue you.
You obviously no nothing about being poor. The fact that you seem to think they have money for anything except the basic necessities in life shows you have never been poor. Their employer makes sure they have exactly that much money and no more. My guess is you have some sort of skills which results in your continuing employment. For your own benefit, I suggest you take all those skills off your resume and go and try to get a job. That's right, without a dollar in your pocket, go and try to get by without your skills and remember this whole time that you still have the advantage because assumably you can new skills faster because you know how to learn. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you haven't had a lot of breaks in life, but having crawled out of the gutter myself I can tell you that I have.
thanks for the defense. Morons like the AC before you misinform the people with mod points. Are they to be blamed for ignorant voting? No, I'd say that it is more likely the system should be blamed.
Darren's license will not stand up in court. For the last 8 years Darren has been very happy to watch people make changes to his code. Now he wants to retain control. Sorry, it doesn't work that way Darren. You should have told us eight years ago and we would have started our own project. The inability to make modified works makes your code useless, totally. Now, on the matter of a fork. You cannot stop it. Your removal of the words "with or without modification" from the BSD license is not enough. The words "use in source and binary forms is permitted" does not exclude making derivative works. I'm not just talking out my ass here, I have spoken with a number of copyright lawyers who are active in the Open Source community. If you sue, you will lose and you will waste a lot of money doing so. I believe you are aware of this (as you've indicated in other posts) and this is why you have specifically changed the license. Good for you, I wish you had done it eight years ago. Is this a moral thing to do? Well obviously that depends on how you feel about copyright in general. Stallman would disagree, but hey, that's Stallman. So you've bait and switched us all? You claim that you've done all the work and gotten nothing in return. I know how that feels, and I dont begrudge you for changing your license to retain a little more control, but dont try to be an indian giver. You may think you are doing nothing you're not entitled to do, after all, you wrote the code right? Well as I said, if you had made it clear that this was the case eight years ago we could have written some code too. Maybe yours would be better, maybe ours would be better, that's not the issue, the issue is that our code would have come without strings attached. Strings that say that we cant even fix bugs without your permission. Yes, by your interpretation, we can fix em on our private machine, sure, but we cant distribute those changes (actually, I'll inform you that patches are covered under fair use, but that's a poor substitute). Oh I hear you when you say that you'll accept any changes and distribute it for us. I hear you but I also hear the voice of time. Sooner or later you're going to blink out of existance Darren. And who do you think will own your copyright? Your wife, your son, your parents, that's *if* you have a will. Are they going to keep developing your code? Are they going to rerelease your code under a more liberal license? Or are they going to auction it off to the highest bidder who will then have the sole rights to make derivative works for the next 50 years? The fact is, if you close the source we are all left with an unchangable block of code that we cant make changes to. Remember here, I'm talking about your new license, with the specific conditions you have placed on derivative works (which at least was clear about the matter). Come on man, think about the big picture. If you are going to screw with the license, just close it now.
:)
Which is one of the good reasons I should give up ranting
Tax slavery? Some people would argue that without the infrastructure of the government you would not be able to contract for the work you can with that infrastructure. Not only do I think these people are wrong, I would also like to point out that without any control over where our tax dollars go we cannot ensure that this is the case. For example, a lot of my hard earned dollars go to fund the military. Sure, we need to defend ourselves, but the US has more soldiers on foriegn soil than in their own country (and it is this country I happen to be paying my taxes to at the moment, in case you were wondering). I doubt a soldier would agree but isn't being forced to work all those extra hours that the government uses to fund an army just as bad as being conscripted into that army? Forced labour (which is what taxes are) is in the same boat as forced enlistment in my book.
You're rich, you're happy about it, fuck those poor worthless no talent idiots eh? sigh. I was a poor kid. I started on a c64 that was broken when we got it. The only reason I ever got a PC was because my parents sold the family home that they had spent 16 years paying off so we could move into a rent housing. I struggled, and I wasn't nearly as bad off as some people are. Sure, we went hungry now and then, but some people go hungry all the time. I had reason to learn that funky computer stuff. I'd be damned if I was going to be an unskilled worker with 3 kids.
The term "Wage Slavery" is not analogous to Slavery, I guess I can conceed this point. But imagine for a moment that you cant "quit at any time" as you so put it because, I dont know, you have a wife and family to feed? Maybe you and I have been spoiled and have some "expertise" which guarentees we can go and get another job any time we want, but a lot of people on minimum wage don't. They count themselves lucky to get the job they have and scrap by every week. To quit is to willfully make yourself hungry. That is not a voluntary agreement, that is holding someone hostage. Now if I did what most other people who get paid a salary do and am actively encouraged to do, namely buy things like cars and houses on credit and get myself into debt. I too would be threatening to empty my ample stomach by quitting my job.
Gee, right now? Blatantly insulting someone is funny, ok.
Marvin Minsky said it recently, his own personal survey.
This is my honest opinion. You may disagree with me.
"Profit Sharing" and "Stock Plans" tie the company's profit to the worker's financial well being. If the company does good, you do good, so you work harder to get a pay off. This means companies dont feel the need to hire managers to make sure people are working which pushes the burden of organisation onto the worker. But at the end of the day you're still working to make someone else rich. Salary + options slavery vs wage slavery. It's still slavery.
I have a laptop. I have a work computer and I have a home computer. My brother uses my home computer more than I do. My laptop gathers dust when I'm not on the road. Exactly why do you need that many computers? Surely you know a few deserving people who cant afford a PC. Surely you know someone with kids who slaves to pay the bills. You have the power to get someone (or his kids) started on the track out of poverty.
MacGyver would just find everything he needed conveniently lying around, then he'd reach into his pocket for his swiss army knife, not finding it he'd remember "ah darn, that's right, it's season three - no bombs, no knifes". Around then a million views switch over to watch The A-Team (who are co-incidentally blow torching together a tank).
:)
Ever get the feeling that Microsoft was that kid who knew the only way to win at Monopoly was to refuse to deal with any of the other players? Tis ironic really, my great grandpappy got gypped by the Parker brothers precisely because he didn't want to deal with them gits.
Open Source Software Initiatives: Legal, Business and Social Perspectives
Thursday June 7
6:00 pm - 8:45 pm
Santa Clara University School of Law
Bannan Hall Room 139
Chair: Visiting Professor Brian Fitzgerald
Santa Clara University School of Law
Panelists
William R. Lard, (SCU Law '82)
Sr. Director Licensing Strategy &
Architecture Sun Microsystems, Inc.
David Schellhase
Linuxcare
Yancy Lind
President and CEO, Lutris Technologies
Larry Rosen (SCU Law '94)
founding partner of ROSENLAW.COM, LLP
This Special Seminar is held in conjunction with the Santa Clara
University
High Tech Summer Law Program
The notion of open source software is an interesting concept from
a legal,
business and social perspective. More and more businesses are now becoming
reliant on open source products - what does this mean for strategic
business planning, legal liability and society in general? What is meant
by terms such as "free software", "open source" "open code" and "GPL
license"? How are these concepts integrating with and impacting upon
business and the further development of technology?
Event is free.
R.S.V.P. to: hightechlaw@scu.edu
or call: High Tech Law Office: 408-551-1868
This seminar aims to overview the concept of open source software as well
as key legal and business issues involved with using such software
including the:
- role, function and legal enforceability of open source licenses
- management of open source projects
- integration of open source products with proprietary software and hardware
- impact of software patenting on the open source movement
- utilization of open source products by the general consumer and
- preservation of the ethical or aspirational values of the open source movement
Brian Fitzgerald is a Visiting Professor at Santa Clara University teaching a seminar on Digital Property - see www.scu.edu/law/FacWebPage/Fitzgerald. He is Head of the School of Law and Justice at Southern Cross University in New South Wales, Australia.
Brian holds postgraduate law degrees from Oxford University and Harvard University. He is co-editor of one of Australia's leading texts on E Commerce, Software and the Internet - Going Digital 2000 - and has published articles on Law and the Internet in Australia, the United States, Europe and Japan. Over the past two years Brian has delivered seminars on information technology and the law in Australia, New Zealand, China, USA, Canada, Norway and the Netherlands. In October 1999 Brian delivered the Seventh Annual Tenzer Lecture - Software as Discourse: The Power of
Intellectual Property in Digital Architecture - at Cardozo Law School in New York.
Over the last year he has been involved in delivering papers and running sessions on law and technology issues throughout the USA including in Silicon Valley and New York (Fordham University Law School International Intellectual Property
Conference), in Europe/Amsterdam (WWW9 Conference), in Australia/Cairns (Ausweb2000) and Canada/Fredricton (NAWeb2000). In October 2000 he was invited as a part of the Distinguished Speaker series hosted by the Ontario wide Centre for Innovation Law and Policy to deliver an address on Digital Property at the University of Western Ontario Law School in London, Canada.
William R. Lard is Senior Director of Licensing Strategy & Architecture at Sun Microsystems, Inc. He has been an Attorney with Sun for nine years
handling software related matters. His current role is to establish the future direction of Sun's
overall technology licensing strategy and architecture. Prior positions at Sun included General Counsel, Java Software with responsibility for world wide licensing of Java Technology during the past five years, and four years as
Director of Sales and Marketing Legal Group for SunSoft, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sun
Microsystems, Inc. Chief Counsel for World Wide Operations at Apple Computer, Inc. for seven
years.
JD Santa Clara University, 1982, BS Business Administration San Jose State University, 1976.
David Schellhase currently is finishing a book entitled "In-House: The Practice of Law inside an Emerging Growth Company" (forthcoming, September 2001 from Glasser Legal Works). He was most recently general counsel of Linuxcare, Inc., a
provider of services for Linux and other open source software, and was previously general
counsel for The Vantive Corporation and Premenos Technology, two proprietary software companies. He has also been an attorney with Oracle Corporation and Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison. He received his JD in 1990 from Cornell and his BA in
European history in 1985 from Columbia.
Yancy Lind is President and CEO of Lutris Technologies. Yancy has 15 years of Silicon Valley experience. Prior to Lutris, Yancy spent two years at Shomiti Systems in the roles of VP of Marketing, VP of Sales, and VP of Engineering.
Prior to Shomiti, Yancy spent four years at Alantec, where he was Director of Marketing,
Director of Product Planning, and Manager of Channel Sales. Yancy also has held positions at Touch Communications, Ungermann-Bass, and 3Com. Yancy has an MS, Computer Science, with honors,
from California State University, Chico, and an AB, Philosophy, from the University of California, Berkeley.
Larry Rosen (SCU Law '94) is a founding partner of ROSENLAW.COM, LLP, a law firm in Redwood City that represents individuals and companies throughout the Bay Area. Larry specializes in technology licensing and other IP-related
transactions. Although he often represents companies that license proprietary software, his
primary goal is to encourage open source licensing. Larry is also executive director,
secretary and general counsel of Open Source Initiative, a non-profit corporation that reviews and approves open source licenses and that is responsible for promoting the Open Source Definition. You can read more about these
activities at www.rosenlaw.com and www.opensource.org
Professor Brian Fitzgerald
BA LLB BCL (Oxon) LLM (Harv)
Dean of Law School
Southern Cross University, NSW, Australia
PO Box 157
LISMORE NSW AUSTRALIA
Telephone 61 02 66 203 368
E-mail: bfitzger@scu.edu.au
The Coroner's Toolkit (TCT) Have fun :)
sheesh, next thing you'll be asking a judge for a injunction to ban linking to your sniffed password.
Norton protects you against known viruses. Virus writers check their virus before releasing it (and yes, they still release it, no matter how much we tried to tell them that wasn't what it was all about) so they know the AV dont detect it. It is only after it has been discovered "in the wild" that the virus signatures are determined and the checker updated.