Sigh. The GPLv2 makes it perfectly clear that the "offer to provide source code" method of binary distribution can only be passed on from a third party for non-commercial distribution.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
Ha! The users of Diebold machines have no freedom to inspect, modify or redistribute the Diebold software. The copyright holders of Ghostscript just want Diebold to give users the freedoms they gave Diebold. When Diebold wants to open up their software, they can come talk.
Just thought I'd mention that I agree with you. The reason why we're seeing so many species extinctions now, as compared to the distant past is because we're alive now and the fossil record is not very accurate. The reason why we're seeing so many species extinctions now, as compared to the recent past is because we're looking more now. It's perfectly natural and I can't believe our society has become so fucking bleeding heart that we put the interests of spotted owls over the interests of humans. And, no, none of these extinctions make a lick of fucking difference to our survival. I don't need an ecosystem to support me, I'm a human, we make our own god damn ecosystem.
Yahoo diluted their search brand with news and email. Google had the sense to give their news and email offerings different branding. No-one hears the word "Google" and thinks of news, stock prices, chatting, playing games, etc, like they do for Yahoo.
The reason you don't understand why their policy is because you're not an idiot. You have to put aside your understanding of free speech to understand where they are coming from. In Australia we have a classification board. It's actually random people, chosen from the community, who are supposed to represent the "reasonable" and general moral decency. These people classify material into advisory and restrictive categories. In the advisory category you material that is considered suitable for everyone. In the restrictive category you have material that is considered only suitable for adults. In addition to this, you have material that is considered not to be suitable for anyone. This material is called "Not Classified" or "NC". People who are saying "illegal material" are referring to NC material.. they're just being non-technical about it. Now, it is assumed that if you don't agree that NC material should be refused classification, then you are an unreasonable person. There is no opt-out for an NC filter because the government does not feel the need to accommodate the wishes of unreasonable people. The argument is: no reasonable person should want to see this material, so there's no need to give an opt-out option. If you want to complain that something has been misclassified, and in-fact should receive a classification, then there's avenues to do that.. but if you want to complain that refusal of classification is, inherently, wrong, then sorry, you're being unreasonable.
I hope you can see, there's no arguing with these people. We need to attack the root concept here, that people have a right to not be offended.. or, to put it another way, that people don't have the right to cause offense.
I said filtering on DNS. That means blocking slashdot.org, not 216.34.181.48.
The purpose isn't to make it "impossible" or whatever. It's not even to make it "hard". It's to give the general public a filter to shield them from what the government believes the general public wants to be shielded from. If you're in Australia, turn on talk radio. All the stations have had plenty of people call in saying they support the filter. The idiots want censorship. Obviously I'm not one of them, but the point isn't to stop people who want NC material from getting NC material..
Think of it this way.. it's a net nanny filter for adults. The purpose of a net nanny filter isn't to stop kids from getting porn.. they don't even know what it is.. the purpose is to stop them from stumbling upon it. Why would you want a net nanny filter for adults? Beats the hell out of me. Some people think they'll turn into monsters if they accidentally stumble over NC material.
But hey, it's not just stupid Australians who have delusions of internet danger. All the time I hear otherwise intelligent people on this site claiming that people stumble onto child porn. Even though it has never happened to them. It's never happened to me. That said, what has happened to me is stumbling onto hard-core porn. I don't mind, I'm a big boy, but some people think I should be offended, and the law happens to agree with them.
And this is the reason why I'm against the principle here, and think we're barking up the wrong tree talking about technical things. Technical measures to protect people from being offended by the agreed upon standards of "decency" are pretty easy to implement, and arguing about it just diverts people from the real issue.
All ISP traffic used to go through the University of Queensland's Prentice Hall. The ASIO office there was the biggest in the state. They're mandated to monitor all communications in and out of the country. Only naive people think they don't.
Current affairs programs in Australia are a joke. Literally, respected journalists make jokes about them. No-one cares what the fucktards at Today Tonight have to say.
Publications that: (a) describe, depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified; or (b) describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not); or (c) promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence
The way that this is done with films, books, etc, is that everything must be reviewed before it can be made available to the public. Consider how fucked the internet would be if they applied that standard.
And what I'm saying is that it is trivial to do it well. I think the reason why it is so shit right now is that the only engineers they can find to do anything are mercenaries who don't care about the issue. Everyone who is any good at network engineering is against censorship.
And distracting people from the real issue - censorship is wrong - is just going to encourage them to solve the technical issues. I'd rather have a broken solution that will get thrown out in the first few months of use than an efficient solution that will actually succeed. If you think censorship is wrong, shut the fuck up about how bad the implementation is. Jesus.
Mod parent up, not down. He's right. Our government doesn't fear us anymore. Which reminds me, the 5th of November also happens to be the day after the US presidential election. Remember, remember, the 5th of November.
The purpose of this filtering is not to keep child porn away from pedophiles. It's not to keep hard-core porn away from people who wanna whack off. The purpose is to stop Mum and Dad and the kids from stumbling upon this stuff. Sure, if they can stop people who want this stuff from getting it, they'll do that too, but they're happy that they've put some effort into stopping it. Having Customs officers review the contents of video tapes does not stop people from getting this material through the mail, but it does stop some of this material from getting through the mail.. and the slowdown caused by Customs officers is considered acceptable.
Filtering websites with this material is easy. You just force the ISPs to blacklist certain addresses from their DNS, and hire some puritans to maintain the blacklist. No, it isn't perfect, but neither are Customs officers. And it won't even result in much of a slow down.
These technical arguments are being raised by people who are against filtering in principle. They are against censorship and, frankly, so am I! The technical arguments are being raised because these people don't want to enter into a censorship debate. Why? Because they perceive that this ship has already sailed. We've had censorship in Australia for decades, and arguing now that censorship is wrong and the government shouldn't be doing it, is considered by many to be futile.
I disagree. I believe we should be speaking out against censorship. I believe we should be ignoring censorship laws and fighting to have them overturned.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. If by weaponized you mean that it's a weapon against copyright.. why yes, it is, which is why it is called a "copyleft" license.
If you think copyright on software is acceptable then the copyleft philosophy is probably not for you.
Sigh. The GPLv2 makes it perfectly clear that the "offer to provide source code" method of binary distribution can only be passed on from a third party for non-commercial distribution.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
It's pretty straightforward english.
Ha! The users of Diebold machines have no freedom to inspect, modify or redistribute the Diebold software. The copyright holders of Ghostscript just want Diebold to give users the freedoms they gave Diebold. When Diebold wants to open up their software, they can come talk.
Notice no-one replied to your very good question.
Running ring-0 code in a user mode process is oxymoronic.
Just thought I'd mention that I agree with you. The reason why we're seeing so many species extinctions now, as compared to the distant past is because we're alive now and the fossil record is not very accurate. The reason why we're seeing so many species extinctions now, as compared to the recent past is because we're looking more now. It's perfectly natural and I can't believe our society has become so fucking bleeding heart that we put the interests of spotted owls over the interests of humans. And, no, none of these extinctions make a lick of fucking difference to our survival. I don't need an ecosystem to support me, I'm a human, we make our own god damn ecosystem.
Yahoo diluted their search brand with news and email. Google had the sense to give their news and email offerings different branding. No-one hears the word "Google" and thinks of news, stock prices, chatting, playing games, etc, like they do for Yahoo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PufNFWo9mm0
The endangered species act is a national disgrace.
The reason you don't understand why their policy is because you're not an idiot. You have to put aside your understanding of free speech to understand where they are coming from. In Australia we have a classification board. It's actually random people, chosen from the community, who are supposed to represent the "reasonable" and general moral decency. These people classify material into advisory and restrictive categories. In the advisory category you material that is considered suitable for everyone. In the restrictive category you have material that is considered only suitable for adults. In addition to this, you have material that is considered not to be suitable for anyone. This material is called "Not Classified" or "NC". People who are saying "illegal material" are referring to NC material.. they're just being non-technical about it. Now, it is assumed that if you don't agree that NC material should be refused classification, then you are an unreasonable person. There is no opt-out for an NC filter because the government does not feel the need to accommodate the wishes of unreasonable people. The argument is: no reasonable person should want to see this material, so there's no need to give an opt-out option. If you want to complain that something has been misclassified, and in-fact should receive a classification, then there's avenues to do that.. but if you want to complain that refusal of classification is, inherently, wrong, then sorry, you're being unreasonable.
I hope you can see, there's no arguing with these people. We need to attack the root concept here, that people have a right to not be offended.. or, to put it another way, that people don't have the right to cause offense.
I said filtering on DNS. That means blocking slashdot.org, not 216.34.181.48.
The purpose isn't to make it "impossible" or whatever. It's not even to make it "hard". It's to give the general public a filter to shield them from what the government believes the general public wants to be shielded from. If you're in Australia, turn on talk radio. All the stations have had plenty of people call in saying they support the filter. The idiots want censorship. Obviously I'm not one of them, but the point isn't to stop people who want NC material from getting NC material..
Think of it this way.. it's a net nanny filter for adults. The purpose of a net nanny filter isn't to stop kids from getting porn.. they don't even know what it is.. the purpose is to stop them from stumbling upon it. Why would you want a net nanny filter for adults? Beats the hell out of me. Some people think they'll turn into monsters if they accidentally stumble over NC material.
But hey, it's not just stupid Australians who have delusions of internet danger. All the time I hear otherwise intelligent people on this site claiming that people stumble onto child porn. Even though it has never happened to them. It's never happened to me. That said, what has happened to me is stumbling onto hard-core porn. I don't mind, I'm a big boy, but some people think I should be offended, and the law happens to agree with them.
And this is the reason why I'm against the principle here, and think we're barking up the wrong tree talking about technical things. Technical measures to protect people from being offended by the agreed upon standards of "decency" are pretty easy to implement, and arguing about it just diverts people from the real issue.
All ISP traffic used to go through the University of Queensland's Prentice Hall. The ASIO office there was the biggest in the state. They're mandated to monitor all communications in and out of the country. Only naive people think they don't.
Current affairs programs in Australia are a joke. Literally, respected journalists make jokes about them. No-one cares what the fucktards at Today Tonight have to say.
Actually, what they want to ban is this:
Publications that:
(a) describe, depict, express or otherwise deal
with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction,
crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or
abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they
offend against the standards of morality,
decency and propriety generally accepted by
reasonable adults to the extent that they
should not be classified; or
(b) describe or depict in a way that is likely to
cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person
who is, or appears to be, a child under 18
(whether the person is engaged in sexual
activity or not); or
(c) promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime
or violence
The way that this is done with films, books, etc, is that everything must be reviewed before it can be made available to the public. Consider how fucked the internet would be if they applied that standard.
And that, in no way, makes them pointless.
And what I'm saying is that it is trivial to do it well. I think the reason why it is so shit right now is that the only engineers they can find to do anything are mercenaries who don't care about the issue. Everyone who is any good at network engineering is against censorship.
And distracting people from the real issue - censorship is wrong - is just going to encourage them to solve the technical issues. I'd rather have a broken solution that will get thrown out in the first few months of use than an efficient solution that will actually succeed. If you think censorship is wrong, shut the fuck up about how bad the implementation is. Jesus.
Which reminds me, the 5th of November also happens to be the day after the US presidential election.
Learn to read.
But it is viable. I just told you how to do it and anyone with a vague idea of how a DNS server works can see how trivial it is.
Screaming about how "impossible" it is just makes it a challenge.
Mod parent up, not down. He's right. Our government doesn't fear us anymore. Which reminds me, the 5th of November also happens to be the day after the US presidential election. Remember, remember, the 5th of November.
The purpose of this filtering is not to keep child porn away from pedophiles. It's not to keep hard-core porn away from people who wanna whack off. The purpose is to stop Mum and Dad and the kids from stumbling upon this stuff. Sure, if they can stop people who want this stuff from getting it, they'll do that too, but they're happy that they've put some effort into stopping it. Having Customs officers review the contents of video tapes does not stop people from getting this material through the mail, but it does stop some of this material from getting through the mail.. and the slowdown caused by Customs officers is considered acceptable.
Filtering websites with this material is easy. You just force the ISPs to blacklist certain addresses from their DNS, and hire some puritans to maintain the blacklist. No, it isn't perfect, but neither are Customs officers. And it won't even result in much of a slow down.
These technical arguments are being raised by people who are against filtering in principle. They are against censorship and, frankly, so am I! The technical arguments are being raised because these people don't want to enter into a censorship debate. Why? Because they perceive that this ship has already sailed. We've had censorship in Australia for decades, and arguing now that censorship is wrong and the government shouldn't be doing it, is considered by many to be futile.
I disagree. I believe we should be speaking out against censorship. I believe we should be ignoring censorship laws and fighting to have them overturned.
NC = censorship. End censorship now!
Do you have any numbers to back this up or are you just repeating common knowledge from decades ago?
TrueCrypt claim a 1% overhead. With multi-processor machines, I doubt that's even accurate anymore.
In this particular instance.. it's called a maid.
You pretend to know me and then allude that I like Apple?
Wow.
Have you considered the Total Cost of Ownership?
Hehe.. again. Microsoft didn't invent surface technology. It's been around since the 60s.