Please explain to me how someone who doesn't live in the US can "actively participate in [the US legal system] and reform it", other than donating to the EFF, which I already do.
What you fail to recognize is that this proposal means you'd not be allowed to 'close the source' on any software projects.
AFAICT, the proposal only suggests that Linus would not be allowed to close the source on the software project, but the project itself would be in the public domain. Since copyrights would still exist as an alternative, the GPL would still be needed.
You have freedom as long as you follow these restrictions.....LOL
That's correct. It's not a new concept, really. It's the basic principle behind laws in any free society. For example, in the U.S., residents have the freedom to own and carry guns, but there are restrictions on their use of those guns. For example, they are restricted from firing their guns randomly near crowds of people. Those restrictions are in place to protect the freedom of others to assemble in crowds without getting killed by stray bullets. Limiting the freedom of individuals maximizes the freedom of a group.
As far as what GPL zealots say, who cares? People shouldn't pay significant attention to zealots anyway.
As for the rest of us (including RMS, apparently), the idea that we think selling free software is somehow wrong is a myth.
And as for the misuse of the English word "free", RMS has already made it quite clear that he doesn't really like it -- it's just an artifact of the English language's lack of a word like the French word "libre" (which is not the same word as "gratuit", although both words translate to "free"). For those of us who understand more than one spoken language, it's -- again -- nothing new.
NAT is an ugly hack that results in adding unnecessary cruft to protocols. Just look at FTP -- it's a great protocol which is fairly straightforward to implement, but it's difficult to use because of NAT, unless you hack add additional junk (special handling for FTP) to the NAT box.
Just because global IPv4 address usage is stabilizing doesn't mean the problems caused by NAT and its neighbours isn't increasing.
NAT is a broken mess that needs to disappear. I'll probably end up writing a paper on that (and why firewalls are an equally ill-advised workaround for shoddy software) when I get time.
The GPL is about *preventing* programmer greed. It stops people from distributing GPL-covered inside other non-GPL projects. This is to enable GPL-covered code to compete with proprietary systems. BSDL-covered code doesn't really compete with proprietary systems in the same way, because it can simply be incorporated into those proprietary systems. Some people view this as a feature, others don't.
The GPL exists to prevent people from using copyright laws to restrict other people's right to distribute code derived from GPL-covered code. It's sort of a workaround for copyright using copyright.
The ability to restrict others' freedom is not freedom, it is power. The GPL *maximizes* freedom by preventing others from exercising power.
because GPL forces users of your code to also use GPL)
No. The GPL forces *developers* who want to *distribute* your code in their programs to also use the GPL. The GPL doesn't apply at all to *users* of the software.
How long do you think it'll take for someone to come up with an activation code keygen?
If MS actually uses strong public-key crypto in the activation process, this could be next to impossible. Of course, this doesn't prevent anyone from *modifying* their copy of the software...
rsync doesn't use scp. It uses ssh to open a channel to a remote "rsync --server" command.
The scp (which uses the scp1 protocol over ssh), which is what you that comes with OpenSSH seems to use some insanely slow protocol over SSH. My guess is that it uses some sort of "send, wait-for-ack" mechanism.
The CPU is *not* maxxed. I'm sending from a PIII-650 to/from a Thunderbird 1200 over a wireless LAN card.
My point is that it's not the cipher that's the problem, it's probably the archaic SCP1 protocol (which runs on top of both SSH 1 and 2) that's the problem.
Upgrading gaim fixed the problem for me, although there seemed to have been some different problems (perhaps unrelated) last night with gaim 0.71/win32.
Either hire technically competent people to build your security measures...
That's all fine in theory, but in real life, it's tough to find technically competent people who are willing to pretend that there is any feasibility to restricting information-copying beyond the level of adding a minor inconvenience.
No kidding! Although I'm glad to see Microsoft get what it deserves (i.e. more than the wrist-slaps it got from its antitrust suit(s)), this software patent crap is pathetic.
It would be interesting to see Microsoft throw its weight behind eliminating software patents. I know it won't happen, but I can dream...
I often criticize Windows for various reasons, but this is really no worse than typing #rm -r.* (without the "#") and having your current and parent directories deleted. When I'm using the command line, I don't want the computer to second-guess my decisions by default.
Slashdot Mirror
Read their website. Apparently, you send them a 3DES-encrypted message, and then arrange for the key to be snail-mailed to them upon your death.
Please explain to me how someone who doesn't live in the US can "actively participate in [the US legal system] and reform it", other than donating to the EFF, which I already do.
<sarcasm>You'd make a great engineer! Or a great scientist! Or a great artist! Or a great anything!</sarcasm>
Just because something better may not currently exist does not imply that something better cannot exist.
What's funny is that Linux zealots spread Windows FUD in the same manner ezcept for free.
"FUD" is typically reserved for unjustified fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The truth is generally not called "FUD"...
;-)
Heard that one many times before...
Fscking troll. Warning: Don't follow that link unless you want a nasty image burned into your retinas.
AFAICT, the proposal only suggests that Linus would not be allowed to close the source on the software project, but the project itself would be in the public domain. Since copyrights would still exist as an alternative, the GPL would still be needed.
Check that you can actually compile and install the source. IIRC, Alan Cox had severe problems with it (several source files missing).
That's correct. It's not a new concept, really. It's the basic principle behind laws in any free society. For example, in the U.S., residents have the freedom to own and carry guns, but there are restrictions on their use of those guns. For example, they are restricted from firing their guns randomly near crowds of people. Those restrictions are in place to protect the freedom of others to assemble in crowds without getting killed by stray bullets. Limiting the freedom of individuals maximizes the freedom of a group.
As far as what GPL zealots say, who cares? People shouldn't pay significant attention to zealots anyway.
As for the rest of us (including RMS, apparently), the idea that we think selling free software is somehow wrong is a myth.
And as for the misuse of the English word "free", RMS has already made it quite clear that he doesn't really like it -- it's just an artifact of the English language's lack of a word like the French word "libre" (which is not the same word as "gratuit", although both words translate to "free"). For those of us who understand more than one spoken language, it's -- again -- nothing new.
Just because global IPv4 address usage is stabilizing doesn't mean the problems caused by NAT and its neighbours isn't increasing.
NAT is a broken mess that needs to disappear. I'll probably end up writing a paper on that (and why firewalls are an equally ill-advised workaround for shoddy software) when I get time.
The GPL is about *preventing* programmer greed. It stops people from distributing GPL-covered inside other non-GPL projects. This is to enable GPL-covered code to compete with proprietary systems. BSDL-covered code doesn't really compete with proprietary systems in the same way, because it can simply be incorporated into those proprietary systems. Some people view this as a feature, others don't.
The GPL exists to prevent people from using copyright laws to restrict other people's right to distribute code derived from GPL-covered code. It's sort of a workaround for copyright using copyright.
The ability to restrict others' freedom is not freedom, it is power. The GPL *maximizes* freedom by preventing others from exercising power.
Or something like that.
No. The GPL forces *developers* who want to *distribute* your code in their programs to also use the GPL. The GPL doesn't apply at all to *users* of the software.
I could use one for doing graphics. Sketching in the GIMP with a mouse is a pain in the neck.
If MS actually uses strong public-key crypto in the activation process, this could be next to impossible. Of course, this doesn't prevent anyone from *modifying* their copy of the software...
The question was "Which Adware and Spyware are the Mode Insidious?", and my answer was "Microsoft Windows!"
"Works better, plays better"
"Build on NT Technology"
[Windows XP's default GUI] And still no SSH client on the CD...
I assume CVSGui doesn't work for you?
The scp (which uses the scp1 protocol over ssh), which is what you that comes with OpenSSH seems to use some insanely slow protocol over SSH. My guess is that it uses some sort of "send, wait-for-ack" mechanism.
The CPU is *not* maxxed. I'm sending from a PIII-650 to/from a Thunderbird 1200 over a wireless LAN card.
My point is that it's not the cipher that's the problem, it's probably the archaic SCP1 protocol (which runs on top of both SSH 1 and 2) that's the problem.
And Debian sources consist of a tarball, a .diff.gz file, and a text .dsc (description) file.
Heh. I think that's an understatement.
Odd. scp is *much* slower than rsync -e ssh on my system.
dwon@gando:~$ dpkg -s gaim | grep "^Version: "
Version: 1:0.70-2
That's all fine in theory, but in real life, it's tough to find technically competent people who are willing to pretend that there is any feasibility to restricting information-copying beyond the level of adding a minor inconvenience.
It would be interesting to see Microsoft throw its weight behind eliminating software patents. I know it won't happen, but I can dream...
I often criticize Windows for various reasons, but this is really no worse than typing #rm -r .* (without the "#") and having your current and parent directories deleted. When I'm using the command line, I don't want the computer to second-guess my decisions by default.