If we could all see anyone in the shower, I'm sure the novelty would wear off after a while.
The other thing is that everyone you know would be able to see you peeking at somebody's mother in the shower, and everyone could watch them watching you, etc.
Exactly. It's an issue between Nullsoft-the-corporation and Nullsoft's employees, not between Nullsoft and the public. I'd like to see AOL stop someone from putting a fork of WASTE on SourceForge.
IANAL, but IIRC the GPL simply states that you must distribute the source to those customers who request it. So they don't have to put the source online -- they just need to make it available to their customers.
That's almost correct, but not quite. If you distribute source code with the binaries, then you only have to distribute the source to customers, but if you do not, then you must (I quote, and take note of "any third party"):
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;
The full section is as follows:
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.
(Ignore the last troll about the GPL being highly restrictive. Anyone rational person who knows copyright law and who has read the GPL knows that's a ridiculous statement.)
What happens is that SCO is found to be in breach of the GPL, and ends up paying damages to the copyright holder(s) of the GPL'd software they stole. Maybe the court would oblige SCO to release its entire source code under the GPL, but I doubt it.
Since SCO would already have been in breach of the GPL, releasing its source code under the GPL after-the-fact would be too late -- SCO would still have been in breach of the GPL in the past, and would therefore be liable.
The terms of the GPL that dictate that GPL'd software is can only be legally distributed either verbatim or as part of another GPL'd work. When nVidia violated the GPL by including GPL'd code in their non-GPL XFree86 drivers, the company could have been sued for copyright infringement regardless of what it did after the fact. Ralph decided to be nice and helped to resolve it out of court, but nVidia got away unscathed only because Ralph was a nice guy, not solely because of any action on their part.
So SCO would not automatically have to release its source
I've seen source that has a 1 line undescript description at the top and nothing else as to what does what.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. Some functions' operation is obvious enough that more comments only serve to be superfluous. For example, given the following structure for variable-length strings:
typedef struct stralloc { char *s; int len; int a; } stralloc;
A set of...three button choices: Back, Next, Finish, and Cancel. --Windows SDK
I'm all for criticizing Microsoft, but that's going a little overboard. It's an honest mistake, and many of Microsoft's competitors (especially OSS developers) have made much larger blunders.
This quote is more fun:
Because both the system's privacy and the security of digital money depend on encryption, a breakthrough in mathematics or computer science that defeats the cryptographic system could be a disaster.
The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers. Any person or organization possessing this power could counterfeit money, penetrate any personal, corporate, or government file, and possibly even undermine the security of nations [...]
(The Road Ahead)
Always assume the attacker can dump *anything* onto the network. Any measures that do not handle this assumption are next to useless in the real world.
What a SURPRISE! Soemthing that is touted as a "new", better way of doing things, has already been done by Debian for some time. Gee, THAT's never happened before!
Slashdot Mirror
Headline: Microsoft Bankrupt, Linux Rules the World ...GNU/Linux...
Stallman:
You: Wah! Stallman is pushing his "GNU/Linux" agenda!
Headline: Linux Marketshare 60%, Microsoft GPL's Windows ...GNU/Linux...
Stallman:
You: Wah! Stallman wants to take over the world!
Headline: Extraterrestials Obliterate Eastern Seaboard ...GNU/Linux...
Stallman:
You: Wah! Stallman said that phrase again!
The other thing is that everyone you know would be able to see you peeking at somebody's mother in the shower, and everyone could watch them watching you, etc.
I can check for you, if you like. Just tell me your username...
It's called RDP ("Reliable Datagram Protocol"). (IPv4 Protocol 27)
Exactly. It's an issue between Nullsoft-the-corporation and Nullsoft's employees, not between Nullsoft and the public. I'd like to see AOL stop someone from putting a fork of WASTE on SourceForge.
Oh, wait...
IANAL, but IIRC the GPL simply states that you must distribute the source to those customers who request it. So they don't have to put the source online -- they just need to make it available to their customers.
That's almost correct, but not quite. If you distribute source code with the binaries, then you only have to distribute the source to customers, but if you do not, then you must (I quote, and take note of "any third party"):
The full section is as follows:
Fair enough.
- Debian GNU/Linux,
- Debian GNU/HURD,
- Debian GNU/NetBSD, and
- Debian GNU/FreeBSD
That's not even considering the different architectures that each of those systems can run on!That's Objective C
What happens is that SCO is found to be in breach of the GPL, and ends up paying damages to the copyright holder(s) of the GPL'd software they stole. Maybe the court would oblige SCO to release its entire source code under the GPL, but I doubt it.
Since SCO would already have been in breach of the GPL, releasing its source code under the GPL after-the-fact would be too late -- SCO would still have been in breach of the GPL in the past, and would therefore be liable.
The terms of the GPL that dictate that GPL'd software is can only be legally distributed either verbatim or as part of another GPL'd work. When nVidia violated the GPL by including GPL'd code in their non-GPL XFree86 drivers, the company could have been sued for copyright infringement regardless of what it did after the fact. Ralph decided to be nice and helped to resolve it out of court, but nVidia got away unscathed only because Ralph was a nice guy, not solely because of any action on their part.
So SCO would not automatically have to release its source
#include <disclaimer.h>
That's not necessarily a bad thing. Some functions' operation is obvious enough that more comments only serve to be superfluous. For example, given the following structure for variable-length strings:
The functioning of the following code is obvious:
(Sorry for /.'s mangling of my code.)
What makes you think that would happen?
Does a Cisco router take Windows or MacOS?
Yes, if you buy someone else's build tools.
GNU isn't just a runtime toolset, it's also a build system.
What architecture has Ring 5? ix86 only has 2 bits for IOPL.
They call themselves "NAI". I wonder what Network Associates will have to say about that!
Spammer != Human ==> no privacy rights :-)
If someone can crack Verisign's CA private key, they can launch a man-in-the-middle attack on YOUR SSL server.
No problem. It took me a good 60 seconds to figure this one out...
I never tested this, but in MySQL, BOOL is an alias for TINYINT(1), so you could probably put a 5 in there.
I'm all for criticizing Microsoft, but that's going a little overboard. It's an honest mistake, and many of Microsoft's competitors (especially OSS developers) have made much larger blunders.
This quote is more fun:
[emphasis added]Good point, but at least anyone can implement an XUL engine if they really want to. It's much harder to implement the complete Win32/x86 API than XUL.
Always assume the attacker can dump *anything* onto the network. Any measures that do not handle this assumption are next to useless in the real world.
What a SURPRISE! Soemthing that is touted as a "new", better way of doing things, has already been done by Debian for some time. Gee, THAT's never happened before!