Yes, that does mean that Samba is now illegal according to Microsoft licensing. But that's it. You don't need a CAL for every person who connects to your website. Just the 95/98/NT/2k users in your domain.
However, this presents a pretty stealthy move by Microsoft. Basically, this licensing scheme says that you need to have a Windows 2000 license for a Samba box. I don't want Win2k - that's why I have a Samba box. But if I want to connect to a Win2k box with my Samba box, I need a license. Bah. Stealthy little bastards, those legal folks at Microsoft. Ah well - they can take me to court for it for all I care; not like I'm going to be using Win2k as a server *ever*.
Please clarify why Samba is illegal. If you've got a Samba box, using an NT Domain Controller for authentication, you've always needed a CAL (you said it yourself with the trusted connections bit). If I've got a Samba based domain, using Samba as a DC and a file/print server, I need exactly 0 MS Client Access Licenses. Of course, I need as many MS OS Licenses to use the services as I have machines, but that part is pretty clear anyway. If you've wanted to use your Samba box to access NT/2K files, you've always needed a CAL for that.
Samba is not illegal, and nothing MS can do (well, almost anything; they could change the license to allow for only MS clients to access services) can change that
Thank you for beating me to it. Now, if we can only get the anti-MS flamers to read this. The article makes it sound as if they're charging "per SSL session". (But alas, it appears they've come and really don't care.) A careful reading will reveal that this licensing will only come into effect when HTTP authentication pops up a login box. Technically, a CAL is already necessary for each simultaneous authenticated user, due to the use of an SMB connection to a DC to get the authentication. When push comes to shove, this new pricing should really only affect networks where the admins have set up per-server licensing, as per-seat licensing already requires a license a head. Of course, I don't have exact details of the new pricing scheme (which I would like to see before casting any (more) stones at MS). As a result, I may well be spewing FUD here, which is not my intention.
There's also an article on Yahoo courtesy of Reuters, which mentions nothing of "per web connection" licensing. The CNET reporter probably needed to take the wax out of his/her ears.
And it makes sense. I've never had a machine work after tinkering with it if it didn't suck blood. I've always blamed this on the sheet metal gods being offended, but alas, I see this is not the case.
I can see it: "I'm not playing games, boss, honest. I'm managing the loads on the servers!" (Accidentally killing init on the Power Management system while everything goes dark) In all seriousness, though, this guy has an idea that really rocks (I really could smell a patent here if he wanted to)
That the law could be interpreted that once you HAVE an mp3 it is legal to USE it...even if the SOURCE was illegal (ie, Fair Use applies just from having a copy, legal or not)
That's my take on 17 USC. Copyright law prohibits unauthorized duplication and distribution of copyrighted material. As a result, someone in possession of illegal duplications should not be in any sort of violation. Duplicate that, and you're history (or at least can be). This is probably why Microsoft wasn't concerned about getting pirateware and giving away real licenses (not that I'd trust them anyway).
This really shrinks the trademark domain! Furthermore, a quick spin around altavista shows "What's happenin?" -> French -> English as "Which is happenin?", which, silly as it sounds, would registering that as a domain name be an infringement because it translates to the same thing in another common language? (Note: AFAIK, that's not a babelfish blunder; the phrase pretty much translates equivalently. If not in French, then elsewhere.)
Not to nit-pick or anything, but "What's Happenin" in French becomes "Qu'est ce qui se passe?", which comes back to English as "What is that which happens?" Gotta Love all the extra crap the French put in there. Admittedly, it sounds nice, but "Que Pasa" is so much more concise. On an up note, at least we don't have to worry about whatshappenin.com invoking NSI's stupid-assed trademark policy, as quepasa is not an exact duplication of the trademark.
Of course, this isn't even necessary if the image is made before the master has a SID (i.e., before it is made a member of a domain). See, the machine doesn't have a SID until it receives it from a domain controller. Ghost first, join later. Works every time.
Congress shall pass no ex post facto law. In other words, you cannot be convicted for something if you did it before that law was enacted (If the flag amendment passed, I sense a lot of flags will be burned the day before any such law goes into effect, but I digress). I would think that extending the duration of copyrights would be held to be ex post facto.
Bear in mind, all of the domains you mentioned are government subdomains. If I read the comment correctly, the poster was referring to personal subdomains (e.g., last-name.city.state.us). These are handled completely separately from the government ones. For example, in Minnesota, most of.mn.us is administered by a handful of people at MRNet, or at least they were when I inquired before I bought my.cx domain. Furthermore, it would be interesting to hear why you had to deal with.ca.us,.paloalto.ca.us, and.ci.paloalto.ca.us. You should have only had to go to.ci.paloalto.ca.us to get what you wanted (given of course that it existed).
I find myself wondering how well a change turning copyright into an in perpetua right would stand up to someone with sufficient funds and the following, taken from Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:
[The Congress shall have the power] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Obviously, those of us with no money have little chance against the content barons. But hey, someone with a lot of money might be influenced to produce and redistribute the original version of a certain squeaky-voiced mouse. It could happen.
Actually, although these cables may follow major access routes, Sprint initially created their fiber network along the right-of-way of the Southern Pacific Railroad, as it was originally formed by the SP. (Hence the SPR in SPRINT as a previous poster noted; INT is probably for internal or something). Considering the SP doesn't run to the east coast, they either use roads or some other railroads tracks. As for how do I get there, there are trucks with rail wheels. But, overlay a rail map on an interstate/US/State highway map some time. You're likely to find that many of the major intercity rail lines correspond quite closely to the major highways, especially those portions of the US highway system which was build, for the most part, alongside the rail lines. Where they separate, at least along Sprints network, I bet the fiber follows the rail and not the highway.
Not only that, CIFS is supposed to address this issue for ipv4.
You mean CIDR (Classless Inter-Domain Routing). CIFS is the Common Internet File System (SMB for the rest of us).
Re:Every toaster on the internet?
on
CNN On IPv6
·
· Score: 2
Excellent point regarding the appliances. Most people wouldn't want others to say, start the microwave, and don't know how to build an effective firewall.
However, you're off on the NAT/Masq issue. Say I've got a couple of machines going out over a cable modem (I don't; I've got DSL). Now, people on both computers want to use NetMeeting and receive incoming "calls" (I know NM is bad, but it illustrates my point, as its something that most home users have). NAT and Masq can't do this. Why, because the effective port-forwarding can't forward a connection to both machines.
Now, say you have machines behind two separate NAT'ed connections. The users can't set up a NetMeeting connection, as neither is directly connected.
Having a larger address space helps by giving each machine its own address so it can accept connections such as NetMeeting directly, because 15 machines won't be trying to use 1 IP.
Find the original ITAR regulations somewhere on Thomas. Recently, the controls were transferred to Commerce by the Export Arms Regulations. String Cryptographic software has been placed on this list of unexportable munitions by the President. In a nutshell, anyone can write any cryptographic software they want. However, if the strength of said software exceeds 56 bits, I believe, it cannot be exported from the US without an export license from the Commerce Department. US citizens may not acquire said software, take it to Canada, and re-export it from there, however, I'm not so sure Canadian citizens are banned from doing any such thing.
As for where the list of munitions is, I'm not sure.
Why can PGPI.com export the code? At the moment, any printed material is considered to be speech, and may be exported under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The current manufacturers of PGP simply printed the source code in an easy-to-OCR format, PGPi bought copies of it, and distributed them to Europeans who proceeded to scan and proofread them.
After all, I believe there were issues with software which invoked PGP (such as mailer plug-ins), which only used the interface. I believe patches are a similar situation. Of course, take this as a grain of salt as IANAL.
... none of the story is presently appearing on the front page? The header is there, but no text. almost as if the spooks cracked slashdot and erased it.
If the US Government was minimally confident in their policies, they would recognise that strong crypto may actually help the people to keep the Government in check.
But its not in the governments best interest to have the government kept in check, is it?
I too, have heard this; it should be common knowledge. The advice I received from a grad student in my undergrad TA'ing days was to get both. That way, when you work on your resume, you can legitimately omit the fact you have a PhD, and only divulge it if asked.
I wonder if this "agreement" would be somehow enforcable (AFAIK the agreements in EULAs are enforcable in the US by the court ruling in ProCD v. Zeidenberg).
The difference is that my whois client doesn't say anything to the effect of "Use of this software is governed by a license" WRT the results of a query like "Use of the results of a query are governed by a license". This is the reason the courts said EULAs are enforceable in the US. You know there's a license when you purchase the product. With a whois query, I don't know in advance that there's a license when I make that query (and it could change from one time to the next). And although IANAL, I'd guess that NSI's agreement is unenforceable simply.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that does mean that Samba is now illegal according to Microsoft licensing. But that's it. You don't need a CAL for every person who connects to your website. Just the 95/98/NT/2k users in your domain.
However, this presents a pretty stealthy move by Microsoft. Basically, this licensing scheme says that you need to have a Windows 2000 license for a Samba box. I don't want Win2k - that's why I have a Samba box. But if I want to connect to a Win2k box with my Samba box, I need a license. Bah. Stealthy little bastards, those legal folks at Microsoft. Ah well - they can take me to court for it for all I care; not like I'm going to be using Win2k as a server *ever*.
Please clarify why Samba is illegal. If you've got a Samba box, using an NT Domain Controller for authentication, you've always needed a CAL (you said it yourself with the trusted connections bit). If I've got a Samba based domain, using Samba as a DC and a file/print server, I need exactly 0 MS Client Access Licenses. Of course, I need as many MS OS Licenses to use the services as I have machines, but that part is pretty clear anyway. If you've wanted to use your Samba box to access NT/2K files, you've always needed a CAL for that.
Samba is not illegal, and nothing MS can do (well, almost anything; they could change the license to allow for only MS clients to access services) can change that
Sure it would. Its callef VMWare. The important question is why?
Thank you for beating me to it. Now, if we can only get the anti-MS flamers to read this. The article makes it sound as if they're charging "per SSL session". (But alas, it appears they've come and really don't care.) A careful reading will reveal that this licensing will only come into effect when HTTP authentication pops up a login box. Technically, a CAL is already necessary for each simultaneous authenticated user, due to the use of an SMB connection to a DC to get the authentication. When push comes to shove, this new pricing should really only affect networks where the admins have set up per-server licensing, as per-seat licensing already requires a license a head. Of course, I don't have exact details of the new pricing scheme (which I would like to see before casting any (more) stones at MS). As a result, I may well be spewing FUD here, which is not my intention.
There's also an article on Yahoo courtesy of Reuters, which mentions nothing of "per web connection" licensing. The CNET reporter probably needed to take the wax out of his/her ears.
And it makes sense. I've never had a machine work after tinkering with it if it didn't suck blood. I've always blamed this on the sheet metal gods being offended, but alas, I see this is not the case.
Yeah, but then you get red, puffy eyes, and the doc probably won't go any further.
I can see it: "I'm not playing games, boss, honest. I'm managing the loads on the servers!" (Accidentally killing init on the Power Management system while everything goes dark) In all seriousness, though, this guy has an idea that really rocks (I really could smell a patent here if he wanted to)
That the law could be interpreted that once you HAVE an mp3 it is legal to USE it...even if the SOURCE was illegal (ie, Fair Use applies just from having a copy, legal or not)
That's my take on 17 USC. Copyright law prohibits unauthorized duplication and distribution of copyrighted material. As a result, someone in possession of illegal duplications should not be in any sort of violation. Duplicate that, and you're history (or at least can be). This is probably why Microsoft wasn't concerned about getting pirateware and giving away real licenses (not that I'd trust them anyway).
Robotic Library. Cost: $2500 (for an Exabyte 10H, 140GB compressed) and up
This really shrinks the trademark domain! Furthermore, a quick spin around altavista shows "What's happenin?" -> French -> English as "Which is happenin?", which, silly as it sounds, would registering that as a domain name be an infringement because it translates to the same thing in another common language? (Note: AFAIK, that's not a babelfish blunder; the phrase pretty much translates equivalently. If not in French, then elsewhere.)
Not to nit-pick or anything, but "What's Happenin" in French becomes "Qu'est ce qui se passe?", which comes back to English as "What is that which happens?" Gotta Love all the extra crap the French put in there. Admittedly, it sounds nice, but "Que Pasa" is so much more concise. On an up note, at least we don't have to worry about whatshappenin.com invoking NSI's stupid-assed trademark policy, as quepasa is not an exact duplication of the trademark.
Of course, this isn't even necessary if the image is made before the master has a SID (i.e., before it is made a member of a domain). See, the machine doesn't have a SID until it receives it from a domain controller. Ghost first, join later. Works every time.
Congress shall pass no ex post facto law. In other words, you cannot be convicted for something if you did it before that law was enacted (If the flag amendment passed, I sense a lot of flags will be burned the day before any such law goes into effect, but I digress). I would think that extending the duration of copyrights would be held to be ex post facto.
Bear in mind, all of the domains you mentioned are government subdomains. If I read the comment correctly, the poster was referring to personal subdomains (e.g., last-name.city.state.us). These are handled completely separately from the government ones. For example, in Minnesota, most of .mn.us is administered by a handful of people at MRNet, or at least they were when I inquired before I bought my .cx domain. Furthermore, it would be interesting to hear why you had to deal with .ca.us, .paloalto.ca.us, and .ci.paloalto.ca.us. You should have only had to go to .ci.paloalto.ca.us to get what you wanted (given of course that it existed).
I find myself wondering how well a change turning copyright into an in perpetua right would stand up to someone with sufficient funds and the following, taken from Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:
[The Congress shall have the power] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Obviously, those of us with no money have little chance against the content barons. But hey, someone with a lot of money might be influenced to produce and redistribute the original version of a certain squeaky-voiced mouse. It could happen.
Yep. It was quite an unpleasant experience. And to think, MRNET is lucky if they have 1 OC-192 worth of bandwidth across the state.
Actually, although these cables may follow major access routes, Sprint initially created their fiber network along the right-of-way of the Southern Pacific Railroad, as it was originally formed by the SP. (Hence the SPR in SPRINT as a previous poster noted; INT is probably for internal or something). Considering the SP doesn't run to the east coast, they either use roads or some other railroads tracks. As for how do I get there, there are trucks with rail wheels. But, overlay a rail map on an interstate/US/State highway map some time. You're likely to find that many of the major intercity rail lines correspond quite closely to the major highways, especially those portions of the US highway system which was build, for the most part, alongside the rail lines. Where they separate, at least along Sprints network, I bet the fiber follows the rail and not the highway.
Not only that, CIFS is supposed to address this issue for ipv4.
You mean CIDR (Classless Inter-Domain Routing). CIFS is the Common Internet File System (SMB for the rest of us).
Excellent point regarding the appliances. Most people wouldn't want others to say, start the microwave, and don't know how to build an effective firewall.
However, you're off on the NAT/Masq issue. Say I've got a couple of machines going out over a cable modem (I don't; I've got DSL). Now, people on both computers want to use NetMeeting and receive incoming "calls" (I know NM is bad, but it illustrates my point, as its something that most home users have). NAT and Masq can't do this. Why, because the effective port-forwarding can't forward a connection to both machines.
Now, say you have machines behind two separate NAT'ed connections. The users can't set up a NetMeeting connection, as neither is directly connected.
Having a larger address space helps by giving each machine its own address so it can accept connections such as NetMeeting directly, because 15 machines won't be trying to use 1 IP.
Doh. Should've checked my copy.
Find the original ITAR regulations somewhere on Thomas. Recently, the controls were transferred to Commerce by the Export Arms Regulations. String Cryptographic software has been placed on this list of unexportable munitions by the President. In a nutshell, anyone can write any cryptographic software they want. However, if the strength of said software exceeds 56 bits, I believe, it cannot be exported from the US without an export license from the Commerce Department. US citizens may not acquire said software, take it to Canada, and re-export it from there, however, I'm not so sure Canadian citizens are banned from doing any such thing.
As for where the list of munitions is, I'm not sure.
Why can PGPI.com export the code? At the moment, any printed material is considered to be speech, and may be exported under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The current manufacturers of PGP simply printed the source code in an easy-to-OCR format, PGPi bought copies of it, and distributed them to Europeans who proceeded to scan and proofread them.
After all, I believe there were issues with software which invoked PGP (such as mailer plug-ins), which only used the interface. I believe patches are a similar situation. Of course, take this as a grain of salt as IANAL.
... none of the story is presently appearing on the front page? The header is there, but no text. almost as if the spooks cracked slashdot and erased it.
If the US Government was minimally confident in their policies, they would recognise that strong crypto may actually help the people to keep the Government in check.
But its not in the governments best interest to have the government kept in check, is it?
I too, have heard this; it should be common knowledge. The advice I received from a grad student in my undergrad TA'ing days was to get both. That way, when you work on your resume, you can legitimately omit the fact you have a PhD, and only divulge it if asked.
No more so than its extractable from the patent application.
I wonder if this "agreement" would be somehow enforcable (AFAIK the agreements in EULAs are enforcable in the US by the court ruling in ProCD v. Zeidenberg).
The difference is that my whois client doesn't say anything to the effect of "Use of this software is governed by a license" WRT the results of a query like "Use of the results of a query are governed by a license". This is the reason the courts said EULAs are enforceable in the US. You know there's a license when you purchase the product. With a whois query, I don't know in advance that there's a license when I make that query (and it could change from one time to the next). And although IANAL, I'd guess that NSI's agreement is unenforceable simply.