The FSF is very willing to test the GPL, but has not found a test case yet. But they do have money set aside to retain lawyers yet.
Frankly, I think that all this noise about how the GPL hasn't been tested in court is BS. People don't say that about the MS EULA, but I've never heard of it being tested in court either!
Unless of course all of your backups are infected with the virus before you find it. If the virus is confined to a sinle user, then no problem. But if the virus runs as the kernel, then you have issues.
Of course, one reason why they might not want to support Free Software like linux is that you could connect their bar to an X driver for/dev/null, and rig something so it would think you were interacting with it. Then you could use their service without viewing the ads, which would end up making their enterprise useless.
Plus, linux users probably use more bandwidth on average. Though I'm surprised macs aren't listed for this reason.
No, It appears that 1stup.com, which is a free ISP, has a cobranding service that FOX has subscribed to. 1stup uses the simpsons' logo, and FOX gets a cut of the profits.
It's pretty thinly disguised though. Usually these cobranding things are more hidden - under the fox.com domain, for example.
Re:Other stuff - like designs?
on
GPL for Books?
·
· Score: 1
Mostly you can only GPL something that has source. Also it refers to everything as a 'program'.;)
I would not censor hate speech. Dosen't mean I won't mock it though.
The difference is that one's race is not chosen. One's political views, on the other hand, are. That is why the link tells me so much more than race would.
It is not saying 'this is not worthy!', it is merely asking 'is this worthy?' The USPTO has made so many mistakes in the past that I tihnk it is reasonable to ask this question.
Your logic is flawed. The bible says that you cannot serve two masters. This is largely true, especially if they give conflicting orders.
However, it does not say that you must serve exactly one. There is a big difference between saying that (number of masters 2) and saying that (number of masters == 1). In this case, it is in fact possible to serve neither satan nor god.
Now, of course, at least to me, this is highly abstract and theoretical, since I don't believe in either one.
First of all, DeCSS is merely a proof-of-concept program for windows. The program you should be interested in is css-auth. And yes, you sholud be interested in it. Even if the plaintiffs win this lawsuit, you will still be able to use css-auth to play your DVDs on linux.
Well, except that it includes people 'acting in concert'. So technically you would probably be included.
The fact of the matter is that you aren't affected by the order until you are served, however.
Re:Since when has inherent honesty been a bad thin
on
RIAA Sues MP3.com
·
· Score: 1
No one questions (yet...) your right to make copies of your music for personal use. But the real question here is whether or not you have the right to give a copy of a copyrighted work to someone else who also owns the same work.
The problem with this is that large corporations find it very difficult to break copyright laws, because they get stuck with lawsuits. If people were trading illicit GPL binaries on IRC (though I can't imagine a reason why) I doubt ppl here would care much.
What it comes down to, is that corporations act very rationally but immorally, which tends to be the opposite of the way that individuals act.
And if I were given the chance to metamoderate a negative moderation to your post, I would mark it unfair.
How can you at the same time say 'investigate it yourself' and link to an article which makes numerous unsubstantiated claims, with nary a reference to be found.
Also, I think you'll find that, much more important than any percieved racial seperations, the divisions between the classes is the fundamental problem here. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.
But, it's probably not useful to try to reason with you, Mr. Coward. Your link to 'Who Rules America' tells me everything I need to know about you.
css-auth is already GPL'd. The problem is that the DVD ppl are saying that since the key was derived from the xing player, and the xing player forbids reverse-engineering, that distribution of this program is forbidden.
Second, there is no special law for the GPL. Standard copyright law applies.
Third, the restraining order has nothing to do with the license placed on the css-auth program. It could be public domain and still the defendants in this particular case would not be allowed to distribute it.
FTP and telnet are not designed to be, nor are they advertised as, secure. You should only use them when security is irrelevant, such as in a private network with untappable wires.
There are, however, secore replacements for both, which do not make the mistakes in MS CHAPv1.
Please, mirror this thing! My copy of the sources can be found here, and a mirror list can be found here.
Note that the proper program to mirror is the css-auth program (with source) and not the DeCSS program (which is floating around in binary-only form). The reason is that css-auth is actually useful for playing DVDs on linux, whereas DeCSS is a windows program used mostly for proof-of-concept.
No. Just because the license is not binding does _not_ give you permission to distribute it ad naseaum.
Essentially, it makes it like a book or a CD, which do not have licenses. You can make infinately many copies for your personal use. You can reverse engineer it. You can install it on 50 machines (if you own them all). This is true for commercial software as well.
What you cannot do, is distribute it. Without the GPL to give you permission to distribute the software, you may not distribute it at all. You can make modifications, but not distribute them. Theoretically, you could distribute patches, though.
Slashdot Mirror
select few, in the same sense that AOL CD's are sent out to the select few, then. :b
It's possible (tho unlikely) that the win2k box was licensed. There are a select few who get to have licensed copies.
In a word, yes.
The FSF is very willing to test the GPL, but has not found a test case yet. But they do have money set aside to retain lawyers yet.
Frankly, I think that all this noise about how the GPL hasn't been tested in court is BS. People don't say that about the MS EULA, but I've never heard of it being tested in court either!
Unless of course all of your backups are infected with the virus before you find it. If the virus is confined to a sinle user, then no problem. But if the virus runs as the kernel, then you have issues.
Of course, one reason why they might not want to support Free Software like linux is that you could connect their bar to an X driver for /dev/null, and rig something so it would think you were interacting with it. Then you could use their service without viewing the ads, which would end up making their enterprise useless.
Plus, linux users probably use more bandwidth on average. Though I'm surprised macs aren't listed for this reason.
No, It appears that 1stup.com, which is a free ISP, has a cobranding service that FOX has subscribed to. 1stup uses the simpsons' logo, and FOX gets a cut of the profits.
It's pretty thinly disguised though. Usually these cobranding things are more hidden - under the fox.com domain, for example.
Mostly you can only GPL something that has source. Also it refers to everything as a 'program'. ;)
Really? That's not what my father (a lawyer) told me.
I would not censor hate speech. Dosen't mean I won't mock it though.
The difference is that one's race is not chosen. One's political views, on the other hand, are. That is why the link tells me so much more than race would.
And yes, this entire thread is offtopic.
Gee, this seems remarkably similar to what has happened with the RSA patent, or the LZW patent. And those are mathematical formulas too...
um, reread the article.
It is not saying 'this is not worthy!', it is merely asking 'is this worthy?' The USPTO has made so many mistakes in the past that I tihnk it is reasonable to ask this question.
(-1 offtopic. Oh well, I can afford the karma)
Your logic is flawed. The bible says that you cannot serve two masters. This is largely true, especially if they give conflicting orders.
However, it does not say that you must serve exactly one. There is a big difference between saying that (number of masters 2) and saying that (number of masters == 1). In this case, it is in fact possible to serve neither satan nor god.
Now, of course, at least to me, this is highly abstract and theoretical, since I don't believe in either one.
First of all, DeCSS is merely a proof-of-concept program for windows. The program you should be interested in is css-auth. And yes, you sholud be interested in it. Even if the plaintiffs win this lawsuit, you will still be able to use css-auth to play your DVDs on linux.
In this context, innocent party means someone who did not know that the data was obtained from a trade secret.
Well, except that it includes people 'acting in concert'. So technically you would probably be included.
The fact of the matter is that you aren't affected by the order until you are served, however.
No one questions (yet...) your right to make copies of your music for personal use. But the real question here is whether or not you have the right to give a copy of a copyrighted work to someone else who also owns the same work.
The problem with this is that large corporations find it very difficult to break copyright laws, because they get stuck with lawsuits. If people were trading illicit GPL binaries on IRC (though I can't imagine a reason why) I doubt ppl here would care much.
What it comes down to, is that corporations act very rationally but immorally, which tends to be the opposite of the way that individuals act.
And if I were given the chance to metamoderate a negative moderation to your post, I would mark it unfair.
How can you at the same time say 'investigate it yourself' and link to an article which makes numerous unsubstantiated claims, with nary a reference to be found.
Also, I think you'll find that, much more important than any percieved racial seperations, the divisions between the classes is the fundamental problem here. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.
But, it's probably not useful to try to reason with you, Mr. Coward. Your link to 'Who Rules America' tells me everything I need to know about you.
css-auth is already GPL'd. The problem is that the DVD ppl are saying that since the key was derived from the xing player, and the xing player forbids reverse-engineering, that distribution of this program is forbidden.
OMG this is wrong in so many ways.
First, the css-auth program _IS_ GPL'd.
Second, there is no special law for the GPL. Standard copyright law applies.
Third, the restraining order has nothing to do with the license placed on the css-auth program. It could be public domain and still the defendants in this particular case would not be allowed to distribute it.
FTP and telnet are not designed to be, nor are they advertised as, secure. You should only use them when security is irrelevant, such as in a private network with untappable wires.
There are, however, secore replacements for both, which do not make the mistakes in MS CHAPv1.
Please, mirror this thing! My copy of the sources can be found here, and a mirror list can be found here.
Note that the proper program to mirror is the css-auth program (with source) and not the DeCSS program (which is floating around in binary-only form). The reason is that css-auth is actually useful for playing DVDs on linux, whereas DeCSS is a windows program used mostly for proof-of-concept.
We need to keep the whack-a-mole going!
No. Just because the license is not binding does _not_ give you permission to distribute it ad naseaum.
Essentially, it makes it like a book or a CD, which do not have licenses. You can make infinately many copies for your personal use. You can reverse engineer it. You can install it on 50 machines (if you own them all). This is true for commercial software as well.
What you cannot do, is distribute it. Without the GPL to give you permission to distribute the software, you may not distribute it at all. You can make modifications, but not distribute them. Theoretically, you could distribute patches, though.
Linux and the BSDs (especially OpenBSD) have a poor (ie., all-or-nothing) security model which is very well-implemented.
Windows NT, on the other hand, has a really good security model but the implementation sucks.
's called Nielson ratings.