It's not just DDOS that is the problem (in fact DDOS is actually the main feature). A naive implementation would pass along the GET data. So you could use this method to anonymously submit form data. Want to stuff an online ballot? Send out a spam linking to http://whatever/poll.foo?bar. Depending on how poorly written the sites are, you could even use this to do more sophisticated things, like sign up for 10,000 accounts at a certain website.
Really, if we can't keep Social Security organized, don't know who has entered the country, and allow thousands of people escape paying taxes every year, are we going to be able to keep track of every single person living in the country via the Post Office?
The government doesn't have to track every single person living in the country for this to be a bad thing. They only have to track those few who are lawfully speaking out against the government.
Will this affect me directly? Probably not. But here's a list of some of the people it would have affected. Add to that list a bunch of other revolutionaries, such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and now maybe you'll see how this will affect you indirectly.
The information about the sender is going to be the information that the sender presented at the post office of origin for verification.... to a non-trained government employee who probably could make more cash working at mcdonalds (no bull, I have a great deal of respect for those letter carriers... out in all weather, and most get paid about $20k a year).
That's just fantastic. So now we have to commit what will probably be a federal felony in order to send anonymous mail, while the real criminals already committing felonies will have an easy way to get around the law without getting caught.
In other words, we'll be getting less freedom without even getting the extra security which we are being promised. Sounds like a horrible idea.
Sure the law gets bent every now and again by sending papers through UPS and FedEx (usually for businesses), but the USPS is supposed to be the sole provider of letter-based communications in the United States, period.
Only for personal letter-based communications. Business communications (and even personal expedited communications) are legal to send through any provider.
Yes he was giving instructions on how to make chemical reactions work. Whoopdeedo!
For what it's worth, he stated under oath that he was giving out these instructions with intent to use them. It's disturbing that he was able to be coerced into making such an admission, but he did make it.
But if the judge overrules the plea agreement, can't the defendant withdraw the plea?
Granted, it was traffic court, but I once saw a prosecutor recommend that a woman charged with speeding and driving with a suspended license get ammended to driving in an unsafe manner. The judge rejected the request and asked the prosecutor and woman's lawyer to come up with something more reasonable.
If you just want to release it under some sort of free license, put it out there anonymously. If you want to profit off it, release it commercially and wait for the lawsuit. If it's a commercial success, settle out of court and get the company to hire you to continue work on the product. If it's not a commercial success, there aren't going to be any damages anyway. And remember, you can't be sued for punitive damages until the copyright on the software is registered. I assume the copyright for this software has never been registered. If it has, then there's the way you can find out who owns it.
I'd like to see a study done on the population in general. When we see that 2/3 of the country has no concern over copyright violations, maybe we can get some changes in the laws, or at least some candidates to lie to us and promise them.
Actual, in retrospect the situation that Sancho brought up is probably illegal since he does not own the computer that he downloads the music to. Is it legal for you to rip CDs that you own on a friends computer? Probably not.
What do you get when you buy a car? Are you buying the car itself? Are you paying for the right to drive a particular model? What happens if you own the same model car in two different colors? What if my car is damaged, can I get a replacement? If I already own a red honda, am I legally allowed to borrow a friend's white honda? What if my honda is scratched? Am I merely buying a license to drive a particular vehicle?
Like a car, there are restrictions on what you are allowed to do with a CD which you own. Just like you need a license to drive a car, you need a license to copy (distribute, etc.) a CD.
the value of something in a market economy is simply what people are willing to pay for it.
Heh. Actually, in a free market, the price of something is how much it costs to produce. But in a monopoly market (such as that for a particular CD), you're certainly right that the price is what people are willing to pay for it.
What if I bought a CD, ripped it to my computer, then destroyed the CD ?
Most likely that would fall under fair use. But possibly not if you are doing it for commercial purposes. For instance, radio stations have to pay for "ephemeral copies" that they make.
What if I did A and then sold the digital media online and then destroyed my copy of the media?
Unfortunately according to the mp3.com case, this is illegal. It's possible you could structure it differently, though, to avoid liability. Without buying 10,000 CD-ROM drives and letting people burn the CDs themselves I can't really think of one, though, and even that might run into contributory copyright infringment problems.
What if myself and a friend both buy identical copies of a CD, but mine gets lost in a fire.. can I legally make a copy of my friend's CD?
If you use an audio CD-R, you're allowed to make a copy of your friend's CD regardless of whhether or not you had one lost in a fire, under the Audio Home Recording Act. Otherwise, I would guess this would fall under fair use, but there are really only 9 people who can know for sure.
The bottom line is perhaps what you are doing is legal, but do not be suprised that it appears to be illegal, and of course all the hassle that would take to resolve the matter (being sued).
You failed to address the point that the RIAA has never sued anyone for downloading. So as long as that doesn't change (and I see no reason to believe it will), there is no hassle whatsoever.
The right to rent is protected under the first sale doctrine.
Not for music CDs.
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or the owner of copyright in a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), and in the case of a sound recording in the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular phonorecord nor any person in possession of a particular copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord or computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending.
Unless Linksys were to ship an executable of the compiler, in which case the source is required, yet they do not, so it is not required.
No. They must ship an executable of the compiler, because the compiler is part of the source.
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.
It doesn't matter that the modified compiler isn't shipped since you do have GCC.
GCC is not the script used to control compilation of the executable. The modified version of GCC is.
On top of that, what if they compiled GPL code with Visual C++ ?
If the executable ran on Windows, then that would be fine.
Can't ship the source to the compiler
You don't have to ship the source, only the binary.
and no, your last argument doesn't stand as a binary built by GCC and one with Microsoft's compiler won't be the same either.
Right. This is a different argument. Visual C++ is normally distributed with a major component (the compiler) of Windows. As long as the executable ran on Windows, this would be fine.
It's simple, you have a GCC for your platform, which will compile their code for your platform.
The GPL doesn't require the scripts which could compile the software. It requires the scripts which actually do compile the software.
They have a GCC to compile it for their platform.
The only important platform is that on which the executable runs. I'm not sure what platform you are referring to as "their" platform and "your" platform.
No where does the GPL garantee the executable you build from their source will be the same executable they built from their source, just that the source code will be the same and the binaries, though different, will have the same fonctionnality.
Actually it doesn't say either of those two things. It says you have to distribute "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable." Not the scripts which will build the same executable, and not scripts which will produce code with the same functionality.
On top of that, if you were to get your hands on that particular devkit from Broadcom, you'd get the compiler to compile your code for it.
And if I had wings I could fly out my window. The GPL doesn't require it to be possible for you to get the source. The GPL requires that you either distribute the source, or that you distribute a written offer to obtain the source.
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.
Now, reading lesson 101. Need not, as in doesn't have to, include compiler unless compiler accompanies the executable, or in this case, the firmware.
It doesn't say that. It says the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed with the major components of the operating system on which the executable runs.
The modified compiler is not distributed with the major components of the operating system on which the executable runs.
Linksys sure as hell aren't shipping the Broadcom GCC
And that's precisely why they are in violation of the GPL.
and your Linux distribution includes the GCC which can compile their source.
It might be able to compile it into something. But it can't compile it into the binary which they are distributing.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not just DDOS that is the problem (in fact DDOS is actually the main feature). A naive implementation would pass along the GET data. So you could use this method to anonymously submit form data. Want to stuff an online ballot? Send out a spam linking to http://whatever/poll.foo?bar. Depending on how poorly written the sites are, you could even use this to do more sophisticated things, like sign up for 10,000 accounts at a certain website.
Only if everyone did it. Which, the same could be said for just not responding to the spam.
If they send the mail, you can certainly follow each link once.
Umm, the problem is if someone else sent the mail.
Really, if we can't keep Social Security organized, don't know who has entered the country, and allow thousands of people escape paying taxes every year, are we going to be able to keep track of every single person living in the country via the Post Office?
The government doesn't have to track every single person living in the country for this to be a bad thing. They only have to track those few who are lawfully speaking out against the government.
Will this affect me directly? Probably not. But here's a list of some of the people it would have affected. Add to that list a bunch of other revolutionaries, such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and now maybe you'll see how this will affect you indirectly.
The information about the sender is going to be the information that the sender presented at the post office of origin for verification.... to a non-trained government employee who probably could make more cash working at mcdonalds (no bull, I have a great deal of respect for those letter carriers... out in all weather, and most get paid about $20k a year).
That's just fantastic. So now we have to commit what will probably be a federal felony in order to send anonymous mail, while the real criminals already committing felonies will have an easy way to get around the law without getting caught.
In other words, we'll be getting less freedom without even getting the extra security which we are being promised. Sounds like a horrible idea.
Sure the law gets bent every now and again by sending papers through UPS and FedEx (usually for businesses), but the USPS is supposed to be the sole provider of letter-based communications in the United States, period.
Only for personal letter-based communications. Business communications (and even personal expedited communications) are legal to send through any provider.
Yes he was giving instructions on how to make chemical reactions work. Whoopdeedo!
For what it's worth, he stated under oath that he was giving out these instructions with intent to use them. It's disturbing that he was able to be coerced into making such an admission, but he did make it.
But if the judge overrules the plea agreement, can't the defendant withdraw the plea?
Granted, it was traffic court, but I once saw a prosecutor recommend that a woman charged with speeding and driving with a suspended license get ammended to driving in an unsafe manner. The judge rejected the request and asked the prosecutor and woman's lawyer to come up with something more reasonable.
OK, but indicted doesn't mean in custody.
Sherman Austin isn't in custody either. "Austin must surrender himself to the Federal Bureau of Prisons by September 3, 2003."
It takes time.
If you just want to release it under some sort of free license, put it out there anonymously. If you want to profit off it, release it commercially and wait for the lawsuit. If it's a commercial success, settle out of court and get the company to hire you to continue work on the product. If it's not a commercial success, there aren't going to be any damages anyway. And remember, you can't be sued for punitive damages until the copyright on the software is registered. I assume the copyright for this software has never been registered. If it has, then there's the way you can find out who owns it.
I'd like to see a study done on the population in general. When we see that 2/3 of the country has no concern over copyright violations, maybe we can get some changes in the laws, or at least some candidates to lie to us and promise them.
If you do not grasp the similarity then forget it.
Fine. It's forgotten.
That was talking about Snapster. This is talking about making a backup copy of a CD which you already own.
Actual, in retrospect the situation that Sancho brought up is probably illegal since he does not own the computer that he downloads the music to. Is it legal for you to rip CDs that you own on a friends computer? Probably not.
I'd say it's fair use.
You get a CD.
What do you get when you buy a car? Are you buying the car itself? Are you paying for the right to drive a particular model? What happens if you own the same model car in two different colors? What if my car is damaged, can I get a replacement? If I already own a red honda, am I legally allowed to borrow a friend's white honda? What if my honda is scratched? Am I merely buying a license to drive a particular vehicle?
Like a car, there are restrictions on what you are allowed to do with a CD which you own. Just like you need a license to drive a car, you need a license to copy (distribute, etc.) a CD.
Whether or not anyone is actually sued for downloading is irrelevant to the discussion of whether it is illegal or only appears to be illegal.
I thought we all agreed that it is legal and only appears to be illegal.
Besides, are you trying to say that no companies have ever had to pay out of the ass for mp3s found on company owned computers?
Nope. I'm not trying to say that. It may or may not be true, though. I don't know of any such cases.
the value of something in a market economy is simply what people are willing to pay for it.
Heh. Actually, in a free market, the price of something is how much it costs to produce. But in a monopoly market (such as that for a particular CD), you're certainly right that the price is what people are willing to pay for it.
What if I bought a CD, ripped it to my computer, then destroyed the CD ?
Most likely that would fall under fair use. But possibly not if you are doing it for commercial purposes. For instance, radio stations have to pay for "ephemeral copies" that they make.
What if I did A and then sold the digital media online and then destroyed my copy of the media?
Unfortunately according to the mp3.com case, this is illegal. It's possible you could structure it differently, though, to avoid liability. Without buying 10,000 CD-ROM drives and letting people burn the CDs themselves I can't really think of one, though, and even that might run into contributory copyright infringment problems.
What if myself and a friend both buy identical copies of a CD, but mine gets lost in a fire.. can I legally make a copy of my friend's CD?
If you use an audio CD-R, you're allowed to make a copy of your friend's CD regardless of whhether or not you had one lost in a fire, under the Audio Home Recording Act. Otherwise, I would guess this would fall under fair use, but there are really only 9 people who can know for sure.
The bottom line is perhaps what you are doing is legal, but do not be suprised that it appears to be illegal, and of course all the hassle that would take to resolve the matter (being sued).
You failed to address the point that the RIAA has never sued anyone for downloading. So as long as that doesn't change (and I see no reason to believe it will), there is no hassle whatsoever.
The right to rent is protected under the first sale doctrine.
Not for music CDs.
Unless Linksys were to ship an executable of the compiler, in which case the source is required, yet they do not, so it is not required.
No. They must ship an executable of the compiler, because the compiler is part of the source.
It doesn't matter that the modified compiler isn't shipped since you do have GCC.
GCC is not the script used to control compilation of the executable. The modified version of GCC is.
On top of that, what if they compiled GPL code with Visual C++ ?
If the executable ran on Windows, then that would be fine.
Can't ship the source to the compiler
You don't have to ship the source, only the binary.
and no, your last argument doesn't stand as a binary built by GCC and one with Microsoft's compiler won't be the same either.
Right. This is a different argument. Visual C++ is normally distributed with a major component (the compiler) of Windows. As long as the executable ran on Windows, this would be fine.
It's simple, you have a GCC for your platform, which will compile their code for your platform.
The GPL doesn't require the scripts which could compile the software. It requires the scripts which actually do compile the software.
They have a GCC to compile it for their platform.
The only important platform is that on which the executable runs. I'm not sure what platform you are referring to as "their" platform and "your" platform.
No where does the GPL garantee the executable you build from their source will be the same executable they built from their source, just that the source code will be the same and the binaries, though different, will have the same fonctionnality.
Actually it doesn't say either of those two things. It says you have to distribute "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable." Not the scripts which will build the same executable, and not scripts which will produce code with the same functionality.
On top of that, if you were to get your hands on that particular devkit from Broadcom, you'd get the compiler to compile your code for it.
And if I had wings I could fly out my window. The GPL doesn't require it to be possible for you to get the source. The GPL requires that you either distribute the source, or that you distribute a written offer to obtain the source.
Now, reading lesson 101. Need not, as in doesn't have to, include compiler unless compiler accompanies the executable, or in this case, the firmware.
It doesn't say that. It says the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed with the major components of the operating system on which the executable runs.
The modified compiler is not distributed with the major components of the operating system on which the executable runs.
Linksys sure as hell aren't shipping the Broadcom GCC
And that's precisely why they are in violation of the GPL.
and your Linux distribution includes the GCC which can compile their source.
It might be able to compile it into something. But it can't compile it into the binary which they are distributing.
as the GPL states, you do not need to redistribute the compiler.
The GPL does not state that.
Because the license for the tools requires that you release the modified gcc.
Compiler is not defined explicitly in the GPL. Furthermore, the definition of compiler has nothing to do with the definition of script.