Better to search for the first 8 digits of a known credit card number. Last time slashdot hahd a story about a site which was publishing credit card numbers on the internet, I googled for the first 8 digits of my CCN and found the site.
See, I think a judge would interpret the term "script" to include the compiler, thus adhering to the spirit of the GPL. Since "script" isn't defined in the GPL, it seems such a definition would best fit within the intentions of the license.
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.
The modified version of gcc is not normally distributed with the major components of the operating system on which the executable runs.
have you checked the gcc archives to see if this change in gcc was sent to them?
well, thats your interpretation, not the stance of the FSF, GCC or more importantly what is stated in the GPL.
The stance of GCC is completely irrelevant. The other two points would be great, if you had backed them up rather than just asserting them.
calling the legendary gcc "a script" is just plain offensive.
Legal terminology generally is. If you're not going to consider gcc "a script," then you've opened up a huge loophole in the GPL. Anyone can create modifications to GCC which make the changes they want to make to the GPLed software rather than make the changes in the source. Then they don't have to release those changes.
On the grounds that it is a script "used to control compilation [...] of the executable."
The configure script makes the make files, which are not part of the source distribution, because the configure script creates said make files.
I'm not familiar with the details of the compilation of those packages. If configure makes the makefiles, since configure 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," you're right that the makefiles wouldn't need to be distributed.
Copyright law isn't forcing you to release source -- by simply following copyright law you could NOT release source even if you wanted to, nor copies of your software, based on somebody else's copyrighted software.
Nonsense. Copyright law is making it illegal for me to modify and distribute software without releasing the source. In other words, copyright law is forcing me to release the source.
The GPL allows you to copy things you would not normally be allowed to copy under copyright law.
the fact is, they don't even need to provide binaries for the modified gcc. it is being used "in house" and there is therefore no need to redistribute the changes.
Well, they don't need to provide the binaries for the modified gcc under the license of gcc. But my interpretation (which could be wrong) is that gcc is a script used to perform compilation, and as such must be distributed with the source. This is open to a different interpretation, though. Certainly the Makefiles, configure files, and installation scripts have to be distributed, as they clearly are "scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."
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, [em mine]
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.) [em mine]
They're not allowed to do c), they're not doing a), and they're not doing b). Technically they're in violation regardless of whether or not they make it available upon request.
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.
They don't have to release the source of the modified GCC, but they do have to release the binary. Also they have to release the configure script, and the Makefiles, and the installation scripts, and anything else they modified.
The firewall blocks all packets to/from messenger.hotmail.com. The XFR packet never gets there.
But if a user has already previously connected to messenger.hotmail.com and received an XFR, the client will cache the IP address given to it by the XFR. Therefore blocking only messenger.hotmail.com (the dispatch server), and not all the possible notification servers, "won't work for people who have ever connected before."
I'm assuming of course direct connections through messenger.hotmail.com. Blocking gateway.messenger.hotmail.com will block access through the HTTP proxy (at least until the IP address changes).
First of all, there's not a real shortage of IPv4 addresses.
Granted. I wasn't arguing whether or not we should switch over to IPv6 in the first place, just that if we're going to do it we should do it in a certain way that makes it more seamless.
If your users _can't_ handle NAT, because they need REAL IP ADDRESSES to give people in the real world, they probably need real IPv4 addresses, not IPv6 addresses.
I'm not sure how you'd find the IP range. I guess you could just guess, and hope you don't accidently shut off hotmail access as well (or maybe shutting off hotmail access is a good thing).
what about a script that queries DNS for messenger.hotmail.com, then blocks the IP address returned?
Won't work. Messenger.hotmail.com is only contacted the first time you connect. After that you are redirected to a new IP address which is based on your username. That's how Microsoft load balances the connections.
It won't work in all circumstances. When my DNS goes down, MSN Messenger still works. That's because it saves the last IP address in the registry. Just use regedit and you can confirm this for yourself. Trust me, I've written an MSN Messenger server, I know this shit.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. I made the initial statement. "ISPs could/should just provide an IPv6 to IPv4 tunnel for users unless they specifically ask for direct IPv6 access."
Over the long term, of course, IPv6 will work out better, but over the short term, any ONE ISP that goes to IPv6 will be stuck with a lot of customers that can't be addressed by the rest of the IPv4 world.
I don't see how that is the case, as 6to4 will be available for those on IPv6 to continue to use IPv4 services. Maybe I just don't understand how 6to4 works.
Slashdot Mirror
You weren't very clear, then. What you're saying is that no one has perused the disallowed URLs in your robots.txt file.
Better to search for the first 8 digits of a known credit card number. Last time slashdot hahd a story about a site which was publishing credit card numbers on the internet, I googled for the first 8 digits of my CCN and found the site.
I have never seen a robot (this includes the search engine spiders, crawlers, and whatnot) disobey the robots.txt file.
I'm sure robots which intentionally disobey robots.txt files always send correct browser information.
See, I think a judge would interpret the term "script" to include the compiler, thus adhering to the spirit of the GPL. Since "script" isn't defined in the GPL, it seems such a definition would best fit within the intentions of the license.
Linksys modified gcc themselves, but they only used it internally, so they don't have to provide the source.
I'm not talking about the copyright/license for gcc, I'm talking about the copyright/license for the tools being built.
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.
The modified version of gcc is not normally distributed with the major components of the operating system on which the executable runs.
have you checked the gcc archives to see if this change in gcc was sent to them?
No, I haven't.
they dont need to do that
Yes, they do.
The GPL is less restrictive than pure copyright.
So? I agree the GPL is less restrictive than pure copyright. I just think there should be no restrictions at all in the first place.
well, thats your interpretation, not the stance of the FSF, GCC or more importantly what is stated in the GPL.
The stance of GCC is completely irrelevant. The other two points would be great, if you had backed them up rather than just asserting them.
calling the legendary gcc "a script" is just plain offensive.
Legal terminology generally is. If you're not going to consider gcc "a script," then you've opened up a huge loophole in the GPL. Anyone can create modifications to GCC which make the changes they want to make to the GPLed software rather than make the changes in the source. Then they don't have to release those changes.
On the grounds that it is a script "used to control compilation [...] of the executable."
The configure script makes the make files, which are not part of the source distribution, because the configure script creates said make files.
I'm not familiar with the details of the compilation of those packages. If configure makes the makefiles, since configure 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," you're right that the makefiles wouldn't need to be distributed.
Copyright law isn't forcing you to release source -- by simply following copyright law you could NOT release source even if you wanted to, nor copies of your software, based on somebody else's copyrighted software.
Nonsense. Copyright law is making it illegal for me to modify and distribute software without releasing the source. In other words, copyright law is forcing me to release the source.
The GPL allows you to copy things you would not normally be allowed to copy under copyright law.
So?
the fact is, they don't even need to provide binaries for the modified gcc. it is being used "in house" and there is therefore no need to redistribute the changes.
Well, they don't need to provide the binaries for the modified gcc under the license of gcc. But my interpretation (which could be wrong) is that gcc is a script used to perform compilation, and as such must be distributed with the source. This is open to a different interpretation, though. Certainly the Makefiles, configure files, and installation scripts have to be distributed, as they clearly are "scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."
Informative? From the GPL:
They're not allowed to do c), they're not doing a), and they're not doing b). Technically they're in violation regardless of whether or not they make it available upon request.
They don't have to release the source of the modified GCC, but they do have to release the binary. Also they have to release the configure script, and the Makefiles, and the installation scripts, and anything else they modified.
I don't scream about GPL violations. Copyright law is stupid, whether it's forcing you to pay money or to release source.
The firewall blocks all packets to/from messenger.hotmail.com. The XFR packet never gets there.
But if a user has already previously connected to messenger.hotmail.com and received an XFR, the client will cache the IP address given to it by the XFR. Therefore blocking only messenger.hotmail.com (the dispatch server), and not all the possible notification servers, "won't work for people who have ever connected before."
I'm assuming of course direct connections through messenger.hotmail.com. Blocking gateway.messenger.hotmail.com will block access through the HTTP proxy (at least until the IP address changes).
First of all, there's not a real shortage of IPv4 addresses.
Granted. I wasn't arguing whether or not we should switch over to IPv6 in the first place, just that if we're going to do it we should do it in a certain way that makes it more seamless.
If your users _can't_ handle NAT, because they need REAL IP ADDRESSES to give people in the real world, they probably need real IPv4 addresses, not IPv6 addresses.
I don't see why that is the case.
I'm not sure how you'd find the IP range. I guess you could just guess, and hope you don't accidently shut off hotmail access as well (or maybe shutting off hotmail access is a good thing).
Go read the messenger protocol and find out what the XFR command does then get back to me.
what about a script that queries DNS for messenger.hotmail.com, then blocks the IP address returned?
Won't work. Messenger.hotmail.com is only contacted the first time you connect. After that you are redirected to a new IP address which is based on your username. That's how Microsoft load balances the connections.
It won't work in all circumstances. When my DNS goes down, MSN Messenger still works. That's because it saves the last IP address in the registry. Just use regedit and you can confirm this for yourself. Trust me, I've written an MSN Messenger server, I know this shit.
Then log all access to port 1863.
Won't work for people who have ever connected before. The IP address is cached for future connections.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. I made the initial statement. "ISPs could/should just provide an IPv6 to IPv4 tunnel for users unless they specifically ask for direct IPv6 access."
Over the long term, of course, IPv6 will work out better, but over the short term, any ONE ISP that goes to IPv6 will be stuck with a lot of customers that can't be addressed by the rest of the IPv4 world.
I don't see how that is the case, as 6to4 will be available for those on IPv6 to continue to use IPv4 services. Maybe I just don't understand how 6to4 works.
Now just how do we get the consumers to where there is no business?
Set up a P2P filesharing program.
The greater point, the one that keeps getting glossed over, is this; how many devices right now NEED an IP?
Probably fewer than a million.