I want it while I sit on the bus commuting to university. I want it when I'm relaxing at my friend's house. I want it when I'm sitting in my bathroom dumping core.
I want it unmetered. I don't mind paying a flat rate but I'm not going to sit in the dark ages of per minute cell phone charges. That would be useless.
Step 1: Buy a cell phone. Step 2: buy a handheld device. Step 3: buy an extra phone line. Step 4: sign up for Nextel's unlimited incoming calls cell phone service. Step 5: have your computer's modem call your cell phone which is hooked up to your handheld device. 5 easy steps (and about $100/month) for unlimited 19.2 "anywhere".
At least in Washington state both Qwest and Verizon will automatically put you in the phone book when you buy a phone line. You have to pay a monthly fee to get an unlisted number.
Same in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, at the least.
That's clearly not opt-in.
Sure it is. You opted to choose the lower rate. If Verizon wanted to be crystal-clean, they could just charge everyone the higher rate and give them a "listed number discount", but I doubt they'd have to.
Privacy, security, and reliability, all seem like problems that are easy to solve. Just give each person in the U.S. a CD with their public/private key when they register to vote. As an added bonus we'd eliminate spam.
For example: Every state requires that votes be cast in secret, but how can officials verify that a party hack isn't standing beside a remote voter?
Simple solution: let them change their vote. Even if someone watches them vote, that's no more than their word that they won't change it.
Yes there would; they'd just be protected under trade secret + contract law rather than copyright law.
I don't see how a binary which is distributed to the public can possibly be a trade secret. Source code, maybe, but I don't consider freeware to be proprietary software. Maybe that definition is incorrect.
Does that make me a hypocrite?
No, absolutely not. You're not against copyright law. You're against the particular implementation of copyright law.
I, on the other hand, would support a constitutional ammendment eliminating the copyright clause from the constitution. I'm against copyright law. I am also against this ruling. Does that make me a hypocrite?
In fact, copyright and license is all that's stopping a popular enemy of many of the readers of this site from running off with a lot of source code and using it in proprietary products.
Umm, if there were no copyright law, there wouldn't be any proprietary products in the first place.
Being against this ruling and against copyright law is not hypocritical. Being for the ruling and against copyright law is. (Being against copyright law and for the GPL, except as the lesser of many evils, also is).
Just because something is obscure doesn't mean that it's not secure.
I agree, of course.
Furthermore, things that are obscure and secure intrinsically are typically more secure extrinsically, since there are more unknowns and they are harder to attack.
I disagree with this. I think that most people are not criminal. I think having your security flaws out in the open is more likely to cause someone to point it out to you than it is to aid a hacker.
It's ok to say that obscurity is not sufficient security on its own, but "no security at all" is nonsense.
Semantics. I take the phrase to mean that obscurity does not increase security.
If you'd like to see the license before actually downloading the actual (huge, and possibly slashdotted).tar:
This repository of web page information is being provided to you by Google
Inc. solely for academic and research purposes related to the Google
programming contest. You may not modify, distribute, or make any commercial
use of the repository.
This source code is copyrighted 2002 by Google Inc. All rights
reserved. You are given a limited license to use this source code for
purposes of participating in the Google programming contest. If you
choose to use or distribute the source code for any other purpose, you
must either (1) first obtain written approval from Google, or (2)
prominently display the foregoing copyright notice and the following
warranty and liability disclaimer on each copy used or distributed.
The source code and repository (the "Software") is provided "AS IS",
with no warranty, express or implied, including but not limited to the
implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular
use. In no event shall Google Inc. be liable for any damages, direct
or indirect, even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
That's assuming that any contest entries automatically become the property of Google.
With regard to an entry you submit as part of the Contest, you grant Google a worldwide, perpetual, fully paid-up, non-exclusive license to make, sell, or use the technology related thereto, including but not limited to the software, algorithms, techniques, concepts, etc., associated with the entry
So basically, google doesn't own your code, only the right to use it. GPLing your code would satisfy the worldwide, perptual non-exclusive license grant.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly the technology needed to support video-on-demand? The only addition the phone companies would need is 50,000 VCRs (or more likely a digital equivalent).
I thought shrink-wrap licenses were not enforcible in all states. If the software can be downloaded, and you have obtained a copy legally, aren't you legally allowed to use (and even sell) the copy which you have legally obtained, forever?
And Jim, at the end of it, as a good CEO did, said "OK, we're going to have a tight license. Yep, it looks free optically, but it is not. Corporations have to pay for it. Maintenance has to be paid."
[....]
The final policy was very creative. Netscape browsers were3 free for anyone to download on a 90-day trial basis, free for students and educational institutions, and $39 (later raised to $49) for everyone else. At the time, Netscape managemnet had no illusions. Some people would pay after the trial period, and some wouldn't. In effect, the browser would be free. But if the name of the game was volume and market share, "free, but not free" offered the perfect solution.
Slashdot Mirror
I want it while I sit on the bus commuting to university. I want it when I'm relaxing at my friend's house. I want it when I'm sitting in my bathroom dumping core.
I want it unmetered. I don't mind paying a flat rate but I'm not going to sit in the dark ages of per minute cell phone charges. That would be useless.
Step 1: Buy a cell phone. Step 2: buy a handheld device. Step 3: buy an extra phone line. Step 4: sign up for Nextel's unlimited incoming calls cell phone service. Step 5: have your computer's modem call your cell phone which is hooked up to your handheld device. 5 easy steps (and about $100/month) for unlimited 19.2 "anywhere".
That'd solve the pesky "key escrow" problem, as yet another added bonus.
Only a fool would use their government-issued public/private key for anything other than signing purposes.
At least in Washington state both Qwest and Verizon will automatically put you in the phone book when you buy a phone line. You have to pay a monthly fee to get an unlisted number.
Same in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, at the least.
That's clearly not opt-in.
Sure it is. You opted to choose the lower rate. If Verizon wanted to be crystal-clean, they could just charge everyone the higher rate and give them a "listed number discount", but I doubt they'd have to.
Privacy, security, and reliability, all seem like problems that are easy to solve. Just give each person in the U.S. a CD with their public/private key when they register to vote. As an added bonus we'd eliminate spam.
For example: Every state requires that votes be cast in secret, but how can officials verify that a party hack isn't standing beside a remote voter?
Simple solution: let them change their vote. Even if someone watches them vote, that's no more than their word that they won't change it.
If your data needs that much security, you shouldn't have it connected to the internet in the first place.
Yes there would; they'd just be protected under trade secret + contract law rather than copyright law.
I don't see how a binary which is distributed to the public can possibly be a trade secret. Source code, maybe, but I don't consider freeware to be proprietary software. Maybe that definition is incorrect.
Does that make me a hypocrite?
No, absolutely not. You're not against copyright law. You're against the particular implementation of copyright law.
I, on the other hand, would support a constitutional ammendment eliminating the copyright clause from the constitution. I'm against copyright law. I am also against this ruling. Does that make me a hypocrite?
In fact, copyright and license is all that's stopping a popular enemy of many of the readers of this site from running off with a lot of source code and using it in proprietary products.
Umm, if there were no copyright law, there wouldn't be any proprietary products in the first place.
Being against this ruling and against copyright law is not hypocritical. Being for the ruling and against copyright law is. (Being against copyright law and for the GPL, except as the lesser of many evils, also is).
I have "winner of the contest to find a security hole in the world's second biggest browser" on my resume, and I'm unemployed.
Have you seen "Google's database"? It's pretty much just raw html files.
Just because something is obscure doesn't mean that it's not secure.
I agree, of course.
Furthermore, things that are obscure and secure intrinsically are typically more secure extrinsically, since there are more unknowns and they are harder to attack.
I disagree with this. I think that most people are not criminal. I think having your security flaws out in the open is more likely to cause someone to point it out to you than it is to aid a hacker.
It's ok to say that obscurity is not sufficient security on its own, but "no security at all" is nonsense.
Semantics. I take the phrase to mean that obscurity does not increase security.
of course not
But I'll have my dated post on slashdot as evidence :).
Why are all you dorks posting your ideas?
I'd much rather have a shot at having my idea implemented for 30 seconds of work than have a shot at $10,000 for 100 hours of work.
Connect any two pages on the web to each other with the minimum number of hyperlinks.
Security through obscurity is no security at all.
Thing is, though that is a lot of money, what happens if you make them, say 20,000 USD with a great new compression/analysis algorithm.
If you're that good, they'll probably hire you to at least consult for them to maintain the code you wrote.
That's assuming that any contest entries automatically become the property of Google.
So basically, google doesn't own your code, only the right to use it. GPLing your code would satisfy the worldwide, perptual non-exclusive license grant.
All we ask is that, if you decide to keep it, you actually pay to unlock it instead of using a code that you grabbed off the net.
That's all you ask, but how can you legally enforce that? Once a user has obtained a copy, s/he is free to use it in any way s/he pleases.
The problem with VOD isn't storage, thats simple. Its the bandwidth required for delivery to X customers at once.
I was under the impression that copper wires used dedicated bandwidth from the CO to the house. Is this not the case?
That's why I said "or more likely a digital equipment".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly the technology needed to support video-on-demand? The only addition the phone companies would need is 50,000 VCRs (or more likely a digital equivalent).
The term "legalized piracy" doesn't exactly have a legal definition, so I'd think it would fall under the category of opinion.
I thought shrink-wrap licenses were not enforcible in all states. If the software can be downloaded, and you have obtained a copy legally, aren't you legally allowed to use (and even sell) the copy which you have legally obtained, forever?