All of this is extremely interesting, but I don't find much of it convincing. I mean, how are you so certain you didn't shut your eyes? Shutting one's eyes in anticipation of trauma is a pretty standard reaction.
"It is likely that a course of action made by an author against a distributor would prevail *IF* they attempted to bind you with a contract that revoked redistribution rights granted by the GPL. However, nothing in the GPL provides a distributor a continuing obligation to provide you with FUTURE updates to code. What Sveasoft is doing is completely legitimate (and makes sense too, because it keeps all the b0z0 d00dz out of the paid support channels)."
We are in agreement, then. Sveasoft is not obligated to provide updates. Additionally, Sveasoft is not allowed to distribute software, which has been licensed under the GPL, with additional restrictions, such as, but not limited to subscription termination or fees.
I don't know why everyone is so bent on thinking the GPL violation implies whatever amenities (such as providing code updates). It most certainly does not obligate or compel Sveasoft to take action. What it does do is make the software's distribution under these extra terms illegal.
Yeah, another way to put it would be-- would it be okay to add a section 1.a to the terms and conditions of the GPL:
1.a. If you choose to exercise said right to distribute source and binary, you agree to pay Microsoft $10.
Something tells me that is not GPL compliant. That the Sveasoft agreements are on two pieces of paper or one does not make a particle of difference.
The subscription agreement does place a restriction on GPL-granted rights. Subscribers are restricted to not distribute code, or else subscription termination takes effect. It has nothing to do with the GPL requiring them to provide code updates or something silly like that. The GPL only states that you cannot tack agreements onto it in such a manner.
Gosh, those people, save the last, who I replied to, agreed with me-- they address "the $50 for a CD with source where no binary was purchased" issue, which I said the GPL certainly allows. The last was mistaken, as can be seen from my response.
Should I respond to Anonymous Cowards? I still haven't figured that out yet. They seem to enjoy spreading misinformation.
If I have agreement A, which says, "You may have these apples if you give them away for free," and then I have agreement B, which says, "If you give these apples away for free, you agree to pay me $5,000,000," then agreement B places restrictions on rights given by agreement A.
But that's not the issue, here. Yes, that person supposedly violated the GPL. This isn't about him/her
Sveasoft bitched about that person on a forum, and it was turned back on them. They perhaps did not realize it, but they were also violating the GPL. See my post which explains it clearly, here.
Alright, there is a lot of confusion about what exactly Sveasoft is asking of their customers, as well as what the GPL requires. There are two issues: the fact that there are two interacting agreements, and the fact that distribution of source might be different than binary.
First issue:
Here are the two agreements:
1. Source/Binary license -- GPL.
2. Extra services and support -- subscription agreement
Saying "one's a software license and the other's a service agreement," is vacuous and misleading. What matters is how the two interact. The service agreement puts restrictions on the GPL. It's not allowed to do that (Preamble from the GPL):
"To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it."
And from the Terms and Conditions of the GPL:
"6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License."
Now, Sveasoft's service agreement says that if a subscriber exercises their right to distribute the source, as given by the GPL, their subscription will be terminated. Hence, the "further restrictions" which "ask you to surrender the rights" given by the GPL. It not made any more plain than that.
Thus, Sveasoft is in violation of the GPL.
Second issue:
Sveasoft is asking $50 to send a CD containing the source of pre-releases by snail-mail. As far as I know, they are not distributing binaries of the pre-releases in a different manner, so it's a non-issue.
For instance, I have modified GPL code on my computer, but I am not required to give it to people, for free or otherwise. I'm only required to give someone the source if I've given them the binary.
If they gave away the binaries and charged for the source, that would be a violation. Or if they charged for the binary and charged again for the source. But AFAIK, they do not. As the source always accompanies the binaries, it's not a problem.
Conclusion:
Sveasoft is in violation of the GPL, due to the first issue but not the second issue.
that spam is a difficult problem to solve, but that is the most idiotic idea I think I've ever encountered. That's like making it difficult to do encryption to prevent terrorists from communicating safely. Granted, "normal" people's computers are a vessel for spammers, but it's asinine to limit normal people's hardware. Why not fix the problem at the source and work on making consumer's computers secure? The day I find out my DSL modem is blocking ports or something like that is the day I wreck the thing while trying to fix it. I mean, really.
The Japanese always get the newest technologies to abuse./Those/ kids will become experts in defeating RFIDs while it's easy to do so, while us Americans will get it at a much more advanced stage. I much prefer being the guinea pig-- it's an important learning opportunity.
Now we can use the lk 2.6 without having to add homebrew packages (yeah, I know there's some guy who provides a yum-able package tree). Anyway, this release should be an excellent updgrade. I'd be very interested to hear of the pre-release stability. Anyone care to comment?
Since the last deploymenty of e-ink (the billboards), I eagerly awaited smaller implementations. It seemed like the billboards were just a proof of concept, since each pixel was quite large-- not suitable for computer diplays. However this looks like it will be really big (backwards pun not intended).
I hope I'm not being hasty in saying so long to luminescent displays. It certainly will be strange reading from a moving, reflective display, but I think it'll be much easier on the eyes, and well excepted. Kudos to Sony, and I hope other OEMs adopt quickly.
One of my friends works with them (I'm a student at cmu), and recently he told me that they flipped the thing and crushed a bunch of shit. Lots of the roof-mounted equipment had to be replaced. Apparently it took a turn too fast. I'm glad they were able to have it ready, and a bit surprised they were the first. They certainly seem to be striving to do their best. Anyway, knowing the red team's capabilities, we won't see that problem again. Here's to hoping and their success.
That's an excellent description of OS X's strengths. If I could mod you to a 6, I would.
please say no to unexplained acronyms
on
Build Your Own NOC
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It would really be better if stories like this were not chosen for the front page. Whenever a story is posted with unexplained acronyms, tons more people click the links to see wtf it's talking about. More people who don't care about the actual (obscured) topic needlessly eat up the bandwidth, and the links are slashdotted much sooner. I know this is off-topic, however it does pertain to this story...
Unbalanced paranthesis on line 2:
"The Sims Online" was one of the most anticipated releases of 2002; but (according to this Los Angeles Times story in the Baltimore Sun), "
This guy should have debugged his story before releasing it. I heard the Sims Online was buggy too, eh. I suppose it's only fitting.
That's simply not true. If you had bothered to look at their documentation, you would have noticed it lists these user tools:
========== Busybox offers an all-in-one solution to providing many basic binaries such as a shell, file manipulation etc.
MAD is a MP3 player that does not require a FPU.
Tremor is an OGG player that does not require a FPU.
SoX is an audio processing application capable of playing a variety of music formats (.WAV is probably the most interesting here).
uClibc is a C library for developing embedded Linux systems. Normally this is built as part of the toolchain (and is included with the binaries from uClinux.org).
Intel's IPP package and IPP MP3 Sample program. Intel's IPP is a highly optimised set of libraries that includes MP3 processing. The sample program seems to work fine under uClinux. ==========
Additionally, it states in the FAQ that mp3s play at 99% realtime, and oggs at 80%. Doesn't support accessing the screen-- what do you think the screen shots of are? The parent is not only not interesting, but it's totally wrong.
Some moron posts something absurd, so it has to be modded up, eh? This is one of the many reasons/. is beginning to suck.
WTF? Who do you think you are, Dr. Evil? I don't see "Score: 5, Evil."
"I would rather all these P2P file sharing services got together and created an *open source* solution that allowed infrastructure for digital media delivery. I mean we have all the pieces it's just no one has put them together yet. Who wants Microsoft to pull their pieces together first and dominate yet another market?"
What do you think Gnutella and the million derivatives thereof are? How about Freenet? Next, you'll be suggesting we band together to form a "community" where we can share news and ideas. Perhaps we can call it "Slashdot!" Yarr!
True, but up until this point, no one's said squat about the RIAA overtly polluting P2P networks. It's nice to know someone out there is actively fighting the RIAA, rather than passively/reactively altering their network design to compensate for the abuse.
The legality of the content is irrespective of the case of network sabotage, and should not be considered. Tangent: correct me if I'm wrong, but a copyrighted material may be hosted on a network, only if it's the only copy one owns. Then, it's permissible for other owners of the same material to download it. I don't recall what the new laws WRT the transfer of such material have to say, but I believe they'd have to first collect evidence that one has possession of the material, and then prove you don't own the respective licenses. The first part of which is nearly impossible, short of breaking down one's door with a warrant. Transfer logs I don't think would be sufficient, since one may be providing a workstation for someone with said licenses. For that matter, one may be providing remote storage for such a person. It's a tricky matter at best.
I always thought sabotaging a company's network was illegal. But what, a week ago, there was an artical on/. about a company devoted only to doing that. I'm glad Kazaa is standing up for itself, even though I hate them for their spyware.
It's foolish to not consider the long-term effects. I did not say that the industry would be totally displaced or die, I said we have to be careful. It's a great idea, so I think it would be popular and become widespread (think scalability). Granted, weather.com and all of the similar sites are already popular, so the impact might not be big. These things have to be considered, and I wouldn't put it past the govt to blunder.
You obviously weren't paying attention in Econ 101. The broadcasters getting income means more money is circulating, specifically through that industry, which is pretty damn large. Losses high up ripple down through the industry. Note also, that I'm supposing that this gotv. funded weather web service scales and becomes national/major.
A engaging, constructive comment might be, say, "The dip in the tv industry's economy could be absorbed (kept from affecting the little guys) by providing the same type of services on this website, like advertizement." Unfortunately, though, that only affects the tv industry more, although I personally think that's fine. Most TV content these days sucks, and using silly underhanded tactics like putting the weather report after all the stuff people don't want to see only underscores the point that they have little to offer.
Slashdot Mirror
All of this is extremely interesting, but I don't find much of it convincing. I mean, how are you so certain you didn't shut your eyes? Shutting one's eyes in anticipation of trauma is a pretty standard reaction.
"It is likely that a course of action made by an author against a distributor would prevail *IF* they attempted to bind you with a contract that revoked redistribution rights granted by the GPL. However, nothing in the GPL provides a distributor a continuing obligation to provide you with FUTURE updates to code. What Sveasoft is doing is completely legitimate (and makes sense too, because it keeps all the b0z0 d00dz out of the paid support channels)."
We are in agreement, then. Sveasoft is not obligated to provide updates. Additionally, Sveasoft is not allowed to distribute software, which has been licensed under the GPL, with additional restrictions, such as, but not limited to subscription termination or fees.
I don't know why everyone is so bent on thinking the GPL violation implies whatever amenities (such as providing code updates). It most certainly does not obligate or compel Sveasoft to take action. What it does do is make the software's distribution under these extra terms illegal.
Yeah, another way to put it would be-- would it be okay to add a section 1.a to the terms and conditions of the GPL:
1.a. If you choose to exercise said right to distribute source and binary, you agree to pay Microsoft $10.
Something tells me that is not GPL compliant. That the Sveasoft agreements are on two pieces of paper or one does not make a particle of difference.
The subscription agreement does place a restriction on GPL-granted rights. Subscribers are restricted to not distribute code, or else subscription termination takes effect. It has nothing to do with the GPL requiring them to provide code updates or something silly like that. The GPL only states that you cannot tack agreements onto it in such a manner.
I'd mod you up if I hadn't already posted. There's way too much confusion and misinformation floating around /. these days.
Sorry, not the last. I meant the middle one. s/the last/the middle one/
Gosh, those people, save the last, who I replied to, agreed with me-- they address "the $50 for a CD with source where no binary was purchased" issue, which I said the GPL certainly allows. The last was mistaken, as can be seen from my response.
Should I respond to Anonymous Cowards? I still haven't figured that out yet. They seem to enjoy spreading misinformation.
I'm sorry, but you're mistaken.
If I have agreement A, which says, "You may have these apples if you give them away for free," and then I have agreement B, which says, "If you give these apples away for free, you agree to pay me $5,000,000," then agreement B places restrictions on rights given by agreement A.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
But that's not the issue, here. Yes, that person supposedly violated the GPL. This isn't about him/her
Sveasoft bitched about that person on a forum, and it was turned back on them. They perhaps did not realize it, but they were also violating the GPL. See my post which explains it clearly, here.
Alright, there is a lot of confusion about what exactly Sveasoft is asking of their customers, as well as what the GPL requires. There are two issues: the fact that there are two interacting agreements, and the fact that distribution of source might be different than binary.
First issue:
Here are the two agreements:
1. Source/Binary license -- GPL.
2. Extra services and support -- subscription agreement
Saying "one's a software license and the other's a service agreement," is vacuous and misleading. What matters is how the two interact. The service agreement puts restrictions on the GPL. It's not allowed to do that (Preamble from the GPL):
"To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it."
And from the Terms and Conditions of the GPL:
"6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License."
Now, Sveasoft's service agreement says that if a subscriber exercises their right to distribute the source, as given by the GPL, their subscription will be terminated. Hence, the "further restrictions" which "ask you to surrender the rights" given by the GPL. It not made any more plain than that.
Thus, Sveasoft is in violation of the GPL.
Second issue:
Sveasoft is asking $50 to send a CD containing the source of pre-releases by snail-mail. As far as I know, they are not distributing binaries of the pre-releases in a different manner, so it's a non-issue.
For instance, I have modified GPL code on my computer, but I am not required to give it to people, for free or otherwise. I'm only required to give someone the source if I've given them the binary.
If they gave away the binaries and charged for the source, that would be a violation. Or if they charged for the binary and charged again for the source. But AFAIK, they do not. As the source always accompanies the binaries, it's not a problem.
Conclusion:
Sveasoft is in violation of the GPL, due to the first issue but not the second issue.
that spam is a difficult problem to solve, but that is the most idiotic idea I think I've ever encountered. That's like making it difficult to do encryption to prevent terrorists from communicating safely. Granted, "normal" people's computers are a vessel for spammers, but it's asinine to limit normal people's hardware. Why not fix the problem at the source and work on making consumer's computers secure? The day I find out my DSL modem is blocking ports or something like that is the day I wreck the thing while trying to fix it. I mean, really.
The Japanese always get the newest technologies to abuse. /Those/ kids will become experts in defeating RFIDs while it's easy to do so, while us Americans will get it at a much more advanced stage. I much prefer being the guinea pig-- it's an important learning opportunity.
Now we can use the lk 2.6 without having to add homebrew packages (yeah, I know there's some guy who provides a yum-able package tree). Anyway, this release should be an excellent updgrade. I'd be very interested to hear of the pre-release stability. Anyone care to comment?
Since the last deploymenty of e-ink (the billboards), I eagerly awaited smaller implementations. It seemed like the billboards were just a proof of concept, since each pixel was quite large-- not suitable for computer diplays. However this looks like it will be really big (backwards pun not intended).
I hope I'm not being hasty in saying so long to luminescent displays. It certainly will be strange reading from a moving, reflective display, but I think it'll be much easier on the eyes, and well excepted. Kudos to Sony, and I hope other OEMs adopt quickly.
Actually, it's more like a 4:1 (cost:prize) ratio.
One of my friends works with them (I'm a student at cmu), and recently he told me that they flipped the thing and crushed a bunch of shit. Lots of the roof-mounted equipment had to be replaced. Apparently it took a turn too fast. I'm glad they were able to have it ready, and a bit surprised they were the first. They certainly seem to be striving to do their best. Anyway, knowing the red team's capabilities, we won't see that problem again. Here's to hoping and their success.
That's an excellent description of OS X's strengths. If I could mod you to a 6, I would.
It would really be better if stories like this were not chosen for the front page. Whenever a story is posted with unexplained acronyms, tons more people click the links to see wtf it's talking about. More people who don't care about the actual (obscured) topic needlessly eat up the bandwidth, and the links are slashdotted much sooner. I know this is off-topic, however it does pertain to this story...
Unbalanced paranthesis on line 2:
"The Sims Online" was one of the most anticipated releases of 2002; but (according to this Los Angeles Times story in the Baltimore Sun), "
This guy should have debugged his story before releasing it. I heard the Sims Online was buggy too, eh. I suppose it's only fitting.
That's simply not true. If you had bothered to look at their documentation, you would have noticed it lists these user tools:
/. is beginning to suck.
==========
Busybox offers an all-in-one solution to providing many basic binaries such as a shell, file manipulation etc.
MAD is a MP3 player that does not require a FPU.
Tremor is an OGG player that does not require a FPU.
SoX is an audio processing application capable of playing a variety of music formats (.WAV is probably the most interesting here).
uClibc is a C library for developing embedded Linux systems. Normally this is built as part of the toolchain (and is included with the binaries from uClinux.org).
Intel's IPP package and IPP MP3 Sample program. Intel's IPP is a highly optimised set of libraries that includes MP3 processing. The sample program seems to work fine under uClinux.
==========
Additionally, it states in the FAQ that mp3s play at 99% realtime, and oggs at 80%. Doesn't support accessing the screen-- what do you think the screen shots of are? The parent is not only not interesting, but it's totally wrong.
Some moron posts something absurd, so it has to be modded up, eh? This is one of the many reasons
WTF? Who do you think you are, Dr. Evil? I don't see "Score: 5, Evil."
"I would rather all these P2P file sharing services got together and created an *open source* solution that allowed infrastructure for digital media delivery. I mean we have all the pieces it's just no one has put them together yet. Who wants Microsoft to pull their pieces together first and dominate yet another market?"
What do you think Gnutella and the million derivatives thereof are? How about Freenet? Next, you'll be suggesting we band together to form a "community" where we can share news and ideas. Perhaps we can call it "Slashdot!"
Yarr!
"If they don't, they lose."
True, but up until this point, no one's said squat about the RIAA overtly polluting P2P networks. It's nice to know someone out there is actively fighting the RIAA, rather than passively/reactively altering their network design to compensate for the abuse.
The legality of the content is irrespective of the case of network sabotage, and should not be considered. Tangent: correct me if I'm wrong, but a copyrighted material may be hosted on a network, only if it's the only copy one owns. Then, it's permissible for other owners of the same material to download it. I don't recall what the new laws WRT the transfer of such material have to say, but I believe they'd have to first collect evidence that one has possession of the material, and then prove you don't own the respective licenses. The first part of which is nearly impossible, short of breaking down one's door with a warrant. Transfer logs I don't think would be sufficient, since one may be providing a workstation for someone with said licenses. For that matter, one may be providing remote storage for such a person. It's a tricky matter at best.
No, I'm not.
I always thought sabotaging a company's network was illegal. But what, a week ago, there was an artical on /. about a company devoted only to doing that. I'm glad Kazaa is standing up for itself, even though I hate them for their spyware.
It's foolish to not consider the long-term effects. I did not say that the industry would be totally displaced or die, I said we have to be careful. It's a great idea, so I think it would be popular and become widespread (think scalability). Granted, weather.com and all of the similar sites are already popular, so the impact might not be big. These things have to be considered, and I wouldn't put it past the govt to blunder.
You obviously weren't paying attention in Econ 101. The broadcasters getting income means more money is circulating, specifically through that industry, which is pretty damn large. Losses high up ripple down through the industry. Note also, that I'm supposing that this gotv. funded weather web service scales and becomes national/major.
A engaging, constructive comment might be, say, "The dip in the tv industry's economy could be absorbed (kept from affecting the little guys) by providing the same type of services on this website, like advertizement." Unfortunately, though, that only affects the tv industry more, although I personally think that's fine. Most TV content these days sucks, and using silly underhanded tactics like putting the weather report after all the stuff people don't want to see only underscores the point that they have little to offer.