Since the ownership of the work rests with DrewTech SAE is guilty of breaking the GPL. Therefore had to pay DrewTech. Instead of the court ordering restitution, SAE and DrewTech settled on their own. It can be said SAE was fearfull of the GPL. But you are correct in saying the GPL was not "tested" or used to base a decision upon.
I think with the use of embedded F/OSS being used we will see a real test case shortly.
PJ: What was the dispute specifically about, Eric?
Eric Grimm: The dispute arose a few months after DrewTech released the software on SourceForge. The SAE claimed that the software was an unauthorized "derivative work" of an in-progress technical standard of the SAE, called J1699-3. According to the SAE, the software belonged exclusively to the SAE, and not to DrewTech.
So this is a dissagreement about ownership. Or who has the right to license the work, not, is the GPL valid or not.
PJ: So this was a victory for the GPL?
Eric: Yes. I'd say SAE surrendered to the GPL. The general terms of settlement have been made a matter of public record (Doc. Ent. 39), in the form of a terms sheet, signed by both sides and submitted by DrewTech to the Court, although final dismissal papers have not yet been submitted.
Huh? The SAE surrendered to the fact that DrewTech has ownership of the work. They can turn around and make the code proprietary or BSDed if they wanted to. Since the GPL was broken SAE settled out of court and the case will be dissmissed. Yes, the SAE might of been fearfull of the GPL. I'd say that since the case is being settled, this is like the BSD case, a missed oppotunity to test the GPL.
My God, PJ and/. guilty of pro GPL FUD? say it ain't so.
These are all really different things. Yes, your code is owned by your employer, sure they can patent your ideas according to your contract. Yes, they are still bound by the GPL. In respect to IBM's code, no, they cannot claim ownership, patent the idea or change the license. If your work is tightly integrated with IBM's code you must use the GPL or remove that code.
I would hazard a guess that IBM most likely can claim prior art in the case of a patent dispute. IBM has more U.S. patents than anyone else.
Doesn't your company have a policy reguarding the use of GPLed code/releasing code under the GPL?
There are a whole lot of fan-boys who talk a fine game about "Desktop Linux for the Masses" Most of them simply want Linux to stay a fringe operating system so they can all argue about KDE/Gnome, play with your command lines, and spit on normal computer users with a disrespectful, elitist attitude.
No, we don't want Linux to remain a fringe OS. We just want to see FOSS desktop linux, if it takes a bit longer to happen, oh well.
It's not that I have anything against prop software it's just that purchase decisions by businesses are fairly good decisions (usually) but the home market is rife with crappy useless software that people are cajoled into buying. We were all at one point in time new computer users. It took a long time to get to were we are. Why not use this insight to help the noobs. And that knowledge being; don't waste your money, there is better, free, more trustworthy apps out there. Let's face it there has never (I hope) been a FOSS app that installs spyware.
The home desktop has always been the platform for the worst software/business pratices. I don't want this extending to linux.
Would you call this attitude "spitting on normal computer users"?
As for being a troll? Nah, but stay away from those bridges.
10 MB? Not that I know of. Can your bandwith handle...
Damn Small Linux (DSL) less than 50 MB?
Feather Linux less than 64 MB?
and Puppy Linux less than 50 MB (yes, in(on?) a ramdisk. needs 48M RAM min 128M Ram optimal. Fast you ask? andiamo momma.)
In fairness, both DSL and Feather linux can be booted with the knoppix toram boot line option and should be just as fast as Puppy Linux. Which is not knoppix/debian based as DSL and Feather are.
Since this is really offtopic, I won't give links but google for these distros any how.
Ah yes, millions and millions in revenue for AbFab reruns on the Comedy Channel. What are they thinking?
BBC world news probably pulls in a decent amount but this is valuable for daily content only. I don't think revenue from current content programs like BBCWN would be adversly affected by the decision to release their archives.
Python/Dr. Who/Red Dwarf(was this BBC?)/etc. we've (N.A.) seen it over here, probably not going to pay for it again. I would assume same for AUS and NZ, nobody else left in the english native world to sell to.
As for bandwith, ya, I wouldn't want to be paying for providing us N.A. geeks the oppurtunity to download above said shows.
Then again the article does say "...opening of a portion of the BBC's archives...". Would that include revenue generating popular programs?
Speaking of worms, how easily could worms spread if it were Linux that was popular and not windows?
If Linux is now viable on the desktop as some think, (and I'm not gonna get into that right now) will it be used as securely by the computer illiterate that currently use windows? I think that people who don't have a clue will unintentionally employ improper security regardless of the capabilities of the technology. The OS, although a big part of the picture is only a part. How many regular windows folk know how to configure a hardware firewall/router properly? I know mine came with poorly chosen settings.
I guess what I'm saying is that if Linux was more popular than windows the average IQ would be quite a few digits higher,/. would be the most popular website, and chess would be a major sporting event. I believe it is the level of intelligence/competency of the user not the software that mostly affects the success of attacks like these.
I switched from RH9 to FC1 around xmas and have had no real probs. I use an Nvidia card so I knew how to deal with their propietary kernel module. And now I get Apt-get or Yum for updates, so in the end I'm even happier.
The fedora mail lists (esp. fedora-devel) are always an interesting read. Check em out.
Yes I see. Your talking specifically about the copyrighted work.
FWIW, I dug this up,
[Disassembly of copyrighted object code is a fair use of the copyrighted work if]"disassembly provides the only means of access to those elements of the code not protected by copyright and the copier has a legitimate reason for seeking such access."
--The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Accolade vs Sega.
I think if this guy was being tried in the U.S. he could develope a good case. He's looking to expose weak stenographic methods, not to steal/reveal copyrighted code. I don't think he's stolen anything.
if you were digging through reverse engineered proprietary code,...
This makes no sense, if you have proprietary code, there is no need to revese engineer anything. This guy has no proprietary code, therefore has no obligation to these companies wrt protecting copyrighted code.
...and publishing exploits at the code level... well, that is infact illegal...
Your saying publishing compiled exploits is OK?
Despite your poor choice of words, I catch your meaning, you think reverse engineering software and using that knowledge is wrong.
If this were true we would not have Samba, Wine, freeDOS, NTFS support on non-MS OSes etc. The real question is; does French law protect reverse engineering as free speech? Many countries do, I seem to remember a recent Danish case that turned out in favor of free speech. But of course this should remind us of the DeCSS and the Dmitry Sklyarov/Elcomsoft cases in the U.S.A.. Considering there is a Eupoean version of the DMCA , maybe this guy's in deep trouble, maybe this will be a major case in France. If so, this guy needs good representation and needs to build a good tight argument.
To get a good idea with what's happening in current development for fedora you could lurk on the fedora-devel mail list for a while. Or check out the archives
Listen cat, they're relying on the intelligence of the copyright owners to notice that this is (well I would say good but having seen the film...) not bad marketing, and will not ask the parties involved to remove the offending material when or _if_ they decide it is not in the copyright owners best interest.
Not that you would know anything about intelligence or best interest.
I'm thinking mod redundant would be best for the parent.
And don't tell me you didn't love the little red hat.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the plot for the late '90s, ever popular, Wachowski Bros. film 'The Matrix'. Where have you really been?
And along side G,E,B. I'd add Chaos by James Gleick. A one two punch in non-fic science.
The Manual is good but I wouldn't put it on a must read list.
And if one of those cities is Konigsberg he'll never get it done...
I resolve to spell properly.
Since the ownership of the work rests with DrewTech SAE is guilty of breaking the GPL. Therefore had to pay DrewTech. Instead of the court ordering restitution, SAE and DrewTech settled on their own. It can be said SAE was fearfull of the GPL. But you are correct in saying the GPL was not "tested" or used to base a decision upon. I think with the use of embedded F/OSS being used we will see a real test case shortly.
PJ: What was the dispute specifically about, Eric?
Eric Grimm: The dispute arose a few months after DrewTech released the software on SourceForge. The SAE claimed that the software was an unauthorized "derivative work" of an in-progress technical standard of the SAE, called J1699-3. According to the SAE, the software belonged exclusively to the SAE, and not to DrewTech.
So this is a dissagreement about ownership. Or who has the right to license the work, not, is the GPL valid or not.
PJ: So this was a victory for the GPL?
Eric: Yes. I'd say SAE surrendered to the GPL. The general terms of settlement have been made a matter of public record (Doc. Ent. 39), in the form of a terms sheet, signed by both sides and submitted by DrewTech to the Court, although final dismissal papers have not yet been submitted.
Huh? The SAE surrendered to the fact that DrewTech has ownership of the work. They can turn around and make the code proprietary or BSDed if they wanted to. Since the GPL was broken SAE settled out of court and the case will be dissmissed. Yes, the SAE might of been fearfull of the GPL. I'd say that since the case is being settled, this is like the BSD case, a missed oppotunity to test the GPL.
My God, PJ and /. guilty of pro GPL FUD? say it ain't so.
These are all really different things. Yes, your code is owned by your employer, sure they can patent your ideas according to your contract. Yes, they are still bound by the GPL. In respect to IBM's code, no, they cannot claim ownership, patent the idea or change the license. If your work is tightly integrated with IBM's code you must use the GPL or remove that code.
I would hazard a guess that IBM most likely can claim prior art in the case of a patent dispute. IBM has more U.S. patents than anyone else.
Doesn't your company have a policy reguarding the use of GPLed code/releasing code under the GPL?
IANAL
Ah, just deliver an unmarked manila envelope with two 20 quid notes inside to your operations dept..
And all will be forgiven.There are a whole lot of fan-boys who talk a fine game about "Desktop Linux for the Masses" Most of them simply want Linux to stay a fringe operating system so they can all argue about KDE/Gnome, play with your command lines, and spit on normal computer users with a disrespectful, elitist attitude.
No, we don't want Linux to remain a fringe OS. We just want to see FOSS desktop linux, if it takes a bit longer to happen, oh well.
It's not that I have anything against prop software it's just that purchase decisions by businesses are fairly good decisions (usually) but the home market is rife with crappy useless software that people are cajoled into buying. We were all at one point in time new computer users. It took a long time to get to were we are. Why not use this insight to help the noobs. And that knowledge being; don't waste your money, there is better, free, more trustworthy apps out there. Let's face it there has never (I hope) been a FOSS app that installs spyware.
The home desktop has always been the platform for the worst software/business pratices. I don't want this extending to linux.
Would you call this attitude "spitting on normal computer users"?
As for being a troll? Nah, but stay away from those bridges.
10 MB? Not that I know of. Can your bandwith handle...
Damn Small Linux (DSL) less than 50 MB?
Feather Linux less than 64 MB?
and Puppy Linux less than 50 MB (yes, in(on?) a ramdisk. needs 48M RAM min 128M Ram optimal. Fast you ask? andiamo momma.)In fairness, both DSL and Feather linux can be booted with the knoppix toram boot line option and should be just as fast as Puppy Linux. Which is not knoppix/debian based as DSL and Feather are.
Since this is really offtopic, I won't give links but google for these distros any how.And let's not forget the smell of the DIN cable that came with the 1541. I swear you could get high from it.
Ah yes, millions and millions in revenue for AbFab reruns on the Comedy Channel. What are they thinking?
BBC world news probably pulls in a decent amount but this is valuable for daily content only. I don't think revenue from current content programs like BBCWN would be adversly affected by the decision to release their archives.
Python/Dr. Who/Red Dwarf(was this BBC?)/etc. we've (N.A.) seen it over here, probably not going to pay for it again. I would assume same for AUS and NZ, nobody else left in the english native world to sell to.
As for bandwith, ya, I wouldn't want to be paying for providing us N.A. geeks the oppurtunity to download above said shows.
Then again the article does say "...opening of a portion of the BBC's archives...". Would that include revenue generating popular programs?where the BOFH works now?
If Linux is now viable on the desktop as some think, (and I'm not gonna get into that right now) will it be used as securely by the computer illiterate that currently use windows? I think that people who don't have a clue will unintentionally employ improper security regardless of the capabilities of the technology. The OS, although a big part of the picture is only a part. How many regular windows folk know how to configure a hardware firewall/router properly? I know mine came with poorly chosen settings.
I guess what I'm saying is that if Linux was more popular than windows the average IQ would be quite a few digits higher, /. would be the most popular website, and chess would be a major sporting event. I believe it is the level of intelligence/competency of the user not the software that mostly affects the success of attacks like these.
FC1 was released to public Nov 5th 2003. FC2 will be relesed if all goes well May 17th 2004.
The fedora mail lists (esp. fedora-devel) are always an interesting read. Check em out.
Yes I see. Your talking specifically about the copyrighted work.
FWIW, I dug this up,
[Disassembly of copyrighted object code is a fair use of the copyrighted work if]"disassembly provides the only means of access to those elements of the code not protected by copyright and the copier has a legitimate reason for seeking such access."
--The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Accolade vs Sega.
I think if this guy was being tried in the U.S. he could develope a good case. He's looking to expose weak stenographic methods, not to steal/reveal copyrighted code. I don't think he's stolen anything.
if you were digging through reverse engineered proprietary code,...
This makes no sense, if you have proprietary code, there is no need to revese engineer anything. This guy has no proprietary code, therefore has no obligation to these companies wrt protecting copyrighted code.
Your saying publishing compiled exploits is OK?
If this were true we would not have Samba, Wine, freeDOS, NTFS support on non-MS OSes etc. The real question is; does French law protect reverse engineering as free speech? Many countries do, I seem to remember a recent Danish case that turned out in favor of free speech. But of course this should remind us of the DeCSS and the Dmitry Sklyarov/Elcomsoft cases in the U.S.A.. Considering there is a Eupoean version of the DMCA , maybe this guy's in deep trouble, maybe this will be a major case in France. If so, this guy needs good representation and needs to build a good tight argument.Despite your poor choice of words, I catch your meaning, you think reverse engineering software and using that knowledge is wrong.
To get a good idea with what's happening in current development for fedora you could lurk on the fedora-devel mail list for a while. Or check out the archives
It seems this /. article is based on an anonymous post to newsforge, which in turn is based on a german news article tranlated to english.
No wonder he's misquoted.How bout talking to him/her ABOUT math, science and computers? And otherwise try and share the same interests?
IT'S THE SAME #$%& WE DO HERE!!!! AARRRGG!!
Listen cat, they're relying on the intelligence of the copyright owners to notice that this is (well I would say good but having seen the film...) not bad marketing, and will not ask the parties involved to remove the offending material when or _if_ they decide it is not in the copyright owners best interest.
Not that you would know anything about intelligence or best interest. I'm thinking mod redundant would be best for the parent.And don't tell me you didn't love the little red hat.
BTW, I'll be leaving my BT instance up for the night , hope you will all do the same.
Good, someone else using BT for something _other_ than pr0n or pirated movies.