A: You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.
When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be prepared to send it to them by post.
If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you cannot assume that.
Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in the first place.
If you distribute binaries via FTP, you should distribute source via FTP.
is the documentary freely available for download, with no financial strings attached? if they are truly trying to reach everyone with their message, they ought to provide a torrent. that even beats the 'made from 100% recycled material' notice on the dvd's packaging. perhaps, made from 100% recycled bits? =)
Maxo has it right. There's entirely too much crying around here, where no matter what the pentagon does, they are evil and greedy. The issue is that the DoD should not offshore development of weapons systems to protect themselves from cleverly concealed backdoors or from 'enemies' learning about how a system works.
The reason the DoD buys weapons is to be able to use them against other nations (in theory). If they jeopardize their production to sabotage and give secrets to other countries, the value and efficacy of their weapons decreases.
oh please, quit being so melodramatic. i encourage any organization to try to ensure the media (whether MSNBC, fox news, or a blogger) is putting out correct information and to state their viewpoint if they disagree. when google wants to run queries in real time to attest to the truth of a politician's statements, everyone is in favor of stopping the liars. when it is the government who wants to correct false claims in the media, suddenly they are evil. simply because the government disagrees with a story, it does not mean you must believe what they say. this just gives them a chance to find these stories before false information results in riots and killing. considering how easy it is for anyone (government or otherwise) to lie, it makes sense that they are trying to see who may be making things up so that they can publish their point of view.
another thing to consider is that the stories the mainstream media gives you are not the real stories from iraq. how often do you hear about military units building schools or local governments restoring infrastructure? it happens, but you don't hear about it. how often do you hear about the latest bombing in baghdad? every time - and the terrorists know that a lot of the media like to stay in their hotels and report from there. that's why bombs typically go off just in time to make the morning news on the east coast. i guess it's okay for terrorists to take advantage of the media, but not okay for the pentagon to try and correct false stories.
what does your harsh rhetoric have to do with the article? or are you just spewing your anti-opinions around to get some +5 Bush-Hater. not that i agree with all of the policies of the current US gov't, but your approach is the same the mindless fans of the neocons.
in your scenario, how does the GPLv3's clause stop someone from running software that allows clients to verify its config? are you talking about having the software developer provide the trust, or the server owner provide the trust, or the modifier provide the trust? (trust being the one who signed the code/config/state). say the upstream developer used some measure to allow clients to ensure the code they use is signed by them. the downstream developer can use the same measure, but the code is signed by the new dev, and not the old one. it's one thing to be able to modify the code and run it, but to want the 'right' to call someone else's code your own (the trust), or to pass off your code as being made by someone else, is a little much.
a better question than 'what are innocent uses of DRM?' would be 'what are innocent uses of DRM that are prevented by the GPLv3?' if you take a broad definition of DRM to be anything that protects data (which is a stretch), then you have to look at what tech under this definition is prevented by the GPLv3, before you can say the GPLv3's restrictions are hurting something innocent (which you didn't explicitly say, but is what the discussion is about).
the GPLv3 is not trying to stop people from protecting the confidentiality of their data, nor is it trying to restore people's fair-use rights of digital media. it is trying to ensure that the downstream freedoms of users are maintained and that technical measures (such as DRM) may not be used to prevent the use of modified code - which is against the spirit of the original GPL. the GPLv3 is only talking about one small part of DRM, which is the part that relates to the freedoms the GPL maintains. the remaining aspects of DRM are not discussed.
if there are legitimate uses of DRM that the GPLv3 hurts (which there may be), i'd like to know. the FSF ought to know too, which is why the GPLv3 draft is open for discussion in the first place.
personally, i tend to hit J more than H, so i like that it is hjkl instead of jkl;. this way i can use my index finger for the more common task (move down a line instead of moving left one char).
if you would like to send a quick message to senator specter's office, go to http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Con tactInfo.Home/. he is the one of the ringleaders (from TFA) that put this ridiculous bill to congress. if you are from pennsylvania (one of his constituents), then all the better.
actually, it's not too poor of a programming language, at least as of Ada95 it wasn't. it's fairly tolerant of white space and is not case sensitive. it protects you from going outside arrays and similar programming glitches that are easy to miss and easily crash your program. it also handles multi-threaded programs very easily. finally, if there is something you want to do at a low level, or if you want to use C, it's fairly easy to turn off the protections or import a chunk of code.
as far as editing goes, i always used emacs. with a decently configured lisp file, it will format the text according to what part of the program you are in or whether or a word is a variable or a command or what not. or there was the windows program adagide, which did all of this as well. i guess it's all in what you are used to, and what tool are at your disposal.:wq
While cheat prevention may be a nice benefit of Steam, it's simply part of selling their product, not a product in itself. Remember Punkbuster? From what I recall, Tony Ray stopped development of Punkbuster because Valve wouldn't give him the support he needed. While I've heard it's not omnipotent, it certainly did a lot for the TFC community with respect to cheating. If someone could do that as a part time job (though it was a lot of work), you'd think that Valve could pick up some of the slack and incorporate a similar system into HL. In retrospect, perhaps Steam is why Valve didn't support Tony and Punkbuster. There might be a lot more to the story then I remember though, since I was offline at the time it happened, but the point remains the same - anticheating is not sufficient justification for Steam.
Now I'm just wondering if anyone will read this. =)
Slashdot Mirror
A: You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.
When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be prepared to send it to them by post.
If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you cannot assume that.
Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in the first place.
If you distribute binaries via FTP, you should distribute source via FTP.
Embrace... Extend... Destroy.
Here's the EFF link: http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_05.php#00524 4
is the documentary freely available for download, with no financial strings attached? if they are truly trying to reach everyone with their message, they ought to provide a torrent. that even beats the 'made from 100% recycled material' notice on the dvd's packaging. perhaps, made from 100% recycled bits? =)
Maxo has it right. There's entirely too much crying around here, where no matter what the pentagon does, they are evil and greedy. The issue is that the DoD should not offshore development of weapons systems to protect themselves from cleverly concealed backdoors or from 'enemies' learning about how a system works.
The reason the DoD buys weapons is to be able to use them against other nations (in theory). If they jeopardize their production to sabotage and give secrets to other countries, the value and efficacy of their weapons decreases.
oh please, quit being so melodramatic. i encourage any organization to try to ensure the media (whether MSNBC, fox news, or a blogger) is putting out correct information and to state their viewpoint if they disagree. when google wants to run queries in real time to attest to the truth of a politician's statements, everyone is in favor of stopping the liars. when it is the government who wants to correct false claims in the media, suddenly they are evil. simply because the government disagrees with a story, it does not mean you must believe what they say. this just gives them a chance to find these stories before false information results in riots and killing. considering how easy it is for anyone (government or otherwise) to lie, it makes sense that they are trying to see who may be making things up so that they can publish their point of view.
another thing to consider is that the stories the mainstream media gives you are not the real stories from iraq. how often do you hear about military units building schools or local governments restoring infrastructure? it happens, but you don't hear about it. how often do you hear about the latest bombing in baghdad? every time - and the terrorists know that a lot of the media like to stay in their hotels and report from there. that's why bombs typically go off just in time to make the morning news on the east coast. i guess it's okay for terrorists to take advantage of the media, but not okay for the pentagon to try and correct false stories.
flame on, ACs.
i blame the gnome AIDS epidemic on those night-elf whores, dancing around, half-naked, in ironforge all day.
what does your harsh rhetoric have to do with the article? or are you just spewing your anti-opinions around to get some +5 Bush-Hater. not that i agree with all of the policies of the current US gov't, but your approach is the same the mindless fans of the neocons.
anyway, how about the good old EFF?
in your scenario, how does the GPLv3's clause stop someone from running software that allows clients to verify its config? are you talking about having the software developer provide the trust, or the server owner provide the trust, or the modifier provide the trust? (trust being the one who signed the code/config/state). say the upstream developer used some measure to allow clients to ensure the code they use is signed by them. the downstream developer can use the same measure, but the code is signed by the new dev, and not the old one. it's one thing to be able to modify the code and run it, but to want the 'right' to call someone else's code your own (the trust), or to pass off your code as being made by someone else, is a little much.
a better question than 'what are innocent uses of DRM?' would be 'what are innocent uses of DRM that are prevented by the GPLv3?' if you take a broad definition of DRM to be anything that protects data (which is a stretch), then you have to look at what tech under this definition is prevented by the GPLv3, before you can say the GPLv3's restrictions are hurting something innocent (which you didn't explicitly say, but is what the discussion is about).
the GPLv3 is not trying to stop people from protecting the confidentiality of their data, nor is it trying to restore people's fair-use rights of digital media. it is trying to ensure that the downstream freedoms of users are maintained and that technical measures (such as DRM) may not be used to prevent the use of modified code - which is against the spirit of the original GPL. the GPLv3 is only talking about one small part of DRM, which is the part that relates to the freedoms the GPL maintains. the remaining aspects of DRM are not discussed.
if there are legitimate uses of DRM that the GPLv3 hurts (which there may be), i'd like to know. the FSF ought to know too, which is why the GPLv3 draft is open for discussion in the first place.
personally, i tend to hit J more than H, so i like that it is hjkl instead of jkl;. this way i can use my index finger for the more common task (move down a line instead of moving left one char).
if you would like to send a quick message to senator specter's office, go to http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Con tactInfo.Home/. he is the one of the ringleaders (from TFA) that put this ridiculous bill to congress. if you are from pennsylvania (one of his constituents), then all the better.
actually, it's not too poor of a programming language, at least as of Ada95 it wasn't. it's fairly tolerant of white space and is not case sensitive. it protects you from going outside arrays and similar programming glitches that are easy to miss and easily crash your program. it also handles multi-threaded programs very easily. finally, if there is something you want to do at a low level, or if you want to use C, it's fairly easy to turn off the protections or import a chunk of code.
:wq
as far as editing goes, i always used emacs. with a decently configured lisp file, it will format the text according to what part of the program you are in or whether or a word is a variable or a command or what not. or there was the windows program adagide, which did all of this as well. i guess it's all in what you are used to, and what tool are at your disposal.
While cheat prevention may be a nice benefit of Steam, it's simply part of selling their product, not a product in itself. Remember Punkbuster? From what I recall, Tony Ray stopped development of Punkbuster because Valve wouldn't give him the support he needed. While I've heard it's not omnipotent, it certainly did a lot for the TFC community with respect to cheating. If someone could do that as a part time job (though it was a lot of work), you'd think that Valve could pick up some of the slack and incorporate a similar system into HL. In retrospect, perhaps Steam is why Valve didn't support Tony and Punkbuster. There might be a lot more to the story then I remember though, since I was offline at the time it happened, but the point remains the same - anticheating is not sufficient justification for Steam.
Now I'm just wondering if anyone will read this. =)
slowdive