It wasn't a hoax bomb. It was a silly hoodie she'd made and wore to school. It had a circuit board with battery operated blinking lights and read:
Socket To Me / COURSE VI.
This is a probably really a simple case of over-reacting then using the terrorism and hoax cards as a ass covering tactics. Because you know, it would be pretty stupid of you arrested (armed with automatic weapons no less) a 19 year old girl for wearing a shirt with lights affixed to it.
FYI, friends at MIT say she wears the hoodie on a regular basis- it's just unfortunate that she had it on while trying to pick a friend up at the airport.
...friends at MIT say she wears the hoodie on a regular basis- it's just unfortunate that she had it on while trying to pick a friend up at the airport. MIT students don't really do mornings, or worry about what they're wearing, so I can't imagine she'd even think about her clothes before heading out to pick up a friend at the airport before 8am.
Is it official fuck reading the actual story day? Here is a link to the "fake" bomb:
If you can be bothered to read, its a board (looks kind of familiar) with LEDs on it connected to a...get this... 9v battery to power the LEDs. I wasn't a stunt for the airport, it was a silly outfit she apparently liked.
Obviously her paranoia level is too low and she over looked the passing similarity between blinking lights and high explosives. That or we are simply living in such an amazing state of fear that we see high explosives everywhere (and feel justified in it).
my friend is the balanced argument. Although I would argue that there are those in your community that *do* feel the lack of two-way contribution is the issue (which I don't pretend to judge).
While reusing the BSD code, even with the more restrictive GPL license is permitted, you're right regarding the (il)legality of stripping the BSD license and associated copyright notice. Which, if anything positive has come out of this whole mess, is much more clear to me and hopefully more in the GPL community.
That said aside from the above example I'm not sure when/where else this has occurred. Considering the reasonably fastresponse to the unused atheros patch I can't see how if this *is* an continuing issue it can seriously be considered one that wouldn't be responded to.
And you have to remember the "Linux" community, whether you agree with the GPL or not, are (at least technically) people who do believe in the right to protect and license work, or the GPL would be useless. That includes your right and even Theo's. Stealing is not something I think you'd find anyone in the Linux community would condone (or even can, legally).
Anyway, hopefully soon we can move on. I mean it's been fun. Hell, even informative. But it's started getting just plain silly.
I'm thinking the BSD community finally just got bored or jealous after watching us in the GPL community be so nutty for years and now their trying it themselves. The 'code' that everyone keeps harping on was a patch. A patch that was never actually accepted into any upstream repo. An issue that was address quite reasonably and quickly, despite these facts.
Of course what's the point of being nutty if you can't bend/forget/reassemble reality to get really good and frothed up. This issue is really two separate issues, but if you read any n post you quickly see that there's not even a pretense of separation any more (it's wide open bitch season baby!). The issue started with a patch that stripped the BSD copyright notice on code that was originally released BSD/GPL2 (then modified BSD). This was wrong, but it was just some guy doing it (ie...er, not the 'Linux community'). It never made it into any upstream repos. It was loud as everyone got really bitchy about it but the fact is it wasn't 'sanctioned' action and no-one was actually trying to do, well, anything. The issue was quickly resolved.
The issue that's really at hand that's being mostly swept under the carpet is long standing resent for the GPL community for regularly 'stealing' BSD code. Not violating the copyright mind you, but using the free software in GPL projects then not providing the patches or changes made back to the BSD community (because all the GPL work is...GPL and not reverse compatible).
So on one hand you've got the nuts, constantly harping on this non-issue. On the other you have the developers who (at least in part) feel 'cheated' and consider it hypocritical for one open source group to benefit from the other without making the open code available to the other (which is the real issue). Then you have the license issues where things start to fall apart a bit. Since the BSD allows for use that closes code off (true freedom) this isn't even about the code not being available. Or, if it is, it's about a segment of the BSD community which appears to want to put more restriction on their code then the (permissive) BSD currently does. Which is kind of ironic really.
As much as I like RMS it looks like BSD just got their own with Theo. And he has followers.
Thanks. That's an interesting example of the design concerns and difference that probably helped keep the project in development long then some people would have like (mainly those who wouldn't need such features).
Whether the OLPC project turns out to be everything they'd hoped it would be the goals of these two machines are clearly different. One is rugged, with a hand (crank) charger. It's a bit of a geek novelty, but targeted at developing nations. Places without BestBuy's and Starbucks. The other is a inexpensive micro portable (or whatever their calling small laptops this week) which will be targeted, well, probably just about everywhere else. Maybe the OLPC should have focused on a more straight forward, low-cost portable device. But for better or worse they've designed a machine you can take out the middle of no where and use, apparently anyway.
Either way, are you sure the OLPC didn't simply compel other makers to compete? Which itself, assuming that providing technology the people who might now otherwise afford it, would be a round about way of achieving the projects goals.
Western science could have it: reinforcement. If you think about it could work on a number of levels. You go to get treated with something that carries both a psychological impact and a physical one. We tend to fear needles and this is our treatment. If you're looking to reinforce ideas (the treatment) this seems like one possible way to do it. Of course I'm not a psychologist.
that some people really like [insert interest]. I run a website and an internet radio station. I have an emusic account I've had since they were ala carte which alone lets me scavenge then download 90 new tracks a month. I spend hours tracking new artists. Following favorite labels. Checking Bleep or FineTunes or Inertia for music. I don't have any Doors albums or any classics for that matter. I use the net to discover new music and I use podcasting and my program to share it.
So I tend to agree. And ya, it's nice to have your whole music collection because you don't always know exactly which 8GB chunk you'll want to listen to (which at a decent bitrate isn't really that much). But it works for some people.
Thanks. So the code that was BSD remains BSD (of course) and the modified code is licensed as the author likes, but with the inclusion of the original (permissive) BSD license although it only need apply to the original authors work. Which is how it can be used in proprietary work without the BSD's much more open license over-riding the licensing of now modified work. Is that at least close to right?
I know this is really probably rudimentary, so thanks. So you're saying the right to modify includes the right to make addendum's to the license itself, thereby allowing someone to restrict redistribution so long as the original (possibly now contradictory) license remains intact? So if I were to work on a piece of BSD software for commercial use, somewhere in my license I'd have the BSD terms and possibly something stating that they applied to the original code (since my own software is proprietary)? For instance, with the Wikipedia entry then mention Microsofts use of BSD code in their network stack. Would the BSD license be included somewhere in that instance?
Maybe I'm missing something very obvious. But the BSD license reads like a perpetual license. Requiring each modified iteration to include the original copyright notice (license) whether binary or source, modified or unmodified.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
So if I understand that then it seems to me that until a modified or unmodified version is redistributed, along with a separate license and the BSD license (in accord with the redistribution clause), the code in any form is tied to the BSD (at least partially). So to use it in a closed project, without inheriting the original license as a portion of your sublicense you'd have to dual-license the code, then absorb that code using the only secondary license. Which would allow you to strip the primary BSD license and subsequent redistribution clause.
Which sounds confusing so it's entirely possible that I'm not understanding. Although reading that text it's the only way I can see it would be possible to use the code commercially without permitting free redistribution .
And the wording in the license would be where? Because from what I've read the notice needs to be attached to either source or included with the binary. I do appreciate the response.
Those where along the lines of my initial reaction. Microsoft embraces piracy to gain market share. Now they are working a little more seriously to stop it but at the same time the field is slowly but surely becoming more competitive. After failing to install a (duplicate) copy of XP on my laptop I simply chose to use Kubuntu. I'm not going to suggest that this would be a typical reaction from an average user right now, but in the mid to near-term it will increase. What you suggest would be a smart compromise that would keep the revenue flowing in the right (from their POV) direction. Annoying the affluent into purchasing products while still providing a revenue stream from users who will not or can not afford the price.
Maybe someone from the BSD camp could jump in and explain (without more flaming, it's an honest question). Assuming the BSD is as permissive as I'd always understood (or misunderstood) it to be how does the redistribution clauses work? The way it reads it sounds like while you're free to do what you want with BSD software the BSD (copyright) license must be retained. Which would require all subsequent work to either remain BSD or dual license with BSD (opening commercial projects which include code written under the BSD to be redistributable):
OWNER = Regents of the University of California
ORGANIZATION = University of California, Berkeley
YEAR = 1998
In the original BSD license, both occurrences of the phrase "COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS" in the disclaimer read "REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS".
Here is the license template:
Copyright (c) YEAR, OWNER
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR
CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
I can't cover anything but Seattle and San Diego. I grew up in Seattle and I totally agree. I think people tended to drive pretty good and it left me with some good habits (ice, maybe, you have to pay attention sometimes). San Diego is fast. But the congestion is sort (at least on my routes) of light, so ya, it does work. The inability to use blinkers *is* frustrating and often I'll open up for people when they signal and keep tight if they just kind of hover (mostly because it's kind of 50/50 they are just talking on the phone or spaced out, not merging).
It was an Alienware portable heater with a failed motherboard (I don't by laptops because I'm cheap). I told the tech support that I'd be removing the raid set and they had no problem with that. But you're right regarding the average user (which is why we get to read the stories about Geek Squad pilfering pornography although I don't see why they'd limit themselves to that).
Why would you send a computer to get repair *with* your hard drive in it? You might as well just allow anonymous access via FTP using your main drive as the root. I've never sent a computer in for warranty work with a hard drive. I keep business documents on there. Financial data. Everything.
Gods, no wonder the traffic is so bad. I've found that doing 10-15 miles above the speed limit here in San Diego helps traffic. Terrifying older people or slower people into staying on the surface roads. While tailgating strictly speaking is a bad idea (dents sucks, dying does too God-bless my airbags) it's a fairly effective way to get snoozers to stop using the passing lane as a roomier slow lane. Plus theirs nothing better then using my fuels friendly Yaris with it's compact body to swiftly cut-off cellphone addicted BMW drivers and block those ungodly "I'm so big I don't need to signal" trucks from pulling into your lane (ya, I've probably got a short life expectancy).
Mp3.com was probably one of the best music sites around at the time for unsigned or self promoting artists. In fact to this day I've seen nothing nearly as good or diverse. The music scandal was the online storage they where trying to offer, which I didn't pay much attention to because I was there for the new music. AFAIR they where supposed to be allowing you "storage" for your existing CD's. I don't now how it worked or if there was any verification method but I don't honestly think it's such a bad idea. Now he has a product called MP3tunes that shares the same goal. Online storage/backup/accessibility of your music collection. But now you have to upload the individual tracks (using the Oboe program to sync). It's good and I use it, but it's a lot of time and bandwidth uploading tracks that are often going to be exact duplicates of files already on their system so I can see how his original idea could have seemed appealing (to both the end-user, their ISP and the service).
But I do miss the days of surfing Mp3.com for new music and the artists I met and discovered there. It was a pretty good music community. Nothing like MySpace or anything else out there today.
Slashdot Mirror
hoody
If you can be bothered to read, its a board (looks kind of familiar) with LEDs on it connected to a
Obviously her paranoia level is too low and she over looked the passing similarity between blinking lights and high explosives. That or we are simply living in such an amazing state of fear that we see high explosives everywhere (and feel justified in it).
Arabic 101
Koran
I was curious too. Apparently after Novell chose to stop active (paid, full-time) development on it some people started a fork.
my friend is the balanced argument. Although I would argue that there are those in your community that *do* feel the lack of two-way contribution is the issue (which I don't pretend to judge).
While reusing the BSD code, even with the more restrictive GPL license is permitted, you're right regarding the (il)legality of stripping the BSD license and associated copyright notice. Which, if anything positive has come out of this whole mess, is much more clear to me and hopefully more in the GPL community.
That said aside from the above example I'm not sure when/where else this has occurred. Considering the reasonably fast response to the unused atheros patch I can't see how if this *is* an continuing issue it can seriously be considered one that wouldn't be responded to.
And you have to remember the "Linux" community, whether you agree with the GPL or not, are (at least technically) people who do believe in the right to protect and license work, or the GPL would be useless. That includes your right and even Theo's. Stealing is not something I think you'd find anyone in the Linux community would condone (or even can, legally).
Anyway, hopefully soon we can move on. I mean it's been fun. Hell, even informative. But it's started getting just plain silly.
I'm thinking the BSD community finally just got bored or jealous after watching us in the GPL community be so nutty for years and now their trying it themselves. The 'code' that everyone keeps harping on was a patch. A patch that was never actually accepted into any upstream repo. An issue that was address quite reasonably and quickly, despite these facts.
Of course what's the point of being nutty if you can't bend/forget/reassemble reality to get really good and frothed up. This issue is really two separate issues, but if you read any n post you quickly see that there's not even a pretense of separation any more (it's wide open bitch season baby!). The issue started with a patch that stripped the BSD copyright notice on code that was originally released BSD/GPL2 (then modified BSD). This was wrong, but it was just some guy doing it (ie...er, not the 'Linux community'). It never made it into any upstream repos. It was loud as everyone got really bitchy about it but the fact is it wasn't 'sanctioned' action and no-one was actually trying to do, well, anything. The issue was quickly resolved.
The issue that's really at hand that's being mostly swept under the carpet is long standing resent for the GPL community for regularly 'stealing' BSD code. Not violating the copyright mind you, but using the free software in GPL projects then not providing the patches or changes made back to the BSD community (because all the GPL work is...GPL and not reverse compatible).
So on one hand you've got the nuts, constantly harping on this non-issue. On the other you have the developers who (at least in part) feel 'cheated' and consider it hypocritical for one open source group to benefit from the other without making the open code available to the other (which is the real issue). Then you have the license issues where things start to fall apart a bit. Since the BSD allows for use that closes code off (true freedom) this isn't even about the code not being available. Or, if it is, it's about a segment of the BSD community which appears to want to put more restriction on their code then the (permissive) BSD currently does. Which is kind of ironic really.
As much as I like RMS it looks like BSD just got their own with Theo. And he has followers.
Thanks. That's an interesting example of the design concerns and difference that probably helped keep the project in development long then some people would have like (mainly those who wouldn't need such features).
Whether the OLPC project turns out to be everything they'd hoped it would be the goals of these two machines are clearly different. One is rugged, with a hand (crank) charger. It's a bit of a geek novelty, but targeted at developing nations. Places without BestBuy's and Starbucks. The other is a inexpensive micro portable (or whatever their calling small laptops this week) which will be targeted, well, probably just about everywhere else. Maybe the OLPC should have focused on a more straight forward, low-cost portable device. But for better or worse they've designed a machine you can take out the middle of no where and use, apparently anyway.
Either way, are you sure the OLPC didn't simply compel other makers to compete? Which itself, assuming that providing technology the people who might now otherwise afford it, would be a round about way of achieving the projects goals.
Western science could have it: reinforcement. If you think about it could work on a number of levels. You go to get treated with something that carries both a psychological impact and a physical one. We tend to fear needles and this is our treatment. If you're looking to reinforce ideas (the treatment) this seems like one possible way to do it. Of course I'm not a psychologist.
that some people really like [insert interest]. I run a website and an internet radio station. I have an emusic account I've had since they were ala carte which alone lets me scavenge then download 90 new tracks a month. I spend hours tracking new artists. Following favorite labels. Checking Bleep or FineTunes or Inertia for music. I don't have any Doors albums or any classics for that matter. I use the net to discover new music and I use podcasting and my program to share it.
So I tend to agree. And ya, it's nice to have your whole music collection because you don't always know exactly which 8GB chunk you'll want to listen to (which at a decent bitrate isn't really that much). But it works for some people.
Thanks. So the code that was BSD remains BSD (of course) and the modified code is licensed as the author likes, but with the inclusion of the original (permissive) BSD license although it only need apply to the original authors work. Which is how it can be used in proprietary work without the BSD's much more open license over-riding the licensing of now modified work. Is that at least close to right?
I know this is really probably rudimentary, so thanks. So you're saying the right to modify includes the right to make addendum's to the license itself, thereby allowing someone to restrict redistribution so long as the original (possibly now contradictory) license remains intact? So if I were to work on a piece of BSD software for commercial use, somewhere in my license I'd have the BSD terms and possibly something stating that they applied to the original code (since my own software is proprietary)? For instance, with the Wikipedia entry then mention Microsofts use of BSD code in their network stack. Would the BSD license be included somewhere in that instance?
All BSD derived work (binary, source, etc) must be redistributable?
So if I understand that then it seems to me that until a modified or unmodified version is redistributed, along with a separate license and the BSD license (in accord with the redistribution clause), the code in any form is tied to the BSD (at least partially). So to use it in a closed project, without inheriting the original license as a portion of your sublicense you'd have to dual-license the code, then absorb that code using the only secondary license. Which would allow you to strip the primary BSD license and subsequent redistribution clause.
Which sounds confusing so it's entirely possible that I'm not understanding. Although reading that text it's the only way I can see it would be possible to use the code commercially without permitting free redistribution .
And the wording in the license would be where? Because from what I've read the notice needs to be attached to either source or included with the binary. I do appreciate the response.
Those where along the lines of my initial reaction. Microsoft embraces piracy to gain market share. Now they are working a little more seriously to stop it but at the same time the field is slowly but surely becoming more competitive. After failing to install a (duplicate) copy of XP on my laptop I simply chose to use Kubuntu. I'm not going to suggest that this would be a typical reaction from an average user right now, but in the mid to near-term it will increase. What you suggest would be a smart compromise that would keep the revenue flowing in the right (from their POV) direction. Annoying the affluent into purchasing products while still providing a revenue stream from users who will not or can not afford the price.
OWNER = Regents of the University of California
ORGANIZATION = University of California, Berkeley
YEAR = 1998
In the original BSD license, both occurrences of the phrase "COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS" in the disclaimer read "REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS".
Here is the license template:
Copyright (c) YEAR, OWNER
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
- Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
- Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.That's solid.
I can't cover anything but Seattle and San Diego. I grew up in Seattle and I totally agree. I think people tended to drive pretty good and it left me with some good habits (ice, maybe, you have to pay attention sometimes). San Diego is fast. But the congestion is sort (at least on my routes) of light, so ya, it does work. The inability to use blinkers *is* frustrating and often I'll open up for people when they signal and keep tight if they just kind of hover (mostly because it's kind of 50/50 they are just talking on the phone or spaced out, not merging).
It was an Alienware portable heater with a failed motherboard (I don't by laptops because I'm cheap). I told the tech support that I'd be removing the raid set and they had no problem with that. But you're right regarding the average user (which is why we get to read the stories about Geek Squad pilfering pornography although I don't see why they'd limit themselves to that).
It's like a commuting moped. But gas less expensive and I get to laugh at my friends.
Why would you send a computer to get repair *with* your hard drive in it? You might as well just allow anonymous access via FTP using your main drive as the root. I've never sent a computer in for warranty work with a hard drive. I keep business documents on there. Financial data. Everything.
Gods, no wonder the traffic is so bad. I've found that doing 10-15 miles above the speed limit here in San Diego helps traffic. Terrifying older people or slower people into staying on the surface roads. While tailgating strictly speaking is a bad idea (dents sucks, dying does too God-bless my airbags) it's a fairly effective way to get snoozers to stop using the passing lane as a roomier slow lane. Plus theirs nothing better then using my fuels friendly Yaris with it's compact body to swiftly cut-off cellphone addicted BMW drivers and block those ungodly "I'm so big I don't need to signal" trucks from pulling into your lane (ya, I've probably got a short life expectancy).
Mp3.com was probably one of the best music sites around at the time for unsigned or self promoting artists. In fact to this day I've seen nothing nearly as good or diverse. The music scandal was the online storage they where trying to offer, which I didn't pay much attention to because I was there for the new music. AFAIR they where supposed to be allowing you "storage" for your existing CD's. I don't now how it worked or if there was any verification method but I don't honestly think it's such a bad idea. Now he has a product called MP3tunes that shares the same goal. Online storage/backup/accessibility of your music collection. But now you have to upload the individual tracks (using the Oboe program to sync). It's good and I use it, but it's a lot of time and bandwidth uploading tracks that are often going to be exact duplicates of files already on their system so I can see how his original idea could have seemed appealing (to both the end-user, their ISP and the service).
But I do miss the days of surfing Mp3.com for new music and the artists I met and discovered there. It was a pretty good music community. Nothing like MySpace or anything else out there today.