They most certainly have threatened to sue people if those people do not buy the license they are offering.
Really? As in, a real, formal threat rather than saying something to that effect in an interview with CNET? I don't think so. Even their letter, which has since been removed from their website (probably due to its questionable legality), does not threaten anything directly. This is the only clause that suggests a threat:
Similar to analogous efforts underway in the music industry, we are prepared to take all actions necessary to stop the ongoing violation of our intellectual property or other rights.
That's great, but I don't think that qualifies as a threat. It's more like hot air. If you have heard of anyone getting an official cease-and-desist letter from SCO, please post a link.
You are horribly deluded if you think it takes merely a few disgruntled geeks to change something. Please remember that politicians in the US get paid by all kinds of lobbying groups, including the RIAA and everyone else. Even your donations won't change one damn thing. Neither will speaking out, voting, or practicing civil disobedience (though the latter one will rightly get you thrown in jail).
Average people (the ones who decide the election) usually don't give a shit about anything other than taxes and other personal interests. Hell, your average person probably doesn't have a clue about what a copyright or a patent is.
Finally, one last fact: the US government is 100% corrupt. Campaign contributions are pretty much legalized bribes -- you donate money and the politician suddenly starts to represent your interests. Businesses interested in strong copyright laws generate billions in these contributions. Unless you have a way of exceeding that, nobody will ever pay attention to your ideas about copyright reform.
If you are still not convinced, remember one simple fact. There is money to be made from strong copyright laws. There is no money to be made from the lack of copyright laws.
Palladium is not about encryption. It's about "trusted" computers. As in, an application can assume that the computer it's running on is not being manipulated with. In other words, if it does not disclose the IP addresses itself, it's impossible to obtain them. The encryption is only needed to protect from network sniffers. That way, it's impossible to prove that computer X is hosting song Y.
I'm not sure where everyone is getting the "SCO is suing people" part. SCO, so far, has only sued IBM, and even that's over a CONTRACT violation that barely involves Linux at all. So far, SCO has not sued or threatened to sue anyone using Linux. They are just blowing hot air.
In the '60s, everyone was predicting that by now, we would have finished colonizing Mars. Has it happened?
The reason it didn't is because the predictions were based on the notion that development would move at the same pace in the future. That is not true at all, since after a while you begin to hit the ceiling of the technology you're using.
The same thing will happen with processors -- they will maybe get 5 or 10 times faster (still not enough to do anything other than run Microsoft Word 2020), but they certainly won't keep improving forever.
You might want to look at the patent itself. It is so trivial that a 10-year-old could have come up with the same idea in 5 minutes. It basically spells out how a DRM system should work -- it encrypts a file on a central server based on a node's key, thus making a node-locked file. That is a completely obvious, trivial implementation, and Intertrust was basically the first one to reach the patent office with it. There were no original ideas involved there.
Dude. They track by IP address, which is why they are trying to subpoena the records from the ISPs to find the owner of the account. Of course they aren't going after users by username. RTFA, dammit.
What's really ironic, though, is that a system like Palladium would make these networks pretty much immune to attacks like that. If the P2P program has control over what it's used on, it would be nearly impossible to figure out the IP addresses of the users involved (if everything is encrypted, of course). But for now, kazaa users are fucked.
"NT based technology"? What, do you work for the Microsoft PR department? Besides, I was just pointing out that 27 days of uptime is nothing to brag about -- did I say anything about how stable NT is?
27 days uptime is 'stable'? What are you smoking? My Mandrake desktop box (which is heavily abused) had an uptime of about 3 months before I rebooted it to replace a broken CDROM drive. I can't remember ever having to reboot due to a crash. My router box currently has an uptime of 234 days (last time I powered it down was to clean the innards). 27 days is impressive only for a windows user.
Maybe YOU can. You probably are pretty experienced and can tolerate some downtime. Unlike you, a city can't just shut down for a couple of months until everyone becomes proficient with the new system. People can't learn something suddenly. If you ever worked in technical support, you would know that proficiency is acquired pretty slowly.
The GPL does not prevent you from copying GPL'd code into a non-GPL'd program. You are completely free to do that.
Sure, but copying ANY source code would be copyright infringement if you didn't agree to some kind of license or didn't follow its terms. If you unintentionally copied GPL'd code into your proprietary program and thus violated someone's copyright, it's generally no big deal -- simply remove the copied code and you're fine. The law doesn't say you must agree to the GPL or that you have to give away any of your code. Again, how is this viral?
At that point, the GPL, springs out of its dormant state and infects the rest of the program.
If you have a proprietary program that contains illegally copied code, you have bigger problems than the GPL. And no, it can't possibly "infect" a program any worse than any other illegally copied source code can. If you copy someone else's proprietary non-GPL source code (think of those "freeware" perl scripts), you might actually get your ass sued off. GPL authors generally don't do that.
What it does is revoke all rights to the GPL'd code, resulting in a derivatvie work that cannot legally be used or distributed.
Remove the GPL code from your proprietary program and you're OK. What is the problem here?
If you are copying prodigious amounts of somebody else's GPL'd code into your proprietary, commercial program, perhaps you need to change your strategy. After all, the GPL is not supposed to make it easy to profit off of somebody else's work like BSD licenses do.
Dude... Ozone is made from oxygen. So you wouldn't get more oxygen in the engine, and it would probably DECREASE performance. I'm pretty sure you could improve the performance more easily by adding a turbocharger which would direct more air into the engine. Or just getting an oxygen tank and blowing yourself up.
If you can come up with a rationalization of how this is different to wanting commercial (or "propietary") software to disappear, I'm all ears.
Making something obsolete is not eradicating it. My P3-800 box may have been made obsolete by Intel's new processors, but it certainly hasn't been eradicated.
How in the hell does the GPL 'extend' and 'embrace' commercial software?
Read my post again. Slowly.
Do you understand what the meaning of the phrase 'embrace and extend' really IS? Can you show me an example of Stallman EXTENDING commercial software, much less EMBRACING it?
So what you're saying is that Linux is good because the people who write it listen to things like these? Heh.
Linux would not have been anything if not for GCC, GLIBC, and several tons of GNU software. In fact, those GNU tools were Linus's original motivation for writing Linux. Linux sure as hell wouldn't exist if people didn't listen to Stallman. Just look at its non-Free competitors (like Minix).
Stallman's goals are the erradication of all commercial software.
Can you quote him on that? I always thought he was encouraging software to be free, not eradicaing any commercial programs. How can you 'eradicate' commercial software, anyway? I don't think Stallman is trying to get laws passed that prohibit charging money for software.
So that "information can be free".
Stallman was talking about software, not 'information'. Again, can you cite a source for that "quote"?
Do you contend that?
Yes, see above.
If not then I think a good case can be made that the GPL is his way of extending and embracing the very thing he wants to disappear.
How in the hell does the GPL 'extend' and 'embrace' commercial software? You are now contradicting your previous statement.
It's a tribute to the quality of open source software that he even remotely has a chance to do that, of course. If that wasn't the case then nobody would even bother listening to him.
I think the reason the quality is so good is because people listen to him. You have cause and effect reversed.
BTW, "assmonkey" is right up there with "fucktard" in the list of colorful adjectives used by low-IQ Slashdot posters who can't come up with something intelligent to say if their lives depended on it.
I personally think that 'assmonkey', like 'fucktard', is an accurate description of most Slashdot posters. Also, very nice selective quoting there. I'm impressed by your mad skillz, Mr. High-IQ Slashdot Poster. But next time, try to use a small amount of logic in your post. You would certainly sound quite a bit smarter than you do now.
Re:FSF's interpretation are not very relevant
on
LGPL is Viral for Java
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Technically, when you "LGPL" your code, you sign away license rights for that software release to the FSF. That is why if someone violates the license of your GPL'ed program, the FSF can step in (with their lawyers) to defend your licensing rights. You are still the program's copyright owner, and you can reissue your program under another license if you like (though you can't "retract" your original release).
Pretty much everything in that paragraph is WRONG. First, unless you EXPLICITLY re-assign your copyright rights to the FSF, they do not own the copyright and cannot defend your rights. That certainly does not happen automatically. Unless your software says "copyright (C) 2003, the Free Software Foundation", it's not theirs and they cannot enforce your copyright.
Second, if you do re-assign the rights to the FSF, you are no longer the owner and may not reissue the program under any other license. You would only have the rights afforded to you by the GPL.
Third, you may not modify the LGPL or the GPL in any way. It violates the FSF's copyright and is not allowed. Read the license -- "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." (emphasis mine, obviously).
The GPL is a tool to make YOUR software free, not someone else's software. It's not designed to "destroy copyright from within". If you think so, you are a retarded assmonkey who needs to shut up and read what Richard Stallman has to say about the goals of the FSF and the GPL.
Unlike certain EULAs and NDAs, the GPL is not viral. Looking at GPL'd code is permitted, no strings attached. You just can't copy GPL-licensed code into your program unless it's also GPL-licensed. I don't see how this is viral.
No, they don't. FPGAs are extremely expensive and are utterly unnecessary in a music player. They are basically prototyping a chip in an FPGA. What you are looking for is a player with a DSP/processor and upgradeable firmware. Those do exist (check out the iRiver SlimX -- it uses a Cirrus EP7212 system-on-a-chip). Good luck rewriting the firmware though (nevertheless, it's easier than making a CPU on an FPGA).
Slashdot Mirror
They most certainly have threatened to sue people if those people do not buy the license they are offering.
Really? As in, a real, formal threat rather than saying something to that effect in an interview with CNET? I don't think so. Even their letter, which has since been removed from their website (probably due to its questionable legality), does not threaten anything directly. This is the only clause that suggests a threat:
Similar to analogous efforts underway in the music industry, we are prepared to take all actions necessary to stop the ongoing violation of our intellectual property or other rights.
That's great, but I don't think that qualifies as a threat. It's more like hot air. If you have heard of anyone getting an official cease-and-desist letter from SCO, please post a link.
You are horribly deluded if you think it takes merely a few disgruntled geeks to change something. Please remember that politicians in the US get paid by all kinds of lobbying groups, including the RIAA and everyone else. Even your donations won't change one damn thing. Neither will speaking out, voting, or practicing civil disobedience (though the latter one will rightly get you thrown in jail).
Average people (the ones who decide the election) usually don't give a shit about anything other than taxes and other personal interests. Hell, your average person probably doesn't have a clue about what a copyright or a patent is.
Finally, one last fact: the US government is 100% corrupt. Campaign contributions are pretty much legalized bribes -- you donate money and the politician suddenly starts to represent your interests. Businesses interested in strong copyright laws generate billions in these contributions. Unless you have a way of exceeding that, nobody will ever pay attention to your ideas about copyright reform.
If you are still not convinced, remember one simple fact. There is money to be made from strong copyright laws. There is no money to be made from the lack of copyright laws.
They are serving the ISP with a subpoena to get their records. After that, it's a lawsuit against whoever the individual is.
Palladium is not about encryption. It's about "trusted" computers. As in, an application can assume that the computer it's running on is not being manipulated with. In other words, if it does not disclose the IP addresses itself, it's impossible to obtain them. The encryption is only needed to protect from network sniffers. That way, it's impossible to prove that computer X is hosting song Y.
Evidence or not, SCO is, in fact, suing people.
I'm not sure where everyone is getting the "SCO is suing people" part. SCO, so far, has only sued IBM, and even that's over a CONTRACT violation that barely involves Linux at all. So far, SCO has not sued or threatened to sue anyone using Linux. They are just blowing hot air.
In the '60s, everyone was predicting that by now, we would have finished colonizing Mars. Has it happened?
The reason it didn't is because the predictions were based on the notion that development would move at the same pace in the future. That is not true at all, since after a while you begin to hit the ceiling of the technology you're using.
The same thing will happen with processors -- they will maybe get 5 or 10 times faster (still not enough to do anything other than run Microsoft Word 2020), but they certainly won't keep improving forever.
In short: the guy is full of shit.
No difference. They see a violation and they want you to take care of it.
You might want to look at the patent itself. It is so trivial that a 10-year-old could have come up with the same idea in 5 minutes. It basically spells out how a DRM system should work -- it encrypts a file on a central server based on a node's key, thus making a node-locked file. That is a completely obvious, trivial implementation, and Intertrust was basically the first one to reach the patent office with it. There were no original ideas involved there.
It'd be funny if Microsoft used its considerable political influence to fix this patent problem, and wound up killing SCO as a side-effect.
SCO doesn't own any relevant patents. Get with the program.
Dude. They track by IP address, which is why they are trying to subpoena the records from the ISPs to find the owner of the account. Of course they aren't going after users by username. RTFA, dammit.
What's really ironic, though, is that a system like Palladium would make these networks pretty much immune to attacks like that. If the P2P program has control over what it's used on, it would be nearly impossible to figure out the IP addresses of the users involved (if everything is encrypted, of course). But for now, kazaa users are fucked.
It's not illegal to threaten litigation, at least if you intend to follow through (and do). Ever hear of cease-and-desist letters?
You can get an 80,000 meg hard drive for cheaper.
"NT based technology"? What, do you work for the Microsoft PR department? Besides, I was just pointing out that 27 days of uptime is nothing to brag about -- did I say anything about how stable NT is?
27 days uptime is 'stable'? What are you smoking? My Mandrake desktop box (which is heavily abused) had an uptime of about 3 months before I rebooted it to replace a broken CDROM drive. I can't remember ever having to reboot due to a crash. My router box currently has an uptime of 234 days (last time I powered it down was to clean the innards). 27 days is impressive only for a windows user.
You do realize that this is illegal and you can be prosecuted?
You seem to forget that NeXT boxes cost a shitload of money for what they were worth.
Yes you can make the switch over night.
Maybe YOU can. You probably are pretty experienced and can tolerate some downtime. Unlike you, a city can't just shut down for a couple of months until everyone becomes proficient with the new system. People can't learn something suddenly. If you ever worked in technical support, you would know that proficiency is acquired pretty slowly.
The GPL does not prevent you from copying GPL'd code into a non-GPL'd program. You are completely free to do that.
Sure, but copying ANY source code would be copyright infringement if you didn't agree to some kind of license or didn't follow its terms. If you unintentionally copied GPL'd code into your proprietary program and thus violated someone's copyright, it's generally no big deal -- simply remove the copied code and you're fine. The law doesn't say you must agree to the GPL or that you have to give away any of your code. Again, how is this viral?
At that point, the GPL, springs out of its dormant state and infects the rest of the program.
If you have a proprietary program that contains illegally copied code, you have bigger problems than the GPL. And no, it can't possibly "infect" a program any worse than any other illegally copied source code can. If you copy someone else's proprietary non-GPL source code (think of those "freeware" perl scripts), you might actually get your ass sued off. GPL authors generally don't do that.
What it does is revoke all rights to the GPL'd code, resulting in a derivatvie work that cannot legally be used or distributed.
Remove the GPL code from your proprietary program and you're OK. What is the problem here?
If you are copying prodigious amounts of somebody else's GPL'd code into your proprietary, commercial program, perhaps you need to change your strategy. After all, the GPL is not supposed to make it easy to profit off of somebody else's work like BSD licenses do.
Dude... Ozone is made from oxygen. So you wouldn't get more oxygen in the engine, and it would probably DECREASE performance. I'm pretty sure you could improve the performance more easily by adding a turbocharger which would direct more air into the engine. Or just getting an oxygen tank and blowing yourself up.
and all you can do is go AC
Is someone being hypocritical here or what? By the way, I never post AC.
...and thus make proprietary software obsolete.
If you can come up with a rationalization of how this is different to wanting commercial (or "propietary") software to disappear, I'm all ears.
Making something obsolete is not eradicating it. My P3-800 box may have been made obsolete by Intel's new processors, but it certainly hasn't been eradicated.
How in the hell does the GPL 'extend' and 'embrace' commercial software?
Read my post again. Slowly.
Do you understand what the meaning of the phrase 'embrace and extend' really IS? Can you show me an example of Stallman EXTENDING commercial software, much less EMBRACING it?
So what you're saying is that Linux is good because the people who write it listen to things like these? Heh.
Linux would not have been anything if not for GCC, GLIBC, and several tons of GNU software. In fact, those GNU tools were Linus's original motivation for writing Linux. Linux sure as hell wouldn't exist if people didn't listen to Stallman. Just look at its non-Free competitors (like Minix).
Stallman's goals are the erradication of all commercial software.
Can you quote him on that? I always thought he was encouraging software to be free, not eradicaing any commercial programs. How can you 'eradicate' commercial software, anyway? I don't think Stallman is trying to get laws passed that prohibit charging money for software.
So that "information can be free".
Stallman was talking about software, not 'information'. Again, can you cite a source for that "quote"?
Do you contend that?
Yes, see above.
If not then I think a good case can be made that the GPL is his way of extending and embracing the very thing he wants to disappear.
How in the hell does the GPL 'extend' and 'embrace' commercial software? You are now contradicting your previous statement.
It's a tribute to the quality of open source software that he even remotely has a chance to do that, of course. If that wasn't the case then nobody would even bother listening to him.
I think the reason the quality is so good is because people listen to him. You have cause and effect reversed.
BTW, "assmonkey" is right up there with "fucktard" in the list of colorful adjectives used by low-IQ Slashdot posters who can't come up with something intelligent to say if their lives depended on it.
I personally think that 'assmonkey', like 'fucktard', is an accurate description of most Slashdot posters. Also, very nice selective quoting there. I'm impressed by your mad skillz, Mr. High-IQ Slashdot Poster. But next time, try to use a small amount of logic in your post. You would certainly sound quite a bit smarter than you do now.
Technically, when you "LGPL" your code, you sign away license rights for that software release to the FSF. That is why if someone violates the license of your GPL'ed program, the FSF can step in (with their lawyers) to defend your licensing rights. You are still the program's copyright owner, and you can reissue your program under another license if you like (though you can't "retract" your original release).
Pretty much everything in that paragraph is WRONG. First, unless you EXPLICITLY re-assign your copyright rights to the FSF, they do not own the copyright and cannot defend your rights. That certainly does not happen automatically. Unless your software says "copyright (C) 2003, the Free Software Foundation", it's not theirs and they cannot enforce your copyright.
Second, if you do re-assign the rights to the FSF, you are no longer the owner and may not reissue the program under any other license. You would only have the rights afforded to you by the GPL.
Third, you may not modify the LGPL or the GPL in any way. It violates the FSF's copyright and is not allowed. Read the license -- "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." (emphasis mine, obviously).
What are you smoking? I want some of that.
The GPL is a tool to make YOUR software free, not someone else's software. It's not designed to "destroy copyright from within". If you think so, you are a retarded assmonkey who needs to shut up and read what Richard Stallman has to say about the goals of the FSF and the GPL.
Unlike certain EULAs and NDAs, the GPL is not viral. Looking at GPL'd code is permitted, no strings attached. You just can't copy GPL-licensed code into your program unless it's also GPL-licensed. I don't see how this is viral.
No, they don't. FPGAs are extremely expensive and are utterly unnecessary in a music player. They are basically prototyping a chip in an FPGA. What you are looking for is a player with a DSP/processor and upgradeable firmware. Those do exist (check out the iRiver SlimX -- it uses a Cirrus EP7212 system-on-a-chip). Good luck rewriting the firmware though (nevertheless, it's easier than making a CPU on an FPGA).