Thanks for your response. I hope the patent gets issued soon, so I can read it. No serious expert will probably touch your procedure as long as it is secret. What is the point of reviewing a protocol/procedure if your peers can't check your work?
The post which you are replying to is clearly a parody of its parent and the source is acknowledged. So I did not infringe on anyone's copyright (or 'pirate', if you insist), I merely exercised 'Fair Use'.
That's the correct term for it. You're annoyed at that? Tough. I'm annoyed at people that use the suggestive and emotional word "piracy", so that it will sound very unethical; the implication being that since they argree with the abuse of copyright in the first place, they'll try to make copyright infringement sound as harful as possible.
Plagiarism (which is frowned upon in academia) is very different from copyright infringement.
Plagiarism is copying work from others and publishing it als your own (i.e. pretend it is entirely your own work). It is like renaming a metallica mp3 as Sardonis\'_Hefty_Metal_Band-Roll_Now.mp3 (or whatever) and pretending I wrote the music/text and did the performance, recording, mixing, etc.
Copyright infringers copy a work without permission, but usually give lots of credit. Someone sharing mp3's from metallica is usually quite upfront about the fact that they are made by metallica.
They have to give it to you, in a standard format.
I agree, but they are may not be using a standard ANSI C compiler. Theire compiler may be rigged to insert extra proprietary code into the executable and thereby trample on my rights to modify the program.
I the GPL would allow to use modified versions of GCC in this way, the GPL will essentially be void (also as explained here: here. If you want to circumvent the GPL, and hoard a GPL'd program, all you need to do is put the changes to the program in your custom compiler instead of the program source. This practice is certainly against the spirit of the GPL and (as follows from my argument, but IANAL and I may be wrong, the use of proprietary compilers is certainly an interesting point) against the letter of the GPL. I would be interested in a statement from the FSF regarding this situation.
My fault, I only included the clarification of the "source code" requirement of the GPL. The requirement reads:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
It is clear that I need their GCC additions to make modifications to the GPL covered parts of the Lynksys router.
If, on the contrary, I won't need it, then they don't need it also and they shouldn't have taken the 'risk' of having to distribute their modifications of GCC under the GPL.
Their version of GCC is for in-house use only. I'm willing to bet good money that the only changes that they made to GCC involve the specific archecture they are compiling onto, and while it'd be NICE for them to distribute it... it's by no means nessisary.
The version of GCC is used to compile programs protected by the GPL, the license clearly states again all the stuff that is needed to recreate the binaries (with a special exemption for programs normally distributed as major components of the operating systems, like unmodified GCC), must be distributed.
So, if they want don't want to distribute their GCC, they should have used stock GCC. But now it's too late.
So Linksys thinks that it can hide their proprietary sourcecode in a modified compiler? They are clearly wrong, quoteth the GPL:
For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
Their modified GCC is not 'normally distributed with the major components of the operating system'. So according to this clause it needs to be distributed (in source or binary form). But, since GCC is under the GPL the source of the modified GCC must be released.
If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation"
So, if CGI scripting is disallowed in GPL v3 then users of "GPL v2 and any later version" can ignore GPL v3. There will be no repercussions at all.
BTW, if a developer is paranoid (and I am), he
can just fix the GPL version. GPL v2 will stay the same forever (indeed, it is bundled with the software as the file COPYING).
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for your response. I hope the patent gets issued soon, so I can read it. No serious expert will probably touch your procedure as long as it is secret. What is the point of reviewing a protocol/procedure if your peers can't check your work?
Distribution of encryption keys and code is performed with a Patent Pending process that is immune to man-in-the-middle attacks
Does NOT use SSL or third party certificates.
Can't do authentication without some trusted authority or web-of-trust. I'd like to see this 'Patent Pending process' examined by experts...
pine is non-free (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html), use mutt
Now, someone please extract the binary signing key from this "XNA Game Studio Express".
And yes, moderators, this is on topic. A colorscheme is (for a novice user) inseperable from its section.
Dear slashdot editors, please remove this color scheme.
Thank you.
Furthermode, someone can take a picture of a faked picture with such a camera...
Why don't you install the stuff you need in $HOME? Most programs will work just fine.
The post which you are replying to is clearly a parody of its parent and the source is acknowledged. So I did not infringe on anyone's copyright (or 'pirate', if you insist), I merely exercised 'Fair Use'.
Freely adapted from the parent post.
you can find this quote here, it appears to me that it is written by RMS.
Plagiarism is copying work from others and publishing it als your own (i.e. pretend it is entirely your own work). It is like renaming a metallica mp3 as Sardonis\'_Hefty_Metal_Band-Roll_Now.mp3 (or whatever) and pretending I wrote the music/text and did the performance, recording, mixing, etc.
Copyright infringers copy a work without permission, but usually give lots of credit. Someone sharing mp3's from metallica is usually quite upfront about the fact that they are made by metallica.
I the GPL would allow to use modified versions of GCC in this way, the GPL will essentially be void (also as explained here: here. If you want to circumvent the GPL, and hoard a GPL'd program, all you need to do is put the changes to the program in your custom compiler instead of the program source. This practice is certainly against the spirit of the GPL and (as follows from my argument, but IANAL and I may be wrong, the use of proprietary compilers is certainly an interesting point) against the letter of the GPL. I would be interested in a statement from the FSF regarding this situation.
If, on the contrary, I won't need it, then they don't need it also and they shouldn't have taken the 'risk' of having to distribute their modifications of GCC under the GPL.
This is a violation of the GPL, see my post.
So, if they want don't want to distribute their GCC, they should have used stock GCC. But now it's too late.
Their modified GCC is not 'normally distributed with the major components of the operating system'. So according to this clause it needs to be distributed (in source or binary form). But, since GCC is under the GPL the source of the modified GCC must be released.
QED.
here
So, if CGI scripting is disallowed in GPL v3 then users of "GPL v2 and any later version" can ignore GPL v3. There will be no repercussions at all.
BTW, if a developer is paranoid (and I am), he can just fix the GPL version. GPL v2 will stay the same forever (indeed, it is bundled with the software as the file COPYING).
I like gsmp: realtime effects, nondestructive editing, fast vu-meters...