> > Remember, this is an emulation which means > > that it's normal to have this kinds of flaws.
> Total non-sequitur.
I think he means reverse engineered, or at least that's what he should have meant. The smbfs module is a reimplementation of the SMB protocol client, which has nothing to do with emulation. There's no simulation of another hardware architecture, and there's no api translation. Parts of the protocol are poorly documented, though. I don't know if that's only an issue for the server team or if the client documenation is incomplete as well. If the the protocol documentation is poor for the client, then it might excuse poor or incomplete interoperability with MS products, but it's still not clear to me that it would make it difficult or impossible to write a secure implementation.
The loophole is the web. You can run a program on your own webserver and use it to provide access to that program for the public. You're distributing the function of the program without distributing the program itself. The Gnu organization says:
A company is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web site. Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources?
The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release the modified sources.
It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing those modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly "private" use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in that special case. We are thinking about doing something like this in GPL version 3, but we don't have precise wording in mind yet.
In the mean time, you might want to use the Affero GPL for programs designed for network server use.
See the link:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Unrelease dMods
If that's the case, and assuming this developer actually didn't have any legal rights to this code, it seems to be like Google shouldn't be liable unless this company can prove they used the code knowing it was swiped; otherwise, the lawsuit should be against this developer (not that the developer has hugely deep pockets or an impending IPO to work against).
Umm... the "developer" cofounded a company whose only product was social networking software. He apparently also had an agreement with his original company not to produce a competing product for Google. I find it hard to believe that Google got Orkut to market without these facts coming to light.
And BTW to the root poster that brought up this topic: The tax break is far greater than $4000. According to Taxpayers for common sence it's possible get tax break around $100000. They site an example where a business owner can buy a $110000 Hummer and deduct $106000.
It's a quibble, but the $4000 cash back in the parent post is probably creative financing at the dealership and has nothing to do with the tax break. They'll commonly issue a loan for a couple thousand dollars more than the cost of the car and let the customer walk away with the difference.
Also, the amount of the deduction is substantially greater than the reduction in taxes the deduction will result in. Although the tax reduction from a 25,000-100,000 deduction is going to be big... much much more than $4000.
I'm a little surprised that all the well moderated comments are talking about this project like its goal is to expand internet access. It's not and Bleeker says that over and over again. It's a tool that enables the creation of new media art installations in public spaces. It lets you hijack users who expect to find a hotspot and then subject them to your own "internet", with your own services, and your own message. His message seems to focus on imposing physical locality on the network, but your message could be different.
It's subversive because it denies the expectation that the internet is the only network worth connecting to, which apparently is a notion that's too subversive for slashdot culture.
For those of you who think I'm making this up, read the "people" page. Bleeker a faculty member at the Parsons School of Design and he's shown work/writing at the Whitney and in Wired magazine. In addition to being an engineer, he's an artist... and evaluating this project as a technology product alone is kind of a waste of time.
Partimage (http://www.partimage.org/) Mondo (http://www.microwerks.net/~hugo/)
Both are on the Knoppix CD. Partimage runs right off the disc. Mondo needs to create it's own disc, but it looks like this can be done from a knoppix boot.
I use Partimage, as the Mondo support boards seem fairly hostile to users with questions about imaging windows systems. Last time I was there the devs were actually pissing on some guy who was trying to contribute patches HE HAD ALREADY WRITTEN because they were oriented toward improving NTFS support.
It looks to me like they're trying to strongarm him into giving them his database for free. You'd figure they'd have their own copy. Didn't they give out the vendor ID's in the first place?
From the cease and desist letter:
Your website indicates that you are an employee of IBM, a PCI-SIG member. We therefore request that you work through IBM to investigate the possibility of creating a similar database of PCI Vendor ID numbers which would be available on the official PCI-SIG website.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the maemo developers list, there is a microphone. There's just currently no voice recording application to take advantage of it.
J une/000315.html
http://maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-developers/2005-
Mike
> > that it's normal to have this kinds of flaws.
> Total non-sequitur.
I think he means reverse engineered, or at least that's what he should have meant. The smbfs module is a reimplementation of the SMB protocol client, which has nothing to do with emulation. There's no simulation of another hardware architecture, and there's no api translation. Parts of the protocol are poorly documented, though. I don't know if that's only an issue for the server team or if the client documenation is incomplete as well. If the the protocol documentation is poor for the client, then it might excuse poor or incomplete interoperability with MS products, but it's still not clear to me that it would make it difficult or impossible to write a secure implementation.
Mike
The loophole is the web. You can run a program on your own webserver and use it to provide access to that program for the public. You're distributing the function of the program without distributing the program itself. The Gnu organization says:
See the link: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Unrelease dMods
If that's the case, and assuming this developer actually didn't have any legal rights to this code, it seems to be like Google shouldn't be liable unless this company can prove they used the code knowing it was swiped; otherwise, the lawsuit should be against this developer (not that the developer has hugely deep pockets or an impending IPO to work against).
Umm... the "developer" cofounded a company whose only product was social networking software. He apparently also had an agreement with his original company not to produce a competing product for Google. I find it hard to believe that Google got Orkut to market without these facts coming to light.
Mike
And BTW to the root poster that brought up this topic: The tax break is far greater than $4000. According to Taxpayers for common sence it's possible get tax break around $100000. They site an example where a business owner can buy a $110000 Hummer and deduct $106000.
It's a quibble, but the $4000 cash back in the parent post is probably creative financing at the dealership and has nothing to do with the tax break. They'll commonly issue a loan for a couple thousand dollars more than the cost of the car and let the customer walk away with the difference.
Also, the amount of the deduction is substantially greater than the reduction in taxes the deduction will result in. Although the tax reduction from a 25,000-100,000 deduction is going to be big... much much more than $4000.
Mike
I'm a little surprised that all the well moderated comments are talking about this project like its goal is to expand internet access. It's not and Bleeker says that over and over again. It's a tool that enables the creation of new media art installations in public spaces. It lets you hijack users who expect to find a hotspot and then subject them to your own "internet", with your own services, and your own message. His message seems to focus on imposing physical locality on the network, but your message could be different.
It's subversive because it denies the expectation that the internet is the only network worth connecting to, which apparently is a notion that's too subversive for slashdot culture.
For those of you who think I'm making this up, read the "people" page. Bleeker a faculty member at the Parsons School of Design and he's shown work/writing at the Whitney and in Wired magazine. In addition to being an engineer, he's an artist... and evaluating this project as a technology product alone is kind of a waste of time.
Mike
Partimage (http://www.partimage.org/)
Mondo (http://www.microwerks.net/~hugo/)
Both are on the Knoppix CD. Partimage runs right off the disc. Mondo needs to create it's own disc, but it looks like this can be done from a knoppix boot.
I use Partimage, as the Mondo support boards seem fairly hostile to users with questions about imaging windows systems. Last time I was there the devs were actually pissing on some guy who was trying to contribute patches HE HAD ALREADY WRITTEN because they were oriented toward improving NTFS support.
Mike Lococo
It looks to me like they're trying to strongarm him into giving them his database for free. You'd figure they'd have their own copy. Didn't they give out the vendor ID's in the first place?
From the cease and desist letter: