They really can't... The more copyrights are tyght, the more effective is the GPL. Nice, isn't it.
The only way it can become inefective is by changing contract law. That is quite a stable law, and the public won't (yet) react well to a "all your base are belong to big companies" rewriting.
Human nature will make secret ciphers easy to break, you can count on it. Also, you can't validate a secret to make sure you are using a strong cipher, so you can't count on it being secure.
Of course, secure and obscure is never worse than just secure. It may be much better, slightly better, or as good as... In cryptography it is as good as, so why take the risk?
"...it presents problems with IP; specifically, section 4d, which boils down to providing code for the user to recompile that links to the LGPL'd libraries (not likely with most commercial IP models), or depending on the fact that the user has the library on their system already, which you can't do, because if they don't, your app, and therefore your whole commercial premise, is down the drain. A commercial application has to be install and run."
There are people around here really unable to read a lincese, or refer to FSF to get an explanation... Or that like to spread FUD.
Look, it is not that hard to dynamic link to a library. It is also not that hard to check if the library is already there when installing your software.
But if you don't think so, there are other options (see, the license says "one of the following", that means any one) you can simply enable the user to change the library, altough it is less desirable, and will make your customer think that using the system library is too hard for you.
Also, it is Linux, you can ask the package manager to make sure the library is installed, but for that you'll need to package your software (maybe that is too hard too).
"Either way, because there is a license involved, legal has to sign off on it and that takes time, money, and can in some cases bring the entire process to a halt when legal won't sign off on something the license requires (such as source code distribution.)"
Oh, I see... Your legal team won't revise the Windows's EULA (all the hundreds of them)... Or the developer kit's EULA, or the MFC EULA... But will teake eons to read the LGPL.
Don't use MathLab. Period. There is no reason to use that piece of s**t. Unless you are doing very small (less than 30 lines is normaly ok) applications with no execution time requirements (a program can take days to run at MatLab, and still finish in seconds when you port it to another language) and already has a powerfull machine that you have no better use for (it seems that no machine is powerfull enough for MathLab, but the more the better).
And, if you are not at the US, add "deb http://www.debian-multimedia/ stable main" to you/etc/apt/sources.list. That will take care of multimedia.
Microsoft may be planning on abandom the EU market (and most of the world at the same time). Not by free will, but to cut loses.
First, they don't cooperate with Justice orders, several times, just seeing how far they can go while still outlaw. That on itself isn't a big deal, but is part of te puzzle...
Then, Microsoft start its public campaign for defamation of Linux based on patents. It seems that the sole reason it took so long was that MS expected the EU to adopt software patents too. So, by starting the campaign, they gave up on software patents at EU.
And now, Microsoft seem to be betting all their horses on patent deals. That is not a sustainable strategy, so either they have some pretty good cards at hand and are just gainning some time, so they can prepare a surprize assault and keep their market share, or they have no more cards at hand and are just gainning time before the crunsh.
By the way, only fools make deals with Microsoft. The recent facts just showed us who are the pointy-haired bosses.
Because you don't need a keyboard driver, or a task scheduler, or a file system on a voting machine. And any extra line of code makes it harder to manualy verify it latter when you'll put it at the machine.
Alternatively, we can get people to finance that kind of research as a consortium. Like some kind of entity gathering the money, and distributing it to researchers...
There are oly upsides! The reseacher gets the money now, so he can eat and pay the bills now, not just 100 years down the road. There is much less risk involved, so the amount of money can be reduced acordingly. People are free to use those results, without asking for permission from hundreds of Newton's* offspring...
* Maybe not the best example, but nice to make a point.
"If you took an educated man from 1907 and brought him to 2007, he'd be able to understand just about everything we have except for our computational devices. They even understood a bit about nuclear energy."
If you took a (very) well informed man from 1907, he'd be able to grasp that chemistry isn't whichery. Just a few years before that scientists were able to make a point to the existence of atoms. Not how they are formed, of how to deal with them, but that they exist. Nuclear energy?!?! Are you kiding?
That man from 1907 wouldn't be able to grasp eletronics (he never even saw a diode valve), probably never saw a working radio transmission, wouldn't be able to recognize most of the materials we deal with everyday (including modern steel, aluminium, plastics, lots of clothing material). Not to mention that the only men-built flying objects he ever saw (if ever) are hot-air baloons.
By 1907, physics didn't explain why stuff had colors, where electrical charges come from, and had no idea about the existence of the nuclear forces, didn't even know that atoms had nuclei and that the macroscopic forces we see are explained by electricity. People still didn't understand why gases combine, creating new kinds of gas, or why stuff burn...
"I know which one I'd prefer, the one that didn't give that other company a free profit at my expense. And the GPLv3 is better at it."
And if you don't mind companies releasing proprietary extensions of your code, or stopping people from redistribute it, please use BSD or MIT licenses. That way you'll be compatible with both GPLv2 and GPLv3 (and Apache, Eclipse,...).
There is little reason to use GPLv2 once v3 is out.
Random fields are more likely to work. Scripts are hand made for each site, so they won't fill "intentionaly left blank" fields.
Now, those fields names should be random enough to delude pattern recognition techniques. Its surroundigns should also be random, including formating, order, and the position of labels. That would be hard to do (harder than a captcha), but may work.
I bet you just discovered a new alternative to evolution and intelligent design. I propose we call it "Unintelligent Design".
Now, we can approach school boards and looby for that theory to have the same exposition at classes as the other 2 older ones. That will increase children's capacity of dealing with the surrounding environment, and increase results at tests designed with the latest knowledge in mind.
Slashdot Mirror
They really can't... The more copyrights are tyght, the more effective is the GPL. Nice, isn't it.
The only way it can become inefective is by changing contract law. That is quite a stable law, and the public won't (yet) react well to a "all your base are belong to big companies" rewriting.
Great! Now the next step for the FCC is banishing free software at all markets, not just RF transmiters...
And now it is just a matter of time until they banish transistors, and resistors, and wires...
Human nature will make secret ciphers easy to break, you can count on it. Also, you can't validate a secret to make sure you are using a strong cipher, so you can't count on it being secure.
Of course, secure and obscure is never worse than just secure. It may be much better, slightly better, or as good as... In cryptography it is as good as, so why take the risk?
Those are not only your private files... Those are your copyrighted works.
I wonder if someone can get statutory damages from the MPAA.
And I was looking to see if it a dupe or new snakeoil. Tanks for the help :)
There are people around here really unable to read a lincese, or refer to FSF to get an explanation... Or that like to spread FUD.
Look, it is not that hard to dynamic link to a library. It is also not that hard to check if the library is already there when installing your software.
But if you don't think so, there are other options (see, the license says "one of the following", that means any one) you can simply enable the user to change the library, altough it is less desirable, and will make your customer think that using the system library is too hard for you.
Also, it is Linux, you can ask the package manager to make sure the library is installed, but for that you'll need to package your software (maybe that is too hard too).
Oh, I see... Your legal team won't revise the Windows's EULA (all the hundreds of them)... Or the developer kit's EULA, or the MFC EULA... But will teake eons to read the LGPL.
Brazil isn't a developed country. At average, a US person consumes near 7 times more liquid fuels than a brazilian.
Don't use MathLab. Period. There is no reason to use that piece of s**t. Unless you are doing very small (less than 30 lines is normaly ok) applications with no execution time requirements (a program can take days to run at MatLab, and still finish in seconds when you port it to another language) and already has a powerfull machine that you have no better use for (it seems that no machine is powerfull enough for MathLab, but the more the better).
And, if you are not at the US, add "deb http://www.debian-multimedia/ stable main" to you /etc/apt/sources.list. That will take care of multimedia.
Last time I saw, that was called MSN.
Well, they are sparks. And you are producing fuel... A very interesting combination.
Keyword oriented marketing...
People, we have a new paradigm!
Where do you get to read those journalists that don't sell stories for Microsof? Really, I can't find them.
Can Microsoft really prohibit you from running your copy on a single VM?
Microsoft may be planning on abandom the EU market (and most of the world at the same time). Not by free will, but to cut loses.
First, they don't cooperate with Justice orders, several times, just seeing how far they can go while still outlaw. That on itself isn't a big deal, but is part of te puzzle...
Then, Microsoft start its public campaign for defamation of Linux based on patents. It seems that the sole reason it took so long was that MS expected the EU to adopt software patents too. So, by starting the campaign, they gave up on software patents at EU.
And now, Microsoft seem to be betting all their horses on patent deals. That is not a sustainable strategy, so either they have some pretty good cards at hand and are just gainning some time, so they can prepare a surprize assault and keep their market share, or they have no more cards at hand and are just gainning time before the crunsh.
By the way, only fools make deals with Microsoft. The recent facts just showed us who are the pointy-haired bosses.
Just why did people mod the parent funny? That makes no sense.
(I know... I shouldn't expect sense from /. moderation...)
Because you don't need a keyboard driver, or a task scheduler, or a file system on a voting machine. And any extra line of code makes it harder to manualy verify it latter when you'll put it at the machine.
Alternatively, we can get people to finance that kind of research as a consortium. Like some kind of entity gathering the money, and distributing it to researchers...
There are oly upsides! The reseacher gets the money now, so he can eat and pay the bills now, not just 100 years down the road. There is much less risk involved, so the amount of money can be reduced acordingly. People are free to use those results, without asking for permission from hundreds of Newton's* offspring...
* Maybe not the best example, but nice to make a point.
...they got problems with that EULA and DRM things...
If you took a (very) well informed man from 1907, he'd be able to grasp that chemistry isn't whichery. Just a few years before that scientists were able to make a point to the existence of atoms. Not how they are formed, of how to deal with them, but that they exist. Nuclear energy?!?! Are you kiding?
That man from 1907 wouldn't be able to grasp eletronics (he never even saw a diode valve), probably never saw a working radio transmission, wouldn't be able to recognize most of the materials we deal with everyday (including modern steel, aluminium, plastics, lots of clothing material). Not to mention that the only men-built flying objects he ever saw (if ever) are hot-air baloons.
By 1907, physics didn't explain why stuff had colors, where electrical charges come from, and had no idea about the existence of the nuclear forces, didn't even know that atoms had nuclei and that the macroscopic forces we see are explained by electricity. People still didn't understand why gases combine, creating new kinds of gas, or why stuff burn...
All the other basic measurement units where redefined this way at the XX century. Only the kilogram is a troublemaker.
At the risk of being pedantic, where did you put your referential, and why?
I guess you meant GPLv2 Linux... Since the GNU part will be GPLv3 the same instant GPLv3 is released.
And if you don't mind companies releasing proprietary extensions of your code, or stopping people from redistribute it, please use BSD or MIT licenses. That way you'll be compatible with both GPLv2 and GPLv3 (and Apache, Eclipse, ...).
There is little reason to use GPLv2 once v3 is out.
Random fields are more likely to work. Scripts are hand made for each site, so they won't fill "intentionaly left blank" fields.
Now, those fields names should be random enough to delude pattern recognition techniques. Its surroundigns should also be random, including formating, order, and the position of labels. That would be hard to do (harder than a captcha), but may work.
I bet you just discovered a new alternative to evolution and intelligent design. I propose we call it "Unintelligent Design".
Now, we can approach school boards and looby for that theory to have the same exposition at classes as the other 2 older ones. That will increase children's capacity of dealing with the surrounding environment, and increase results at tests designed with the latest knowledge in mind.