Please go read up on NAT. Of course the destination IP is there. Nat is supposed to be transparent for the computers involved.
You weren't talking to me, but I have read up on NAT.
Since the other reply didn't say it, I will: If the XP machine was behind a NAT, the destination address would have been rewritten by the NAT. In other words, the IP would have been in one of the RFC1918 address ranges: 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 (10/8 prefix) 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix) 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix)
However, the destination address starts with 24.
Therefore, the only possibility is that the XP machine was acting as the NAT.
This test would only be useful in two circumstances: 1. The test showed the outgoing traffic from the Vista box (it doesn't). 2. The packets were being monitored behind the NAT and the Vista machine was the destination.
Also, since the destination port numbers are conveniently cut off on the right side of the screenshot, you should be suspicious. Why is such a crucial piece of information missing?
So then if I buy a copy of Windows, don't install it, and then start selling copies... no, that can't work. Of course, I'm copying a CD there which puts it into fairly well defined territory.
The doctrine of first sale doesn't give you permission to make additional copies. Fair use might, but copyright law prohibits you from selling said copies.
So how about if I bought a copy of a game from one of the online distributors. Can I then decide I don't like the licence and sell the electronic copy onwards?
Personally, I'd say yes. However, courts seem to think that EULAs can take away rights rather than give them (which is what a license is supposed to do). I have yet to see a for-pay electronic download not have some sort of EULA attached to it. Of course, these EULAs undoubtably remove your right to sell said game.
As a side note, if companies tell you that you're don't have the right to install software on your computer without needing a license, they're lying to you. Title 17 117(a)(1) explicitly authorizes you to make a copy or adaptation if the software won't run without a copy being made... i.e. you're given a blanket license to install and run (because this also covers copies in memory) software without needing a license to do it.
Can I do it multiple times?
Title 17 (US Copyright Law) 117(b) prohibits you from keeping exact copies of a computer program if you sell the original. It also forbids you from creating an adaption without the copyright owner's consent (so you can't get around the "exact copies" rule). As noted above, you are permitted to make said copies or adaptations if it's required to run the program, but you're not allowed to do anything but use such a copy. I will note that the Title 17 definition of "computer program" appears to exclude data files, such as mp3s.
I don't think MS will fall back on the first sale doctrine if they can avoid it. If they strengthen the doctrine as applied to software, they weaken their own licencing in the process or so it seems to me.
I would have used RAID 1 or RAID 5 as an example, rather than a specific file system. RAID can be done in hardware after all, and is traditionally faster that way.
Then I urge Microsoft to change the Zune firmware so that no GPLv3-licensed MP3 file is edited by the device when sending it over WiFi, or at least a provision explicitly prohibiting users from sending those.
I wasn't aware that data files could be protected under the GPLv3, due to the restriction of having to distribute the original source. Given the GPL definition of source code ("the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."), I'm fairly sure that would be uncompressed audio ripped from the CD.
It's a moot point, though. If you are not the copyright owner or someone authorized by the copyright owner to make copies, you don't have the right to distribute it, making any license you attempt to apply to it invalid.
I'm not a lawyer, but in the US at least, Microsoft is probably protected from retribution from the FSF by the doctrine of first sale. The same one that allows me to sell a copy of Microsoft Windows I bought because I disagreed with its license terms.
I don't know about in Japan, but in the US, it's not just more expensive, it's twice as (or 100% more) expensive as the PS and PS2 were at launch (PS: $299; PS2: $299; PS3: $599).
By comparison, the Wii launched for 25% more than the Game Cube, which itself launched at the same exact price as all of Nintendo's previous console systems (NES, SNES, N64, GC: $199; Wii: $249). The XBox 360 launched for 33% more than the XBox (XBox: $299; XBox 360: $399).
Seriously, though, the PS3 launched for $200 more than the already overpriced console that had been out for a year. That's seriously dumb.
Then take C# which is a nice programming language and has a normal GUI and you've got a winner.
I can't believe that you said that with a straight face.
I decided to test your statement and draw up a menu that looks like the File and Edit menus of one of Microsoft's most ubiquitos programs, Notepad, using Visual Studio 2005 (C#) and NetBeans 5.5.1 (Java) using their default display types.
Things in common between all three: All support keyboard mnemonics, displayed as an underlined letter All support shortcut keys, displayed to the right of the menu item All have minimize, maximize, and close buttons. They also all have the application menu in the upper-left.
Not shown in the picture: All support submenus All support toggleable menu items (they show up with a checkmark next to them)
Differences between all three: Menubar color. XP Comctl32 is the only one to use the system color.
The major differences are listed below Between XP and.NET (.NET changed to NET because of Slashdot's "smart" formatting): NET menus use a gradient highlight and look like a tab when selected NET's menubar is a blue left-right gradient NET menus have a large blue line running down the left side as well as extra whitespace on the right NET uses an outline for highlighting NET shortcut keys are right-aligned NET uses a different color separator, which also doesn't go all the way across the menu NET's menus are spaced farther apart
Additonally, these are not shown in the picture: NET can use addiitonal control types as menu items (ComboBox and TextBox) NET can have icons on menu items
Between XP and Swing: Swing menu items are in bold Swing menu items use a different font Swing's menubar is a silver up-down gradient Swing uses a blue font for shortcut keys Swing's highlight color is grey Swing menus don't have a drop shadow Swing uses a different color separator
Additonally, these are not shown in the picture: Swing can use an addiitonal control type as menu items (RadioButton or to be more exact, jRadioButtonMenuItem) Swing can have icons on menu items
What was the point of this? It was to point out that.NET WinForms menus are just as different from XP Comctl32 as Java's Swing menus are.
Since the copy A received was no longer under the aegis of the GPLv3, they have no license to it, and are in turn violating the GPLv3 by distributing it to C, D, E, and F.
Sorry, I meant to say "Since the copy A received was no longer under the aegis of the GPLv3, they have no license to it, and are in turn violating copyright law by distributing it to C, D, E, and F."
I'm not a lawyer, but I think it would work out something like this:
B is distributing a program that requires a patent to A. Since B cannot license the patent required for the program to A, B's distribution to A is violating the GPLv3.
Since the copy A received was no longer under the aegis of the GPLv3, they have no license to it, and are in turn violating the GPLv3 by distributing it to C, D, E, and F.
The fact that the patent needed is owned by A is irrelevant because A had no license whatsoever to distribute to C, D, E, and F; the terms of the GPL had already been broken by B and was thus not in effect at the time.
I hope he picks "leader" and gets off the kernel kick long enough to make corrections suggestions that he can 'lead' with.
Linus consider the GPLv3 to be worse than the GPLv2 on the principle that it now contains terms dictating hardware requirements instead of being just a software license.
I do believe he made these concerns known during the GPLv3 drafting process, which were largely ignored. If he was ignored then, what makes you think the FSF will listen to him in the future? Not surprisingly, his choice as a "leader" is to encourage people to continue using the GPLv2.
Perhaps you are suggesting that the Linux kernel should move to an entirely new license written for it? It wouldn't be the first project to do so.
"If you include these terms exactly as written, you can take modify it and redistribute it with any of the following:"
I should have proofread this better, that should read "If you include these terms exactly as written, anyone can modify it and redistribute it with any of the following:"
"If you have software (any code) that was licensed to you under the GPLv2 that code cannot be re-distributed with a different license. The wording must be exactly the same."
I'm going to highlight some sections of the GPL boilerplate.
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version.
If you include these terms exactly as written, you can take modify it and redistribute it with any of the following: "Version 2" "Version 2, or (at your option) any later version." "Version 3" "Version 3, or (at your option) any later version." or any of the preceding with a later published version of the GPL.
The same is not true if the boilerplate text omits the later version part.
You sound like the type who, back before OS X, when a single app could bring down the whole system because there was no memory segmentation, would say "Good job of blaming the OS for developer problems." While meanwhile I'd be sitting over on Windows or Linux or even Solaris, watching the same "developer problems" simply result in a segfault or illegal operation, crashing that one app.
Nice try, but Windows 95/98/ME (you know, the versions in widespread use until a few years after OSX launched) would give you at best a General Protection Fault, which would often destabilize the system requiring a reboot before everything would work properly again, or give you the blue screen of death.
Indeed, the biggest killer feature of OS X 10.5 (Leopard) is automated backups for the real world. I cannot see a significant number of home users backing up regularly before this, on any operating system. (Of course, I'm expecting this to be available in a Linux distro at some time around then too). I'm sure there will be a few thousand people on/. who do backup, but remember you aren't like the real world.
Wow, Apple invented a cool feature this time! Sorry, I meant to type VMS, not Apple.
Anyway, that's enough sarcasm for now. It is a good thing to have for a file system... within reason. I'm not so sure I'd want PostgreSQL or MySQL to make a new version every time I insert or update a row.
Even modern BSDs use a lot of GNU code in the userland. I run FreeBSD and OpenBSD, but I still use the GNU compiler, the GNU shell (on some machines, although I'm slowly switching to zsh), GNUstep and a number of GNUstep applications. I use (GNU) Lilypond sometimes for typesetting music. I use a fair number of applications that use (typically LGPL'd) GNU libraries.
Linux did a lot towards popularizing GPL and GNU. I don't think there would be nearly as many GNU projects if it wasn't for Linux, nor do I think gcc and bash would be included in the BSDs. I fully expect if Linux didn't exist that people wanting to work on such projects would have worked on versions under different licenses, such as the MIT or modified BSD licenses.
Take a look at the list of GNU software, and see how much you use.
I do use some GPL software (most notably Linux and the GNU userland utilities), but it's irrelevant. See the previous section.
If the BSDI USL lawsuit had not delayed the BSD project there would have been no Linux. Linus would have joined one of the BSD projects as just another BSD hacker. One of the BSDs would have become the dominant free software OS.
I believe that if this had happened, Microsoft would have destroyed BSD's commercial chances using "embrace and extend". They would have created a BSD/Windows hybrid that would have duplicated BSD's API. This would have happened because BSD lacks the GPL's so called "viral clause" that prevents embrace and extend. The existence of this hybrid would have been used by Microsoft to prevent the suits from even considering a move to free software.
Of course, this is completely overlooking that Microsoft has had a UNIX license for decades because of Xenix. If Wikipedia is correct, Miscrosoft did borrow code from BSD for Xenix. Of course, that statement isn't sourced...
I have a better idea, lets go back in time and retroactively erase all FOSS ideas originally promoted by one person.
Off I go!
OK, I'm back... but what is this "FOSS" we were talking about? Is that anything like BSD? I'm excited though, this year could be the year of BSD on the desktop!
If it hadn't been for the AT&T Vs BSD lawsuit, no one would care about Linus. We would still be thankful for RMS though. I don't use Linux, but I use GNU software every day.
I'm not following your logic. It looks like you're implying if it wasn't for that suit, BSD would the foremost open source operating system. That also also implies that one of the BSD licenses would be the predominate open source license in use, making the GPL no more than a footnote in the history of open source.
Slashdot Mirror
You weren't talking to me, but I have read up on NAT.
Since the other reply didn't say it, I will: If the XP machine was behind a NAT, the destination address would have been rewritten by the NAT. In other words, the IP would have been in one of the RFC1918 address ranges:
10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 (10/8 prefix)
172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix)
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix)
However, the destination address starts with 24.
Therefore, the only possibility is that the XP machine was acting as the NAT.
This test would only be useful in two circumstances:
1. The test showed the outgoing traffic from the Vista box (it doesn't).
2. The packets were being monitored behind the NAT and the Vista machine was the destination.
Also, since the destination port numbers are conveniently cut off on the right side of the screenshot, you should be suspicious. Why is such a crucial piece of information missing?
As a side note, if companies tell you that you're don't have the right to install software on your computer without needing a license, they're lying to you. Title 17 117(a)(1) explicitly authorizes you to make a copy or adaptation if the software won't run without a copy being made... i.e. you're given a blanket license to install and run (because this also covers copies in memory) software without needing a license to do it.Title 17 (US Copyright Law) 117(b) prohibits you from keeping exact copies of a computer program if you sell the original. It also forbids you from creating an adaption without the copyright owner's consent (so you can't get around the "exact copies" rule). As noted above, you are permitted to make said copies or adaptations if it's required to run the program, but you're not allowed to do anything but use such a copy. I will note that the Title 17 definition of "computer program" appears to exclude data files, such as mp3s.You have a good point there.
I heard that they discovered how to "fix" vampires at UC Sunnydale.
I would have used RAID 1 or RAID 5 as an example, rather than a specific file system. RAID can be done in hardware after all, and is traditionally faster that way.
I wasn't aware that data files could be protected under the GPLv3, due to the restriction of having to distribute the original source. Given the GPL definition of source code ("the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."), I'm fairly sure that would be uncompressed audio ripped from the CD.
It's a moot point, though. If you are not the copyright owner or someone authorized by the copyright owner to make copies, you don't have the right to distribute it, making any license you attempt to apply to it invalid.
I'm not a lawyer, but in the US at least, Microsoft is probably protected from retribution from the FSF by the doctrine of first sale. The same one that allows me to sell a copy of Microsoft Windows I bought because I disagreed with its license terms.
I don't know about in Japan, but in the US, it's not just more expensive, it's twice as (or 100% more) expensive as the PS and PS2 were at launch (PS: $299; PS2: $299; PS3: $599).
By comparison, the Wii launched for 25% more than the Game Cube, which itself launched at the same exact price as all of Nintendo's previous console systems (NES, SNES, N64, GC: $199; Wii: $249). The XBox 360 launched for 33% more than the XBox (XBox: $299; XBox 360: $399).
Seriously, though, the PS3 launched for $200 more than the already overpriced console that had been out for a year. That's seriously dumb.
I can't believe that you said that with a straight face.
I decided to test your statement and draw up a menu that looks like the File and Edit menus of one of Microsoft's most ubiquitos programs, Notepad, using Visual Studio 2005 (C#) and NetBeans 5.5.1 (Java) using their default display types.
Here are some screenshots:
Main app: XP Comctl32,
Edit menu: XP Comctl32,
Things in common between all three:
All support keyboard mnemonics, displayed as an underlined letter
All support shortcut keys, displayed to the right of the menu item
All have minimize, maximize, and close buttons. They also all have the application menu in the upper-left.
Not shown in the picture:
All support submenus
All support toggleable menu items (they show up with a checkmark next to them)
Differences between all three:
Menubar color. XP Comctl32 is the only one to use the system color.
The major differences are listed below
Between XP and
NET menus use a gradient highlight and look like a tab when selected
NET's menubar is a blue left-right gradient
NET menus have a large blue line running down the left side as well as extra whitespace on the right
NET uses an outline for highlighting
NET shortcut keys are right-aligned
NET uses a different color separator, which also doesn't go all the way across the menu
NET's menus are spaced farther apart
Additonally, these are not shown in the picture:
NET can use addiitonal control types as menu items (ComboBox and TextBox)
NET can have icons on menu items
Between XP and Swing:
Swing menu items are in bold
Swing menu items use a different font
Swing's menubar is a silver up-down gradient
Swing uses a blue font for shortcut keys
Swing's highlight color is grey
Swing menus don't have a drop shadow
Swing uses a different color separator
Additonally, these are not shown in the picture:
Swing can use an addiitonal control type as menu items (RadioButton or to be more exact, jRadioButtonMenuItem)
Swing can have icons on menu items
What was the point of this? It was to point out that
Sorry, I meant to say "Since the copy A received was no longer under the aegis of the GPLv3, they have no license to it, and are in turn violating copyright law by distributing it to C, D, E, and F."
I wish I'd caught that before hitting Submit.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think it would work out something like this:
B is distributing a program that requires a patent to A. Since B cannot license the patent required for the program to A, B's distribution to A is violating the GPLv3.
Since the copy A received was no longer under the aegis of the GPLv3, they have no license to it, and are in turn violating the GPLv3 by distributing it to C, D, E, and F.
The fact that the patent needed is owned by A is irrelevant because A had no license whatsoever to distribute to C, D, E, and F; the terms of the GPL had already been broken by B and was thus not in effect at the time.
Linus consider the GPLv3 to be worse than the GPLv2 on the principle that it now contains terms dictating hardware requirements instead of being just a software license.
I do believe he made these concerns known during the GPLv3 drafting process, which were largely ignored. If he was ignored then, what makes you think the FSF will listen to him in the future? Not surprisingly, his choice as a "leader" is to encourage people to continue using the GPLv2.
Perhaps you are suggesting that the Linux kernel should move to an entirely new license written for it? It wouldn't be the first project to do so.
"If you include these terms exactly as written, you can take modify it and redistribute it with any of the following:"
I should have proofread this better, that should read
"If you include these terms exactly as written, anyone can modify it and redistribute it with any of the following:"
I'm going to highlight some sections of the GPL boilerplate.
If you include these terms exactly as written, you can take modify it and redistribute it with any of the following:
"Version 2"
"Version 2, or (at your option) any later version."
"Version 3"
"Version 3, or (at your option) any later version."
or any of the preceding with a later published version of the GPL.
The same is not true if the boilerplate text omits the later version part.
Just to be funny, I'm going to say Software. :P
Wow, Apple invented a cool feature this time! Sorry, I meant to type VMS, not Apple.
Anyway, that's enough sarcasm for now. It is a good thing to have for a file system... within reason. I'm not so sure I'd want PostgreSQL or MySQL to make a new version every time I insert or update a row.
Learn to use the force, you must.
Just in case someone is interested, you can take a look at the Code Conventions for the Java Programming Language.
The cruftiness of source code is directly proportional to the amount of time spent working on it times the number of people working on it.
Has someone created such a law before?
So... when do you think Nestle will sue BP?
Of course, this is completely overlooking that Microsoft has had a UNIX license for decades because of Xenix. If Wikipedia is correct, Miscrosoft did borrow code from BSD for Xenix. Of course, that statement isn't sourced...
You know, I'm willing to bet that's how the MIT License read before the lawyers got to it.
Of course, the FSF won't go for that license because they can't see the code if someone makes changes and distributes the changed version as binaries.
I have a better idea, lets go back in time and retroactively erase all FOSS ideas originally promoted by one person.
Off I go!
OK, I'm back... but what is this "FOSS" we were talking about? Is that anything like BSD? I'm excited though, this year could be the year of BSD on the desktop!
I'm not following your logic. It looks like you're implying if it wasn't for that suit, BSD would the foremost open source operating system. That also also implies that one of the BSD licenses would be the predominate open source license in use, making the GPL no more than a footnote in the history of open source.