I think it would be possible to make a cloaking device. Instead of a screen where each pixel emits or reflects light in all directions, the pixel must be able to appear differently depending on the viewing angle. To get the perspective right, you would have to calibrate for the distance of the viewer you're hiding from to get the perspective right, though. You know those "hologram" things where clear grooved piece of plastic is placed over an interlaced image? I'm thinking something like that.
And no, I don't think it will be practical for at least 30 years, if ever.
People in the open source community have assumed that common sense prevails in the legal system, specifically, that whoever submits a patch which isn't theirs (or knowingly allows such a submission) is responsible for any copyright infringement, and that other distributors and end users are not. SCO is trying to make people think this isn't true, they're trying to convince end users that they are liable. IANAL, so I don't know who's right.
But if redistributors and end users are in fact liable for the transgressions of submitters or maintainers, I think that can be worked around. What if there was a clause which said,
"If you distribute the code, you affirm that you have the right to distribute this software under this license. If this is not the case, the you assume responsibility for all legal fees and damages your recipients may incur if their distribution under the GPL violates the contract rights or copyright of others."
The idea would be that if someone sued a user, the user would be reimbursed by the distributor (say, Red Hat), who would in turn be reimbursed by the maintainer (say, Linus), who would in turn be reimbursed by whoever submitted the infringing patch. In other words, the liability would propagate up the distribution stack to the dishonest submitter. Asking legal advice on slashdot: would such a clause stand?
If so, it would be a selling point of open source software, as you would be indemnified from the likes of SCO. It would also mean OSS authors liable if their code isn't theirs, which would directly counter most of SCO's accusations.
I just did an informal test of this. I bzip2'd a Project Gutenburg bible. I divided the number of compressed bits (8.04 Mbits) by the number of characters (4.96 Mchars) and got 1.62 bits/char.
Conclusions? One or more of the following: bzip2 isn't ideal, English has gotten more verbose since the Bible was translated, line breaks matter, 1.2 is too low, or it was watered down by the legalese in the front.
It would be interesting to see how this information density differs between other etexts. Would an author with a more extensive vocablulary and bigger words have a higher or lower score?
DSL providers sell more bandwidth than they have on the assumption that people won't be using their peak bandwidth all the time. This is perfectly legitimate if and only if they tell people about it. It's not unlimited, it's "within reasonable limits." It would be nice if they codified exactly how much bandwidth you could actually use. If they don't do this, they should get nailed for any applicable truth in advertising laws.
I know there will always be a choice, but I'm still sticking up for what the masses would want if they had the choice. For example, the masses use Microsoft. Yes, I can and have chosen not to, but it's still a bad thing. I don't want the masses to have DRM forced upon them.
It wouldn't totally eliminate my choices, but it would make them more difficult. It's like Word documents - I choose not to use Word, but it's already difficult, what with imperfect filters and so fourth. DRM, especially Microsoft's brand, would make any interoperability both technically and legally impossible. I don't want to see the masses using a homogenous, single, outrageously expensive (no competition), completely closed and encrypted document format, and then calling me a dirty hippie because I don't want to play along.
IIRC, Emacs's mail client has an {{fuck}} option to insert and remove impolite {{shit}} words just to annoy sysadmins who filtered email based on that.
In some respects you're probably better off just trying to fit in with the rest of us and hope that the Justice lightning doesn't strike too close to home.
She spent an astonishing amount of time in attending
lectures and demonstrations, distributing literature for the junior
Anti-Sex League, preparing banners for Hate Week, making collections
for the savings campaign, and such-like activities. It paid, she said,
it was camouflage. If you kept the small rules, you could break the
big ones.
Well, I won't, and I don't, but that's not the point. This is being foisted on unknowing users, who will eventually install it to use some cool new music service.
It's all about the monopolies. Suppose one company decided to sell this DRM stuff. It would never catch on; it doesn't add any value. Nobody would install it. Now, suppose one music company wanted DRM. They'd sell their music with DRM, and they'd instantly lose to others who sold it unencumbered.
Unfortunately, there's a monopoly in both the music industry and the operating systems industry. Microsoft can run any software it wants on 90% of America's desktops. If the RIAA decides they're pushing DRM, there's nobody else you can buy from. (Yes, Linux and indie, but they're not in a controlling position.) So we're screwed.
I think Sun is making a major mistake by not distancing themselves as much as possible from SCO. They're now drinking the SCO Kool-aid (see the "indemnification" comments), and generally taking advantage of the situation. Perhaps it looks good from where they're sitting, but I think it will backfire. Ignoring Linux, while not wise, is understandable. Repeating SCO's FUD, and possibly funding them, is a Very Bad Thing.
In this case, the "many eyes" mantra did cut it. Obviously, it's a bad thing that the bug existed in the first place. But one of those many eyes found the bug, and it was quickly fixed, and everyone was notified.
Consider what would happen if the same bug existed in closed source software. First, it's less likely that the bug would have been found, so the software would remain insecure longer. If someone at the company found the bug, there's no assurance that they'd fix it immediately; it's possible they'd wait until the next service pack, to hide the fact that it ever existed. If a cracker exploited the bug, they'd probably fix it more quickly and be more honest about it's existance, but the damage would have already been done.
This is one instance where the OSS model worked better. Now, if only it could squelch those bugs in the first place.
I'd just like to point out that since your letter is closed, there is absolutely no method for us to ensure you haven't simply copied the open letter. In fact, it's probable the entire letter is just smoke and mirrors. I don't want to hurt you, I just think we need an honest, open discussion of how to depiratize your business model.
Well, "real" advertising takes money. On the other hand, OOo, and by association StarOffice, have tons of word of mouth advertising, which money can't buy (though it does try).
I predict that the suit will be lost, but this could trigger a good thing. Suppose the industries that use sell their devices in powers of two differentiate themselves from those that sell in powers of ten. It wouldn't take long to teach Joe User that abbreviations with "i" in the middle are better.
Not knowing much about how name resolution works from the client programming perspective, I ask, do such actions exist? IOW, is there any way to tell whether a domain is registered or wildcarded?
Slashdot Mirror
...or a magnifying glass and a bright summer day.
And no, I don't think it will be practical for at least 30 years, if ever.
But if redistributors and end users are in fact liable for the transgressions of submitters or maintainers, I think that can be worked around. What if there was a clause which said,
The idea would be that if someone sued a user, the user would be reimbursed by the distributor (say, Red Hat), who would in turn be reimbursed by the maintainer (say, Linus), who would in turn be reimbursed by whoever submitted the infringing patch. In other words, the liability would propagate up the distribution stack to the dishonest submitter. Asking legal advice on slashdot: would such a clause stand?
If so, it would be a selling point of open source software, as you would be indemnified from the likes of SCO. It would also mean OSS authors liable if their code isn't theirs, which would directly counter most of SCO's accusations.
Conclusions? One or more of the following: bzip2 isn't ideal, English has gotten more verbose since the Bible was translated, line breaks matter, 1.2 is too low, or it was watered down by the legalese in the front.
It would be interesting to see how this information density differs between other etexts. Would an author with a more extensive vocablulary and bigger words have a higher or lower score?
Yay, we have the power! But to whom do we complain?
Take that, crackhead moderators!
DSL providers sell more bandwidth than they have on the assumption that people won't be using their peak bandwidth all the time. This is perfectly legitimate if and only if they tell people about it. It's not unlimited, it's "within reasonable limits." It would be nice if they codified exactly how much bandwidth you could actually use. If they don't do this, they should get nailed for any applicable truth in advertising laws.
What exactly constitutes a "technical effect," and how do I produce one? I really think laws should include examples.
It wouldn't totally eliminate my choices, but it would make them more difficult. It's like Word documents - I choose not to use Word, but it's already difficult, what with imperfect filters and so fourth. DRM, especially Microsoft's brand, would make any interoperability both technically and legally impossible. I don't want to see the masses using a homogenous, single, outrageously expensive (no competition), completely closed and encrypted document format, and then calling me a dirty hippie because I don't want to play along.
IIRC, Emacs's mail client has an {{fuck}} option to insert and remove impolite {{shit}} words just to annoy sysadmins who filtered email based on that.
She spent an astonishing amount of time in attending lectures and demonstrations, distributing literature for the junior Anti-Sex League, preparing banners for Hate Week, making collections for the savings campaign, and such-like activities. It paid, she said, it was camouflage. If you kept the small rules, you could break the big ones.
It's all about the monopolies. Suppose one company decided to sell this DRM stuff. It would never catch on; it doesn't add any value. Nobody would install it. Now, suppose one music company wanted DRM. They'd sell their music with DRM, and they'd instantly lose to others who sold it unencumbered.
Unfortunately, there's a monopoly in both the music industry and the operating systems industry. Microsoft can run any software it wants on 90% of America's desktops. If the RIAA decides they're pushing DRM, there's nobody else you can buy from. (Yes, Linux and indie, but they're not in a controlling position.) So we're screwed.
I think Sun is making a major mistake by not distancing themselves as much as possible from SCO. They're now drinking the SCO Kool-aid (see the "indemnification" comments), and generally taking advantage of the situation. Perhaps it looks good from where they're sitting, but I think it will backfire. Ignoring Linux, while not wise, is understandable. Repeating SCO's FUD, and possibly funding them, is a Very Bad Thing.
Remember, Linux isn't free, it's $699.
Speaking of that, I'd be interested to hear their opinion on this.
I think there are plenty of suitable languages. What about Ruby, Python, Perl, C++, Parrot, Java, or Bash?
Consider what would happen if the same bug existed in closed source software. First, it's less likely that the bug would have been found, so the software would remain insecure longer. If someone at the company found the bug, there's no assurance that they'd fix it immediately; it's possible they'd wait until the next service pack, to hide the fact that it ever existed. If a cracker exploited the bug, they'd probably fix it more quickly and be more honest about it's existance, but the damage would have already been done.
This is one instance where the OSS model worked better. Now, if only it could squelch those bugs in the first place.
I'd just like to point out that since your letter is closed, there is absolutely no method for us to ensure you haven't simply copied the open letter. In fact, it's probable the entire letter is just smoke and mirrors. I don't want to hurt you, I just think we need an honest, open discussion of how to depiratize your business model.
He's a pirate! OCR is EVIL! Burn him!
Interesting point - what will the effect be on hard drives, tape backups, and monitors?
Well, "real" advertising takes money. On the other hand, OOo, and by association StarOffice, have tons of word of mouth advertising, which money can't buy (though it does try).
Lemme guess... it's loaded with spam that isn't bouncing thanks to Verisign?
I predict that the suit will be lost, but this could trigger a good thing. Suppose the industries that use sell their devices in powers of two differentiate themselves from those that sell in powers of ten. It wouldn't take long to teach Joe User that abbreviations with "i" in the middle are better.
Not knowing much about how name resolution works from the client programming perspective, I ask, do such actions exist? IOW, is there any way to tell whether a domain is registered or wildcarded?
Yeah, it went down for a minute or so for me too. It's back now.