Open source as a movement might have been named 12ish years ago, but open source software is much older than that.
As much as I want to disprove this, I can't (admittedly, I'm not trying very hard, I'm at work...) I found some uses of 'open' in proximity to 'source' but not the specific popular combination of "open source," prior to 1998. E.g., "the X Window System was conceived from the start as an open system. This means that the developers maintained independence from any manufacturer-specific policy and also that the complete source code is available for free." Linux, Unleashing the Workstation in your PC (1997), p172.
It feels wrong, it seems like "open source" is a term (definitely a concept) that's been around for forever. (I'm 33, and started using Linux, compiling free software (including the NCSA http daemon) etc., at age 16, circa 1993)...
I don't know where you determined that airlines can only fly certain government-prescribed routes. That's patently false. Any pilot, of any plane - airline or not - can file any path they want as long as it follows the basic FAA rules and doesn't put them through the center of a storm or hurricane or into the side of a mountain or something.
Actually, there's a lot of government regulation over routes (look up 'cabotage' and 'clear skies' and the Bermuda Agreement, etc. While deregulation opened things up considerably in the U.S. (for domestic flights) in the late 70s / early 80s (there's no CAB sitting on new route applications indefinitely), you still as a commercial carrier have to contend with gate availability at the destination airport, and airports that can accommodate 737s etc. are almost all municipally owned, so, government controlled...
Yeah, with my PP-ASEL, I can hop in an Archer III and do my pre-flight and squawk 1200 and call KSMO tower, request departure runway 26, right turn at shoreline, and then do whatever the hell I want (subject to the laws of physics, the local proximity of Class A and B (and C and...) airspace, any currently existing TFRs, etc.
But commercial flights, not so much. (Don't get me started on the Wright Amendment, portions of which are still in effect.) E.g., when Southwest wanted to expand service into Boston, they had to work with the Massachusetts Port Authority...
I've seen any number of people point out that US law forbids the use of the SSN for any purpose not related to the Social Security system.
Except, U.S. law says no such thing. There's no prohibition of businesses requesting your SSN, and they can legally refuse to do business with you if you don't provide it. CA has a law prohibiting publicly posting SSNs or using them as identifiers, but other than that...
I don't do much federal criminal yet (that changes Monday; new position), but my understanding of the factors that play into his security classification (education, marital status, lack of a previous record; non-violent crime; etc., etc.) say he'll probably be in a camp. Cheaper that way!:)
BTW, 'droopus' sounds familiar -- did our paths cross before in a copyright context? Do you know Aaron Markham?
You know, you can look it up in PACER...;) It's northern district of Ohio, case no. 10-cr-00216. He plead guilty to "counts 1 and 2" of the information (which I can't load, it's restricted).
This is from the *defense* counsel's sentencing brief: "Mitchell Frost . . . knowingly transmitted computer programs, codes, commands, and information which caused an interruption and otherwise disruption of vulnerable internet web sites, obtain passwords, account information, and other identifying information, causing a loss in excess of $5000.00. Through the use of mal-ware, Mitchell Frost also during this time knowingly possessed 15 or more counterfeit or unauthorized access devices, including 136 credit card accounts, PINs, and security codes, and close to 3000 user names and passwords for various computer systems or networks."
He got self-surrender, which suggests to me he may get a camp; he's serving less than 120 months, didn't get convicted of fraud involving telephones, and is otherwise not a security risk (deportable alien, etc)...
At the very least arguable. The "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA (absent which, an ISP is per se liable for copyright infringement, at least under pre-DMCA precedent, see, e.g., Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena, 839 F.Supp. 1552, 1559 (M.D. Fla., 1993)) apply only to the extent an ISP "has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers." 17 U.S.C. 512(i)(1)(A). http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
Grab a Nolo book or two (check your library, or www.nolo.com), file a "pro se" lawsuit against John Does 1-20, and via that lawsuit subpoena the domain name registrar. Get everything they have, IP address(es) used to register the domain (i.e., load the website), etc. Get records from wherever the site was hosted. Get ISP records corresponding to the IP addresses in use by the person/people who registere the domain name / set up the website. Etc. Document, document, document. Then summarize it in a memo to your employer, citing to the documents you've uncovered (include them as labeled exhibits, e.g., "As you can see from the Billing Information Statement ("Billing"), attached hereto as Exhibit A...")
And then, as long as you're already wet, go swimming. If you can come close to identifying these asshats, amend the complaint and sue 'em. (Service might be tricky, but if you can satisfy the diligence requirement, most jurisdictions will allow substitute service by publication. Then go for the default judgment... Satisfying it will likely be impossible, but having a civil judgment in your favor can't hurt your attempts to remain employed and clear your name.)
Disclaimer, I am a lawyer, but I am not licensed in Indiana, this is not legal advice, this does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Because if I have "no expectation of privacy" from my ISP, then that means they could publish all my information on their website in public view of everyone. My name, address, phone, credit card name (BofA), which sites I like to visit (sleepysex.com), or files download (sexygrandma.torrent). It is a lousy, lousy ruling.
The ISPs have privacy policies that prohibit "publishing all [your] information on their website..." That creates a reasonable expectation of privacy, IMHO. (IAAL.) Most privacy policies will have a provision that permits the release of information for a subpoena, etc. This isn't any different than the pen register cases from eons ago. In fact, the judge in this case cites to circa-2000 Circuit opinions finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in ISP account details, it's not exactly new law, and your sleepysex.com habits aren't, I'm willing to wager, published on your ISP's website.
Maybe it's time for us engineers/programmers to quit our jobs and become lawyers/judges
I'm something of an engineer (well, I'm a member of Tau Beta Pi), and a programmer (started with AppleSoft BASIC on an Apple IIe...), and a lawyer. It's an uphill battle, both educating the judge, and managing the clients (hint, engineers/programmers tend to know as little about the law as they imagine judges and lawyers know about engineering and programming...).
I'm not sure why this is news; far from being "[seriously] off her rocker," Judge Collyer merely applied case law as it's been decided for over a decade. A brief analysis (including a link to her opinion): http://www.packetlaw.com/blog.jsp
Refuse to open your trunk or glove box and see what happens. Refusal is a tacit admission of guilt and therefore is grounds for a search warrant.
Um, simply, no. At least with respect to the truck (since the glove box is within the 'wingspan' of the vehicle's occupant(s), it's been given different treatment). Speaking not just as a lawyer (although predominantly civil, I've handled criminal matters), but as a citizen who has encountered the police under such circumstances and has many good friends in law enforcement (I was the only member of a recent wedding party *not* wearing an ankle holster; bunch of G-Men...)...
". . . [A]ny reasonable officer would recognize that, under clearly established law, Freeman's refusal to consent to a warrantless search . . . could neither itself justify an arrest nor create probable cause . .." Freeman v. Gore, 483 F.3d 404, 416 (5th Cir. Tex. 2007) (citing to SCOTUS, Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 213-214 (1981)).
Graves v. City of Coeur D'Alene, 339 F.3d 828, 842 (9th Cir. 2003): "[R]efus[al] to consent to search cannot be used to establish probable cause."
"It is well [**6] established that a refusal to consent to a search cannot be the basis for a finding of reasonable suspicion. Karnes v. Skrutski, 62 F.3d 485, 495-96 (3d Cir. 1995). In United States v. Williams, the court recognized that an officer's consideration of a defendant's refusal to consent to a search would violate the Fourth Amendment. 271 F.3d 1262, 1268 (10th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1019, 122 S. Ct. 1610, 152 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2002)." United States v. Leal, 235 Fed. Appx. 937, 939 (3d Cir. Pa. 2007)
I wonder what they will change. The amendment or make the use of these illegal.
I'm reasonably sure this is already prohibited by the 4th Amendment, as interpreted by SCOTUS. In Kyllo v. U.S. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15840045591115721227&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr, the Court held: "obtaining by senseenhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area," constitutes a search-- at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use." (A discussion of how the protection of a car differs from a house, legally, is beyond the scope of this post;) but suffice to say there are at least some areas of the car and the person that are constitutionally protected...)
You aren't supposed to read the GPL, only its preamble. The rest of meant for lawyers and is as long as it takes to be bulletproof.
Wow, bulletproof? I'm a lawyer, I've worked with very smart lawyers, and no one I know of would call the GPL "bulletproof." Or even all that comprehensible. For instance, the lack of a definition of "derived works," which the Apache license at least gets right. The ambiguity created (leading to the LGPL and Linus having to include his interpretation to the Linux copyright: This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work" (http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING)... It's a massive headache waiting to happen.
Then have the two programs simply be a binary 1 and binary 0.
You've never read Altai, have you? It, or a variant, have been adopted by every court that's had to analyze computer copyright issues since its deciding. http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/altai.html The 1 / 0 would be clearly excluded from a copyright analysis under the 'scenes-a-faire' doctrine.
Not true. In this case, it'd be a work for hire, and the copyright would rest with the company that paid the authors, not the authors itself.
Not necessarily. It's only a "work [made] for hire" if the coders were employed by the company (not independent contractors), or the work falls into a narrowly defined category of things that *can* be explicitly made works for hire.
there was only $63,000 is attorneys fees because it was a default judgement and they did not have to present a case in front of the court. Likey the person will claim they were never served and demand there day in court.
As long as we're using AA doublespeak here ("first step . . . admitting . .."), might as well continue in that vein. "Progress, not perfection." The line just shows progress. And that's all that matters. Oh, yeah, and "fake it 'till you make it."
(No, I've never been in AA, but I was (am?) in recovery from anorexia, and eating disorders and the various addictions have a high degree of population overlap.)
(As an anorexic, I already know that I'm not *worthy* of good service, and so I never complained about AT&T's iPhone coverage . ..)
There is significant precedent in copyright law that lists of facts or data cannot be copyrighted.
See, e.g. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
Applied in a case pretty similar to this, NAUTICAL SOLUTIONS MARKETING v. BOATS.COM, 8:02-cv-760-T-23TGW (M.D.Fla. 04/1/2004), where the court held that loading a website to extract non-copyrightable facts was a fair use, and that the facts (details of yachts being offered for sale) were, of course, not copyrightable. It's a district court opinion and therefore not binding authority, but could be persuasive. (Although see BUC International Corp. v. International Yacht Council Ltd., No. 04-13653 (11th Cir., 2007).)
What possible difference does it make whether the subject is a public figure or not? All are supposed to be equal under the law. Heaven help us if we actually start having separate laws for celebrities.
Too late, we've had a separate legal standard for "celebrities" (public figures) for over forty years, starting with Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967): http://supreme.justia.com/us/388/130/case.html
I used netscape communicator to write all my papers for uni, mainly because it was available under windows and unix (IRIX in our case) and could be read by anyone on any platform.
I did the same thing, mostly because I dual-booted between Windows NT and Slackware Linux. Actually, Netscape was (before I learned LaTeX etc) the only app I could get decent formatted printing out of, on my PCL3 HP DeskJet 400, on Linux, circa 1996. (I was a n00b. I don't think I'd even discovered a2ps yet!)
But that was before my academic work had to include footnotes, cross-references within the document, etc. Writing papers in HTML was use of a simpler tool, from a more civilized age.;)
These days for me it's OpenOffice.org FTW, it's not perfect but it's usable for what I need it to do (mostly keeping contract revisions straight, with cross-references and changes tracked, etc). Still cross-platform, much better results.
Slashdot Mirror
Open source as a movement might have been named 12ish years ago, but open source software is much older than that.
As much as I want to disprove this, I can't (admittedly, I'm not trying very hard, I'm at work...) I found some uses of 'open' in proximity to 'source' but not the specific popular combination of "open source," prior to 1998. E.g., "the X Window System was conceived from the start as an open system. This means that the developers maintained independence from any manufacturer-specific policy and also that the complete source code is available for free." Linux, Unleashing the Workstation in your PC (1997), p172.
It feels wrong, it seems like "open source" is a term (definitely a concept) that's been around for forever. (I'm 33, and started using Linux, compiling free software (including the NCSA http daemon) etc., at age 16, circa 1993)...
There was also "coke" (as in the colloquial term in many places for any soda) before "coca-cola"
Um, citation needed. Coca-cola was originally descriptive (coca leaves and cola beans); "Coke" stems directly from Coca-Cola. http://supreme.justia.com/us/254/143/case.html; http://lawschool.courtroomview.com/acf_cases/10003-coca-cola-co-v-busch.
Actually, there's a lot of government regulation over routes (look up 'cabotage' and 'clear skies' and the Bermuda Agreement, etc. While deregulation opened things up considerably in the U.S. (for domestic flights) in the late 70s / early 80s (there's no CAB sitting on new route applications indefinitely), you still as a commercial carrier have to contend with gate availability at the destination airport, and airports that can accommodate 737s etc. are almost all municipally owned, so, government controlled...
Yeah, with my PP-ASEL, I can hop in an Archer III and do my pre-flight and squawk 1200 and call KSMO tower, request departure runway 26, right turn at shoreline, and then do whatever the hell I want (subject to the laws of physics, the local proximity of Class A and B (and C and ...) airspace, any currently existing TFRs, etc.
But commercial flights, not so much. (Don't get me started on the Wright Amendment, portions of which are still in effect.) E.g., when Southwest wanted to expand service into Boston, they had to work with the Massachusetts Port Authority...
Except, U.S. law says no such thing. There's no prohibition of businesses requesting your SSN, and they can legally refuse to do business with you if you don't provide it. CA has a law prohibiting publicly posting SSNs or using them as identifiers, but other than that...
Xi Graphics has (had?) a CDE for Linux; I ran it for a couple of years, when I was also admin on Sun boxes, for consistency.
I don't do much federal criminal yet (that changes Monday; new position), but my understanding of the factors that play into his security classification (education, marital status, lack of a previous record; non-violent crime; etc., etc.) say he'll probably be in a camp. Cheaper that way! :)
BTW, 'droopus' sounds familiar -- did our paths cross before in a copyright context? Do you know Aaron Markham?
You know, you can look it up in PACER... ;) It's northern district of Ohio, case no. 10-cr-00216. He plead guilty to "counts 1 and 2" of the information (which I can't load, it's restricted).
This is from the *defense* counsel's sentencing brief: "Mitchell Frost . . . knowingly transmitted computer programs, codes, commands, and information which caused an interruption and otherwise disruption of vulnerable internet web sites, obtain passwords, account information, and other identifying information, causing a loss in excess of $5000.00. Through the use of mal-ware, Mitchell Frost also during this time knowingly possessed 15 or more counterfeit or unauthorized access devices, including 136 credit card accounts, PINs, and security codes, and close to 3000 user names and passwords for various computer systems or networks."
He got self-surrender, which suggests to me he may get a camp; he's serving less than 120 months, didn't get convicted of fraud involving telephones, and is otherwise not a security risk (deportable alien, etc)...
At the very least arguable. The "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA (absent which, an ISP is per se liable for copyright infringement, at least under pre-DMCA precedent, see, e.g., Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena, 839 F.Supp. 1552, 1559 (M.D. Fla., 1993)) apply only to the extent an ISP "has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers." 17 U.S.C. 512(i)(1)(A). http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
Grab a Nolo book or two (check your library, or www.nolo.com), file a "pro se" lawsuit against John Does 1-20, and via that lawsuit subpoena the domain name registrar. Get everything they have, IP address(es) used to register the domain (i.e., load the website), etc. Get records from wherever the site was hosted. Get ISP records corresponding to the IP addresses in use by the person/people who registere the domain name / set up the website. Etc. Document, document, document. Then summarize it in a memo to your employer, citing to the documents you've uncovered (include them as labeled exhibits, e.g., "As you can see from the Billing Information Statement ("Billing"), attached hereto as Exhibit A...")
And then, as long as you're already wet, go swimming. If you can come close to identifying these asshats, amend the complaint and sue 'em. (Service might be tricky, but if you can satisfy the diligence requirement, most jurisdictions will allow substitute service by publication. Then go for the default judgment... Satisfying it will likely be impossible, but having a civil judgment in your favor can't hurt your attempts to remain employed and clear your name.)
Disclaimer, I am a lawyer, but I am not licensed in Indiana, this is not legal advice, this does not create an attorney-client relationship.
The ISPs have privacy policies that prohibit "publishing all [your] information on their website..." That creates a reasonable expectation of privacy, IMHO. (IAAL.) Most privacy policies will have a provision that permits the release of information for a subpoena, etc. This isn't any different than the pen register cases from eons ago. In fact, the judge in this case cites to circa-2000 Circuit opinions finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in ISP account details, it's not exactly new law, and your sleepysex.com habits aren't, I'm willing to wager, published on your ISP's website.
Analysis of this ruling: http://www.packetlaw.com/blog.jsp#20100911-1
I'm something of an engineer (well, I'm a member of Tau Beta Pi), and a programmer (started with AppleSoft BASIC on an Apple IIe...), and a lawyer. It's an uphill battle, both educating the judge, and managing the clients (hint, engineers/programmers tend to know as little about the law as they imagine judges and lawyers know about engineering and programming...).
I'm not sure why this is news; far from being "[seriously] off her rocker," Judge Collyer merely applied case law as it's been decided for over a decade. A brief analysis (including a link to her opinion): http://www.packetlaw.com/blog.jsp
Um, simply, no. At least with respect to the truck (since the glove box is within the 'wingspan' of the vehicle's occupant(s), it's been given different treatment). Speaking not just as a lawyer (although predominantly civil, I've handled criminal matters), but as a citizen who has encountered the police under such circumstances and has many good friends in law enforcement (I was the only member of a recent wedding party *not* wearing an ankle holster; bunch of G-Men...)...
". . . [A]ny reasonable officer would recognize that, under clearly established law, Freeman's refusal to consent to a warrantless search . . . could neither itself justify an arrest nor create probable cause . . ." Freeman v. Gore, 483 F.3d 404, 416 (5th Cir. Tex. 2007) (citing to SCOTUS, Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 213-214 (1981)).
Graves v. City of Coeur D'Alene, 339 F.3d 828, 842 (9th Cir. 2003): "[R]efus[al] to consent to search cannot be used to establish probable cause."
"It is well [**6] established that a refusal to consent to a search cannot be the basis for a finding of reasonable suspicion. Karnes v. Skrutski, 62 F.3d 485, 495-96 (3d Cir. 1995). In United States v. Williams, the court recognized that an officer's consideration of a defendant's refusal to consent to a search would violate the Fourth Amendment. 271 F.3d 1262, 1268 (10th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1019, 122 S. Ct. 1610, 152 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2002)." United States v. Leal, 235 Fed. Appx. 937, 939 (3d Cir. Pa. 2007)
Etc.
I'm reasonably sure this is already prohibited by the 4th Amendment, as interpreted by SCOTUS. In Kyllo v. U.S. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15840045591115721227&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr, the Court held: "obtaining by senseenhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area," constitutes a search-- at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use." (A discussion of how the protection of a car differs from a house, legally, is beyond the scope of this post ;) but suffice to say there are at least some areas of the car and the person that are constitutionally protected...)
Wow, bulletproof? I'm a lawyer, I've worked with very smart lawyers, and no one I know of would call the GPL "bulletproof." Or even all that comprehensible. For instance, the lack of a definition of "derived works," which the Apache license at least gets right. The ambiguity created (leading to the LGPL and Linus having to include his interpretation to the Linux copyright: This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work" (http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING)... It's a massive headache waiting to happen.
You've never read Altai, have you? It, or a variant, have been adopted by every court that's had to analyze computer copyright issues since its deciding. http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/altai.html The 1 / 0 would be clearly excluded from a copyright analysis under the 'scenes-a-faire' doctrine.
Not necessarily. It's only a "work [made] for hire" if the coders were employed by the company (not independent contractors), or the work falls into a narrowly defined category of things that *can* be explicitly made works for hire.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
There was only $63,600 in attorney fees because that's what they're capped at, per C.D. Cal. Local Rule 55-3 in a default judgment ($5,600 plus 2% of the amount over $100,000; they used the PayPal amount of $3,000,000 (rounded)): http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/LocRules.nsf/a224d2a6f8771599882567cc005e9d79/0d9758b2da11901188256dc5005973fd?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,55-3
The defendant was served, personally, by a P.I. / process server, who swore an affidavit.
http://la.streetsblog.org/2010/05/31/hollywood-lapd-misses-the-memo-caught-on-tape-brutalizing-cyclists/
https://ecf.cadc.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=ShowDoc&dls_id=01206657831&caseId=23733&dktType=dktPublic
I think you both mean the AUSA; FBI investigates and arrests (executive branch), it does not prosecute.
As long as we're using AA doublespeak here ("first step . . . admitting . . ."), might as well continue in that vein. "Progress, not perfection." The line just shows progress. And that's all that matters. Oh, yeah, and "fake it 'till you make it."
(No, I've never been in AA, but I was (am?) in recovery from anorexia, and eating disorders and the various addictions have a high degree of population overlap.)
(As an anorexic, I already know that I'm not *worthy* of good service, and so I never complained about AT&T's iPhone coverage . . .)
Applied in a case pretty similar to this, NAUTICAL SOLUTIONS MARKETING v. BOATS.COM, 8:02-cv-760-T-23TGW (M.D.Fla. 04/1/2004), where the court held that loading a website to extract non-copyrightable facts was a fair use, and that the facts (details of yachts being offered for sale) were, of course, not copyrightable. It's a district court opinion and therefore not binding authority, but could be persuasive. (Although see BUC International Corp. v. International Yacht Council Ltd., No. 04-13653 (11th Cir., 2007).)
Too late, we've had a separate legal standard for "celebrities" (public figures) for over forty years, starting with Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967): http://supreme.justia.com/us/388/130/case.html
I did the same thing, mostly because I dual-booted between Windows NT and Slackware Linux. Actually, Netscape was (before I learned LaTeX etc) the only app I could get decent formatted printing out of, on my PCL3 HP DeskJet 400, on Linux, circa 1996. (I was a n00b. I don't think I'd even discovered a2ps yet!)
But that was before my academic work had to include footnotes, cross-references within the document, etc. Writing papers in HTML was use of a simpler tool, from a more civilized age. ;)
These days for me it's OpenOffice.org FTW, it's not perfect but it's usable for what I need it to do (mostly keeping contract revisions straight, with cross-references and changes tracked, etc). Still cross-platform, much better results.
... Here it is: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/06/25/07-35800.pdf