Yet, a base Mozilla 1.7 downloaded right after release will have this issue for a very long time
NO, because, Firefox (and I think also Mozilla) now have a function to automatically dowload new versions or security fixes.
Also please note the steps on had to take to get infected by malware before the fix (whitelisting domains):
reminded the Slashdot faithful that Mozilla is not invincible and that it is now big enough for malware (virus and spyware)
I would like to point out that this is slightly misleading (as it implies Mozilla had a security flaw before the fix), because, even before the whitelist fix was added, you had to do the following to get infected by any malware:
Enable Javascript (enabled by default)
Enable install from XPI locally and globally (enabled by default??)
Click on a Javascript link on a WWW page (which would be shown in status bar) (N.B. Mozilla does not execute XPI-related JS automatically--the user must have clicked the link)
Wait a few seconds while watching a very large uncancellable dialog box saying "A website is requesting permission to install the following item", giving full details of the program it is installing (including its signatures in big red letters, its name and its URI), and saying in big bold letters, "Malicious software can damage your computer or violate your privacy. You can only install software from source you can trust."
After waiting a few seconds you, you then had to press a button labelled "install now".
I'm guessing that even some ex-MSIE users might not go through all that on the request of a malicious WWW site they have found.
reminded the Slashdot faithful that Mozilla is not invincible and that it is now big enough for malware (virus and spyware)
I would like to point out that this is slightly misleading (as it implies Mozilla had a security flaw before the fix), because, even before the whitelist fix was added, you had to do the following to get infected by any malware:
Enable Javascript
Enable install from XPI locally and globally
Click on a Javascript link on a WWW page (which would be shown in status bar) (N.B. Mozilla does not execute XPI-related JS automatically--the user must have clicked the link)
Wait a few seconds while watching a very large uncancellable dialog box saying "A website is requesting permission to install the following item", giving full details of the program it is installing (including its signatures in big red letters, its name and its URI), and saying in big bold letters, "Malicious software can damage your computer or violate your privacy. You can only install software from source you can trust."
After waiting a few seconds you, you then had to press a button labelled "install now".
I'm guessing that even some ex-MSIE users might not go through all that on the request of a malicious WWW site they have found.
CeCILL removes rights from the user and requires agreement so it is a contract, not a license (see this post). (Actually it seems to be an illegal contract which violates the European directive on contract law.) To be a "compatible license" it must actually be a license.
Assuming it is a valid license (which it isn't), the CeCILL only invokes the compatibility clause (5.3.4) "[i]n the event that the Modified or unmodified Software includes code that is subject to the GPL"; i.e.: it itself says that it only attempts to be GNU-GPL-compatible in cases where the original person to put the software under CeCILL included already GNU-GPL-ed software under CeCILL (i.e.: where the person who put it under CeCILL committed copyright infringement (aka "piracy") on GNU-GPL-ed software--assuming the software they used was only available under the GNU GPL).
Most importantly; assuming the CeCILL itself allows merging with GNU-GPL-ed code (which it doesn't); because CeCILL puts many additional restrictions (e.g.: on agreement, running the prgram, downloading the program) on the user (even going so far as attempting to remove the user's pre-existing natural rights), regardless of whether it would violate the CeCILL, it would be "violating" the GNU GPL to link/join/merge exclusively GNU-GPL-ed software with exclusively CeCILL-ed software.
Software covered by the CeCILL exclusively does not seem to conform to the FSF free-software definition (or the DFSG or the OSD), therefore can never be likned with copylefted (e.g.: GNU-GPL-ed software).
what I don't like about this
license is that you have to accept it
If you have to accept it then it is not a license (under any jurisdiction AFAIK). A license is merely a one-way grant of permssion. This document is trying to be a contract, but I suspect it is actually null and void. Whatever it is, it is defintely not free in any way. Also, Article 5.3.4 incites the illegal copying of GNU-GPL-ed works.
Correct. The french government need better lawyers. (As I said in another post, if it is truly GNU-GPL-compatible in France then it this license is not nessecary as this means that the GNU GPL is fully compatible with French law. QED.)
(I'm basing my critique on the English version as my French is awful, and some criticisms may be unfair due to translation problems or cultural differences. However, I am in the UK, and contract law and the distinction between contracts and licenses are basically set by European law and internationasl agreements, so should be basically the same.)
IANALOAFP but Article 2 seems to imply that this is not a license but a contract or agreement between two parties in which one agrees to give the other a license. In other words, this "license" gives no permissions with regard to the work in question. Article 3.1 confirms this by saying what is considered acceptance of the contract. However, note that this contract would AFAIK be considered null and void under the European directive on contract law.
Article 3.2 talks about "limitations to use by experienced users". I assume that is a bad translation and does not mean that experienced users may not use the software.
Both parts of article 4 seem to confirm this is a contract. Contracts have terms and effective dates.
Article 5.0 confirms that both parties must do things (i.e.: this potentially takes away the rights of the user as well as granting them rights), so this is *not* a license. Article 5.1 seems to go beyond even the tighter restrictions of copyright law in Europe, therefore this is not a copyright license. Article 5.2.4 attempts to force this contract to be compatible with the General Public License. Even if this was somehow altered into a license, this clause would be contradictory to the rest of the license (assuming that the GPL it talks about is the FSF's GNU GPL--this is not at all clear). Even if this clause was not contradictory, it only allows redistribution of CeCILL-ed software under the GNU GPL if it contains GNU-GPL-ed code. This does not seem to change the fact that anyone distribtuing GNU-GPL-ed code under this license (without a seperate non-GNU-GPL license from the copyright holder of that code) is "pirating" that GNU-GPL-ed code.
Article 6.4.2 and most of the rest of the contract require undertakings from the user confirming that this defintely is a contract.
BTW, I've read the license and it appears to not be compatible with the GNU GPL as it puts further restrictions on the licensee than the GNU GPL (e.g.: downloading, running &c the program).
but in France if a contract is not in French, it's not worth anything
It is a good job, then, that the GNU GPL is not a contract. (BTW, I suspect that if the French did have such a law on contracts it would be illegally because it would contradict the laws set down by the EU on what constitutes a contract.)
Different legal system, so you need to adapt the license for it.
No you don't--the GNU GPL works fine in France. Due to the Bern convention the basics of copyright are the same all over the world. There are other additional author rights in France, but there already exist free licenses to cover these.
In fact, logically, if the GNU GPL was somehow incompatible or did not work fully with French law then the French government could not claim that their license was compatible with the GNU GPL under French law. That is, if the new license is really compatible with the GNU GPL then, by definition, the GNU GPL would work just as well as it in French law therefore there is no need for the new license.
I don't like the US goverment either (as a Ukonian) but the USan free software community and the FSF are the antithesis of the current US government, as they stand up for liberty and human rights--in a way they are the true USans (who follow the ideals of the constitution) as opposed to the USans who now give the US such a bad name.
Assuming the developer(s) in question is/are not the sole holder(s) of the copyright on the GNU-GPL-ed work that they are distributing (in which case they can do whatever they like), they cannot use it as a replacement without permission of all the copyright holders of the work.
Assuming the developer(s) is/are the sole copyright holder(s) and this new license is GNU-GPL-compatible, they can license the work under both, but they cannot stop people in France from distributing their work under the ters of the GNU GPL (which is what you seem to be suggesting).
Also, as I state in my other post, there is no point in using this license. If the GNU GPL was incopmatible with french law, the FSF would, no doubt, rewrite it to make it compatible; but it is not.
The GNU GPL is compatible with French copyright law as it stands. The FSF et al also use a seperate license (which I cannot find a copy of nowdespite searching) for the special rights of the author that exist in France.
Also, FSF Europe and the EC recently colaborated on a European trademark license for free software (which basically says that the trademark is allowed to be used only if the software is not sold together with non-free software).
Perhaps they are trying to win over the geeks before they turn on sitefinder?
Not withstanding the fact that no one will be won over by anything V*r*sign/N*tw*rkSolutions do if they bring back S*tefinder, they do not acknowledge their use of ODP (DMoz) data (even on the detailed ODP listings page--which contains only ODP data and which N*tw*rkSolutions even claim the copyright for). I do not know whether they are illegally copying the other data (e.g.: Yahoo's) but "pirating" information released under a free license probably "will not win over the geeks".
Although I congratulate the EFF for doing this, I think that battling against each patent one-by-one is going to be a never-ending losing battle.
We need an overhaul of the patent system (back to how it used to be when it was first put in place)and a halt to the corrupt practices of the patent offices. This can only be done politically, and it can be done if enough of us contact our democratic representatives (many of whom are already trying to stop the illegal, immoral and corrupt practices of patetn offices) [insert insesitive-clod comment here for anyone under a dictatorship].
Also, we need to stop complying with patents that were granted illegally. Too many companies, individuals, projects and organisations comply with clearly illegal patents (because they're scared of getting sued).
It seemed to be the best word to fit the situation. I don't usuually use it. Is it a buzzword?
Dictionary.com definition:
A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.
Firstly, I was not been fanatical about Mozilla--I was pointing to more details on the story.
>>I saw Opera 6.x running on Nokia 7650 which has real low ram and it was running damn fine. Point me a Mozilla that can do same job faster with excellent customer service
That question is obviously answered by the story. Nokia do not seem to agree as they are willing to put their money into developing Mozilla for their phones.
I'm not sure whether you are trolling but assuming you were not...
Most people believe that RL does not have an infinite number of dimensions. Indeed, it appears to have three.
>>I thought then, and continue to believe in most cases, that the alleged "content" constituted by most grahpics is a waste of bandwidth.<<
I agree.
>>the fact is that most of the actual information (as opposed to advertising or pretty fluff) remains textual in nature, and in fact could be better represented aurally than graphically...<<
I also agree. I was talking about how the WWW appears to the majority of mundane users on the majority of sites. I would love the WWW to be less graphical in nature (or at least support stylesheets for aural, tactile, &c devices and only use semantic tags).
>>It's not clear here whether you are using the sense "Windows" or "windows". <<
It should be clear from the context that I am using the word "window" in the normal sense: to refer to a square object (on the screen).
>>if your only experience with X was e.g. using an early version of Gnome window management.<<
My home system (which I am not using now because I don't have Internet access ATM hence my slwness in answering) uses GNOME 2.6.
>>You seem to equate "Linux" with CLI, somehow dissociating it with X Windows<<
This is nonsense. I don't mention Linux or GNU specifically. I was comparing windows systems with command-line systems (GNU/Linux, of course, uses both.)
>> more efficeint GUI under MS Windows than under some other system (e.g. Linux + X)<<
I said that XWindows was more efficient than MSWindows and very clearly. You are just turning round what I said. Either you did not read what I said or are trolling.
I don't really have much experience with Macs, but it is windows that make MacOS a good OS--indeed it was the first to make them commercially viable. Let's face it, it's CLI isn't great.
Or maybe gnu young are also kids (or are they fawns) which might put a while new meaning on it.
Disclaimer: Any allusions to RMS are purely coincidental and meant with affection (m an FSF member),and any to Sir Bilbo of the Gatepeople are purely true and I love (to hate) Sir Billy.
Slashdot Mirror
Also please note the steps on had to take to get infected by malware before the fix (whitelisting domains):
I would like to point out that this is slightly misleading (as it implies Mozilla had a security flaw before the fix), because, even before the whitelist fix was added, you had to do the following to get infected by any malware:- Enable Javascript (enabled by default)
- Enable install from XPI locally and globally (enabled by default??)
- Click on a Javascript link on a WWW page (which would be shown in status bar) (N.B. Mozilla does not execute XPI-related JS automatically--the user must have clicked the link)
- Wait a few seconds while watching a very large uncancellable dialog box saying "A website is requesting permission to install the following item", giving full details of the program it is installing (including its signatures in big red letters, its name and its URI), and saying in big bold letters, "Malicious software can damage your computer or violate your privacy. You can only install software from source you can trust."
- After waiting a few seconds you, you then had to press a button labelled "install now".
I'm guessing that even some ex-MSIE users might not go through all that on the request of a malicious WWW site they have found.I digress.
- Enable Javascript
- Enable install from XPI locally and globally
- Click on a Javascript link on a WWW page (which would be shown in status bar) (N.B. Mozilla does not execute XPI-related JS automatically--the user must have clicked the link)
- Wait a few seconds while watching a very large uncancellable dialog box saying "A website is requesting permission to install the following item", giving full details of the program it is installing (including its signatures in big red letters, its name and its URI), and saying in big bold letters, "Malicious software can damage your computer or violate your privacy. You can only install software from source you can trust."
- After waiting a few seconds you, you then had to press a button labelled "install now".
I'm guessing that even some ex-MSIE users might not go through all that on the request of a malicious WWW site they have found.I digress.
- CeCILL removes rights from the user and requires agreement so it is a contract, not a license (see this post). (Actually it seems to be an illegal contract which violates the European directive on contract law.) To be a "compatible license" it must actually be a license.
- Assuming it is a valid license (which it isn't), the CeCILL only invokes the compatibility clause (5.3.4) "[i]n the event that the Modified or unmodified Software includes code that is subject to the GPL"; i.e.: it itself says that it only attempts to be GNU-GPL-compatible in cases where the original person to put the software under CeCILL included already GNU-GPL-ed software under CeCILL (i.e.: where the person who put it under CeCILL committed copyright infringement (aka "piracy") on GNU-GPL-ed software--assuming the software they used was only available under the GNU GPL).
- Most importantly; assuming the CeCILL itself allows merging with GNU-GPL-ed code (which it doesn't); because CeCILL puts many additional restrictions (e.g.: on agreement, running the prgram, downloading the program) on the user (even going so far as attempting to remove the user's pre-existing natural rights), regardless of whether it would violate the CeCILL, it would be "violating" the GNU GPL to link/join/merge exclusively GNU-GPL-ed software with exclusively CeCILL-ed software.
- Software covered by the CeCILL exclusively does not seem to conform to the FSF free-software definition (or the DFSG or the OSD), therefore can never be likned with copylefted (e.g.: GNU-GPL-ed software).
Those are the main reasons.Someone from the UK (i.e.: a Brit or someone from Northern Ireland). It is kinda funny-sounding and possibly deprecatery.
(I'm basing my critique on the English version as my French is awful, and some criticisms may be unfair due to translation problems or cultural differences. However, I am in the UK, and contract law and the distinction between contracts and licenses are basically set by European law and internationasl agreements, so should be basically the same.)
IANALOAFP but Article 2 seems to imply that this is not a license but a contract or agreement between two parties in which one agrees to give the other a license. In other words, this "license" gives no permissions with regard to the work in question. Article 3.1 confirms this by saying what is considered acceptance of the contract. However, note that this contract would AFAIK be considered null and void under the European directive on contract law.
Article 3.2 talks about "limitations to use by experienced users". I assume that is a bad translation and does not mean that experienced users may not use the software.
Both parts of article 4 seem to confirm this is a contract. Contracts have terms and effective dates.
Article 5.0 confirms that both parties must do things (i.e.: this potentially takes away the rights of the user as well as granting them rights), so this is *not* a license. Article 5.1 seems to go beyond even the tighter restrictions of copyright law in Europe, therefore this is not a copyright license. Article 5.2.4 attempts to force this contract to be compatible with the General Public License. Even if this was somehow altered into a license, this clause would be contradictory to the rest of the license (assuming that the GPL it talks about is the FSF's GNU GPL--this is not at all clear). Even if this clause was not contradictory, it only allows redistribution of CeCILL-ed software under the GNU GPL if it contains GNU-GPL-ed code. This does not seem to change the fact that anyone distribtuing GNU-GPL-ed code under this license (without a seperate non-GNU-GPL license from the copyright holder of that code) is "pirating" that GNU-GPL-ed code.
Article 6.4.2 and most of the rest of the contract require undertakings from the user confirming that this defintely is a contract.
I have found the special license for the rights of the author [Fiduciary Licence Agreement] that I was on about. It was created as an FSF-Europe project.
BTW, I've read the license and it appears to not be compatible with the GNU GPL as it puts further restrictions on the licensee than the GNU GPL (e.g.: downloading, running &c the program).
In fact, logically, if the GNU GPL was somehow incompatible or did not work fully with French law then the French government could not claim that their license was compatible with the GNU GPL under French law. That is, if the new license is really compatible with the GNU GPL then, by definition, the GNU GPL would work just as well as it in French law therefore there is no need for the new license.
I don't like the US goverment either (as a Ukonian) but the USan free software community and the FSF are the antithesis of the current US government, as they stand up for liberty and human rights--in a way they are the true USans (who follow the ideals of the constitution) as opposed to the USans who now give the US such a bad name.
This would seem to create a contradictory license.
Assuming the developer(s) is/are the sole copyright holder(s) and this new license is GNU-GPL-compatible, they can license the work under both, but they cannot stop people in France from distributing their work under the ters of the GNU GPL (which is what you seem to be suggesting).
Also, as I state in my other post, there is no point in using this license. If the GNU GPL was incopmatible with french law, the FSF would, no doubt, rewrite it to make it compatible; but it is not.
Also, FSF Europe and the EC recently colaborated on a European trademark license for free software (which basically says that the trademark is allowed to be used only if the software is not sold together with non-free software).
I wasn't being funny at all.
Details of locations of Intel-chip factories
Microsoft already does this. (BTW it costs a lot of money--and that's NOT uinlcuding the bribes).
Although I congratulate the EFF for doing this, I think that battling against each patent one-by-one is going to be a never-ending losing battle.
We need an overhaul of the patent system (back to how it used to be when it was first put in place)and a halt to the corrupt practices of the patent offices. This can only be done politically, and it can be done if enough of us contact our democratic representatives (many of whom are already trying to stop the illegal, immoral and corrupt practices of patetn offices) [insert insesitive-clod comment here for anyone under a dictatorship].
Also, we need to stop complying with patents that were granted illegally. Too many companies, individuals, projects and organisations comply with clearly illegal patents (because they're scared of getting sued).
It seemed to be the best word to fit the situation. I don't usuually use it. Is it a buzzword?
Dictionary.com definition:
A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.
Firstly, I was not been fanatical about Mozilla--I was pointing to more details on the story. >>I saw Opera 6.x running on Nokia 7650 which has real low ram and it was running damn fine. Point me a Mozilla that can do same job faster with excellent customer service That question is obviously answered by the story. Nokia do not seem to agree as they are willing to put their money into developing Mozilla for their phones.
I'm not sure whether you are trolling but assuming you were not...
Most people believe that RL does not have an infinite number of dimensions. Indeed, it appears to have three.
>>I thought then, and continue to believe in most cases, that the alleged "content" constituted by most grahpics is a waste of bandwidth.<<
I agree.
>>the fact is that most of the actual information (as opposed to advertising or pretty fluff) remains textual in nature, and in fact could be better represented aurally than graphically...<<
I also agree. I was talking about how the WWW appears to the majority of mundane users on the majority of sites. I would love the WWW to be less graphical in nature (or at least support stylesheets for aural, tactile, &c devices and only use semantic tags).
>>It's not clear here whether you are using the sense "Windows" or "windows". <<
It should be clear from the context that I am using the word "window" in the normal sense: to refer to a square object (on the screen).
>>if your only experience with X was e.g. using an early version of Gnome window management.<<
My home system (which I am not using now because I don't have Internet access ATM hence my slwness in answering) uses GNOME 2.6.
>>You seem to equate "Linux" with CLI, somehow dissociating it with X Windows<<
This is nonsense. I don't mention Linux or GNU specifically. I was comparing windows systems with command-line systems (GNU/Linux, of course, uses both.)
>> more efficeint GUI under MS Windows than under some other system (e.g. Linux + X)<<
I said that XWindows was more efficient than MSWindows and very clearly. You are just turning round what I said. Either you did not read what I said or are trolling.
I don't really have much experience with Macs, but it is windows that make MacOS a good OS--indeed it was the first to make them commercially viable. Let's face it, it's CLI isn't great.
Disclaimer: Any allusions to RMS are purely coincidental and meant with affection (m an FSF member),and any to Sir Bilbo of the Gatepeople are purely true and I love (to hate) Sir Billy.
Also on many other news sources.
There is also more info about the nice little Minimo project (to produce a Gecko-based browser with a tiny footprint).
This may be true. He said "windows"--not "MSWindows" or even "Windows". If I want to refer to the Microsoft OS I usually say MSW.