IBM filed for another PSJ on copyright claims just recently, so maybe that's what you're thinking about.
This is the PSJ that, if it's won, would pretty much gut SCO's case against companies with Unix licenses that contribute to Linux. The other one would gut SCO's ability to make any sort of claim along the lines of "Linux contains code copied from the Unix we own".
And then, in Novell's corner, there's another PSJ that would gut SCO's ability to say they own pretty much anything.
Of course, with all the cases SCO started, it's easy to blur them together... I'm not even gonna think about the other three cases.
If IBM, Redhat, and the others are making their money off only 40% of the Free Software users then there are a lot of "market share" estimates that are WAY lower than actual.
Yeah.. unfortunately, there's still a long road, with plenty of room for regression. Like with NWN2, which the developers currently plan for Windows-only, to the point of converting the OpenGL graphics of the Aurora engine to DX9 for it. Granted, they've said "things may change".. but it's sad that they're pratically putting effort into making it *not* multi-platform.
Personally, the only things I really miss when I'm using NWScript are arrays and function pointers. Aside from that, it's an extremely capable language that's dumbed down just enough that non-programmers can still make some impressive things with a little work.
So.. yeah. I'm pretty happy with how it turned out. I'd have liked a few more things added into it, but I'm really glad it didn't end up as some gimped thing targetted at the lowest common denominator.
Your story's already been on Slashdot. This one may be about the same general subject, but it is about a completely different method.
People are always saying "prove it" when someone says that lots of things are bought due to file sharing... the subject of this article is trying to do precisely that. That's hardly a duplicate of an article about some researchers who statistically compared music sales against popularity on P2P networks.
This isn't a duplicate, because it's talking about a completely different site, and a completely different method of gathering data.
The UNC/Harvard thing also isn't proof.. studies that weigh in on one side or the other on this issue are a dime a dozen.
This is another way to add more evidence to the issue and more weight to the argument that the effects are minimal. I doubt it's even possible to prove it one way or another.. but every new effort to counter the RIAA/MPAA's paid "independent" studies is definitely news.
Why would Microsoft giving away iPods "coerce gullible Freshmen to buy their products"?
Besides, you don't need a Mac to use an iPod, and these students probably won't go out to buy one if they're getting one free. They might like the player and get a new one later down the road, but it's not as though they would have a lot invested in Apple's hardware to convince them. This isn't anything like Microsoft's usual "make it so this is all they're exposed to so they won't learn to use or want to switch to anything else" tactics.
"Pad2Pad is still in launch mode, and Lewis is expanding the parts inventory. He plans to connect with a major parts distributor, thus gaining access to just about anything you can put on a circuit board."
And the limited number of parts surprised you because...?:)
You must have an awful time at the store when you buy toothpaste, deoderant, shampoo, ice cream... all those choices. Why can't someone just come up with ONE choice for each, that everyone likes!?
Personally, I'd wonder if it would satisfy that particular clause to just automatically say that the software is old and newer versions can be found at the website. It wasn't too long ago that just about every program came with such a disclaimer to cover the times when some years-old copy was found on a backwater ftp or bbs site.
Not allowing distributions of modified versions would probably be the main sticking point. Though that might not prevent inclusion of patches that the user can apply.
If you're going to discuss distribution terms, you might want to look at the distributor's license. It has a lot of legalese in it (and IANAL), but it looks like it has fairly lenient terms for inclusion into an open-source OS distribution.
The header of the license you linked points out that it is for end-users only, not distributors.
"Judge Kimball has stated that The SCO Group has failed to meet the requirements of the law in its complaint against Novell and has dismissed the case but gives TSG 30 days to try to meet the legal requirements."
This is total crap. That's not what happened at all!
That is exactly what happened... no more, no less. The judge ruled that SCO didn't meet the requirements of the case they were pleading, and dismissed it without prejudice. Since it was without prejudice, SCO has 30 days to fix the errors in their case and bring it back. If it had been with prejudice, a large portion of SCO's claims would have been shot completely out of the water... but that didn't happen, and the article doesn't claim it did either.
Either Lehey or the reviewer also has an odd idea of the GPL: "Lehey said the GPL has the so-called "viral" effect, and that would theoretically cause the remainder (of code) to fall under the GPL as well, "but that's so preposterous that I can't think of any way it could happen"."
How could the license you distribute some of your own code under effect the license you distribute the rest of your code under? You're not licensing the code from yourself, and you can always distribute your code under more than one license.
Except that then SCO files a lawsuit under the exact same complaints as they have against IBM, claiming that the license prohibits Sun from releasing any code that was developed for Solaris because Solaris was a derivitive work of SysV.
In SCO's own little world, their license is so "viral" that the GPL looks like public domain next to it.
Re:After some head-scratching, an honest inquiry
on
Tanenbaum Rebuts Ken Brown
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Is there actually a group of people who check the code for possible violations of the inclusion of proprietary code into the kernel, thereby invalidating the GPL/LGPL or whatever Open Source licensing the Linux Kernel falls under?
Perhaps you'd like to explain how anyone - whether from a big closed-source corporation or part of an open-source collection of coders - is supposed to check code to see if it came from another closed-source product? Whether you're Microsoft or Linus, all you have to go on is the word of the programmer who submitted the code. Linus and others obviously review any code that is submitted (as has been demonstrated recently with attempts to put in backdoors), but like any company, they can't check code against sources they don't have. And in either case, the punishment if such a thing were to happen would come down on the person who knowingly violated copyright.. the programmer who submitted the code.
The only difference between Microsoft and Linus in this situation is that Linus allows anyone to see the code, and check for themselves whether their copyrights are being violated. How would anyone ever know for certain if their code was included into a Microsoft product? Microsoft has provably used code from outside sources before.. even open-source sources.
Mostly, there's the problem of power. These robots are operating with only solar cells for additional power, much farther away from the sun, and in an extremely dusty/sandy environment.
The wind, sand, and dust puts a lot of stress on the rest of the mechanical workings, too.
your signature of the DCO makes you vow that you are responsible for the code, that the code is yours in the making.
No, it vows that you either have rights to that code, or you got it from someone else who said they have rights to it.
That's nothing new. When you submit code to the kernel, you're saying you have rights to it.. if you don't have rights to it, then you're doing something illegal whether you make that vow or not. This just makes the statement of "I am not violating someone else's rights" explicit, rather than the unspoken declaration that comes with publishing something with your own name on it.
A small amount of CPU-time-expense won't hurt the typicall receiver of a small amount of mail. What it *will* do is hit the bulk mailers - both legitimate lists and unwanted spammers.
And hosting providers. The "typical receiver of a small amount of mail" usually doesn't run their own mail server with a dedicated domain. This would impact free mail systems, and all the hosting providers who pack as many domains on a server as the hardware can handle.
On the other hand, it makes it easier for those servers, and for the ISP's that host the servers, to nail an abuser to the wall. I just have to wonder how it would interact with someone who breaks into a server just to send a bunch of spam.
You'd just get 100%-authenticated emails from 1stmortgageusa.biz and naturalviagra4u.com.
Bring it on. Fully-authenticated emails would make it a heck of a lot easier to verify that something isn't a joe-job and kick someone off the network. It'd also make it easier to blacklist stuff without huge amounts of collateral damage.
Unfortunately, it sounds like this method would make receiving and sending emails more cpu-time expensive.. but the trade-off isn't as bad as many of the other "solutions".
Re:Really Now..
on
Hardened PHP
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That depends on whether the remote server is set up to execute the file.
If the remote server is set up to simply send the file as text, then the *local* server will execute the text. As a PHP script. As the local user. And your remote attacker has the ability to run any commands on the server that a local script could run (usually, "wget a rootkit from this other server, unzip it, and execute it...")
Re:I wonder if it is from Russia?
on
A Worm's Worm
·
· Score: 1, Troll
But do you still infect it if you walk without rythm?
Slashdot Mirror
Uh... No.
IBM filed for another PSJ on copyright claims just recently, so maybe that's what you're thinking about.
This is the PSJ that, if it's won, would pretty much gut SCO's case against companies with Unix licenses that contribute to Linux. The other one would gut SCO's ability to make any sort of claim along the lines of "Linux contains code copied from the Unix we own".
And then, in Novell's corner, there's another PSJ that would gut SCO's ability to say they own pretty much anything.
Of course, with all the cases SCO started, it's easy to blur them together... I'm not even gonna think about the other three cases.
If IBM, Redhat, and the others are making their money off only 40% of the Free Software users then there are a lot of "market share" estimates that are WAY lower than actual.
Yeah.. unfortunately, there's still a long road, with plenty of room for regression. Like with NWN2, which the developers currently plan for Windows-only, to the point of converting the OpenGL graphics of the Aurora engine to DX9 for it. Granted, they've said "things may change".. but it's sad that they're pratically putting effort into making it *not* multi-platform.
My boss is an alien?!
Oh, pointy ears. Never mind.
Personally, the only things I really miss when I'm using NWScript are arrays and function pointers. Aside from that, it's an extremely capable language that's dumbed down just enough that non-programmers can still make some impressive things with a little work.
So.. yeah. I'm pretty happy with how it turned out. I'd have liked a few more things added into it, but I'm really glad it didn't end up as some gimped thing targetted at the lowest common denominator.
Oh, you mean this story?
Your story's already been on Slashdot. This one may be about the same general subject, but it is about a completely different method.
People are always saying "prove it" when someone says that lots of things are bought due to file sharing... the subject of this article is trying to do precisely that. That's hardly a duplicate of an article about some researchers who statistically compared music sales against popularity on P2P networks.
This isn't a duplicate, because it's talking about a completely different site, and a completely different method of gathering data.
The UNC/Harvard thing also isn't proof.. studies that weigh in on one side or the other on this issue are a dime a dozen.
This is another way to add more evidence to the issue and more weight to the argument that the effects are minimal. I doubt it's even possible to prove it one way or another.. but every new effort to counter the RIAA/MPAA's paid "independent" studies is definitely news.
Why would Microsoft giving away iPods "coerce gullible Freshmen to buy their products"?
Besides, you don't need a Mac to use an iPod, and these students probably won't go out to buy one if they're getting one free. They might like the player and get a new one later down the road, but it's not as though they would have a lot invested in Apple's hardware to convince them. This isn't anything like Microsoft's usual "make it so this is all they're exposed to so they won't learn to use or want to switch to anything else" tactics.
"Pad2Pad is still in launch mode, and Lewis is expanding the parts inventory. He plans to connect with a major parts distributor, thus gaining access to just about anything you can put on a circuit board."
:)
And the limited number of parts surprised you because...?
Here you go.. an obvious, step-by-step guide.
Don't even need to double-click anything, it installs from inside the browser. No need for self-extracting executables.
You must have an awful time at the store when you buy toothpaste, deoderant, shampoo, ice cream... all those choices. Why can't someone just come up with ONE choice for each, that everyone likes!?
Personally, I'd wonder if it would satisfy that particular clause to just automatically say that the software is old and newer versions can be found at the website. It wasn't too long ago that just about every program came with such a disclaimer to cover the times when some years-old copy was found on a backwater ftp or bbs site.
Not allowing distributions of modified versions would probably be the main sticking point. Though that might not prevent inclusion of patches that the user can apply.
If you're going to discuss distribution terms, you might want to look at the distributor's license. It has a lot of legalese in it (and IANAL), but it looks like it has fairly lenient terms for inclusion into an open-source OS distribution.
The header of the license you linked points out that it is for end-users only, not distributors.
"Judge Kimball has stated that The SCO Group has failed to meet the requirements of the law in its complaint against Novell and has dismissed the case but gives TSG 30 days to try to meet the legal requirements."
This is total crap. That's not what happened at all!
That is exactly what happened... no more, no less. The judge ruled that SCO didn't meet the requirements of the case they were pleading, and dismissed it without prejudice. Since it was without prejudice, SCO has 30 days to fix the errors in their case and bring it back. If it had been with prejudice, a large portion of SCO's claims would have been shot completely out of the water... but that didn't happen, and the article doesn't claim it did either.
Either Lehey or the reviewer also has an odd idea of the GPL:
"Lehey said the GPL has the so-called "viral" effect, and that would theoretically cause the remainder (of code) to fall under the GPL as well, "but that's so preposterous that I can't think of any way it could happen"."
How could the license you distribute some of your own code under effect the license you distribute the rest of your code under? You're not licensing the code from yourself, and you can always distribute your code under more than one license.
Except that then SCO files a lawsuit under the exact same complaints as they have against IBM, claiming that the license prohibits Sun from releasing any code that was developed for Solaris because Solaris was a derivitive work of SysV.
In SCO's own little world, their license is so "viral" that the GPL looks like public domain next to it.
Is there actually a group of people who check the code for possible violations of the inclusion of proprietary code into the kernel, thereby invalidating the GPL/LGPL or whatever Open Source licensing the Linux Kernel falls under?
Perhaps you'd like to explain how anyone - whether from a big closed-source corporation or part of an open-source collection of coders - is supposed to check code to see if it came from another closed-source product? Whether you're Microsoft or Linus, all you have to go on is the word of the programmer who submitted the code. Linus and others obviously review any code that is submitted (as has been demonstrated recently with attempts to put in backdoors), but like any company, they can't check code against sources they don't have. And in either case, the punishment if such a thing were to happen would come down on the person who knowingly violated copyright.. the programmer who submitted the code.
The only difference between Microsoft and Linus in this situation is that Linus allows anyone to see the code, and check for themselves whether their copyrights are being violated. How would anyone ever know for certain if their code was included into a Microsoft product? Microsoft has provably used code from outside sources before.. even open-source sources.
First of all, that's not completely verified.
Secondly, it's talking about a completely different (alleged) vulnerability.
Mostly, there's the problem of power. These robots are operating with only solar cells for additional power, much farther away from the sun, and in an extremely dusty/sandy environment.
The wind, sand, and dust puts a lot of stress on the rest of the mechanical workings, too.
your signature of the DCO makes you vow that you are responsible for the code, that the code is yours in the making.
No, it vows that you either have rights to that code, or you got it from someone else who said they have rights to it.
That's nothing new. When you submit code to the kernel, you're saying you have rights to it.. if you don't have rights to it, then you're doing something illegal whether you make that vow or not. This just makes the statement of "I am not violating someone else's rights" explicit, rather than the unspoken declaration that comes with publishing something with your own name on it.
A small amount of CPU-time-expense won't hurt the typicall receiver of a small amount of mail. What it *will* do is hit the bulk mailers - both legitimate lists and unwanted spammers.
And hosting providers. The "typical receiver of a small amount of mail" usually doesn't run their own mail server with a dedicated domain. This would impact free mail systems, and all the hosting providers who pack as many domains on a server as the hardware can handle.
On the other hand, it makes it easier for those servers, and for the ISP's that host the servers, to nail an abuser to the wall. I just have to wonder how it would interact with someone who breaks into a server just to send a bunch of spam.
You'd just get 100%-authenticated emails from 1stmortgageusa.biz and naturalviagra4u.com.
Bring it on. Fully-authenticated emails would make it a heck of a lot easier to verify that something isn't a joe-job and kick someone off the network. It'd also make it easier to blacklist stuff without huge amounts of collateral damage.
Unfortunately, it sounds like this method would make receiving and sending emails more cpu-time expensive.. but the trade-off isn't as bad as many of the other "solutions".
That depends on whether the remote server is set up to execute the file.
If the remote server is set up to simply send the file as text, then the *local* server will execute the text. As a PHP script. As the local user. And your remote attacker has the ability to run any commands on the server that a local script could run (usually, "wget a rootkit from this other server, unzip it, and execute it...")
But do you still infect it if you walk without rythm?
Aw, c'mon.. you gotta admit, "Winny developer to arrest the Kyoto headquarters of police" is a heck of a lot funnier than what actually happened.