The only change I'd like to see is " this code cannot be used by Microsoft or SCO or its subsidiaries, or employees in any fasion ". Or better "this code cannot be used by GW Bush to kill innocent people in any country under any circumstances whatsoever" or something to that effect.
Then the GPL would no longer be an Open Source license, or even a Free Software license.
See items 5 and 6 of the Open Source Definition ("No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups", "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor"), or the Free Software Definition ("you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere.")
Technically, you're right. In practice, there is no real difference. There have been differences of opinion here and there but there is no software currently under a licence that is Open Source but not Free Software (or vice versa).
So the difference is purely academic and, IMHO, rather counterproductive (people outside the community will see this debate and think we're a bunch of in-fighting ideologues, arguing over minor points and losing sight of our far more important common objectives).
Kind of like the Judean People's Front versus the People's Front of Judea in Life of Brian...
It seems to me, judging from the above quote from TFA, that Democracy still has a chance to deal with this matter.
A chance, yes, albeit a slim one, because a 2/3 majority is required for any changes to be introduced in 2nd reading.
And that's a 2/3 majority of Members, not just those present. So it can actually pass with 0 votes in favour, all that is required is that at least 1/3 of MEPs don't show up or abstain.
The only real possibility is that even supporters of software patents will oppose this Directive, simply to punish the undemocratic conduct of Council & Commission wrt this issue.
The autumn, I will go to the polls and vote "No". I urge any Europeans with similar concerns to adopt the same position.
Stopping the new Constitution will not get rid of the EU, or make it more democratic. Voting "no" will keep it the way it is now.
So you would be doing the "people who have a complete disinterest in democracy" a big favour by voting "No".
The new European Constitution greatly enhances the powers of the European Parliament, and so tricks like what the Council did today would become a lot harder.
There are 2 ways out of this undemocratic EU. One is to get rid of it. This is clearly not an option -- almost all economic growth in Europe in the last 20 years is due to the single market. Removing it would be an economic disaster.
Option 2 is to overhaul the EU to make it a lot more democratic. While I agree that it doesn't go far enough, the new Constitution is a huge step in the right direction.
So, please vote "Yes" on the new Constitution. It's our only way out!
If that is the first time it might be better to give your vote to the SP (Socialist Party) who gave us this motion and have been fighting against software patents all along.
Yes, that way you can a government monopoly on everything, instead of a corporate monopoly.
Socialists don't have a big thing for freedom, you know. These guys & gals are against software partents simply because large corporations are in favour, and they're generally against everything big companies do or want.
For those who are familiar with Netscape LDAP server, could you teach me a bit about its ACL management capability?
It's been a while since I maintained one, but it used to be pretty cool. You can put an ACL-attribute into every entry, and the ACL in that entry then applies to it and all entries below it in the tree. As I recall, the ACL can be in an LDAP search format so you can basically make things as complicated as you want.
IIRC, there was an upper limit to the amount of ACLs you could put in the tree though (I think it was max. 32768).
Integration with the mail server was pretty cool, too. The webmail server sucked though, if only because the install script would create a user webmail in your tree with almost limitless access rights, and it would use those rights to put loads of garbage in your tree...
All it can do is help domain holders avoid the brand dilution of having their domain name forged by spammers. This is a valuable contribution, but we must make it clear that none of these schemes will stop or even slow spam, and that their benefits accrue to domain holders, not to spam recipients.
I'd have to disagree with Paul Vixie here. Most of the spam today comes through compromised home machines on a broadband line. Of course, spammers could include the zombie they're using in their SPF record and use their own domain in the "Purported Return Address", but that would make them so traceable that they might as well spam from their own systems.
So I'd definitely disagree that SPF/SenderID will not discourage spammers. It will certainly discourage the worst of them: the guys who don't want to be found out.
Apple doesn't ignore security holes, they fix them quickly and quietly before anybody realizes where they are.
Quietly, yes, very. Quickly? No.
If you call a fix for a good ol' buffer overflow a "patch to improve the handling of long passwords" you're being too quiet: people will not be properly motivated to install the patch.
And doing roll-up patches for old (sometimes very old) issues once a month only does not qualify as quick. Sorry.
I mean, look at this week's update, all of the issues patched were discovered in 2003.
Like some others here I am completely astonished that "security by obscurity" is suddenly a good thing when Apple does it. Come on folks, get a grip. Apple isn;t doing this right, don't close your eyes to that simple, obvious fact just because you like them.
The good looking, intelligent girl over there at the bar that you'd really like to talk to doesn't care much whether you are famous amongst a group of geeks
So you'd better have lots of money instead, because then she'll be really, genuinely interested in you, right?
Seriously, I've talked about what I do wrt Free Software / Open Source with intelligent people without being a zealot, and (gasp) this has actually led to some really interesting conversations.
Also, it shows women that you see value in things beside money, which IMHO is a good thing. But, of course, that entirely depends on the type of person you're attracted to...:-)
The list maintainer posts PGP-signed updates to USENET
Are you suggesting publishing entire lists of vulnerable hosts in the clear?
If I was a spammer, I wouldn't exactly be unhappy about that. No need to do port 25 scanning for open relays any more, just get 'em off Usenet where the good guys posted them!
We (the USA) produce most of the world's copyrighted material, and we give out billions of dollars each year to other countries for free.
I wonder why even intelligent Americans always seem to be convinced their country is the biggest single source of aid to poor countries. It's clear that this isn't true (Europe spends many, many times more on foreign aid than the US, as does Japan), yet Americans all think they're the great benefactors of the world...
The key to the USA's global dominance is that they don't give away billions like Europe does, but spend trillions on the military instead.
And, of course, their "divide and conquer" tactic against the EU has been working extremely well for many years now.
Of course, selling Linux desktops will help vendors compete with the low-cost boxen with pirated Windows you can get in developing countries. The cost of a Windows license is more significant there.
But there's another advantage: if Linux-on-the-desktop seriously takes off, it would make the PC vendors more independent of Intel. After all, who cares what instruction set their CPU is running? The only reason everyone still uses x86 is because that's the only platform that'll run Windows.
They should publish # of pages instead of sites. With virtual hosting so widespread, the number of sites is not really a relevant number.
If Google counted the server type for each of the pages in their cache, that would me much more informative than the Netcraft site count.
Funny though, MS always claimed that Apache won the Netcraft numbers because of the 'unused sites' counting so heavily - could it be that they actively targeted those web farms in their marketing for this reason?
While in general tools should not be banned for the sole reason that they could be used for evil, there is a limit to that argument.
Even the most gun-loving American Redneck would agree that nuclear missiles for everybody would be a bad idea. Even they draw the line somewhere.
Another difference is that most people are agreed that murder (in whatever degree) is to be avoided. On the subject of copyright infringement there is no such unanimity. Not even close. I for one don't think that it is necessarily bad in all cases.
let's face it -- ridding ourselves of proprietary operating systems is probably a higher priority right now than proprietary apps.
Yes! This is a great point to make. Of course non-free apps are not where the world should be headed, but we should start with the OS. That's far and the away the most important thing. Once that's done, the apps will follow. At least until then, non-free apps for free OS'es are a Good Thing.
Neither English nor German is my first language, so flames to/dev/null please...
Gravenreuth versus Linux Distributor SuSE
After Samba and kIllustrator, another Open Source program is keeping the lawyers busy. The lawyer Günter Frhr. v. Gravenreuth has obtained a preliminary injunction from the State Court in Munich against the German Linux distributor SuSE. The reason seems to be an Open Source program referenced (?) on the SuSE CD. Apparently Gravenreuth has had the court ban the firm from Nürnberg from further distributing its Linux distribution as long as the debated program name is included. This could lead to substantial financial loss for SuSE, if the already produced copies are no longer allowed to be sold.
Frhr. v. Gravenreuth, when asked, confirmed he had obtained a preliminary injunction against the mark used by an Open Source software package. But he would not give further details, because his client would "come to an agreement with the opponent" and didn't want to be named. Christian Egle, press spokesman for SuSE, said that the firm would release a statement on the matter within the next few days.
Um, one thing that several posters here seem to misunderstand is that using a technique that is patented is an infringement, regardless of whether you knew about it.
A patent holder can block the use of a technology for 20 years, period. It's not like copyright protection where you can reverse engineer the functionality, because the function itself is monopolized and not just one single implementation of it.
That, by the way, is partly why allowing patents on software is such a big mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the problem with most of Microsoft's software -- it's aimed at monkeys.
That's why it's so irritating to use and administer for people who know what they're doing and want control of their system.
The solution is simple though: don't use it. :-)
Then the GPL would no longer be an Open Source license, or even a Free Software license.
See items 5 and 6 of the Open Source Definition ("No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups", "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor"), or the Free Software Definition ("you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere .")
Sigh.
Technically, you're right. In practice, there is no real difference. There have been differences of opinion here and there but there is no software currently under a licence that is Open Source but not Free Software (or vice versa).
So the difference is purely academic and, IMHO, rather counterproductive (people outside the community will see this debate and think we're a bunch of in-fighting ideologues, arguing over minor points and losing sight of our far more important common objectives).
Kind of like the Judean People's Front versus the People's Front of Judea in Life of Brian...
A chance, yes, albeit a slim one, because a 2/3 majority is required for any changes to be introduced in 2nd reading.
And that's a 2/3 majority of Members, not just those present. So it can actually pass with 0 votes in favour, all that is required is that at least 1/3 of MEPs don't show up or abstain.
The only real possibility is that even supporters of software patents will oppose this Directive, simply to punish the undemocratic conduct of Council & Commission wrt this issue.
Stopping the new Constitution will not get rid of the EU, or make it more democratic. Voting "no" will keep it the way it is now.
So you would be doing the "people who have a complete disinterest in democracy" a big favour by voting "No".
The new European Constitution greatly enhances the powers of the European Parliament, and so tricks like what the Council did today would become a lot harder.
There are 2 ways out of this undemocratic EU. One is to get rid of it. This is clearly not an option -- almost all economic growth in Europe in the last 20 years is due to the single market. Removing it would be an economic disaster.
Option 2 is to overhaul the EU to make it a lot more democratic. While I agree that it doesn't go far enough, the new Constitution is a huge step in the right direction.
So, please vote "Yes" on the new Constitution. It's our only way out!
Yes, that way you can a government monopoly on everything, instead of a corporate monopoly.
Socialists don't have a big thing for freedom, you know. These guys & gals are against software partents simply because large corporations are in favour, and they're generally against everything big companies do or want.
Useful votes for the right decision though. :-)
Today's news is F-Secure Security Bulletin FSC-2005-1 Code execution vulnerability in ARJ-archive handling!
It's been a while since I maintained one, but it used to be pretty cool. You can put an ACL-attribute into every entry, and the ACL in that entry then applies to it and all entries below it in the tree. As I recall, the ACL can be in an LDAP search format so you can basically make things as complicated as you want.
IIRC, there was an upper limit to the amount of ACLs you could put in the tree though (I think it was max. 32768).
Integration with the mail server was pretty cool, too. The webmail server sucked though, if only because the install script would create a user webmail in your tree with almost limitless access rights, and it would use those rights to put loads of garbage in your tree...
a or not a, actually. No need to be vague about that assurance. I will even assure you that for any a. ;-)
Paul Vixie's comment:
I'd have to disagree with Paul Vixie here. Most of the spam today comes through compromised home machines on a broadband line. Of course, spammers could include the zombie they're using in their SPF record and use their own domain in the "Purported Return Address", but that would make them so traceable that they might as well spam from their own systems.
So I'd definitely disagree that SPF/SenderID will not discourage spammers. It will certainly discourage the worst of them: the guys who don't want to be found out.
Quietly, yes, very. Quickly? No.
If you call a fix for a good ol' buffer overflow a "patch to improve the handling of long passwords" you're being too quiet: people will not be properly motivated to install the patch.
And doing roll-up patches for old (sometimes very old) issues once a month only does not qualify as quick. Sorry.
I mean, look at this week's update, all of the issues patched were discovered in 2003.
Like some others here I am completely astonished that "security by obscurity" is suddenly a good thing when Apple does it. Come on folks, get a grip. Apple isn;t doing this right, don't close your eyes to that simple, obvious fact just because you like them.
So what AOL is telling people is... Spammers have Porsches! Spamming => money!
My next question as a newbie would be: so how do I become a spammer? Where do I apply & when can I start?
Local vulns on Solaris average about one a week...
Move along, nothing to see here.
So you'd better have lots of money instead, because then she'll be really, genuinely interested in you, right?
Seriously, I've talked about what I do wrt Free Software / Open Source with intelligent people without being a zealot, and (gasp) this has actually led to some really interesting conversations.
Also, it shows women that you see value in things beside money, which IMHO is a good thing. But, of course, that entirely depends on the type of person you're attracted to... :-)
Oh yeah. This will be patch #23451 you have to apply before the damn thing will actually be usable as a mail server.
Seriously, use Postfix instead.
Wow... 4:49pm is early...? You sure sleep late. :-)
Oh yeah, Denis Leary, right? ('No cure for cancer', 1990 IIRC).
Are you suggesting publishing entire lists of vulnerable hosts in the clear?
If I was a spammer, I wouldn't exactly be unhappy about that. No need to do port 25 scanning for open relays any more, just get 'em off Usenet where the good guys posted them!
I wonder why even intelligent Americans always seem to be convinced their country is the biggest single source of aid to poor countries. It's clear that this isn't true (Europe spends many, many times more on foreign aid than the US, as does Japan), yet Americans all think they're the great benefactors of the world...
The key to the USA's global dominance is that they don't give away billions like Europe does, but spend trillions on the military instead.
And, of course, their "divide and conquer" tactic against the EU has been working extremely well for many years now.
Of course, selling Linux desktops will help vendors compete with the low-cost boxen with pirated Windows you can get in developing countries. The cost of a Windows license is more significant there.
But there's another advantage: if Linux-on-the-desktop seriously takes off, it would make the PC vendors more independent of Intel. After all, who cares what instruction set their CPU is running? The only reason everyone still uses x86 is because that's the only platform that'll run Windows.
They should publish # of pages instead of sites. With virtual hosting so widespread, the number of sites is not really a relevant number.
If Google counted the server type for each of the pages in their cache, that would me much more informative than the Netcraft site count.
Funny though, MS always claimed that Apache won the Netcraft numbers because of the 'unused sites' counting so heavily - could it be that they actively targeted those web farms in their marketing for this reason?
You cannot use a copy of Kazaa to kill someone.
While in general tools should not be banned for the sole reason that they could be used for evil, there is a limit to that argument.
Even the most gun-loving American Redneck would agree that nuclear missiles for everybody would be a bad idea. Even they draw the line somewhere.
Another difference is that most people are agreed that murder (in whatever degree) is to be avoided. On the subject of copyright infringement there is no such unanimity. Not even close. I for one don't think that it is necessarily bad in all cases.
From the article:
Yes! This is a great point to make. Of course non-free apps are not where the world should be headed, but we should start with the OS. That's far and the away the most important thing. Once that's done, the apps will follow. At least until then, non-free apps for free OS'es are a Good Thing.
Neither English nor German is my first language, so flames to /dev/null please...
Gravenreuth versus Linux Distributor SuSE
After Samba and kIllustrator, another Open Source program is keeping the lawyers busy. The lawyer Günter Frhr. v. Gravenreuth has obtained a preliminary injunction from the State Court in Munich against the German Linux distributor SuSE. The reason seems to be an Open Source program referenced (?) on the SuSE CD. Apparently Gravenreuth has had the court ban the firm from Nürnberg from further distributing its Linux distribution as long as the debated program name is included. This could lead to substantial financial loss for SuSE, if the already produced copies are no longer allowed to be sold.
Frhr. v. Gravenreuth, when asked, confirmed he had obtained a preliminary injunction against the mark used by an Open Source software package. But he would not give further details, because his client would "come to an agreement with the opponent" and didn't want to be named. Christian Egle, press spokesman for SuSE, said that the firm would release a statement on the matter within the next few days.
Um, one thing that several posters here seem to misunderstand is that using a technique that is patented is an infringement, regardless of whether you knew about it.
A patent holder can block the use of a technology for 20 years, period. It's not like copyright protection where you can reverse engineer the functionality, because the function itself is monopolized and not just one single implementation of it.
That, by the way, is partly why allowing patents on software is such a big mistake.