Mail filtering examines the mail headers and commonly checks two things: A) That the from: header domain matches the originating domain, and B) That the originating domain is not on a blacklist
Re:Clusters
on
Tiny Boxen
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Uhhh... no.
The solution is to not use hardware that has integrated DRM.
I'm not sure why you are disagreeing. This doesn't have DRM, nor is it likely to ever have it if the existing design doesn't need to change to accomodate increasing performance demands.
To expand my idea: most hardware has become a commodity. There really is very little reason to fund "innovation" in it when that innovation is directed towards how to prevent us from doing certain things. I'd rather have the innovation directed towards providing me *cheaper* scalable interchangable parts that implement the existing hardware feature sets. Freeze the hardware and just buy more of it if you need more performance.
Buy a Mac or buy a workstation if you don't want DRM. You can get a 64 bit DEC Alpha really cheap now. Yuck. Where's the fun in that? If you want those platforms, have at it. You haven't given me a single reason not to think that clustering small commodity items is not a good way, nor an interesting way, to solve computing problems.
It would be *very* cool if these things could be clustered together to make a scalable server. Need a database server? Then get 32 of these, each with a HD for ~$10K and cluster them together. Each comes with one HD, so you've got your RAID array. Need more power next year? Add 8 more.
With the coming onslaught of DRM on faster processors, the obvious solution is to find better ways to scale existing hardware products.
The progression goes like this: 1) Some hardware will allow opt-in 2) All hardware will allow opt-in 3) Some hardware will allow opt-out 4) All hardware will allow opt-out 5) Some hardware won't allow opt-out 6) All hardware won't allow opt-out
We must fight this at every step of the progression. We must associate some kind of opportunity cost with moving down the progression. Right now moving from 5 to 6 kills open source, so people better start getting serious and getting mean about making end users who slide down the slippery slope understand that there are downsides.
WTF?! Somebody actually modded me down as troll after I suggested using a GPL'd text editor to actualy "write" code instead of a proprietary IDE. What is Slashdot coming to?
Both are far more powerful development environments than ANY IDE or any editor (sorry JEdit) and can interoperate with ANY SYSTEM YOU CAN THINK OF.
People say this kind of thing all the time. I use vi when all I have is a shell, but I do not understand why you would call them a "more powerful development" environment that something like JEdit or an IDE. How do you justify this statement?
Actually, it doesn't depend on IE, it depends on a valid host capable of containing an ActiveX control. As far as I know, IE is the only browser capable of doing that, but there's nothing (that I'm aware of) preventing other browsers from doing so, and you could always simply develop a small piece of software that accesses and displays the site. You also don't have to go to Windows Update to get the service pack, as the download link here [microsoft.com] points directly to the installation exe file.
The "Express Installation" does not work in a way that fits with the settlement. You admit all the necessary facts above.
I thought the settlement proposal defined what this piece of software had to do.
Um, no. The settlements describes "what" MS must do, not "how" or with what software. "How" was left to MS and their documented features do not comply.
Acting in bad faith usually means that they intended not to comply with the proposal.
Are you saying it does not function as it was intended? Yeah, right.
Except that any REAL copyright lawyer (non-FSF) or judge, would see that the GPL doesn't disallow the violator to download another copy of the software, thereby receiving distribution rights.
Assuming that they actually threw away all of their previous infringing code and started over and complied with the GPL with respect to reproducing what they had done before again, yes.
But if their behavior didn't change, they would again be in violation of the GPL and I think any judge would think: "You were already on notice action X violated the GPL, but you repeated a separate instance of action X" and find two separate counts of infringement, with statutory damages up to $100,000 per occurance.
'common carrier' status that any whatever-tiered ISP should have in theory, and in practice
I don't think ISP's like UUNET have ever been considered common carriers, nor do I think they want to be. They regularly engage in content based filtering of spam all the time.
You actually have to actually be a company and they have to actually be employees. You can't just pretend you are a company. That is a sham and trying to pull that in front of a judge would not be wise.
They can't even be "contractors", because the GPL forbids you to distribute to people with additional conditions, which your contract would impose.
I disagree. Protecting their copyright from unambiguous infringement is not a "legal trick". The GPL is pretty damn generous. For somebody to turn around and violate it is contemptible and I, for one, would cheer if they got what they deserved. The NDA UL is using serves no other purpose than to allow them to do what the GPL forbids: hoard advancements. When those infringing acts are done to give them a business advantage, I can think of no better situation to kick them in the nuts.
I guarantee you that if RedHat did this successfully, no one would **EVER** violate the GPL again.
I wonder what the actual penalties would be? They would be commiting commercial copyright infringement. The law can be extremely brutal in such a case.
I would think it would go like this: A) Some GPL contributor would send them a cease and desist letter: "Action X by you violates the GPL. Accordingly, I am enforcing the GDP, see section 4" B) The other company says "Nah." C) The contributor sues for willful commercial copyright infrigement D) The court should determine whether the GPL was violated or not. If they can determine that the contributor is likely to win on the merits, they issue a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction. At that point the company can no longer ship product. Ouch. E) If the contributor persues and wins at trial the Court should reward the larger of statutory damanages (up to $100,000) or actuals. Actuals would include revenue directly attributable to infringement, with the burden of proof on the defendent to show what is or isn't included.
I really wish that somebody would persue this route sometime. If it goes the way I think it would go, I seriously doubt that anybody would EVER violate the GPL again.
I'm amazed that they would pull this. Their competitors have undoubtably contributed to some of the GPL software that is covered by the NDA.
What incentive does a company like say Red Hat have to not enforce the GPL death penalty, which says if you violate the GPL, your licence is revoked (GPL, section 4 sentance 2).
Whilst the point about non-IE browsers not being able to access the site is valid, the fact it takes 5.5 hours over a modem is not.
That is a clear violation. They have developed code that depends on IE. The fact that they provide alternate, separate code to do the same thing is irrelevent. They obviously want to play "use nice version A to do X if you have IE or use crappy version B to do X if you use something else". Version A must comply with the settlement, which means it cannot depend on IE specific functionality to install or run. It does, end of story.
So? It does what it's supposed to do. No it doesn't. What defines what the shipped software is "supposed" to do? Nothing: there's no documentation. The user who executes documented, supported functionality cannot do anything with this software.
Call me skeptical, but this could just be an oversight. Fine, it's an oversight. It is an oversight that results in noncompliance with the proposed settlement agreement. (See below)
It is still worth pointing out that this is a proposed settlement. Microsoft haven't actually signed anything yet.
Somebody above pointed out that one of the conditions for the DOJ to agree to support the proposed settlement was that MS agree to be compliant with it immediately. You assert that they haven't signed "anything" yet, which contradicts this. Who is correct?
MS has gone before the Court and said that they agree that the proposed settlement will remedy their anticompetitive behavior. If they then turn around and issue software that doesn't comply with THEIR OWN position, while they simultaneously and wrongly assert that it does, then doesn't that mean that A) they are acting in bad faith and B) greater enforcement oversight is needed.
I call the concept "attack by offer". I make a (completely unreasonable) offer of contract to you and state that by exercising some right you have (for example, by using your dishwasher) that you agree to my contract.
The problem with this, of course, is that the dishwasher's owner has to agree to allow his property to be used as the method of contractual assent. If he don't agree that using his dishwasher means what I say it does, then I'm basically making a hollow assertion.
The clicking of my mouse on my screen, absent any sort of message sent to somebody else, is an act that I as the owner of the mouse, computer, and screen am totally at liberty to define the meaning of. (and I say it means nothing).
Well you are in good company, because both the 7th Circuit and the Fed Circuit think the same way you do. However, this contradicts the black letter law in 17 USC 117, which states flatly that it is not infringement.
No legal precedent supports your copy in your brain concept. Reading a book is not "fair use" because no activity is involved that would ever be considered to produce a legally cognizable copy, which is defined as "fixed in a tangible medium". Rather it is "noninfringing" activity. Your argument is a red herring.
But, turning back to software and actual as opposed to ficticious law, as I said before, a program being copied into cache memory or to the hard drive IS a legally recognized copy (like it or not) and is non-infringing when done on "a" machine on behalf of the "owner" of a copy of the software. This is not "fair use", but rather a statutory first sale property owner's right to copy of adapt software for use on a machine. Read 17 USC 117.
The court followed the ProCD case, which directly conflicts with Vault v Quaid on the matter of whether state contract law shrinkwrap terms are "preempted" by federal copyright law.
Both ProCD and this court found that they were not because an "extra element" exists. Both courts got it wrong because they ignored 17 USC 117, which states that the "owner" of software can install it on a machine. In other words, installation is a first sale right by black letter law.
In particular, the negotiation that occurs during the contract of sale fully comprehends installation and use. The shrinkwrap offers nothing new to the purchaser, and therefore there is no "extra element".
Nimmer, the foremost authority on Copyright wrote a very long law review article specifically debunking ProCD's analysis on preemption. This court did a crappy analysis that wasn't even at the level of ProCD.
In order to "use" the product you must install the product, and generally to do this you have to make a copy onto your hard drive and again into memory when the program executes. These are legal *on a single machine* if you are the "owner" of the software, according to 17 USC 117, otherwise you need a licence.
To be the "owner" you must have received the physical media from the previous owner either as a gift or as a trade. In particular, downloading does not make you the owner (unless you have a licence to copy the product to your drive) because you aren't receiveing the physical media as part of the trade (ie you are creating a new copy). So unless you accept the GPL, you are commiting copyright infringement.
So, while it is technically true that the act of running is not restricted, the act of enabling it to run definitely is.
You describe a situation where the total content value of the web with cookies was in they eyes of most people higher than that without. A few sites played hardball ("accept cookies or go someplace else") and eventually they herded the masses to accept cookies by default.
I'm asking what would have happened if a few sites had been out there saying "Do NOT accept cookies or go someplace else"? I believe that would have changed the dynamic considerably.
Palladium on the web will work the same way UNLESS there is a BENEFIT to leaving it off. We have to be out there saying "No Palladium admitted", and forcing people to choose between us and them instead of between us and "us plus them". If we do this before Palladium on by default becomes standard, we can actually win.
Slashdot Mirror
Mail filtering examines the mail headers and commonly checks two things:
A) That the from: header domain matches the originating domain, and
B) That the originating domain is not on a blacklist
Uhhh... no.
The solution is to not use hardware that has integrated DRM.
I'm not sure why you are disagreeing. This doesn't have DRM, nor is it likely to ever have it if the existing design doesn't need to change to accomodate increasing performance demands.
To expand my idea: most hardware has become a commodity. There really is very little reason to fund "innovation" in it when that innovation is directed towards how to prevent us from doing certain things. I'd rather have the innovation directed towards providing me *cheaper* scalable interchangable parts that implement the existing hardware feature sets. Freeze the hardware and just buy more of it if you need more performance.
Buy a Mac or buy a workstation if you don't want DRM. You can get a 64 bit DEC Alpha really cheap now.
Yuck. Where's the fun in that? If you want those platforms, have at it. You haven't given me a single reason not to think that clustering small commodity items is not a good way, nor an interesting way, to solve computing problems.
It would be *very* cool if these things could be clustered together to make a scalable server. Need a database server? Then get 32 of these, each with a HD for ~$10K and cluster them together. Each comes with one HD, so you've got your RAID array. Need more power next year? Add 8 more.
With the coming onslaught of DRM on faster processors, the obvious solution is to find better ways to scale existing hardware products.
The progression goes like this:
1) Some hardware will allow opt-in
2) All hardware will allow opt-in
3) Some hardware will allow opt-out
4) All hardware will allow opt-out
5) Some hardware won't allow opt-out
6) All hardware won't allow opt-out
We must fight this at every step of the progression. We must associate some kind of opportunity cost with moving down the progression. Right now moving from 5 to 6 kills open source, so people better start getting serious and getting mean about making end users who slide down the slippery slope understand that there are downsides.
WTF?! Somebody actually modded me down as troll after I suggested using a GPL'd text editor to actualy "write" code instead of a proprietary IDE. What is Slashdot coming to?
Boo hiss to the moderator.
That is so passe. Good luck with your device driver. Is it portable?
Both are far more powerful development environments than ANY IDE or any editor (sorry JEdit) and can interoperate with ANY SYSTEM YOU CAN THINK OF.
People say this kind of thing all the time. I use vi when all I have is a shell, but I do not understand why you would call them a "more powerful development" environment that something like JEdit or an IDE. How do you justify this statement?
IDE's are for wimps: Use JEdit -- it's a free text editor with some very powerful plugins for java.
If not, is there any legal way such changes can be forced by some form of arbitration or legal action?
Some Libertarian you are. Are you really looking for a government regulatory solution?
Maybe you can sue them for slander. Do libertarians believe in slander?
Actually, it doesn't depend on IE, it depends on a valid host capable of containing an ActiveX control. As far as I know, IE is the only browser capable of doing that, but there's nothing (that I'm aware of) preventing other browsers from doing so, and you could always simply develop a small piece of software that accesses and displays the site. You also don't have to go to Windows Update to get the service pack, as the download link here [microsoft.com] points directly to the installation exe file.
The "Express Installation" does not work in a way that fits with the settlement. You admit all the necessary facts above.
I thought the settlement proposal defined what this piece of software had to do.
Um, no. The settlements describes "what" MS must do, not "how" or with what software. "How" was left to MS and their documented features do not comply.
Acting in bad faith usually means that they intended not to comply with the proposal.
Are you saying it does not function as it was intended? Yeah, right.
Um, no, the user cannot turn it off. It IS entirely at the discretion of the ISP, subject only to market forces.
How do they know the origin without examining the headers? Headers are part of the content.
Except that any REAL copyright lawyer (non-FSF) or judge, would see that the GPL doesn't disallow the violator to download another copy of the software, thereby receiving distribution rights.
Assuming that they actually threw away all of their previous infringing code and started over and complied with the GPL with respect to reproducing what they had done before again, yes.
But if their behavior didn't change, they would again be in violation of the GPL and I think any judge would think: "You were already on notice action X violated the GPL, but you repeated a separate instance of action X" and find two separate counts of infringement, with statutory damages up to $100,000 per occurance.
'common carrier' status that any whatever-tiered ISP should have in theory, and in practice
I don't think ISP's like UUNET have ever been considered common carriers, nor do I think they want to be. They regularly engage in content based filtering of spam all the time.
You actually have to actually be a company and they have to actually be employees. You can't just pretend you are a company. That is a sham and trying to pull that in front of a judge would not be wise.
They can't even be "contractors", because the GPL forbids you to distribute to people with additional conditions, which your contract would impose.
I disagree. Protecting their copyright from unambiguous infringement is not a "legal trick". The GPL is pretty damn generous. For somebody to turn around and violate it is contemptible and I, for one, would cheer if they got what they deserved. The NDA UL is using serves no other purpose than to allow them to do what the GPL forbids: hoard advancements. When those infringing acts are done to give them a business advantage, I can think of no better situation to kick them in the nuts.
I guarantee you that if RedHat did this successfully, no one would **EVER** violate the GPL again.
GDP -- GPL Death Penalty
I like that.
I wonder what the actual penalties would be?
They would be commiting commercial copyright infringement. The law can be extremely brutal in such a case.
I would think it would go like this:
A) Some GPL contributor would send them a cease and desist letter: "Action X by you violates the GPL. Accordingly, I am enforcing the GDP, see section 4"
B) The other company says "Nah."
C) The contributor sues for willful commercial copyright infrigement
D) The court should determine whether the GPL was violated or not. If they can determine that the contributor is likely to win on the merits, they issue a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction. At that point the company can no longer ship product. Ouch.
E) If the contributor persues and wins at trial the Court should reward the larger of statutory damanages (up to $100,000) or actuals. Actuals would include revenue directly attributable to infringement, with the burden of proof on the defendent to show what is or isn't included.
I really wish that somebody would persue this route sometime. If it goes the way I think it would go, I seriously doubt that anybody would EVER violate the GPL again.
I'm amazed that they would pull this. Their competitors have undoubtably contributed to some of the GPL software that is covered by the NDA.
What incentive does a company like say Red Hat have to not enforce the GPL death penalty, which says if you violate the GPL, your licence is revoked (GPL, section 4 sentance 2).
Whilst the point about non-IE browsers not being able to access the site is valid, the fact it takes 5.5 hours over a modem is not.
That is a clear violation. They have developed code that depends on IE. The fact that they provide alternate, separate code to do the same thing is irrelevent. They obviously want to play "use nice version A to do X if you have IE or use crappy version B to do X if you use something else". Version A must comply with the settlement, which means it cannot depend on IE specific functionality to install or run. It does, end of story.
So? It does what it's supposed to do.
No it doesn't. What defines what the shipped software is "supposed" to do? Nothing: there's no documentation. The user who executes documented, supported functionality cannot do anything with this software.
Call me skeptical, but this could just be an oversight.
Fine, it's an oversight. It is an oversight that results in noncompliance with the proposed settlement agreement. (See below)
It is still worth pointing out that this is a proposed settlement. Microsoft haven't actually signed anything yet.
Somebody above pointed out that one of the conditions for the DOJ to agree to support the proposed settlement was that MS agree to be compliant with it immediately. You assert that they haven't signed "anything" yet, which contradicts this. Who is correct?
MS has gone before the Court and said that they agree that the proposed settlement will remedy their anticompetitive behavior. If they then turn around and issue software that doesn't comply with THEIR OWN position, while they simultaneously and wrongly assert that it does, then doesn't that mean that A) they are acting in bad faith and B) greater enforcement oversight is needed.
Your house analogy is very good.
I call the concept "attack by offer". I make a (completely unreasonable) offer of contract to you and state that by exercising some right you have (for example, by using your dishwasher) that you agree to my contract.
The problem with this, of course, is that the dishwasher's owner has to agree to allow his property to be used as the method of contractual assent. If he don't agree that using his dishwasher means what I say it does, then I'm basically making a hollow assertion.
The clicking of my mouse on my screen, absent any sort of message sent to somebody else, is an act that I as the owner of the mouse, computer, and screen am totally at liberty to define the meaning of. (and I say it means nothing).
Well you are in good company, because both the 7th Circuit and the Fed Circuit think the same way you do. However, this contradicts the black letter law in 17 USC 117, which states flatly that it is not infringement.
No legal precedent supports your copy in your brain concept. Reading a book is not "fair use" because no activity is involved that would ever be considered to produce a legally cognizable copy, which is defined as "fixed in a tangible medium". Rather it is "noninfringing" activity. Your argument is a red herring.
But, turning back to software and actual as opposed to ficticious law, as I said before, a program being copied into cache memory or to the hard drive IS a legally recognized copy (like it or not) and is non-infringing when done on "a" machine on behalf of the "owner" of a copy of the software. This is not "fair use", but rather a statutory first sale property owner's right to copy of adapt software for use on a machine. Read 17 USC 117.
The court followed the ProCD case, which directly conflicts with Vault v Quaid on the matter of whether state contract law shrinkwrap terms are "preempted" by federal copyright law.
Both ProCD and this court found that they were not because an "extra element" exists. Both courts got it wrong because they ignored 17 USC 117, which states that the "owner" of software can install it on a machine. In other words, installation is a first sale right by black letter law.
In particular, the negotiation that occurs during the contract of sale fully comprehends installation and use. The shrinkwrap offers nothing new to the purchaser, and therefore there is no "extra element".
Nimmer, the foremost authority on Copyright wrote a very long law review article specifically debunking ProCD's analysis on preemption. This court did a crappy analysis that wasn't even at the level of ProCD.
You are engaging in an over-simplification.
In order to "use" the product you must install the product, and generally to do this you have to make a copy onto your hard drive and again into memory when the program executes. These are legal *on a single machine* if you are the "owner" of the software, according to 17 USC 117, otherwise you need a licence.
To be the "owner" you must have received the physical media from the previous owner either as a gift or as a trade. In particular, downloading does not make you the owner (unless you have a licence to copy the product to your drive) because you aren't receiveing the physical media as part of the trade (ie you are creating a new copy). So unless you accept the GPL, you are commiting copyright infringement.
So, while it is technically true that the act of running is not restricted, the act of enabling it to run definitely is.
You describe a situation where the total content value of the web with cookies was in they eyes of most people higher than that without. A few sites played hardball ("accept cookies or go someplace else") and eventually they herded the masses to accept cookies by default.
I'm asking what would have happened if a few sites had been out there saying "Do NOT accept cookies or go someplace else"? I believe that would have changed the dynamic considerably.
Palladium on the web will work the same way UNLESS there is a BENEFIT to leaving it off. We have to be out there saying "No Palladium admitted", and forcing people to choose between us and them instead of between us and "us plus them". If we do this before Palladium on by default becomes standard, we can actually win.