Good to see that protests and petitions can make a difference
Unfortunately, that remains to be seen.
First of all, as far as I know a vote is necessary to determine if these amendments make it into the directive.
Even so, most of these amendments are just polishing language. They do not really change the character of the directive proposal, in that it allows software patents (in contradiction to what it says in the explanatory part that it intends to clarify the existing European Patent Convention, and not to replace it. The EPC explicitly prohibits software patents).
A big problem is the definition of the term "technical". It can easily be argued that the use of a certain algorithm e.g. to improve software performance is "technical" and can be patented even if the algorithm itself cannot be patented. Hopefully the following amendment will be included in the final directive:
The use of natural forces to control physical effects beyond the digital representation of information belongs to a technical field. The processing, handling, and presentation of information do not belong to a technical field, even where technical devices are employed for such purposes.
The following amendment:
Member States shall ensure that wherever the use of a patented technique is needed for the sole purpose of ensuring conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems or network so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement.
looks promising, but it would still allow the abominable GIF patent as a conversion when it is not specifically used for data exchange between computer systems.
We can always hope the MEPs will vote for a directive that prohibits patenting of any software (and the process of running such software) that is intended for general purpose computers, such as operating systems, office suites, data base software etc, etc, in line with the existing EPC. However, I am not too confident that this will happen...
C doesn't impose measures against buffer overflows, but that doesn't mean it is prohibitively difficult to implement them.
You can easily find information on how to avoid buffer overflows, such as in this
article.
However, the developers in the lsh project (for example) do not appear to have given this subject much thought. In the lsh manual, the chapter on
Threats silently assumes the software works as designed. It does not mention protection against exploits such as buffer overflows.
And the coding standards outlined in the
lsh hacking guide are targeted at avoiding breakage by the programmers, not by outside attackers.
Projects developing exploit-sensitive software should implement proper measures to avoid buffer overflows. As long as this is done, C may still be the appropriate language for such projects.
Does it mention in any more detail how this licence revenue has come in? Aside from MS and Sun, who else has paid up?
The SCOsource licensing program already existed long before there was talk about charging for Linux.
The revenue from Linux licenses is probably only a negligible fraction of those 15 million. And I don't think Sun has "paid up"; as they had a previous licence for UNIX, their Linux activities are likely already covered by that license.
It's never going to happen, of course. If it just has to be Powerpoint, buy MS Office.
Nevertheless, Impress can import and render most.PPT's pretty well, which suggests it implements close to 100% Powerpoint functionality.
What is it that you miss in the program? Why not visit www.openoffice.org, and commit a "Request for Enhancement" in the OpenOffice.org bug tracking system, Issuezilla? Your suggestion might just get implemented.
In fact in many cases it's quite easy to roll back digital mileage counters for instance here
Re:I thought Apollo 1 was the last pure Oxygen shi
on
The Return of Apollo?
·
· Score: 1
They wouldn't have used pure oxygen at one atmosphere, it's very unhealthy (oxygen poisoning).
Actually, the fire hazard was caused by the combination of pure oxygen (even at low pressure) and gravity. The upward draft created by the hot burning gases ensure that fresh oxygen is quickly supplied to the flame.
In space, you don't have this problem; the hot gases stay more or less where they are due to the absence of gravity. You can burn things, but you get only a faint globular flame.
An important change after the Apollo 1 disaster was the complicated capsule door locking mechanism. If the astronauts had been able to unlock the door more quickly, they might have been able to get out in time.
Although this is an informal experiment, it should be pointed out that it has an important flaw: the assumption that the documents will be displayed in MS Office perfectly.
I would not at all be surprised if a number of the documents have at least layout problems in the first place.
I recently stumbled across this European document, a report written by the Dutch liberal mrs. Elly van Plooij-Gorsel.
If all the amendments in it were applied to the Directive, I would have much more confidence in its self-stated objective to clarify the status quo, and would be less worried that it will have the effect of greatly expanding the possibility of software patents!
1) No, I imply that when somebody says "you can have an apple, but you can't have a pear", the argument "I disagree, because I should be allowed to have an apple" simply does not make sense.
2) Article 5 appears to determine that software is not affected by patents when it's not executed on a computer. So, you are free to describe how a "patented" algorithm adds 2 litres of fuel in a tank, or to publish the algorithm as code on the Internet or even on a CD-ROM: no limitation on the freedom of expression.
Actually setting the algorithm to work to add two litres of fuel in a tank would be patented, but that is not a question of free speech.
The "free speech" card is useless in case of the proposed European Software Patents directive.
Article 5 of the proposal says:
Member states shall ensure that a computer-implemented invention may be claimed as a product, that is a programmed computer, a programmed computer network or other programmed apparatus, or as a process carried out by such a computer, computer network or apparatus through the execution of software
and this is explained on page 15:
... It should be noted that the proposal has not followed the practice of the EPO in permitting claims to computer program products either on its own or on a carrier, as this could be seen as allowing patents for computer programs 'as such'.
And on the bottom of page 7, it says
An abstract algorithm can be defined in terms of pure logic in the absence of any physical reference points. It is possible that such an algorithm may be put to practical use in many different functions in apparently unrelated domains, and may be capable of achieving different effects. Thus, an algorithm which is considered as a theoretical entity in isolation from the context of a physical environment, and in respect of which it is accordingly not possible to infer its effects, will be inherently non-technical and thus not susceptible of being regarded as a patentable invention.
It is a consequence of the above that an abstract algorithm as such cannot be monopolised. The normal rules for patentability mean that a patent claim to an invention which is founded on a particular algorithm would not extend to other applications of that algorithm.
The way I interpret this is that "free speech" objections to the proposal are effectively countered. The proposal denies patents on algorithms and on software 'as such'.
In other words, your rights to write and publish software are not affected (free speech), but you are not allowed to run any software that allegedly contains patented technology, without paying for a license!
I think the only useful (and powerful) objections to the directive are economic ones. Patents as allowed by this directive stifle innovation rather than promoting it, and can easily be abused for anti-competitive purposes. The directive allows over-broad patents that pose a risk to the software industry (although the "explanatory memorandum" sounds very reasonable, the actual articles of the directive provide hardly any limitation to the scope of software patents or guarantees that they are not too easily granted).
For example, the broader version of the "Amazon one-click patent" that was recently granted by the EPO, would be allowed by this directive.
In the long run, the negative effect on innovation would not even benefit the big software companies (who initially may profit from software patents as anti-competitive tools). It will only be profitable to a small group of patent lawyers (at the EPO) and a number of patent sharks, at the cost of the European citizen.
Read the proposed directive for yourself and shudder:
That money is not from stupid Linux users.
On august 14 it was said:
"The SCOsource revenue does not reflect revenue from sales of its new binary license, which it says protects Linux users from copyright infringement, because the license was only introduced last week, and the first transaction announced Monday."
What about: http://www.caldera.com/scosource/unixtree/unixhist ory01.html
This diagram appears to be hosted on an SCO server. In the diagram, there are no arrows going from unixware to Linux, but there is an arrow from Linux to Unixware, suggesting Linux code has been copied into SCO's non-GPL product...
The story (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11191) does not say anything about an SCO announcement. It just says that HP claims they are not infringing.
That does not necessarily mean they paid up.
HP already had a perpetual license from SCO to use Unix IP (in HP-UX), and they may just consider this existing license to apply to that IP (if any) existing in the Linux installations they're running.
It could be argued that the manufacturer owes you at least a refund, if a CD-R loses its data in only a few years (although the equipment and method of burning also play a role, over which the manufacturer has no control).
Years ago, I used to buy 3M diskettes because it said "lifetime guarantee" on the box. When I went back to the shop with a bad one, I had to convince the guy to replace it. "That just happens sometimes" he said. Anyway, replacing the defective media is about as much as you can expect.
However, due to the abysmal results in the PC Active test of the CD-R's sold by the Dutch drugstore chain Kruidvat, they now offer to attempt recovering the data if you have one gone bad. See: article (in Dutch).
Apart from the Kruidvat brand, Platinum and MMore are specifically disappointing:
article
(Sorry, also in Dutch)
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, that remains to be seen.
First of all, as far as I know a vote is necessary to determine if these amendments make it into the directive.
Even so, most of these amendments are just polishing language. They do not really change the character of the directive proposal, in that it allows software patents (in contradiction to what it says in the explanatory part that it intends to clarify the existing European Patent Convention, and not to replace it. The EPC explicitly prohibits software patents).
A big problem is the definition of the term "technical". It can easily be argued that the use of a certain algorithm e.g. to improve software performance is "technical" and can be patented even if the algorithm itself cannot be patented. Hopefully the following amendment will be included in the final directive:
The use of natural forces to control physical effects beyond the digital representation of information belongs to a technical field. The processing, handling, and presentation of information do not belong to a technical field, even where technical devices are employed for such purposes.
The following amendment:
Member States shall ensure that wherever the use of a patented technique is needed for the sole purpose of ensuring conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems or network so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement.
looks promising, but it would still allow the abominable GIF patent as a conversion when it is not specifically used for data exchange between computer systems.
We can always hope the MEPs will vote for a directive that prohibits patenting of any software (and the process of running such software) that is intended for general purpose computers, such as operating systems, office suites, data base software etc, etc, in line with the existing EPC. However, I am not too confident that this will happen...
Imagine that the human body was designed such that you would seriously hit your head against something if you did not look were you were going.
You can easily find information on how to avoid buffer overflows, such as in this article.
However, the developers in the lsh project (for example) do not appear to have given this subject much thought. In the lsh manual, the chapter on Threats silently assumes the software works as designed. It does not mention protection against exploits such as buffer overflows.
And the coding standards outlined in the lsh hacking guide are targeted at avoiding breakage by the programmers, not by outside attackers.
Projects developing exploit-sensitive software should implement proper measures to avoid buffer overflows. As long as this is done, C may still be the appropriate language for such projects.
I experience daily buffer overflows receiving mail.
If the price is not an issue, I'll start working on it right now.
14:1 is superior to what??? Common CRT, LCD, plasma screens and projectors have contrast ratios of hundreds or even thousands to one.
Doesn't anyone notice that the licensing agreement with Sun was executed in April 2003, long before SCO announced the Linux licensing program???
The SCOsource licensing program already existed long before there was talk about charging for Linux.
The revenue from Linux licenses is probably only a negligible fraction of those 15 million. And I don't think Sun has "paid up"; as they had a previous licence for UNIX, their Linux activities are likely already covered by that license.
Nevertheless, Impress can import and render most .PPT's pretty well, which suggests it implements close to 100% Powerpoint functionality.
What is it that you miss in the program? Why not visit www.openoffice.org, and commit a "Request for Enhancement" in the OpenOffice.org bug tracking system, Issuezilla? Your suggestion might just get implemented.
In fact in many cases it's quite easy to roll back digital mileage counters for instance here
Actually, the fire hazard was caused by the combination of pure oxygen (even at low pressure) and gravity. The upward draft created by the hot burning gases ensure that fresh oxygen is quickly supplied to the flame.
In space, you don't have this problem; the hot gases stay more or less where they are due to the absence of gravity. You can burn things, but you get only a faint globular flame.
An important change after the Apollo 1 disaster was the complicated capsule door locking mechanism. If the astronauts had been able to unlock the door more quickly, they might have been able to get out in time.
... an iCluster of these ...
If the gap were closed by fixing the US patent laws, that would result in less headaches than having Europe repeat the mistakes made in America.
Although this is an informal experiment, it should be pointed out that it has an important flaw: the assumption that the documents will be displayed in MS Office perfectly. I would not at all be surprised if a number of the documents have at least layout problems in the first place.
IMO the amendments in this report would go a long way to repair the defects in the directive.
If all the amendments in it were applied to the Directive, I would have much more confidence in its self-stated objective to clarify the status quo, and would be less worried that it will have the effect of greatly expanding the possibility of software patents!
Amendments
2) Article 5 appears to determine that software is not affected by patents when it's not executed on a computer. So, you are free to describe how a "patented" algorithm adds 2 litres of fuel in a tank, or to publish the algorithm as code on the Internet or even on a CD-ROM: no limitation on the freedom of expression.
Actually setting the algorithm to work to add two litres of fuel in a tank would be patented, but that is not a question of free speech.
Therefore, "patents on ideas should not be allowed" cannot be used as an argument against it.
(I haven't figured out yet how to correctly post an URL on /. )
Article 5 of the proposal says:
and this is explained on page 15: And on the bottom of page 7, it says The way I interpret this is that "free speech" objections to the proposal are effectively countered. The proposal denies patents on algorithms and on software 'as such'.In other words, your rights to write and publish software are not affected (free speech), but you are not allowed to run any software that allegedly contains patented technology, without paying for a license!
I think the only useful (and powerful) objections to the directive are economic ones. Patents as allowed by this directive stifle innovation rather than promoting it, and can easily be abused for anti-competitive purposes. The directive allows over-broad patents that pose a risk to the software industry (although the "explanatory memorandum" sounds very reasonable, the actual articles of the directive provide hardly any limitation to the scope of software patents or guarantees that they are not too easily granted).
For example, the broader version of the "Amazon one-click patent" that was recently granted by the EPO, would be allowed by this directive.
In the long run, the negative effect on innovation would not even benefit the big software companies (who initially may profit from software patents as anti-competitive tools). It will only be profitable to a small group of patent lawyers (at the EPO) and a number of patent sharks, at the cost of the European citizen.
Read the proposed directive for yourself and shudder:
"The SCOsource revenue does not reflect revenue from sales of its new binary license, which it says protects Linux users from copyright infringement, because the license was only introduced last week, and the first transaction announced Monday."
http://www.internetnews.com/fina-news/article.php/ 2248751
This diagram appears to be hosted on an SCO server. In the diagram, there are no arrows going from unixware to Linux, but there is an arrow from Linux to Unixware, suggesting Linux code has been copied into SCO's non-GPL product...
That does not necessarily mean they paid up. HP already had a perpetual license from SCO to use Unix IP (in HP-UX), and they may just consider this existing license to apply to that IP (if any) existing in the Linux installations they're running.
It could be argued that the manufacturer owes you at least a refund, if a CD-R loses its data in only a few years (although the equipment and method of burning also play a role, over which the manufacturer has no control). Years ago, I used to buy 3M diskettes because it said "lifetime guarantee" on the box. When I went back to the shop with a bad one, I had to convince the guy to replace it. "That just happens sometimes" he said. Anyway, replacing the defective media is about as much as you can expect. However, due to the abysmal results in the PC Active test of the CD-R's sold by the Dutch drugstore chain Kruidvat, they now offer to attempt recovering the data if you have one gone bad. See: article (in Dutch). Apart from the Kruidvat brand, Platinum and MMore are specifically disappointing: article (Sorry, also in Dutch)