This is the kind of thing that makes your day, knowing that you personally have removed at least one source of the crap that fills inboxes. Let's hope the Irish bobbies can do something amazing with your tcpdump trace and if not I'm sure there will be vigilantes out there waiting to DoS the servers you mentioned!
We need more admins who are willing to take action.
Is there scope for running something like spamassassin on outgoing mail? Do people do this? Would give you a chance to stop outgoing spam before you get blacklisted.
Providing a link to the GPL makes clear that they are aware of it. The GPL doesn't say that you have to make the source available for download, and it's impossible to tell without buying the product if they are following the GPL to the letter (i.e. if they are distributing a notice about availability of the source code), but I doubt they would refuse a copy of the source code if asked.
Bruce
I have to admit I was slightly surprised that as many people would blatently disregard what the GPL asks in return for their use of the code, since as you state it is easy (and free) to comply with.
Interesting (and encouraging) that the Hall Of Shame approach is so effective. Personally, no offence intended to anyone, I feel that OS is about software and lawyers should be kept to a minimum. The Hall of Shame is (presumably) far less effort than lengthy legal procedure, and much more friendly: I'd imagine it's more productive in keeping communication open between the OS community and industry.
Makes a mockery of the SCO fiasco:)
Out of interest, do companies you have been in contact with over GPL infringements on busybox generally give a reason for lack of compliance? If so, what are the reasons?
No disrespect meant to Erik, but I took a look around the hall of shame and it's not really as shocking as it first appears. Buffalo's wireless router has a statement at the bottom of the Linked page stating they comply with the GPL and source code is available. The PDF link appears to be an exact copy of the GPL, in PDF format, for some reason.
This leaves three products (counting the bottom three DVD players as one naughty entity) which appear to be breaking the GPL and are doing nothing about it. Considering Erik's 'Products' page, we're doing alright. It would seem that the other companies aren't really kicking up a fuss over having to have the source code available, maybe they just didn't read the GPL when they first used the code?
From the viewpoint of the code actually being used, I think this is a good thing. It represents a shift towards OS. A previous poster said that if even a small percentage give something back, we're doing pretty well. How many closed-source companies can claim to have had constructive feedback on their products that OS has the potential to enjoy?
Perhaps if we are receptive to this use of OS code, we will reap the rewards later when companies realise what a good deal they're getting? Patience is a virtue?
Sounds like an insurance nightmare waiting to happen... Instead of just 'I thought it was clear!' you get 'I thought it was clear and it didn't say I couldn't go!'
Red lights in my city detect a car approaching and automatically turn red, preventing any kind of motion whatsoever!
On a serious note... I fail to see how a system can detect someone about to run a red light in time for you to take avoiding action. It can't conceivably notify you much before you see the car failing to slow down.
Presumably, it's not safe to upgrade the devs package and assume all the changes went to disk when devfs is mounted. Any changes written to the devfs/dev will be lost at next reboot.
This is a kind of dependency that isn't checked for. Should it be? Of course, since i'm running devfs, my on-disc/dev doesn't matter, does it? What if i want to boot an older kernel or decide devfs isn't for me?
(Slackware does support devfs, i think. It at least includes devfsd)
PS I modified my on-disc/dev today by:
# mkdir/devdisc
# mount --bind //devdisc
# rm/devdisc/dev/.devfsd # -- what i wanted to do
# umount/devdisc
Slashdot Mirror
How long before they have patent on tabbed browsing?
Crossing your f's?
This is the kind of thing that makes your day, knowing that you personally have removed at least one source of the crap that fills inboxes. Let's hope the Irish bobbies can do something amazing with your tcpdump trace and if not I'm sure there will be vigilantes out there waiting to DoS the servers you mentioned!
We need more admins who are willing to take action.
Is there scope for running something like spamassassin on outgoing mail? Do people do this? Would give you a chance to stop outgoing spam before you get blacklisted.
Providing a link to the GPL makes clear that they are aware of it. The GPL doesn't say that you have to make the source available for download, and it's impossible to tell without buying the product if they are following the GPL to the letter (i.e. if they are distributing a notice about availability of the source code), but I doubt they would refuse a copy of the source code if asked. Bruce
I have to admit I was slightly surprised that as many people would blatently disregard what the GPL asks in return for their use of the code, since as you state it is easy (and free) to comply with.
Interesting (and encouraging) that the Hall Of Shame approach is so effective. Personally, no offence intended to anyone, I feel that OS is about software and lawyers should be kept to a minimum. The Hall of Shame is (presumably) far less effort than lengthy legal procedure, and much more friendly: I'd imagine it's more productive in keeping communication open between the OS community and industry.
Makes a mockery of the SCO fiasco :)
Out of interest, do companies you have been in contact with over GPL infringements on busybox generally give a reason for lack of compliance? If so, what are the reasons?
Bruce
No disrespect meant to Erik, but I took a look around the hall of shame and it's not really as shocking as it first appears. Buffalo's wireless router has a statement at the bottom of the Linked page stating they comply with the GPL and source code is available. The PDF link appears to be an exact copy of the GPL, in PDF format, for some reason.
This leaves three products (counting the bottom three DVD players as one naughty entity) which appear to be breaking the GPL and are doing nothing about it. Considering Erik's 'Products' page, we're doing alright. It would seem that the other companies aren't really kicking up a fuss over having to have the source code available, maybe they just didn't read the GPL when they first used the code?
From the viewpoint of the code actually being used, I think this is a good thing. It represents a shift towards OS. A previous poster said that if even a small percentage give something back, we're doing pretty well. How many closed-source companies can claim to have had constructive feedback on their products that OS has the potential to enjoy?
Perhaps if we are receptive to this use of OS code, we will reap the rewards later when companies realise what a good deal they're getting? Patience is a virtue?
Bruce
I know there are some women that read slashdot, but I think it's a safe guess there are way more men reading /. then women.
And even less people are looking at 0,Offtopic posts.
Sounds like an insurance nightmare waiting to happen... Instead of just 'I thought it was clear!' you get 'I thought it was clear and it didn't say I couldn't go!'
Red lights in my city detect a car approaching and automatically turn red, preventing any kind of motion whatsoever!
On a serious note... I fail to see how a system can detect someone about to run a red light in time for you to take avoiding action. It can't conceivably notify you much before you see the car failing to slow down.
"where sensors can automatically warn a motorist when another car is approaching, thus helping to avoid a collision."
Who would have guessed... they've invented traffic lights!
Presumably, it's not safe to upgrade the devs package and assume all the changes went to disk when devfs is mounted. Any changes written to the devfs /dev will be lost at next reboot.
This is a kind of dependency that isn't checked for. Should it be? Of course, since i'm running devfs, my on-disc /dev doesn't matter, does it? What if i want to boot an older kernel or decide devfs isn't for me?
(Slackware does support devfs, i think. It at least includes devfsd)
PS I modified my on-disc /dev today by:
# mkdir /devdisc
# mount --bind / /devdisc
# rm /devdisc/dev/.devfsd # -- what i wanted to do
# umount /devdisc
They couldn't answer the question without using the word 'Any' in the answer.