This is different because in all of your examples you are theorizing some sort of service which is provisioned in a manner that is tightly controlled by specific companies and highly regulated by government. The topic at hand is a person purchasing and implementing a device aimed at making it more convenient to use the internet service he or she has agreed to pay for, be it cable/dsl/[whatever-controlled-form-of-high-speed- access]. To my mind if you equate a neighbor hopping on to an unprotected wi-fi network with theft of metered electrical service, you've got the problem with logic, not me.
But the point behind the analogy is that all of them are metered services sold to a specific individual.
And the point you wish to sweep under the rug is that this fails to analogize the topic under discussion, which is the notion that it is deemed wrong to use an access point in its apparently intended manner. Have a nice day!
Now, let me ask you: would you consider the situation the same had a person tapped a neighbor's electricity main? Or water line? Or POTS telephone service?
Terrible analogies. Please demonstrate how any of those actions could be taken without physically invading the neighbor's property or trespassing on the property of the utility companies providing the service to the neighbor. I'm trying to imagine an electricity hookup capable of transmitting its availability and automagically hooking up to provide electricity to a nearby house/car/man-in-the-street. That's the difference you asked for.
Just because you can break into a network does not give you the right to do so.
Using a wireless connection where the access point willingly responds to unauthenticated packets by handing out an IP address and subsequently routes traffic from that address hardly constitutes breaking into a network, in my book. TFA is very skimpy with details, which doesn't help me to sympathize with either party in the situation, but please could we avoid these sorts of denouncements of hacking/cracking/otherwise brutalizing a network when in fact the network did exactly what it was set up to do?
(I've lost count of the number of times I've accidentally attached to my neighbour's WAP [1]... telling Windows not too is like pulling teeth)
IME (and I don't use Windows personally, but I have configured Windows boxes with wireless many times) it is quite simple to designate an access point in your list as manual connection only. The main trouble is finding the list. And I would guess that if your neighbor is frequently changing SSID you'd have a big problem. But YMMV of course.
I didn't say it would be a good idea, just that it would be possible.
Well then, returning to what started this entire exchange, perhaps you could have noted when hypothesizing that a person releases a movie under GPL that it is not something you consider a good idea, even though it seems possible. You have opened my eyes to one thing in particular: the definition of works licensable in the current draft needs careful consideration.
4-6 of the GPL only require that you comply with the license in order to keep your rights under the license, conditions indicating acceptance, and the pay-it-forward model the GPL uses. None of those hinge on a source/object code model.
The rights under the license are specifically tied to your ability (as the recipient) to modify source code to produce object code. How can you say that this does not hinge on a source/object code model?
What I think is dangerous about going down this path is that it is not clear at all what the terms "source code" and "object code" mean in a non-software context, as you yourself state: Some creative interpretation of what object code is might be required... Probably copies of the materials that were edited together to form the movie.... Someone thinking of distributing a movie under this license had better get something significantly more concrete before doing it.
I'm not sure I understand how you can construe this to provide for licensing works that do not fit the source code/object code model. Sections 4 through 6 become impossible to fulfill without a work that can exist in these forms. What is actually being granted to the recipient of a supposedly GPL-licensed movie? The privilege to form a production crew and matching cast to generate a facsimile, with one's own modifications that must be detailed to downstream recipients who wish to do the same?
Let's say that someone released a movie under the GPL
How in the heck can someone do that? The GPL is a software license with specific requirements as for distribution of source code when programs are offered in machine-run-only form. Yes, there is much that can be done using computer software in the production of a movie, but the movie itself is not the software that was used in the course of production. It makes no sense to hypothesize this way!
Not to encourage a monopoly beast to maintain its grip on the market, but... by properly supporting ODF, Microsoft could use the existing set of tools for accessibility as a strong selling point and reason NOT to switch to alternatives to MS-Office. It is astonishing to me that the accessibility advocates don't see how standardizing on an open file format could result in better support for their needs from all quarters, MICROSOFT INCLUDED! Instead of crying foul in Massachusetts, they should be banging down the doors in Redmond demanding support for ODF.
And to clarify my clarification, it is possible that parent poster made the comment based on reading/etc/dispatch-conf.conf, which contains a variable named "use-rcs" which defaults to no. It is quite possible that this must be switched to yes before it is possible for dispatch-conf to employ the "replace-unmodified" option, but that is not documented anywhere that I have looked.
Im not sure, but it might be that this only works with RCS (which is a optional dependency of dispatch-conf). And gentoo always tries to be as lean as possible in the default. But Im guessing there.
Just so that anyone bothering to read this deeply into the thread doesn't go away with misinformation, dispatch-conf is provided by sys-apps/portage. As one might hope, this vital package has no dependency for rcs.
Why didn't you point this out in the first place?;-) CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK is a terrible thing to change for someone like me who may modify some init scripts while leaving most as they come with the package. Thank you for this information.
Now the question that remains for me is, given that this is the behavior for dispatch-conf that would probably be of most benefit to ordinary users, why is the default for replace-unmodified not already yes? I think we're still seeing where Gentoo can improve.
Propably because you still use the very conservative default empty CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK. see "emerge --help config" and the make.conf manpage. Putting/etc/init.d into you CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK would have prevented many manual config updates.
Thanks for the tip. Now just how many ordinary users will go to the lengths to use this way of reducing the unnecessary notifications?
In addition, this is somewhat of a coarse way to deal with the issue. Ideally, a user-modified init script should be the trigger for configuration change notices rather than a big on/off switch for the entire/etc/init.d directory.
I realize that's much more difficult to implement, but it might prevent stuff-ups where the user follows this recommendation for CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK, later on uses a forum how-to that recommends modifying one of the init scripts and then emerges world and fails to get a needed security tweak for the package.
I use dispatch-conf, and I prefer it to etc-update, but I think you're possibly missing the point in your reply. The unfortunate truth is that there are a lot of configuration files to handle, including init scripts, which change significantly at a rapid pace. Even using dispatch-conf, I still find myself wondering why I'm being asked to review files which I would never modify unless I had intimate working knowledge of the service being run.
This should not be dismissed without admitting that there may be a better way for the metadata updates to be handled.
I work for a government lab that develops both free software and private software (specifically when under contract with private companies) and we have to deal with this issue constantly. We try our best to not reinvent the wheel and to use pre-existing libraries that are out there, but sometimes you find a perfectly fitting library only to find its GPL'd, which kills any possibility of using it since not all of the work a company like ours can do is able to have a GPL style license.
I'm mightily confused here. How is it that a "government lab" gets to be represented also as a company? Are you working for an independent contractor that happens to do a large amount of its work for government contracts? If you're working for a government lab, your primary source of funding is public tax monies, and it can be argued that anything you develop with that as your funding base should be licensed to the public which you serve. If you really do work for a government lab that needs to prevent disclosure for reasons of security, you shouldn't be posting here;-)
Using GPL-licensed software in your programming projects is certainly something that requires forethought and attention to detail. If your goal is to create a solution that can be kept closed from others, don't do it. On the other hand, if you see a benefit to using it, why not consider following its terms to ensure that someone else down the line receives a similar benefit from you?
A couple of thoughts on your suggestion. First, you may not be charging enough for your services in repairing problems created by malware installations. If it's truly expensive to fix, your clients will have more incentive to educate themselves and avoid repeat performances. But they will still pay you in order to get things back in working order. Those who balk at your rate will actually provide some of the relief you may be looking for in terms of workload.
If you're spending a lot of time fixing things for friends and family without compensation comparable to what you expect from clients, you need to lay ground rules. First time offender: fix it and strongly recommend security changes (new browser, antivirus, real firewall, anti-spyware). Second offense, recommendations not followed: implement your recommendations and tell them you will only fix further problems on a pay basis. Stick to that policy if they continue to infect themselves!
Keep in mind that fixing these problems confers a benefit back to you in terms of holding further spread in check, preventing denials of service, etc. If some of your clients get uncomfortable about the cost of the cleanup, you then can pull out your recommendation for OS X and tell them they'll avoid all of it. But be honest, too, about what they can expect in terms of shrink-wrap software supported on the platform. If there is a program they love that is only supported on Windows, you're not going to get positive feedback if they switch to a Mac and can't use it any more, unless you give them a work-alike on the Mac, and even then, it may still be a problem for them.
Re:Does anyone else find it mildly strange....
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
For starters, sharing, co-operation, and working for the common good is not always moral, e.g. sharing copyrighted music, co-operating with criminals, or working for your own version of the common good (which doesn't apply to everyone everywhere); those things have to be measured against some higher standard.
[Emphasis added by me]
Nice logical sidestep there. Sharing copyrighted music violates both the spirit of co-operation (social contract of copyright) and the common good (if we continue to deprive artists of their due, they'll stop performing). Co-operating with criminals certainly can't be considered sharing nor working for the common good. I don't even know what the heck you're trying to imply by "working for your own version of the common good." You'll need to work a little harder at convincing me of the moral turpitude of sharing, co-operating and working for the common good.
Say what you want about Microsoft, and while much of it's true, the users are to a degree at fault as well. If I leave my keys in my car and the doors unlocked, I can't very well blame the manufacturer for it being stolen.
The problem with this analogy is that you are implying that Microsoft actually provides the door locks which the users are neglecting to use. While things have gotten better with respect to default services and firewalling, it is still de riguer to add on third-party software to any Microsoft Windows OS in order to get it to an acceptable level of security.
Say what you want about Ford, GM, Daimler-Chrysler, etc., but they do always provide the door security mechanisms!
To be completely fair, Windows XP Professional (not Home!) comes with built-in support for RDP connections (RDP == Remote Desktop Protocol). But if the system is truly unresponsive at the console it's highly unlikely that a connection attempt would succeed. RDP connections are encrypted in transit, too, so while it's not SSH, it's also not unencrypted VNC either.
I have employed Remote Assistance (which is not RDP) and I have to say that I would rather be raked over hot coals naked than have to use it every time I need to provide help for Windows users.
What a surprise, they don't want to pay for intellectual property either.
I don't suppose you consider it costs enough for CopyNight simply to have hosting for their website without having to pay fees for graphics to put up (which inevitably drives up the cost of hosting over time too!). If they were trying to sell maps of North America, I might consider your comment understandable, but as it stands you're just another member of the peanut gallery.
is your path to this program if you're on amd64. Be prepared to see app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-{compat|baselibs|xlib s|gtklibs} as dependencies if you haven't already sucked them in.
First of all, there's no complaint filed in court to speculate about. But the notion that a court would decide to compensate implies that this would be a civil action rather than a criminal one. It also would imply that monetary damages are involved. IANAL, but it appears to me that both of those notions are out of place here. PearPC developers do not have a monetary stake in their code, but they certainly have rights under copyright law.
As the RIAA and MPAA would be fond of reminding us, copyright infringement is a criminally punishable offense. If the developers of PearPC decide to take action, I believe (and again, IANAL!) it should be in the form of making a complaint to the authorities with jurisdiction over MXS that they are violating criminal copyright law, and they should request appropriate legal restraints against MXS to bar further violations. It is in the best interests of the District Attorney's office to ensure that the laws of the land are being properly enforced, after all. If the PearPC folk are feeling generous, they might decide to discuss this action with legal representatives from MXS before filing their complaint, giving them a chance to live up to their obligations under the GPL.
I think MXS might not like to think about it in terms of "The People v. MXS", but that's what it should be. By the way, I did say I Am Not A Lawyer, right?
I wrote a letter to the article's author
on
SCO On the Rocks
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I'd mod you up, but I thought it might be better to share the letter I just wrote to the author/editor instead. I took exception to the entire paragraph you quoted.
To: spencer_ante@businessweek.com
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 12:32:48 -0800
Subject: Article "A Linux Nemesis on the Rocks"
I read with interest your article concerning the legal battle waged by
the SCO Group against IBM. While your opening paragraph paints with
somewhat of a broader brush than is perhaps warranted for the
present-day operating systems software landscape, it is further in
that I question your grasp of the facts.
You write, "While short on business, SCO held some potentially
powerful copyrights." I think it is either dishonest of you to state
this, or you are genuinely unaware that there is substantial doubt
over whether the SCO Group actually hold the copyrights they claim to
hold. It appears that you are trying to present a balanced report
drawing from various sources, so I would encourage you to consider as
well the legal actions of SCO with Novell concerning those copyrights.
In the same paragraph you go on to say, "Partly funded by a hefty
Microsoft license payment, SCO leveled a multibillion-dollar suit
against IBM, charging that Big Blue had fed SCO-copyrighted software
into Linux." You probably should have included Sun Microsystems when
mentioning hefty license payments to the SCO Group. It is also
putting a lot of water under the bridge to simplify the lawsuit
against IBM the way you do here. The SCO Group have been trying very
hard in court to claim that it is a case about contracts rather than
copyrights, while making statements to the press to the contrary. In
combination with the earlier "held some potentially powerful
copyrights" line, this is simply misleading for readers unfamiliar
with the case.
"This triggered fear and loathing in the fast-growing Linux
community." I feel it is a mischaracterization of the Linux community
to make this statement. While there have been some outspoken
individuals who support Linux and have made strong statements in
opposition to the claims of the SCO Group, the community as a whole
neither fears nor hates the SCO Group per se. It would be more
accurate to say that this triggered a vigorous response in the Linux
community, with many advocates questioning the basis for the claims of
the SCO Group.
"A court win for SCO, Linux fans feared, could bring its growth to a
grinding halt." Again, while there have been some who have speculated
this, I think it is inappropriate to put it in the context you have
chosen. There are, for instance, many Linux advocates who have stated
that they want the SCO Group to specify their infringement claims so
that the offending code can be removed to end the infringement. The
notion that a win for SCO spells the end of Linux is not one that
originates within the Linux community, and should certainly not be
stated as though it is an accepted fact.
"And so, SCO became one of the most vilified companies in the
technology industry." The SCO Group certainly will not win any
popularity contests with advocates of open source software, and there
have been a lot of criticisms leveled against them, but stating that
they are vilified conveys the notion that it is somehow not justified.
I find this sentence to be gratuitous and irrelevant to the article
in general. It does not do anything to inform your readers, but
rather inspires them to consider the SCO Group somewhat of a victim
and the open source community somewhat of a bully. I expect better
from a column labeled as "News Analysis".
It's really rather unfortunate that you started the article with such
a poor footing, because the rest of the piece is very good. If not
for the overdramatization in the opening and the paragraph I've
referenced above, I would recommend your article to friends and
associates wanting to know more about the SCO v. IBM lawsuit.
... where the heck you can find this "open" letter? The eWeek article has quotes from it, sure, but no link that I could see. Perhaps there's a subtle point being made - open standards should be accessible to all in the same way this open letter should be accessible to all.
Slashdot Mirror
This is different because in all of your examples you are theorizing some sort of service which is provisioned in a manner that is tightly controlled by specific companies and highly regulated by government. The topic at hand is a person purchasing and implementing a device aimed at making it more convenient to use the internet service he or she has agreed to pay for, be it cable/dsl/[whatever-controlled-form-of-high-speed- access]. To my mind if you equate a neighbor hopping on to an unprotected wi-fi network with theft of metered electrical service, you've got the problem with logic, not me.
But the point behind the analogy is that all of them are metered services sold to a specific individual.
And the point you wish to sweep under the rug is that this fails to analogize the topic under discussion, which is the notion that it is deemed wrong to use an access point in its apparently intended manner. Have a nice day!
Now, let me ask you: would you consider the situation the same had a person tapped a neighbor's electricity main? Or water line? Or POTS telephone service?
Terrible analogies. Please demonstrate how any of those actions could be taken without physically invading the neighbor's property or trespassing on the property of the utility companies providing the service to the neighbor. I'm trying to imagine an electricity hookup capable of transmitting its availability and automagically hooking up to provide electricity to a nearby house/car/man-in-the-street. That's the difference you asked for.
Just because you can break into a network does not give you the right to do so.
Using a wireless connection where the access point willingly responds to unauthenticated packets by handing out an IP address and subsequently routes traffic from that address hardly constitutes breaking into a network, in my book. TFA is very skimpy with details, which doesn't help me to sympathize with either party in the situation, but please could we avoid these sorts of denouncements of hacking/cracking/otherwise brutalizing a network when in fact the network did exactly what it was set up to do?
(I've lost count of the number of times I've accidentally attached to my neighbour's WAP [1] ... telling Windows not too is like pulling teeth)
IME (and I don't use Windows personally, but I have configured Windows boxes with wireless many times) it is quite simple to designate an access point in your list as manual connection only. The main trouble is finding the list. And I would guess that if your neighbor is frequently changing SSID you'd have a big problem. But YMMV of course.
Well then, returning to what started this entire exchange, perhaps you could have noted when hypothesizing that a person releases a movie under GPL that it is not something you consider a good idea, even though it seems possible. You have opened my eyes to one thing in particular: the definition of works licensable in the current draft needs careful consideration.
Augers and borers and drills, oh my!
The rights under the license are specifically tied to your ability (as the recipient) to modify source code to produce object code. How can you say that this does not hinge on a source/object code model?
What I think is dangerous about going down this path is that it is not clear at all what the terms "source code" and "object code" mean in a non-software context, as you yourself state: Some creative interpretation of what object code is might be required... Probably copies of the materials that were edited together to form the movie.... Someone thinking of distributing a movie under this license had better get something significantly more concrete before doing it.
I'm not sure I understand how you can construe this to provide for licensing works that do not fit the source code/object code model. Sections 4 through 6 become impossible to fulfill without a work that can exist in these forms. What is actually being granted to the recipient of a supposedly GPL-licensed movie? The privilege to form a production crew and matching cast to generate a facsimile, with one's own modifications that must be detailed to downstream recipients who wish to do the same?
How in the heck can someone do that? The GPL is a software license with specific requirements as for distribution of source code when programs are offered in machine-run-only form. Yes, there is much that can be done using computer software in the production of a movie, but the movie itself is not the software that was used in the course of production. It makes no sense to hypothesize this way!
Not to encourage a monopoly beast to maintain its grip on the market, but... by properly supporting ODF, Microsoft could use the existing set of tools for accessibility as a strong selling point and reason NOT to switch to alternatives to MS-Office. It is astonishing to me that the accessibility advocates don't see how standardizing on an open file format could result in better support for their needs from all quarters, MICROSOFT INCLUDED! Instead of crying foul in Massachusetts, they should be banging down the doors in Redmond demanding support for ODF.
And to clarify my clarification, it is possible that parent poster made the comment based on reading /etc/dispatch-conf.conf, which contains a variable named "use-rcs" which defaults to no. It is quite possible that this must be switched to yes before it is possible for dispatch-conf to employ the "replace-unmodified" option, but that is not documented anywhere that I have looked.
Just so that anyone bothering to read this deeply into the thread doesn't go away with misinformation, dispatch-conf is provided by sys-apps/portage. As one might hope, this vital package has no dependency for rcs.
Now the question that remains for me is, given that this is the behavior for dispatch-conf that would probably be of most benefit to ordinary users, why is the default for replace-unmodified not already yes? I think we're still seeing where Gentoo can improve.
Thanks for the tip. Now just how many ordinary users will go to the lengths to use this way of reducing the unnecessary notifications?
In addition, this is somewhat of a coarse way to deal with the issue. Ideally, a user-modified init script should be the trigger for configuration change notices rather than a big on/off switch for the entire /etc/init.d directory.
I realize that's much more difficult to implement, but it might prevent stuff-ups where the user follows this recommendation for CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK, later on uses a forum how-to that recommends modifying one of the init scripts and then emerges world and fails to get a needed security tweak for the package.
This should not be dismissed without admitting that there may be a better way for the metadata updates to be handled.
I'm mightily confused here. How is it that a "government lab" gets to be represented also as a company? Are you working for an independent contractor that happens to do a large amount of its work for government contracts? If you're working for a government lab, your primary source of funding is public tax monies, and it can be argued that anything you develop with that as your funding base should be licensed to the public which you serve. If you really do work for a government lab that needs to prevent disclosure for reasons of security, you shouldn't be posting here ;-)
Using GPL-licensed software in your programming projects is certainly something that requires forethought and attention to detail. If your goal is to create a solution that can be kept closed from others, don't do it. On the other hand, if you see a benefit to using it, why not consider following its terms to ensure that someone else down the line receives a similar benefit from you?
If you're spending a lot of time fixing things for friends and family without compensation comparable to what you expect from clients, you need to lay ground rules. First time offender: fix it and strongly recommend security changes (new browser, antivirus, real firewall, anti-spyware). Second offense, recommendations not followed: implement your recommendations and tell them you will only fix further problems on a pay basis. Stick to that policy if they continue to infect themselves!
Keep in mind that fixing these problems confers a benefit back to you in terms of holding further spread in check, preventing denials of service, etc. If some of your clients get uncomfortable about the cost of the cleanup, you then can pull out your recommendation for OS X and tell them they'll avoid all of it. But be honest, too, about what they can expect in terms of shrink-wrap software supported on the platform. If there is a program they love that is only supported on Windows, you're not going to get positive feedback if they switch to a Mac and can't use it any more, unless you give them a work-alike on the Mac, and even then, it may still be a problem for them.
Nice logical sidestep there. Sharing copyrighted music violates both the spirit of co-operation (social contract of copyright) and the common good (if we continue to deprive artists of their due, they'll stop performing). Co-operating with criminals certainly can't be considered sharing nor working for the common good. I don't even know what the heck you're trying to imply by "working for your own version of the common good." You'll need to work a little harder at convincing me of the moral turpitude of sharing, co-operating and working for the common good.
The problem with this analogy is that you are implying that Microsoft actually provides the door locks which the users are neglecting to use. While things have gotten better with respect to default services and firewalling, it is still de riguer to add on third-party software to any Microsoft Windows OS in order to get it to an acceptable level of security.
Say what you want about Ford, GM, Daimler-Chrysler, etc., but they do always provide the door security mechanisms!
I have employed Remote Assistance (which is not RDP) and I have to say that I would rather be raked over hot coals naked than have to use it every time I need to provide help for Windows users.
I don't suppose you consider it costs enough for CopyNight simply to have hosting for their website without having to pay fees for graphics to put up (which inevitably drives up the cost of hosting over time too!). If they were trying to sell maps of North America, I might consider your comment understandable, but as it stands you're just another member of the peanut gallery.
First of all, there's no complaint filed in court to speculate about. But the notion that a court would decide to compensate implies that this would be a civil action rather than a criminal one. It also would imply that monetary damages are involved. IANAL, but it appears to me that both of those notions are out of place here. PearPC developers do not have a monetary stake in their code, but they certainly have rights under copyright law.
As the RIAA and MPAA would be fond of reminding us, copyright infringement is a criminally punishable offense. If the developers of PearPC decide to take action, I believe (and again, IANAL!) it should be in the form of making a complaint to the authorities with jurisdiction over MXS that they are violating criminal copyright law, and they should request appropriate legal restraints against MXS to bar further violations. It is in the best interests of the District Attorney's office to ensure that the laws of the land are being properly enforced, after all. If the PearPC folk are feeling generous, they might decide to discuss this action with legal representatives from MXS before filing their complaint, giving them a chance to live up to their obligations under the GPL.
I think MXS might not like to think about it in terms of "The People v. MXS", but that's what it should be. By the way, I did say I Am Not A Lawyer, right?
... where the heck you can find this "open" letter? The eWeek article has quotes from it, sure, but no link that I could see. Perhaps there's a subtle point being made - open standards should be accessible to all in the same way this open letter should be accessible to all.