I'm sure this is 100% correct, but they define linux kernel as "released from kernel.org, stable, GPL".
Any kernel modified by someone else (RedHat, gentoo-sources,...) does not seem to match the definition.
If mainline includes patented ideas, they will go into the modified distribution-kernels as well.
They can (could) be sued.
For such cases StegFS http://stegfs.sourceforge.net/ or something similar is wonderful. You turn over some keys, but not the ones that can access the sensitive hidden data.
It shouldn't matter whether there are any locks or not. That means the trespasser should not get more punishment because he had to crack locks in the process.
I think that noone should be punished for decrypting something, because the very goal of encryption is that unauthorized people can not decrypt the data. If they can anyway then the cipher was inherently unsafe, and it's the encryptor's fault.
You need a process that manages your windows. So you can have X in the kernel, or in userspace. Since it would bloat the kernel we go for userspace. Now some form of Inter-Process-Communication is needed: If any sane person had decided to develop a non-network transparent windowing system, he or she would eventually have created something very similar to X11 (without the possibility of using TCP sockets) and then realized that it was trivial to add the network transparency to the system anyway.
Yes, that's how they should work. If there is some flaw in the used algorithm it may however be possible to generate the file from the hash. I really doubt this can generate fakes that match MD5 and filesize though. And if they could do it, we would have other problems anyway, because it is not only filesharing software that relies on MD5 being irreversible:)
Yes, you can sell GPL code to anyone, but the one getting the code will be granted all the freedoms the GPL provides as well. The recieving company could also sell the recieved modified source or give it away for free. So it's only a matter of time until someone releases it publicly and legally for free.
The GPL allows to keep private changes private, because you are not infringing on anyones freedoms by doing that and anyone who somehow got the binaries is legally entitled to get the source, too and enjoys all the GPL-freedoms. And how would you force someone to publish private changes anyway? There are things like the Affero GPL for web-services and the GPL3 will probably also include forced-publishing for servers that are also run publibcly. But noone could ever know that you did modifications, if they are totally private anyway
1. Just modify every document from someone else without changing it's meaning, and you *should* be fine.
2. This is not a problem. Everyone is allowed to sign as many documents as one wishes with one's own key. You still have the original document that was given to you.
Still, looking for something other than SHA-1 is probably a good idea.
No,
the GPL does not state that the program is licensed under either the included version, or any subsequent version.
You may state that in your own program if you want to do so, and the FSF regularly does so in its own programs (of course, because the FSF, being the author of the GPLs, would always like the new versions).
I never license under GPL v2 or later, because I have no idea what a GPL v3 in the future might look like, and the FSF could basically control my program's license. (Not that I distrust the FSF or something.)
Donating money to VACCINATING CHILDREN is not bad. It is good, very good. I think that most of the "fuckingly insane" people, just want to warn about thinking that Bill Gates is good, because he did something good.
You don't automatically become good when you give $10 of your stolen $1000 to charity.
Slashdot Mirror
Theories of science are never proven.
I'm sure this is 100% correct, but they define linux kernel as "released from kernel.org, stable, GPL". ...) does not seem to match the definition.
Any kernel modified by someone else (RedHat, gentoo-sources,
If mainline includes patented ideas, they will go into the modified distribution-kernels as well.
They can (could) be sued.
For such cases StegFS http://stegfs.sourceforge.net/ or something similar is wonderful. You turn over some keys, but not the ones that can access the sensitive hidden data.
But what, when you have no other $50 left?
What? Confirm I'm not a script? This will be a serious problem for slashdot readers who can't see the image for whatever reason.
Some people would disagree with you on this one though.
Does that mean that cuba actually paid Microsoft for the windows licenses?
No.
Combine a) with b).
It shouldn't matter whether there are any locks or not. That means the trespasser should not get more punishment because he had to crack locks in the process.
I think that noone should be punished for decrypting something, because the very goal of encryption is that unauthorized people can not decrypt the data. If they can anyway then the cipher was inherently unsafe, and it's the encryptor's fault.
The line must be draw at the obvious place:
Anything that can be decrypted by unauthorized people is not encrypted.
In distributed version control everone seems to be a server anyway.
You need a process that manages your windows. So you can have X in the kernel, or in userspace. Since it would bloat the kernel we go for userspace. Now some form of Inter-Process-Communication is needed:
If any sane person had decided to develop a non-network transparent windowing system, he or she would eventually have created something very similar to X11 (without the possibility of using TCP sockets) and then realized that it was trivial to add the network transparency to the system anyway.
Yes, that's how they should work. If there is some flaw in the used algorithm it may however be possible to generate the file from the hash. I really doubt this can generate fakes that match MD5 and filesize though. And if they could do it, we would have other problems anyway, because it is not only filesharing software that relies on MD5 being irreversible :)
Never rely on ANY encyclopedia if you need trusted information.
Yes, you can sell GPL code to anyone, but the one getting the code will be granted all the freedoms the GPL provides as well. The recieving company could also sell the recieved modified source or give it away for free. So it's only a matter of time until someone releases it publicly and legally for free.
The GPL allows to keep private changes private, because you are not infringing on anyones freedoms by doing that and anyone who somehow got the binaries is legally entitled to get the source, too and enjoys all the GPL-freedoms.
And how would you force someone to publish private changes anyway? There are things like the Affero GPL for web-services and the GPL3 will probably also include forced-publishing for servers that are also run publibcly. But noone could ever know that you did modifications, if they are totally private anyway
If he did not offer a copy of the official rulebook he certainly did not infrige the copyright of the rules.
No, that's okay. It should only become 3 when it becomes binary-incompatible with userspace applications.
1. Just modify every document from someone else without changing it's meaning, and you *should* be fine.
2. This is not a problem. Everyone is allowed to sign as many documents as one wishes with one's own key. You still have the original document that was given to you.
Still, looking for something other than SHA-1 is probably a good idea.
No,
the GPL does not state that the program is licensed under either the included version, or any subsequent version.
You may state that in your own program if you want to do so, and the FSF regularly does so in its own programs (of course, because the FSF, being the author of the GPLs, would always like the new versions).
I never license under GPL v2 or later, because I have no idea what a GPL v3 in the future might look like, and the FSF could basically control my program's license. (Not that I distrust the FSF or something.)
Will still be less traffic than using http or ftp and having the same number of people download the thing.
Donating money to VACCINATING CHILDREN is not bad. It is good, very good. I think that most of the "fuckingly insane" people, just want to warn about thinking that Bill Gates is good, because he did something good.
You don't automatically become good when you give $10 of your stolen $1000 to charity.
I don't see why everything has to be patched.
You will have problem though, when you can't legally challenge a law anymore, because there is no way to do so.
It is impossible to use 32-bit drivers with a 64-bit kernel. Not even on linux.