Bruce Schneier also reccommends this - see this and scroll down to the paragraph on passwords.
I actually use GPass, which I like a lot. I remember one long random password and make sure to back up my data file to a second hard drive. The ability to copy usernames and passwords to the system clipboard is nifty.
The assumption I'm making is that the software is deomstrative of the patent. Therefore using the software would be using the patented "invention". Therefore a license that lets everyone use the software (which an oss-approved license would) would let everyone use the patent. Therefore your power to pick and choose how your patent is used is gone.
I agree with what you're saying about the problems of patents - and that an open source implementation would make the patent less vague - but it would also make its power moot. Note, I still think an oss license is better than exercising your patent however.
I think the author has some fundamental misunderstandings about patents. They are statutory granted monopolies that allow you to decide how your "invention" is used. Therefore, if you release your patented software under an open source license, your patent is now meaningless since the oss license now says how your software can be used. This may be a good thing in that everyone can benefit and no one else can patent it, but this is not what the author is saying. The author seems to thing that you would still get the benefits of the patent, which is incorrect.
While you cannot group all open source programmers and programs together; many are rigorous and respectful of the intellectual property rights, while others speak of intellectual property rights with open contempt.
Here's one immediate problem with the way this guy thinks - the two groups of programmers he mentions are not mutually exclusive as he implies. One can speak out about the problems with IP rights and still be respectful and careful about not violating them.
The typical way (in the legal system) of establishing that a patent is for something obvious is by showing that prior art exists - and that it is obvious in light of the prior art. So yes, it is needed.
Its not a matter of when Apple first had the "invention" - but you're right that its not the application date either. In the United States there is typically a grace period that Apple gets - meaning that prior art would have to be from a year before Apple's application in order to invalidate the patent. In some instances the grace period is less (or none at all) depending on the form of the prior art - but if you can go back a year you've definitely gone back far enough for prior art.
Exactly. A computer scientist's need for math is much greater than a programmer's. Coputer science is an applied mathematics. When you design an abstract algorithm and you're technical manager wants to be sure that it necessarilly terminates - it helps if you can write a formal proof - even if just for yourself.
As for what math you should take - at a minimum you should take an intro to advanced mathematics class. You'll learn like the Principle of Mathematical Induction, how to write proofs, some basic set theory stuff, etc.
Then take another math course depending on your interests. Interested in using fractals for image compression? Take a course in nonlinear dynamic systems. The point is - if your interested in something you can do with computer science, look for a math course that goes through the underlying theory.
One reason I like to install from source that I don't think gets talked about much is dependencies. Usually this is given as a reason to use pre-compiled binary packages. But I think it is the major flaw in binary packages.
When you have, say, an RPM the person who built it and declared its dependencies is usually one more person removed from the package's author or the person who writes the "configure.in" file for the souce configure script. This leaves a lot of room for the dependencies to get screwed up - your rpm installs but really needs something that's not there or it won't install because of something you do have but was written into the spec file incorrectly.
However, running the configure script yourself is a much safer way to resolve dependency issues, even if it is much more time-consuming. And if the configure script is incorrect, compiling almost always lets you know right then that you need something else. As long as the program doesn't load things with libdl itself, you're ok. And in that case, the programmer is probably checking for plug-ins - which by definition don't need to be there.
Generally you can be more sure that something will work correctly if you can build it yourself.
This is not at all the reason. Current constitutional law will allow the federal government to generally regulate commercial activity under the enumerated power of interstate commerce even if the activity itself didn't cross state lines (which in this case it does anyway) - if the activity itself can have a substantial effect on interstate commerce its fair game (and pretty much anything has a substantial effect - the courts won't strike it down if its a commercial activity).
The question here will be whether or not Congress wants to allow states to regulate spam as well - and the answer is yes (based on provisions in the recent federal spam bill). But if Congress wanted to they could probably completely keep the states from regulating spam.
Slashdot Mirror
Bruce Schneier also reccommends this - see this and scroll down to the paragraph on passwords. I actually use GPass, which I like a lot. I remember one long random password and make sure to back up my data file to a second hard drive. The ability to copy usernames and passwords to the system clipboard is nifty.
The assumption I'm making is that the software is deomstrative of the patent. Therefore using the software would be using the patented "invention". Therefore a license that lets everyone use the software (which an oss-approved license would) would let everyone use the patent. Therefore your power to pick and choose how your patent is used is gone. I agree with what you're saying about the problems of patents - and that an open source implementation would make the patent less vague - but it would also make its power moot. Note, I still think an oss license is better than exercising your patent however.
I think the author has some fundamental misunderstandings about patents. They are statutory granted monopolies that allow you to decide how your "invention" is used. Therefore, if you release your patented software under an open source license, your patent is now meaningless since the oss license now says how your software can be used. This may be a good thing in that everyone can benefit and no one else can patent it, but this is not what the author is saying. The author seems to thing that you would still get the benefits of the patent, which is incorrect.
While you cannot group all open source programmers and programs together; many are rigorous and respectful of the intellectual property rights, while others speak of intellectual property rights with open contempt.
Here's one immediate problem with the way this guy thinks - the two groups of programmers he mentions are not mutually exclusive as he implies. One can speak out about the problems with IP rights and still be respectful and careful about not violating them.
The typical way (in the legal system) of establishing that a patent is for something obvious is by showing that prior art exists - and that it is obvious in light of the prior art. So yes, it is needed.
Its not a matter of when Apple first had the "invention" - but you're right that its not the application date either. In the United States there is typically a grace period that Apple gets - meaning that prior art would have to be from a year before Apple's application in order to invalidate the patent. In some instances the grace period is less (or none at all) depending on the form of the prior art - but if you can go back a year you've definitely gone back far enough for prior art.
Exactly. A computer scientist's need for math is much greater than a programmer's. Coputer science is an applied mathematics. When you design an abstract algorithm and you're technical manager wants to be sure that it necessarilly terminates - it helps if you can write a formal proof - even if just for yourself.
As for what math you should take - at a minimum you should take an intro to advanced mathematics class. You'll learn like the Principle of Mathematical Induction, how to write proofs, some basic set theory stuff, etc.
Then take another math course depending on your interests. Interested in using fractals for image compression? Take a course in nonlinear dynamic systems. The point is - if your interested in something you can do with computer science, look for a math course that goes through the underlying theory.
Unlike GPLd software, the Java sources don't come with a viral infection clause that requires you to apply the GPL to your own code
Didn't sell your soul, huh?
One reason I like to install from source that I don't think gets talked about much is dependencies. Usually this is given as a reason to use pre-compiled binary packages. But I think it is the major flaw in binary packages. When you have, say, an RPM the person who built it and declared its dependencies is usually one more person removed from the package's author or the person who writes the "configure.in" file for the souce configure script. This leaves a lot of room for the dependencies to get screwed up - your rpm installs but really needs something that's not there or it won't install because of something you do have but was written into the spec file incorrectly. However, running the configure script yourself is a much safer way to resolve dependency issues, even if it is much more time-consuming. And if the configure script is incorrect, compiling almost always lets you know right then that you need something else. As long as the program doesn't load things with libdl itself, you're ok. And in that case, the programmer is probably checking for plug-ins - which by definition don't need to be there. Generally you can be more sure that something will work correctly if you can build it yourself.
Its important to note that this legislation is not so much law as it is a framework for law. See this letter.
This is not at all the reason. Current constitutional law will allow the federal government to generally regulate commercial activity under the enumerated power of interstate commerce even if the activity itself didn't cross state lines (which in this case it does anyway) - if the activity itself can have a substantial effect on interstate commerce its fair game (and pretty much anything has a substantial effect - the courts won't strike it down if its a commercial activity).
The question here will be whether or not Congress wants to allow states to regulate spam as well - and the answer is yes (based on provisions in the recent federal spam bill). But if Congress wanted to they could probably completely keep the states from regulating spam.