Considering the spread of DMCA-like laws worldwide, it will be hard to find a country in a few years with enough freedom to officially host such a project. Just look at the way, how software patents are being introduced in the EU despite the opposition by the EU parliament. Or look at what happens in Australia... The DMCA may not be everywhere (yet), but if the US continues to aggresively push laws like this through WIPO and WTO channels, using their economic leverage over the rest of the world, it will be in less than a decade.
If we don't like the DMCA, it will have to be changed or abolished in the US itself. Just putting the burden on the shoulders of other countries won't do. Unfortunately, the US government (and other industrialized countries) discovered IP as a new economic asset they want to market. That's why we're getting increasingly more regulation in this area. That's also the reason why it will be extremely difficult to lobby effectively against DMCA and similar laws.
And that's the reason why underground hacker projects will always exist. It doesn't matter if something is legal today, or forbidden tomorrow (or legal again the day after tomorrow): if it is technically feasible, someone, somewhere will write a program, and that program will spread, no matter what the governments du jour think about it.
tables, titles,...? How about going back to monospaced fonts, and laying out things neatly without any kind of formatting commands? We could even use ASCII art to render company logos.
Sites like google news just provides link to the orignal site. This is FREE advertisment for the orignal sites.
Google News doesn't just link to the sites, it uses part of the information on their main page.
Is that covered by fair use? IANAL.
It is free advertisement to news sites? Well, Google could collect some fees from them (it's not like they were starving) to recover their AP fees.
Google itself is a wee bit bigger than most news sites that license AP material. Paying some fees to AP or AFP won't even make a dent in their balance.
Despite this, AP's or AFP's behavior looks greedy, to say the least.
Oh yeah! Companies using Beta RAM and Linux could just as well switch back to Windows then. Microsoft would be delighted in a "I told you so" kind of way. They sure would gain from such a deal.
Hmmm. most end users run some version of Windows, and won't be able to tell the difference between a software bug in Windows, and faulty RAM anyway.
So, in a twisted sense, it's probably even true: ECC won't do those Windows users any good, at least not substantially. Unix users don't count as end users anyway:)
Those hardware ram testers run a program too. The only difference is that some of them (the most expensive) also measure the electric behavior of the modules, detecting stuff like timing problems etc... Most ram testers are not that good anyway, they are just small embedded devices that run some version of memtest.
Every chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
This holds true in the military area, more than everywhere else. I work in environments that are very sensitive to security, and we take such external reviews extremely seriously. There's no such thing as an "obscure" or "irrelevant" weakness.
Unlike most vanilla companies, we can't afford to let things slide, security-wise. Knowing that your clients are prime target for highly professional black hats and (not only industrial) spies is highly motivating. This includes (of course) penetration testing (conducted both internally and by independant contractors), but also exclusive use of open source code and internal code auditing. As an aside: personnel (HR) auditing is also very important, if not even more so than technical aspects!
Sure, most companies don't need this level of security awareness and can get away with being "pragmatic", but don't complain when your client database (with all the goodies like credit card data etc.) gets compromized!
IANAL, but this is basically the way to go. The GPL (or another license) is the ONLY hole through the copyright-wall, so to speak. Without license, you are infringing copyright.
BUT if you don't follow the license terms on the letter, does that automatically mean that you are infringing copyright? You may be violationg some kind of contract (user agreement, license agreement), which is something completely different.
Violating terms of an agreement or a license doesn't automatically voide that contract, unless specified verbatim in that same contract or license. Even if it is specified, local laws may not always endorse this. There's also the concept of salvation clauses, which is often part of contracts, but not always.
Anyway... depending on the legislation and country you're being sued, copyright infrigement may or may not be a criminal offense, while contract violation is almost always just a civil liability. That's a very important difference, not only regarding the potential penalties you may be facing.
But again, IANAL (any Lawyer on Slashdot to comment?).
This is perfectly legitimate. If you want to develop a closed source project, you can either negotiate with the copyright owner to get a separate commercial licence... or avoid GPLed code altogether (and use [, support, and create more] BSD-licensed code).
The rules are known in advance. If I started developing software using GPL code, I should know what I'm doing. It's as simple as that.
Companies who think they could get away with using GPL-ed code, without having to comply with the license terms they accepted, ought to get slapped, just like any other willful copyright infringer.
Because Linus didn't snoop out undocumented proprietary formats in order to figure out how to make Linux compatible with Unix operating systems. He simply built a free operating system that conformed to the published and open Posix standards.
Hmmm... what came first, COFF or Linux (0.01)? And was COFF officially documented or even published back then? Where? In some proprietary include files? Same for a.out format. I'm not even talking about ELF, since that came much later in the game, when Linux was already popular. It's difficult to write a Unix clone from scratch, without snooping at existing implementations. That was even more difficult back then, when all you had was Minix (which is internally very different from the Unix described in Bach), or, if you were lucky, the BSD 4.3 (not 4.4Lite) tapes! Access to published Unix API-standards was either prohibitively expensive, or outright impossible, since those standards didn't exist (or had not yet matured) back then.
But despite this: you're still right. Linus didn't really have to rely heavily on reverse engineering to created Linux 0.01 (or later).
Being organized is not a good idea for crackers. When engaging in criminal activity, it's always better to work in small groups, and best to do it alone.
Such a high degree of organization is only possible if the law enforcement agencies are not really interested in catching those guys.
It's amazing how easily one can fool high tech equipment with low tech techniques and tricks. What did the Iraqis 1990 to fool heat sensors? They put camping methane burners inside tank decoys to attract missiles. And guess what? It worked great!
How do you fool robots? What about airplanes dropping huge loads of water on them? They may be isolated against water, but think of all the mud all around: that could easily render them useless. And who said it has to be water? What about acid? You get the idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering the spread of DMCA-like laws worldwide, it will be hard to find a country in a few years with enough freedom to officially host such a project. Just look at the way, how software patents are being introduced in the EU despite the opposition by the EU parliament. Or look at what happens in Australia... The DMCA may not be everywhere (yet), but if the US continues to aggresively push laws like this through WIPO and WTO channels, using their economic leverage over the rest of the world, it will be in less than a decade.
If we don't like the DMCA, it will have to be changed or abolished in the US itself. Just putting the burden on the shoulders of other countries won't do. Unfortunately, the US government (and other industrialized countries) discovered IP as a new economic asset they want to market. That's why we're getting increasingly more regulation in this area. That's also the reason why it will be extremely difficult to lobby effectively against DMCA and similar laws.
And that's the reason why underground hacker projects will always exist. It doesn't matter if something is legal today, or forbidden tomorrow (or legal again the day after tomorrow): if it is technically feasible, someone, somewhere will write a program, and that program will spread, no matter what the governments du jour think about it.
Deep blue, to be correct, due to much higher color depth resolution...
Do these guys know no limits (for their memory hungry OS)? Must remember... to buy memory manufacturers stocks...
You instead attend confrences for a couple weekends to learn all about Windows 2003. When Windows 2004 comes out, you do it again.
... using BOFH tactics to get those junkets!
That doesn't tell us which MSFT stock options he directly or indirectly holds.
Make email illegal (then there will be no more spam!)
spam will be the ONLY remaining smtp traffic, since it doesn't care about being legal or not!
That would have been indirect recursion at best.
tables, titles, ...? How about going back to monospaced fonts, and laying out things neatly without any kind of formatting commands? We could even use ASCII art to render company logos.
I would like to know what they guy answered.
You didn't sign an NDA to know the answer!
Sites like google news just provides link to the orignal site. This is FREE advertisment for the orignal sites.
Despite this, AP's or AFP's behavior looks greedy, to say the least.
Oh yeah! Companies using Beta RAM and Linux could just as well switch back to Windows then. Microsoft would be delighted in a "I told you so" kind of way. They sure would gain from such a deal.
They say end-users don't need ECC
Hmmm. most end users run some version of Windows, and won't be able to tell the difference between a software bug in Windows, and faulty RAM anyway.
So, in a twisted sense, it's probably even true: ECC won't do those Windows users any good, at least not substantially. Unix users don't count as end users anyway :)
Those hardware ram testers run a program too. The only difference is that some of them (the most expensive) also measure the electric behavior of the modules, detecting stuff like timing problems etc... Most ram testers are not that good anyway, they are just small embedded devices that run some version of memtest.
Every chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
This holds true in the military area, more than everywhere else. I work in environments that are very sensitive to security, and we take such external reviews extremely seriously. There's no such thing as an "obscure" or "irrelevant" weakness.
Unlike most vanilla companies, we can't afford to let things slide, security-wise. Knowing that your clients are prime target for highly professional black hats and (not only industrial) spies is highly motivating. This includes (of course) penetration testing (conducted both internally and by independant contractors), but also exclusive use of open source code and internal code auditing. As an aside: personnel (HR) auditing is also very important, if not even more so than technical aspects!
Sure, most companies don't need this level of security awareness and can get away with being "pragmatic", but don't complain when your client database (with all the goodies like credit card data etc.) gets compromized!
If you knew German you'd know that ;)
Uhh... but Munich is in Bavaria. You may know a bit of German, yet be totally helpless when confronted with that strange bavarian dialect! :-)
A propos bavarian dialect: does anyone know of a bavarian "translation" of the (german translation of the) GPL?
IANAL, but this is basically the way to go. The GPL (or another license) is the ONLY hole through the copyright-wall, so to speak. Without license, you are infringing copyright.
BUT if you don't follow the license terms on the letter, does that automatically mean that you are infringing copyright? You may be violationg some kind of contract (user agreement, license agreement), which is something completely different.
Violating terms of an agreement or a license doesn't automatically voide that contract, unless specified verbatim in that same contract or license. Even if it is specified, local laws may not always endorse this. There's also the concept of salvation clauses, which is often part of contracts, but not always.
Anyway... depending on the legislation and country you're being sued, copyright infrigement may or may not be a criminal offense, while contract violation is almost always just a civil liability. That's a very important difference, not only regarding the potential penalties you may be facing.
But again, IANAL (any Lawyer on Slashdot to comment?).
MySQL does this.
As well as Trolltech (the outfit behind Qt).
This is perfectly legitimate. If you want to develop a closed source project, you can either negotiate with the copyright owner to get a separate commercial licence... or avoid GPLed code altogether (and use [, support, and create more] BSD-licensed code).
The rules are known in advance. If I started developing software using GPL code, I should know what I'm doing. It's as simple as that.
Companies who think they could get away with using GPL-ed code, without having to comply with the license terms they accepted, ought to get slapped, just like any other willful copyright infringer.
Because Linus didn't snoop out undocumented proprietary formats in order to figure out how to make Linux compatible with Unix operating systems. He simply built a free operating system that conformed to the published and open Posix standards.
Hmmm... what came first, COFF or Linux (0.01)? And was COFF officially documented or even published back then? Where? In some proprietary include files? Same for a.out format. I'm not even talking about ELF, since that came much later in the game, when Linux was already popular. It's difficult to write a Unix clone from scratch, without snooping at existing implementations. That was even more difficult back then, when all you had was Minix (which is internally very different from the Unix described in Bach), or, if you were lucky, the BSD 4.3 (not 4.4Lite) tapes! Access to published Unix API-standards was either prohibitively expensive, or outright impossible, since those standards didn't exist (or had not yet matured) back then.
But despite this: you're still right. Linus didn't really have to rely heavily on reverse engineering to created Linux 0.01 (or later).
both Linux and Windows/NTFS will enable you
On FreeBSD, you can encrypt partitions with GBDE. on NetBSD with cgd.
Being organized is not a good idea for crackers. When engaging in criminal activity, it's always better to work in small groups, and best to do it alone.
Such a high degree of organization is only possible if the law enforcement agencies are not really interested in catching those guys.
And the Russian police is the best in the world, in corrupcy
And the KGB was the best in corrupsy!
42?
No, 42 is the Answer, not the Question. The question is what the Question was!
The movie is not 100% accurate? Oh, you mean just like the Guide?
It's amazing how easily one can fool high tech equipment with low tech techniques and tricks. What did the Iraqis 1990 to fool heat sensors? They put camping methane burners inside tank decoys to attract missiles. And guess what? It worked great!
How do you fool robots? What about airplanes dropping huge loads of water on them? They may be isolated against water, but think of all the mud all around: that could easily render them useless. And who said it has to be water? What about acid? You get the idea.
Bigger robots
Robots running Linux?