To paraphrase James Baldwin: I love Linux more than any other operating system in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.
I work with the vulnerability management team and product security team at a large software company, and trust me vulnerabilities are treated as product defects. The cost of addressing vulnerabilities in the field is huge, and not addressing them is simply not feasible - customers would never tolerate it.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:...
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Not really. Compilers are typically written as front-ends and back-ends. The front-end translates the source code into an intermediate form and the back-end translates the intermediate form into machine language.
Yes, static code tools do work well for finding certain classes of issues. However, they are not a panacea. They do not understand the semantics that are intended and cannot effectively replace code reviews.
4 and 5 are in conflict. When someone is deceased any power of attorney they granted is no longer valid. Perhaps you meant the executor/personal representative of the estate?
Given the litigation risk, some open source companies, including Red Hat, acquire patents for the sole purpose of asserting them defensively in the event they are faced with a future lawsuit.
You could remove "open source" from the sentence above and it would be just as accurate.
It seems likely that Google will respond by hosting servers in specific countries so that companies can try to protect their data from prying eyes. The Cayman Islands seem to be a favorite of financiers, maybe the Caymans will make their privacy laws equally attractive.
I read it, but where does it say that anonymous speech is a protected right?
Did you see this in the court's decision: "Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment." Let's remove that intervening phrase, just to help make it clear: "an author's decision to remain anonymous... is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment." Damn sure sounds like anonymous speech is protected to me.
But here's the simple truth, right now if I make anonymous speech, someone has the right to go into a court, get a subpoena and learn my identity.
Under some circumstances yes, that's true. Under most circumstances it's not. Keep in mind there are NO absolute rights.
Example: go to court and try to get a subpoena to try to find out my identity. No court is going to grant you the ability to learn my identity because you have no basis to ask a court to let you do that.
But there simply is no Constitutional right in the US to anonymous free speech.
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you:
"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."
"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."
From the client "Oh, Watchtower told us that they used some open source apps but did not mention as to what they used". When I brought up the fact that parts of Watchtower are based on OpenNMS, the client replied "I could not find one ounce of mention on their website to OpenNMS or any other Open Source code that is running on this product. That really irritates me."
I should also mention that this client is in final negotiations with Cittio (they dropped their initial price considerably) so we're not talking a first contact cold call here - they are ready to close this deal without a single detail concerning their use of open source.
So what? The GPL does not require that someone disclose prior to distribution that code is licensed under the GPL or that the distributee can access the code. Where's the violation?
This sounds like either ignorance of the GPL, sour grapes, or both.
Slashdot Mirror
to f'off...
To paraphrase James Baldwin: I love Linux more than any other operating system in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.
I work with the vulnerability management team and product security team at a large software company, and trust me vulnerabilities are treated as product defects. The cost of addressing vulnerabilities in the field is huge, and not addressing them is simply not feasible - customers would never tolerate it.
Not true. Section 3c of the GPLv2 states:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: ...
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
I suspect it was written in B.
Not really. Compilers are typically written as front-ends and back-ends. The front-end translates the source code into an intermediate form and the back-end translates the intermediate form into machine language.
Nope, C is built using C. Check out self-hosting.
Yes, static code tools do work well for finding certain classes of issues. However, they are not a panacea. They do not understand the semantics that are intended and cannot effectively replace code reviews.
For some people it crashes a lot. See http://digg.com/software/New_comments_system_crashes_Opera?t=15343612
be held accountable for this debacle?
If it's so simple then it should have been spelled out that way ;-)
Yes, that would work.
4 and 5 are in conflict. When someone is deceased any power of attorney they granted is no longer valid. Perhaps you meant the executor/personal representative of the estate?
You could remove "open source" from the sentence above and it would be just as accurate.
Well, no. It's an array that can practically heal itself (at least in theory). BIG difference...
Never happen, it'd piss off too many of their campaign contributors...
It seems likely that Google will respond by hosting servers in specific countries so that companies can try to protect their data from prying eyes. The Cayman Islands seem to be a favorite of financiers, maybe the Caymans will make their privacy laws equally attractive.
If you don't care about your Constitutional rights that's fine, but some people do and we'd like to protect them if you don't mind.
Did you see this in the court's decision: "Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment." Let's remove that intervening phrase, just to help make it clear: "an author's decision to remain anonymous ... is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment." Damn sure sounds like anonymous speech is protected to me.
Under some circumstances yes, that's true. Under most circumstances it's not. Keep in mind there are NO absolute rights.
Example: go to court and try to get a subpoena to try to find out my identity. No court is going to grant you the ability to learn my identity because you have no basis to ask a court to let you do that.
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you:
"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."
SCOTUS in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."
SCOTUS in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
I read the blog entry. His complaints indicate he doesn't understand the GPL.
It's not just integrated feeds, it's screen scraping a page to create a feed. It's similar to one of the features of Yahoo Pipes.
Saudis are not significant voting block in an important state in Presidential elections, as Cubans are...
The guy writes:
So what? The GPL does not require that someone disclose prior to distribution that code is licensed under the GPL or that the distributee can access the code. Where's the violation?
This sounds like either ignorance of the GPL, sour grapes, or both.