FTA: A simple search of some method names and properties, gleaned from Reflector's output, revealed the source code was obviously lifted from the CodePlex-hosted (yikes) GPLv2-licensed ImageMaster project.
Give me a break! That's just enough evidence to go and dig more deeply. It's hardly proof of anything, but the author's bias.
"Indeed if Netgear doesn't want to play by the rules of the GPL"
Ah, but the rules of the GPL are not clear. Some claim that any LKM is a derivative work of the kernel, however from a legal perspective that is not at all clear.
"The fundamental problem here isn't the RAID concept, is that the throughput and access times of spinning rust haven't changed much in 30 years."
Uh, there's another bigger problem. The drive error rate (when reading data) hasn't changed that much either while data on a drive has dramatically increased.
When doing a rebuild when you've lost all redundancy a single read error means the rebuild will fail. Increase the size of a drive (while keeping error rates constant) and you increase the likelihood of a rebuild failure.
Yes, that's pretty much it. BUT... It's not an entire drive failing that causes the problem, it's a read of a single sector of a drive. Here's a pretty good explanation: http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=162
"Also, it's not against the spirit of the GPL to charge for the software, by the FSF / RMS's definition."
I disagree.
The GPL states "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee." It does not state that you may charge a fee for anything else.
1. I think selling it the way you are is a problem. From the GPL "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee." You're charging a fee for something else.
And the bigger one:
2. You have to make the source code available to a licensee. The GPL says "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable." Notice that last part, "installation of the executable?" So, YOU have to give me the right to put an app in the App Store (you can't unless you're Apple) or the right to use the iPhone SDK (you can't unless you're Apple).
In short, you cannot distribute a GPL application and comply with the GPL license.
... to this problem is for the original user to ask the Wikimedia folks to remove the images and for some U.S. based person to download them from the site and then upload to Wikimedia.
Slashdot Mirror
What Grayson did is politically stupid. However, it is arguable that the person running the web site has violated the law.
Separating out versions of different browsers is just plain silly.
Just to make his life easier?
Welcome to the world of commercial open source...
Will Google be doing all negotiations in public from now on?
What a moronic thing to say Mr. Schmidt...
I don't think he's qualified to write this book. He's not a very good public speaker.
King is more outspoken than most.
"While Apple claims that the iPhone's closed nature offers protection to its users"
Not when you factor in shipping...
FTA: A simple search of some method names and properties, gleaned from Reflector's output, revealed the source code was obviously lifted from the CodePlex-hosted (yikes) GPLv2-licensed ImageMaster project.
Give me a break! That's just enough evidence to go and dig more deeply. It's hardly proof of anything, but the author's bias.
Now we're going to have to listen to this nonsense for another 12 years.
LOL!
Show me ONE jurisdiction that has clearly defined "derivative work".
"Indeed if Netgear doesn't want to play by the rules of the GPL"
Ah, but the rules of the GPL are not clear. Some claim that any LKM is a derivative work of the kernel, however from a legal perspective that is not at all clear.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090429/0244064692.shtml
It's as though these people think they cannot be criticized by average people, just by the media.
"The fundamental problem here isn't the RAID concept, is that the throughput and access times of spinning rust haven't changed much in 30 years."
Uh, there's another bigger problem. The drive error rate (when reading data) hasn't changed that much either while data on a drive has dramatically increased.
When doing a rebuild when you've lost all redundancy a single read error means the rebuild will fail. Increase the size of a drive (while keeping error rates constant) and you increase the likelihood of a rebuild failure.
Yes, that's pretty much it. BUT... It's not an entire drive failing that causes the problem, it's a read of a single sector of a drive. Here's a pretty good explanation: http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=162
7-10 generations isn't that many...
She's been arrested, but what has she done that is supposedly against the law?
What idiot thought doing this without user opt-in was a good idea?
... even if AT&T does that will it actually stop them. I can imagine that a court might rule that AT&T can't do this.
This is NOT news. You'll find this in every such filing going back for years people...
"Also, it's not against the spirit of the GPL to charge for the software, by the FSF / RMS's definition."
I disagree.
The GPL states "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee." It does not state that you may charge a fee for anything else.
1. I think selling it the way you are is a problem. From the GPL "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee." You're charging a fee for something else.
And the bigger one:
2. You have to make the source code available to a licensee. The GPL says "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable." Notice that last part, "installation of the executable?" So, YOU have to give me the right to put an app in the App Store (you can't unless you're Apple) or the right to use the iPhone SDK (you can't unless you're Apple).
In short, you cannot distribute a GPL application and comply with the GPL license.
A database is copyrightable. See http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html
... to this problem is for the original user to ask the Wikimedia folks to remove the images and for some U.S. based person to download them from the site and then upload to Wikimedia.
... do it with software. This CPU overhead is minimal for that.
Things like RAID 5 are where you'd be better off with a dedicated controller.