This is simply untrue. Since the creation of copyright law it has been possible to "disable" it. Releasing code into the public domain completely "disables" copyright protection over that code and results in absolutely no restrictions. This is, by definition, the most free code can be.
Any license represents some degree of compromise between public domain (total lack of control) and no right to distribute at all. The BSD license is very close to public domain offering no control over distribution and only defensive mechanisms against liability. The GPL contains quite a number of restrictions on redistribution and a few on use. It is not "more free" than either public domain or the BSD license by any rational perspective.
I think that the novelty of this distincion lies in the fact that the closed-source development community doesn't leap at every opportunity to pontificate about their superior moral values and encouraging a "community of cooperation and sharing".
The behavior of the hypothetical closed-source developer who is making use of BSD licensed code and not giving back the product of their labor is consistent and understandable.
The behavior of the GPL development community which refuses to share with anyone but themselves while at the same time happily making use of code released under less-restrictive licenses is a bit less consistent. In contrast to the commonly-repeated slogans about sharing and community, GPL development is as closed and asocial as any closed-source development when viewed from the perspective of a non-GPL-using developer. Even those who choose very open and community-friendly licenses.
The contradiction between the rhetoric and the reality is sharp.
I don't so much mind the one-way street from BSD to GPL, but I mind those same people turning around and yelling at me for being less free while they do it.
In 2002 - product activation was the biggest punishment I have ever seen for a paid customer
I don't see how you can come to this conclusion. Product Activation is a total non-event for the vast majority of customers. It's way less invasive than some of the other copy protection schemes the industry has seen over the years.
I sure prefer it to the fragile, tenuous daisy chain of serial port dongles I had in the 80s and it's way better than copy-protected media that was impossible to back up.
In the years I've been running XP, the product activation has caused me _zero_ difficulty, and that's on home-built hardware that's been upgraded and changed quite a bit over the years.
Maybe in your operating system the file is name simply "core". In more refined systems this is not the case, where core is simply the file prefix with a suffix which indicates the name of the program that died.
Then what you want is bitlbee. Seriously, it's precisely what you're looking for.
bitlbee lets you connect to all the major IM networks using your normal irc client. When your mouth-breating, non-irc-using friends send you an instant message, it shows up just as a normal irc privmsg and you can respond in kind.
Re:Firefox + Thunderbird = Mozilla?
on
Mozilla 1.7 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
It's not as pretty, but it's ten times more functional. Just load up "about:config" from the Location bar in Firefox. This will give you access to every tunable feature that exists in the program, including and far exceeding those which are exposed in Mozilla's preferences.
At first I thought that this post represented a new slashdot low (Math is hard, let's go shopping!) but then I noticed that the damn thing has been upmodded twice.
JPriest may just be having a caffeine-free day, but who are the two jagfucks who thought this was interesting and insightful?
Microsoft can't just decide that it owns this Intel BIOS. You did read the article, right? Or at least the headline?
History doesn't really lead a person to expect that Microsoft would do this, nor does your unrelated assertion that "Microsoft cares only about Microsoft" really support your theory either.
DRM does not prevent data sharing. It prevents you from sharing data which you don't have the authority to share.
Nothing about DRM will prevent musicians from creating music and giving it to the world. Nothing about DRM will prevent programmers from writing code and giving it to the world.
All DRM blocks is the illicit spread of data against the owner's wishes, which is hardly an essential function of any society or system.
Much lower tech, but my favorite example or a conference's realtime security monitoring is this whiteboard from the 2000 Monterey BSDCon.
It's a brutal but compelling reminder that we should all avoid unencrypted telnet/pop3/imap.
Consider spending some time today getting STARTTLS running on your mail server. Or consider getting IMAP/SSL going. Or consider figuring out GnuPG or S/MIME email once and for all. Don't be part of the problem.
SPF enforces the envelope sender (from the smtp "mail from:" comman", not the header "From:" line. I believe if you look, you'll see that your mailing list mails have the envelope sender set to the mailing list's sender address.
In this context the hash is being used as metadata which is used by the user to evaluate the file prior to downloading it. The hash acts as a way to confirm that the file is what it claims to be (through a simple consensus method). The value of the hash is that it might allow the user to avoid downloading a file which is not what it claims to be.
If you have to download the whole file then the purpose of having the hash in the first place is ruined.
We're not talking about ensuring the integrity of the file transfer, we're talking about assurances on the file's contents.
So simply, review the context before you jump into a discussion.
I am aware that client and protocol changes could, if embraced by the userbase, incorporate this sort of refinement to the system. I interpreted the original poster, however, as meaning that it would be trivial to do as a person seaching for a file.
While you can argue that he was vague I didn't take the phrasing "write a script" to mean that he was talking about changing the protocol and everyone's client software.
It is misinformed to accuse modern-day publishers of promoting the use of the word "piracy" in order to spin public opinion on copyright infringement. Use of the word "piracy" for infringement of IP dates back to at least 1771 according to the Oxford English Dictionary:
2. fig. The appropriation and reproduction of an invention or work of another
for one's own profit, without authority; infringement of the rights conferred
by a patent or copyright.
1771 LUCKOMBE Hist. Print. 76 They..would suffer by this act of piracy, since
it was likely to prove a very bad edition. 1808 Med. Jrnl. XIX. 520 He is
charged with 'Literary Piracy', and an 'unprincipled suppression of the source
from whence he drew his information'. 1855 BREWSTER Newton I. iv. 71 With the
view of securing his invention of the telescope from foreign piracy.
"MySQL uses table locking (instead of row locking or column locking) on all table types, except BDB tables, to achieve a very high lock speed. For large tables, table locking is MUCH better than row locking for most applications"
Re:What, no editorial?
on
Red Hat Recap
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Bear in mind that any user of REHEL (with or without a service agreement) is also bound to this agreement which serves as an extension to the standard EULA.
In it, the user agrees not to install RHEL on machines not covered by a service agreement and that if they are caught doing so they may be charged penalties by Red Hat.
This Red Hat Linux Advanced Server and Services Agreement (the "Agreement" is between Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat") and any purchaser or user ("Customer") of Red Hat Linux Advanced Server or Services (as defined below).
This text is quite clear. If you are using RHEL, you're bound by the agreement. It's not specific to their services agreement.
Plus this:
BY USING OR PURCHASING RED HAT LINUX ADVANCED SERVER OR SERVICES, CUSTOMER SIGNIFIES ITS ASSENT TO THIS AGREEMENT.
It's pretty difficult to read this any way other than as it is written. If you're using RHEL, you're bound to such gems as this:
If Customer is found to have underreported the number of Installed Server by more than five percent (5%), Customer shall, in addition to the annual fee for Service per Installed Server, pay a penalty equal to twenty percent (20%) of the underreported fees.
and
If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed Servers, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed Server.
Slashdot Mirror
This is simply untrue. Since the creation of copyright law it has been possible to "disable" it. Releasing code into the public domain completely "disables" copyright protection over that code and results in absolutely no restrictions. This is, by definition, the most free code can be.
Any license represents some degree of compromise between public domain (total lack of control) and no right to distribute at all. The BSD license is very close to public domain offering no control over distribution and only defensive mechanisms against liability. The GPL contains quite a number of restrictions on redistribution and a few on use. It is not "more free" than either public domain or the BSD license by any rational perspective.
I think that the novelty of this distincion lies in the fact that the closed-source development community doesn't leap at every opportunity to pontificate about their superior moral values and encouraging a "community of cooperation and sharing".
The behavior of the hypothetical closed-source developer who is making use of BSD licensed code and not giving back the product of their labor is consistent and understandable.
The behavior of the GPL development community which refuses to share with anyone but themselves while at the same time happily making use of code released under less-restrictive licenses is a bit less consistent. In contrast to the commonly-repeated slogans about sharing and community, GPL development is as closed and asocial as any closed-source development when viewed from the perspective of a non-GPL-using developer. Even those who choose very open and community-friendly licenses.
The contradiction between the rhetoric and the reality is sharp.
I don't so much mind the one-way street from BSD to GPL, but I mind those same people turning around and yelling at me for being less free while they do it.
Please explain how it is possible to "misappropriate" BSD licensed code. (hint: it isn't)
It's not "cooperation" if people are compelled by the license to behave the way you want them to.
I don't see how you can come to this conclusion. Product Activation is a total non-event for the vast majority of customers. It's way less invasive than some of the other copy protection schemes the industry has seen over the years.
I sure prefer it to the fragile, tenuous daisy chain of serial port dongles I had in the 80s and it's way better than copy-protected media that was impossible to back up.
In the years I've been running XP, the product activation has caused me _zero_ difficulty, and that's on home-built hardware that's been upgraded and changed quite a bit over the years.
I had the same reaction. I stopped caring about these films after seeing the second one in the theater. I've never seen the third one either.
I call ignorant.
Maybe in your operating system the file is name simply "core". In more refined systems this is not the case, where core is simply the file prefix with a suffix which indicates the name of the program that died.
bitlbee lets you connect to all the major IM networks using your normal irc client. When your mouth-breating, non-irc-using friends send you an instant message, it shows up just as a normal irc privmsg and you can respond in kind.
It's not as pretty, but it's ten times more functional. Just load up "about:config" from the Location bar in Firefox. This will give you access to every tunable feature that exists in the program, including and far exceeding those which are exposed in Mozilla's preferences.
Ohhhhhh! I just broke my hip from sadness!
At first I thought that this post represented a new slashdot low (Math is hard, let's go shopping!) but then I noticed that the damn thing has been upmodded twice.
JPriest may just be having a caffeine-free day, but who are the two jagfucks who thought this was interesting and insightful?
The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears that this is true.
Microsoft can't just decide that it owns this Intel BIOS. You did read the article, right? Or at least the headline?
History doesn't really lead a person to expect that Microsoft would do this, nor does your unrelated assertion that "Microsoft cares only about Microsoft" really support your theory either.
Sure, it's a glib response that totally avoids any real content.
I'm regretful that my wording left me open to the response, but I don't feel that it has in any way detracted from the point I made.
DRM does not prevent data sharing. It prevents you from sharing data which you don't have the authority to share.
Nothing about DRM will prevent musicians from creating music and giving it to the world. Nothing about DRM will prevent programmers from writing code and giving it to the world.
All DRM blocks is the illicit spread of data against the owner's wishes, which is hardly an essential function of any society or system.
It's a brutal but compelling reminder that we should all avoid unencrypted telnet/pop3/imap.
Consider spending some time today getting STARTTLS running on your mail server. Or consider getting IMAP/SSL going. Or consider figuring out GnuPG or S/MIME email once and for all. Don't be part of the problem.
SPF enforces the envelope sender (from the smtp "mail from:" comman", not the header "From:" line. I believe if you look, you'll see that your mailing list mails have the envelope sender set to the mailing list's sender address.
It works just fine.
Way to miss the point.
In this context the hash is being used as metadata which is used by the user to evaluate the file prior to downloading it. The hash acts as a way to confirm that the file is what it claims to be (through a simple consensus method). The value of the hash is that it might allow the user to avoid downloading a file which is not what it claims to be.
If you have to download the whole file then the purpose of having the hash in the first place is ruined.
We're not talking about ensuring the integrity of the file transfer, we're talking about assurances on the file's contents.
So simply, review the context before you jump into a discussion.
Replying to all three of you...
I am aware that client and protocol changes could, if embraced by the userbase, incorporate this sort of refinement to the system. I interpreted the original poster, however, as meaning that it would be trivial to do as a person seaching for a file.
While you can argue that he was vague I didn't take the phrasing "write a script" to mean that he was talking about changing the protocol and everyone's client software.
No, it's pretty much impossible to do this unless you plan to download all the files first which sort of defeats the purpose of the checksumming.
How do you figure? $9.99 for an album is a lot cheaper than buying a cd in the store.
"no", "no", "yes".
Hope that makes it seem less strange for you.
"MySQL uses table locking (instead of row locking or column locking) on all table types, except BDB tables, to achieve a very high lock speed. For large tables, table locking is MUCH better than row locking for most applications"
In it, the user agrees not to install RHEL on machines not covered by a service agreement and that if they are caught doing so they may be charged penalties by Red Hat.
This text is quite clear. If you are using RHEL, you're bound by the agreement. It's not specific to their services agreement. Plus this: It's pretty difficult to read this any way other than as it is written. If you're using RHEL, you're bound to such gems as this: and