While in general I'm not sure I like it when Microsoft locks out thrird-party software, I've got no warm feelings for Symantec and McAfee, who I see as little better than pushers.
The EU has data protection laws and should stick to them. The US shouldn't be able bully the rest of the world to ignoring its laws.
Well... I don't see a problem from the view of the airlines. It will be a personal issue for the passengers. The airlines will have to tell passengers going from the EU to the US that they must "opt-in" to giving up the data to fly to the US, since the US can bar people who do not provide it. It's not really an airline issue, it's more like saying you can't come to the US without a Visa. Now, it's a Visa and this data.
This way, the US would not be "bullying" the airline to break EU laws, they would simply be telling people that come to the US that like the Visa, this info is required. In this way, it has nothing at all to do with the EU. It's a personal issue up to the passenger.
If these sorts of "demands" - clean casual office ware and a minimum of body hardware - are so "superficial", what's the problem? Put on a pair of Dockers, and change after work. Put in your nose ring on the way out the door after work. What's the big deal?
This comment made me realize another key thing to look at when deciding whether to hire a former blackhat. Were their activities motivated by money, a desire to explore, or to just defy security?
It makes no difference at all in the final analysis; the damage is still there regardless of the motivation.
Jeans, T-shirt, piercings, tatoos, uncombed long hair and beard are my personality, get over it.
Offensive to the eyes and ears is 100% as bad as not showering. If you offend my other employees, I don't care how "golden" your code is, I can find someone who's code is just as "golden", and doesn't offend my other employees.
As long as I bang out enough code to meet my boss' requirements I'm golden.
Don't lose that job then, you may not find another like it.
The problem is that the search engines aren't TRYING to be publishers.
I think that searches such as Google really straddle the line with how they present their search results, presenting content almost like RSS aggregators.
I think it's easy to make a good argument that they want to provide the same type of service but with the added value of more sources, so as to attract eyeballs. Googl's not in it for humanity, you know.
So you're telling me that writers, doctors, teachers, students, shop owners and other people who use word processors also need to learn to be programmers before they can dare to suggest that Open Office has usability issues? Come on! I'm just pointing out something that has been pointed out over and over again. It would be nice if Open Office offered a real alternative to MS Office, for many reasons. But the folks who do know how to fix Open Office have to admit that these flaws are a critical roadblock to the adoption of Open Office in a broader context than hobby and fringe users. Smart-assed fanboy comments like "well, why don't YOU write the code" do nothing but alienate the majority of users.
What Open Office really needs is not Firebox plug-in, but a complete code rewrite so that it is not a bloated whale of an application. In its current incarnation, Open Office is not anywhere near an alternative to MS Office except for home users and Open Source / Anti-Microsoft zealots who are willing to ignore critical usability flaws.
Isn't that what all the Open Source cheering squad advertises? All those "eyes" and all that? Can't complain about it now, the genie's out of the bottle.
i can't see any disadvantage to this, they're only adding loudspeakers to already existing CCTV cameras. they're not breaching your privacy anymore than before
No, maybe not "sour grapes". But there are some (many?) in the "Open Source world who do resent it when their work is used commercially, and nothing is "given back" to Open Source. They have a point. I would argue that these people need a more restrictive license than the GPL, and indeed there are other "Open Source" licenses that offer a more restrictive framework. But if they choose the GPL, no whining when someone exploits a loophole.
No, I think maybe this case needs closer examination to see if in fact it violates the GPL in a strict reading...
A big problem is that many media companies and companies like Microsoft don't really believe that copyright license like CC and the GPL are "real" licenses. These companies believe that there is really nothing backing these kind of license up, and while the little people may get pissed off, no one has the resources to come after them. It's going to take a court case to make these people pay attention to Open Source licenses.
I don't really think commercial use has much to do with the license issue at all. But it does have to do with why Maryanovsky is upset at Rabinovitch. Rabinovitch found a loophole in the GPL that allows him to circumvent the "spirit" of the GPL. Maryanovsky doesn't like this, but it doesn't change the facts that while the "spirit" of the GPL has been violated, the letter has not.
The fact that Maryanovsky asked for money and Rabinovitch refused is irrelevent to the question of if this is or is not a GPL violation. Sure, it would be nice if Rabinovitch had paid up, it would have solved a lot of problems. But that's why many people don't use the GPL, they want to get paid. If you GPL your work, this may not happen even ifyour work is used commercially. This is why I said Maryanovsky should have chosen a different license...
Having read the article, it seems that it really comes down to this: The IChessU client connects to Jin through sockets, and Maryanovsky claims that the intimacy of this connection makes the two programs one. Thus, the code for the IChessU client must be published. Rabinovitch says this isn't so, they are two separate things. But what it really comes down to is, once again, the Open Source people don't like the fact that someone is using GPL'd code to make money without "giving back" even when there is no real violation of the GPL. It's a loophole for sure, but it's there and it's not a secret. If Maryanovsky wanted to have more control over the use of his code, he should have chosen a different license.
Well, that's exactly what most CEOs and corporate boards believe, that it's OK to be amoral (and thus, immoral). And that's the problem. There are many example such ans Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, and now HP...
Please stop perpetuating the myth that corporations are inherently amoral because their shareholders demand nothing less.
But in practice, it turns out that this is true.
The root of the problem is the entire concept of what the purpose of a publicly held corporations is. I don't know a whole lot about what the principles behind the "official" purpose of incorporation are, but I thought that the trade off was that in exchange for certain benefits to the corporation, somehow there was a benefit to society beyond the shareholders. But today, a corporation having good returns and staying in the green, developing worthwhile products or services, it's not enough. Wall Street demands that corporations achieve obscene profits at all costs, over all other objectives. This is simply wrong. Profits are certainly important, but part of the equation should include the perpetuation of a quality product that people want, and the health and welfare of the employees, who should be rewarded with a comfortable living
for their dedication and loyalty. Maybe this has never really been true.
Slashdot Mirror
While in general I'm not sure I like it when Microsoft locks out thrird-party software, I've got no warm feelings for Symantec and McAfee, who I see as little better than pushers.
Well... I don't see a problem from the view of the airlines. It will be a personal issue for the passengers. The airlines will have to tell passengers going from the EU to the US that they must "opt-in" to giving up the data to fly to the US, since the US can bar people who do not provide it. It's not really an airline issue, it's more like saying you can't come to the US without a Visa. Now, it's a Visa and this data.
This way, the US would not be "bullying" the airline to break EU laws, they would simply be telling people that come to the US that like the Visa, this info is required. In this way, it has nothing at all to do with the EU. It's a personal issue up to the passenger.
I guess I just do think of Dockers and a nice shirt as "opressive". But that's me.
If these sorts of "demands" - clean casual office ware and a minimum of body hardware - are so "superficial", what's the problem? Put on a pair of Dockers, and change after work. Put in your nose ring on the way out the door after work. What's the big deal?
It makes no difference at all in the final analysis; the damage is still there regardless of the motivation.
Offensive to the eyes and ears is 100% as bad as not showering. If you offend my other employees, I don't care how "golden" your code is, I can find someone who's code is just as "golden", and doesn't offend my other employees.
Don't lose that job then, you may not find another like it.
Yes, but FM? I think AM will be more useful.
I think that searches such as Google really straddle the line with how they present their search results, presenting content almost like RSS aggregators.
I think it's easy to make a good argument that they want to provide the same type of service but with the added value of more sources, so as to attract eyeballs. Googl's not in it for humanity, you know.
So you're telling me that writers, doctors, teachers, students, shop owners and other people who use word processors also need to learn to be programmers before they can dare to suggest that Open Office has usability issues? Come on! I'm just pointing out something that has been pointed out over and over again. It would be nice if Open Office offered a real alternative to MS Office, for many reasons. But the folks who do know how to fix Open Office have to admit that these flaws are a critical roadblock to the adoption of Open Office in a broader context than hobby and fringe users. Smart-assed fanboy comments like "well, why don't YOU write the code" do nothing but alienate the majority of users.
What Open Office really needs is not Firebox plug-in, but a complete code rewrite so that it is not a bloated whale of an application. In its current incarnation, Open Office is not anywhere near an alternative to MS Office except for home users and Open Source / Anti-Microsoft zealots who are willing to ignore critical usability flaws.
Isn't that what all the Open Source cheering squad advertises? All those "eyes" and all that? Can't complain about it now, the genie's out of the bottle.
It all happened so slowly that most men failed to realize that anything had happened at all.
No, I think maybe this case needs closer examination to see if in fact it violates the GPL in a strict reading...
A big problem is that many media companies and companies like Microsoft don't really believe that copyright license like CC and the GPL are "real" licenses. These companies believe that there is really nothing backing these kind of license up, and while the little people may get pissed off, no one has the resources to come after them. It's going to take a court case to make these people pay attention to Open Source licenses.
Because (as is well known), American public corporations are not ethical. None of them. Money is the prime objective and how you get it is irrelivent.
I don't really think commercial use has much to do with the license issue at all. But it does have to do with why Maryanovsky is upset at Rabinovitch. Rabinovitch found a loophole in the GPL that allows him to circumvent the "spirit" of the GPL. Maryanovsky doesn't like this, but it doesn't change the facts that while the "spirit" of the GPL has been violated, the letter has not.
The fact that Maryanovsky asked for money and Rabinovitch refused is irrelevent to the question of if this is or is not a GPL violation. Sure, it would be nice if Rabinovitch had paid up, it would have solved a lot of problems. But that's why many people don't use the GPL, they want to get paid. If you GPL your work, this may not happen even ifyour work is used commercially. This is why I said Maryanovsky should have chosen a different license...
This story has nothing to do with the RIAA.
Having read the article, it seems that it really comes down to this: The IChessU client connects to Jin through sockets, and Maryanovsky claims that the intimacy of this connection makes the two programs one. Thus, the code for the IChessU client must be published. Rabinovitch says this isn't so, they are two separate things. But what it really comes down to is, once again, the Open Source people don't like the fact that someone is using GPL'd code to make money without "giving back" even when there is no real violation of the GPL. It's a loophole for sure, but it's there and it's not a secret. If Maryanovsky wanted to have more control over the use of his code, he should have chosen a different license.
Just another grab for VC money to burn, and when it's gone, people will move on to another "pipe dream" ...
Well, that's exactly what most CEOs and corporate boards believe, that it's OK to be amoral (and thus, immoral). And that's the problem. There are many example such ans Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, and now HP...
The root of the problem is the entire concept of what the purpose of a publicly held corporations is. I don't know a whole lot about what the principles behind the "official" purpose of incorporation are, but I thought that the trade off was that in exchange for certain benefits to the corporation, somehow there was a benefit to society beyond the shareholders. But today, a corporation having good returns and staying in the green, developing worthwhile products or services, it's not enough. Wall Street demands that corporations achieve obscene profits at all costs, over all other objectives. This is simply wrong. Profits are certainly important, but part of the equation should include the perpetuation of a quality product that people want, and the health and welfare of the employees, who should be rewarded with a comfortable living for their dedication and loyalty. Maybe this has never really been true.