So here we have a bunch of filesystem code, distributed as a patch to a GPLed kernel. And the filesystem code is not GPLed, and not GPL-compatible.
So is it legal for company X to buy a license to GPS, and distribute a patched linux kernel?
My feeling would be no, because it's not legal to distribute GPLed binaries without distributing (or offering) all the sources. Which company X can't do.
If GFS is built using standard exported kernel-module interfaces, it _might_ be legal (though some kernel heavyweights disagree), but if the GFS patch touches kernel internals, anybody distributing Linux+GFS is in violation of their GPL agreement with Linus Torvalds (and others).
And this is somehow going to make Sistina money? By inviting their customers to pay up for the possibility of getting sued by anyone holding Linux kernel copyrights? I'm not impressed.
Thanks for all the tips; I'll definitely have to look harder at some of them. Without some research I won't know for sure if any of them are right for me, but here my impressions of some of the suggested boxes:
iMac: can be expensive, somewhat proprietary hardware, and they still have noisy hard drives, right?
OSX is still heavy on non-free software, although LinuxPPC sounds appealing, although I'd be happier running it on less proprietary hardware.
Vadem Clio (Ebay): seems underpowered, and way too proprietary. Looks like running Linux on it requires lots of hacking, and while I'm sure that it's interesting, it's just not a project I'm interested in. I'd rather have something that is PC-like enough to run linux out of the box.
Used laptop (Ebay): I have to admit, that's probably a pretty good idea. Still has hard drives and fans, though, and still takes a pretty long time to boot. Another thing (and this applies to the last item, too): you have to buy them used to get them cheap. Buying new would be better: you don't get screwed by crooks selling broken hardware, and you get a warranty and support. Plus, if you want to set up two (or set up one for a friend), it's lots easier if you can get more identical boxes on demand.
X-terminal: Yes! That's exactly what I want. But hardly anybody seems to sell them anymore. And the ones that are available are so underpowered, overpriced, and proprietary that I really have a hard time liking them. If somebody sold an X-terminal powered by Linux and XFree, I'd be there in a heartbeat. A dedicated VNC terminal would be just as cool.
I have three computers (OK, three that run) already. I don't need another computer. But I would like something that I could leave in my living room that:
Doesn't have loud cooling fans
Doesn't have noisy disks
Can be powered off at any time and powers up in seconds
Can talk TCP/IP over ethernet to my other machines
Is compact enough that I can leave it on a corner table
Runs free software (without a month of hacking on my part) so I know I'm not getting locked in to whatever the manufacturer wants to force on me in the future
Things like wireless networking, flat screen, wireless keyboard, TV-video outputs are cool, but they should be options. I'd really like to buy a bare-bones network computer.
I don't need a killer CPU or video chip; I'm not going to play Quake3 on the thing. I just want to be able to surf, check mail, stuff like that.
Somebody's got to be able to create a flash-memory based laptop-sized terminal machine with the power of, say, a Celeron 300, for a pretty low price. But mostly what I see are underpowered machines that won't run commodity OSes, and overpowered, overpriced machines that seem to try and replace PCs. Nothing in between.
I used to use General Software Embedded BIOS. It was truly awful. It came with source code (note it's NOT open source), and there were nasty bugs in the code, in files that hadn't been touched in years. The performance was awful, the development kit was clunky, the documentation was poor, and the code was crap. My impression was that of a company that spent very little time developing software, and were mostly interested in squeezing the last few dollars out of an old, mostly unmaintained lump of code that had very little value left in it.
The idea that someone today would actually _want_ a 16-bit legacy BIOS in a newly designed embedded device is laughable.
The only reason to do it is if you want to run embedded DOS (gag!) or Windows, which ain't likely if you're shooting for 99.99999 percent uptime.
Now I use a variation of Linuxbios. It works great, it's free, and I'm free from debugging somebody else's crappy assembler.
It's only a fair comparison if you count all the software packages you need to pay extra for with Windows:
Database management
E-mail server
Terminal server
Revision Control
Compilers
Encryption software
Firewall software
Unlimited-client fileserving
For anyone who actually uses their machine for more than just surfing the web and reading email, a Windows machine needs lots of costly packages added just to be in the same league as a $50 Linux distro. --
They're wrong, it doesn't stop the problem. I did this back when the vulnerability was first announced by Cisco, and I double-checked that it was stored in nvram (which is what #2 does). I still crashed. Changing the port number to something unpredictable is the best I've come up with. --
Cisco's vulnerability report (read the date!) says that 2.4.1 is OK.
My ISP is recommending 2.4.2, but I don't know why.
It's all academic to me, because I haven't found a place to download either. --
I, and many of my co-workers, had our home DSL routers (Cisco 675s) lock up today as this worm scanned them.
There is common belief that disabling the web interface will prevent this. It's not true; mine's been disabled every since this was first reported a year ago and I still got hit. The problem is that "set web disable" prevents the web server from fiddling the router config, but doesn't actually stop the server from parsing input from port 80, which is what locks up the box.
An improved workaround is to disable the web-admin interface and change its port number with "set web port 53496" (replace with some random port number). At least that'll stop it for the near term.
Long term you need to get updated firmware, but of course Cisco won't distribute firmware directly to customers, even though they have public announcements of the existence of bugs and bugfixes. To actually get the firmware you have to get it from your DSL line provider (Qwest, in my case), and Qwest couldn't care less about security with respect to home users, so they've never bothered to offer fixed versions of CBOS. --
"Of the U.S. corporations on the list, 44 did not pay the full standard 35
percent federal corporate tax rate during the period 1996-1998. Seven of the
firms actually paid less than zero in federal income taxes in 1998 (because of
rebates). These include: Texaco, Chevron, PepsiCo, Enron, Worldcom,
McKesson and the world's biggest corporation--General Motors."
I find people that think expensive stereo equipment is a waste of money have probably never heard any. They seem to think that the big flashy stuff at <insert name of stereo chain> is just the best there is, and they're always amazed at how a good recording on a good system can sound.
Besides, at $10-$15 per CD, I bet everyone knows somebody who owns several thousand dollars worth of music. Why play them on a $200 stereo? It's like putting a 60GB hard drive in a 486.
--
There's a homeless guy at the bus stop near here. I'm positive Slashdot readers would love to hear this guy's outlook on life, death, cardboard, and the edible lifetime of old french fries.
If you don't want people to make fun of stupid articles, don't post stupid articles. Duh. --
Everything you say is correct. The issue arose, however, because U.S. federal law views "use" and "publication of derivative works" totally differently. The interviewee seems to be of the impression that you must agree to the GPL to make "use" of the program in that sense. That's the part that got me going. I didn't mean to diminish the point or the value of the GPL, I'm just sick of people thinking of the GPL as a "nice EULA" when in fact it's not a EULA at all.
Hey, I'd be thrilled if every end-user valued their freedom to become a developer. It'd make explaining free software to friends a lot easier:) --
I understand what you're trying to say, but you're unfortunately mistaken; I can back up everything I've said.
I think that you're assuming that to use (install and execute) a program you need a license contract with the copyright holder. This is not true any more than if you were talking about a music CD. You don't need a license to play a CD; you own a copy and you can do whatever you want with it privately. Copyright is copyright.
Didn't you ever notice that few GPLed programs have a license-acceptance screen during installation? If you didn't sign, click, or otherwise agree to a contract, you're not bound by it. That doesn't mean that you're infringing anything, because the only rights reserved for the copyright holder are copying and creating derivative works (and a few others like "translation" that are meant for literature and not software). Since "use" is not a right reserved for the copyright holder, anyone can use copyrighted software without agreeing to anything.
Your description of the "essence of the GPL" is absolutely correct; but note that when somebody else wants to distribute software that is copyrighted by a third party, then you're talking about copyright infringement, because now we're beyond use and into copying and derivative works. Only then does a contract become necessary and then the GPL is required. But it's a contract between the copyright holder and the distributor/modifier, not the end-user.
The main point is that copyright laws don't say "you have to have X's permission to use X's copyrighted software". Shrink-wrap and click-wrap "contracts" are only used on proprietary software, and the GPL doesn't work the same way. It's disturbing that so many people have accepted the idea that they can somehow be bound by contracts they haven't signed, agreed to, or even seen... that's just not true. (proprietary software won't install unless you click "I agree"; that's how they attempt to get a binding contract with you.)
I recommend you go and read how copyright law actually works; it's actually quite different than what you perceive it to be. --
the gpl does apply between the copyright holder and the end user, because the end user is guaranteed a right to the source code...
You should go and read the GPL sometime. It does not guarantee anything between copyright holders and end users. It does guarantee that if the copyright holder releases source code (and it's ridiculous of them to use the GPL otherwise), all other people who wish to distribute binaries (or derivative works) must agree to distribute source.
Note that's an agreement between the copyright holder and another coder or distributor. It benefits the end-user, of course, but nowhere in that arrangement did the end-user ever enter into any kind of contract. That's why end-users can't sue companies in violation of the GPL; only the copyright holder can.
Go and read section 5 of the GPL, and it should be obvious that you're not bound by the GPL unless you're looking to modify or distribute GPLed code. --
When you say "only releases the code through valid contracts (licenses) which include limitation of liability and disclaimer of warranty terms" (under the "public domain" question), you seem to be implying that licenses similar to the GPL are a contract between the copyright holder and the end user.
This is contrary to everything I've ever read about the GPL.
The GPL isn't a contract between the copyright holder and an end-user, it's a contract between the copyright holder and a (prospective) author of derivative works, or anyone who wants to make copies of the software.
The GPL even says: You are not required to accept this License.
You seem to be under the impression that the GPL applies to anyone who uses free software. It doesn't, and that's intentional. --
I'm sick and tired of needing a proprietary player to listen to people talk about free software.
When are we going to see the first big adopter of Ogg Vorbis?
And yes, I know RMS' talks are in.ogg format. I'm hoping to see.ogg adoption by websites that non-geeks use, so that Vorbis can get on its way to mainstream acceptance... --
Re:What's with this gateway thing?
on
Swarmcast GPLed
·
· Score: 2
Everything you need to both serve and download content is released under the GPL.
Thanks for clearing that up. You might want to have your webmaster reword the File Registration FAQ answer number 4, which basically says you must register a file (accepting the terms of the gateway agreement) to be able to "Swarmcast-enable" it. I had interpreted that as "you must use our gateway and agree to our conditions to use Swarmcast". Sorry for any confusion. --
What's with this gateway thing?
on
Swarmcast GPLed
·
· Score: 3
What's with the "swarmcast gateway" that you have to use? If all we're getting is a GPLed client to an ultra-proprietary secret server, forgive me for not getting too exited.
Still a cool idea, but if OpenCola wants everybody to put eggs in their basket, maybe somebody should release a GPLed server too... --
The problem would seem to be that Vidomi is a video editing app, and they made it by taking a bunch of GPL code from another video editing app and adding their own stuff, and claiming that they don't have to release source for their own stuff, because they took all the GPLed stuff and wrapped it into a windows DLL.
This kind of stuff is obviously against the spirit of the GPL, and probably against the letter of the GPL as well. That's the problem. --
Although it'll work well at first, using a/8 network (or several/16s later in the paper) for this sort of testing could become inaccurate if DoS tool authors start making their tools avoid choosing source addresses that they know may lead to detection.
What someone should really do is set up a kernel module and/or userspace app that reports unusual packets back to a data-gathering server. Because the reporting machines would be scattered all over the place there's no practical way to avoid them, and they'd get a good pool of backscatter.
Of course, the data-gathering server would probably get DoSed in short order...
--
Flat speakers (aka electrostatic speakers), though not exactly mainstream, aren't unusual in the audiophile world. If you're really curious, you might check out Magnepan or MartinLogan or Quad. Also try looking for reviews at Stereophile. There used to be a user-review site at www.audioreview.com, but it's not resolving for me so maybe they're offline at the moment. --
Maybe we're about to enter a whole new Slackware era.
And maybe Slackware will slowly slide further into irrelevancy because it turns out that sophisticated packaging systems, installers, and the ability to upgrade from one release to the next are all things that people actually want.
...faster clock speed... no visible performance impact.
elaborate thermal and power regulation requirements... toaster oven.
Intel... publicizing... amazement... only 54.7 Watts...
below the fastest Athlon.
...quoted... figure is wrong... or... misleading.
...entirely different conditions.
...power level could easily be exceeded...thermal diode...cuts CPU
performance.
...feature...
...maximum... actually 72.9 watts... essentially identical to the 1.33 GHz
Athlon... artificially low 54.7 watt limit... turns your 1.5GHz
processor into a 750MHz processor.
...jury is still out... lose market share... frustrating and confusing
platform strategy?
Slashdot Mirror
So is it legal for company X to buy a license to GPS, and distribute a patched linux kernel?
My feeling would be no, because it's not legal to distribute GPLed binaries without distributing (or offering) all the sources. Which company X can't do.
If GFS is built using standard exported kernel-module interfaces, it _might_ be legal (though some kernel heavyweights disagree), but if the GFS patch touches kernel internals, anybody distributing Linux+GFS is in violation of their GPL agreement with Linus Torvalds (and others).
And this is somehow going to make Sistina money? By inviting their customers to pay up for the possibility of getting sued by anyone holding Linux kernel copyrights? I'm not impressed.
- Doesn't have loud cooling fans
- Doesn't have noisy disks
- Can be powered off at any time and powers up in seconds
- Can talk TCP/IP over ethernet to my other machines
- Is compact enough that I can leave it on a corner table
- Runs free software (without a month of hacking on my part) so I know I'm not getting locked in to whatever the manufacturer wants to force on me in the future
Things like wireless networking, flat screen, wireless keyboard, TV-video outputs are cool, but they should be options. I'd really like to buy a bare-bones network computer.I don't need a killer CPU or video chip; I'm not going to play Quake3 on the thing. I just want to be able to surf, check mail, stuff like that.
Somebody's got to be able to create a flash-memory based laptop-sized terminal machine with the power of, say, a Celeron 300, for a pretty low price. But mostly what I see are underpowered machines that won't run commodity OSes, and overpowered, overpriced machines that seem to try and replace PCs. Nothing in between.
The idea that someone today would actually _want_ a 16-bit legacy BIOS in a newly designed embedded device is laughable. The only reason to do it is if you want to run embedded DOS (gag!) or Windows, which ain't likely if you're shooting for 99.99999 percent uptime.
Now I use a variation of Linuxbios. It works great, it's free, and I'm free from debugging somebody else's crappy assembler.
- Database management
- E-mail server
- Terminal server
- Revision Control
- Compilers
- Encryption software
- Firewall software
- Unlimited-client fileserving
For anyone who actually uses their machine for more than just surfing the web and reading email, a Windows machine needs lots of costly packages added just to be in the same league as a $50 Linux distro.--
They're wrong, it doesn't stop the problem. I did this back when the vulnerability was first announced by Cisco, and I double-checked that it was stored in nvram (which is what #2 does). I still crashed. Changing the port number to something unpredictable is the best I've come up with.
--
Cisco's vulnerability report (read the date!) says that 2.4.1 is OK.
My ISP is recommending 2.4.2, but I don't know why.
It's all academic to me, because I haven't found a place to download either.
--
There is common belief that disabling the web interface will prevent this. It's not true; mine's been disabled every since this was first reported a year ago and I still got hit. The problem is that "set web disable" prevents the web server from fiddling the router config, but doesn't actually stop the server from parsing input from port 80, which is what locks up the box.
An improved workaround is to disable the web-admin interface and change its port number with "set web port 53496" (replace with some random port number). At least that'll stop it for the near term.
Long term you need to get updated firmware, but of course Cisco won't distribute firmware directly to customers, even though they have public announcements of the existence of bugs and bugfixes. To actually get the firmware you have to get it from your DSL line provider (Qwest, in my case), and Qwest couldn't care less about security with respect to home users, so they've never bothered to offer fixed versions of CBOS.
--
--
Besides, at $10-$15 per CD, I bet everyone knows somebody who owns several thousand dollars worth of music. Why play them on a $200 stereo? It's like putting a 60GB hard drive in a 486.
--
If you don't want people to make fun of stupid articles, don't post stupid articles. Duh.
--
Hey, I'd be thrilled if every end-user valued their freedom to become a developer. It'd make explaining free software to friends a lot easier :)
--
I think that you're assuming that to use (install and execute) a program you need a license contract with the copyright holder. This is not true any more than if you were talking about a music CD. You don't need a license to play a CD; you own a copy and you can do whatever you want with it privately. Copyright is copyright.
Didn't you ever notice that few GPLed programs have a license-acceptance screen during installation? If you didn't sign, click, or otherwise agree to a contract, you're not bound by it. That doesn't mean that you're infringing anything, because the only rights reserved for the copyright holder are copying and creating derivative works (and a few others like "translation" that are meant for literature and not software). Since "use" is not a right reserved for the copyright holder, anyone can use copyrighted software without agreeing to anything.
Your description of the "essence of the GPL" is absolutely correct; but note that when somebody else wants to distribute software that is copyrighted by a third party, then you're talking about copyright infringement, because now we're beyond use and into copying and derivative works. Only then does a contract become necessary and then the GPL is required. But it's a contract between the copyright holder and the distributor/modifier, not the end-user.
The main point is that copyright laws don't say "you have to have X's permission to use X's copyrighted software". Shrink-wrap and click-wrap "contracts" are only used on proprietary software, and the GPL doesn't work the same way. It's disturbing that so many people have accepted the idea that they can somehow be bound by contracts they haven't signed, agreed to, or even seen... that's just not true. (proprietary software won't install unless you click "I agree"; that's how they attempt to get a binding contract with you.)
I recommend you go and read how copyright law actually works; it's actually quite different than what you perceive it to be.
--
Note that's an agreement between the copyright holder and another coder or distributor. It benefits the end-user, of course, but nowhere in that arrangement did the end-user ever enter into any kind of contract. That's why end-users can't sue companies in violation of the GPL; only the copyright holder can.
Go and read section 5 of the GPL, and it should be obvious that you're not bound by the GPL unless you're looking to modify or distribute GPLed code.
--
This is contrary to everything I've ever read about the GPL.
The GPL isn't a contract between the copyright holder and an end-user, it's a contract between the copyright holder and a (prospective) author of derivative works, or anyone who wants to make copies of the software.
The GPL even says: You are not required to accept this License.
You seem to be under the impression that the GPL applies to anyone who uses free software. It doesn't, and that's intentional.
--
When are we going to see the first big adopter of Ogg Vorbis?
And yes, I know RMS' talks are in .ogg format. I'm hoping to see .ogg adoption by websites that non-geeks use, so that Vorbis can get on its way to mainstream acceptance...
--
--
Still a cool idea, but if OpenCola wants everybody to put eggs in their basket, maybe somebody should release a GPLed server too...
--
The problem would seem to be that Vidomi is a video editing app, and they made it by taking a bunch of GPL code from another video editing app and adding their own stuff, and claiming that they don't have to release source for their own stuff, because they took all the GPLed stuff and wrapped it into a windows DLL.
This kind of stuff is obviously against the spirit of the GPL, and probably against the letter of the GPL as well. That's the problem.
--
What someone should really do is set up a kernel module and/or userspace app that reports unusual packets back to a data-gathering server. Because the reporting machines would be scattered all over the place there's no practical way to avoid them, and they'd get a good pool of backscatter.
Of course, the data-gathering server would probably get DoSed in short order...
--
"Geeks and Hackers local 31337"
--
Flat speakers (aka electrostatic speakers), though not exactly mainstream, aren't unusual in the audiophile world. If you're really curious, you might check out Magnepan or MartinLogan or Quad. Also try looking for reviews at Stereophile. There used to be a user-review site at www.audioreview.com, but it's not resolving for me so maybe they're offline at the moment.
--
And maybe Slackware will slowly slide further into irrelevancy because it turns out that sophisticated packaging systems, installers, and the ability to upgrade from one release to the next are all things that people actually want.
Goodbye, karma... (flinches)
--
Intel... lure the mainstream... just plain bad... lost market share and customer respect... unwise... poor... many new alternatives... not...thrilled.
Intel...predicted...fastest... shipments...below expectations... bad omen.
The market...will not pay a premium... Intel is hoping... frustration.
Intel...criticizing AMD...Athlon. P3...well supported.
But now...instability of the P4 platform...P4 lacks...market...confidence.
P4...will undergo...five major changes...
Users...aware...weaknesses... Intel's...problem is the platform... band-aid.
Brookdale...difficult...DDR...competition.
Intel...frustrated...cripple... wide open for all...competitors.
P4 needs...strategy... DDR... escapes...Intel's marketing folks... familiar territory.
Intel...deny...problem... vigorous defense of Rambus.
elaborate thermal and power regulation requirements... toaster oven.
Intel... publicizing... amazement... only 54.7 Watts... below the fastest Athlon.
Pentium 4... unbalanced... weakest.
Intel's... elevated costs... horrific... price slashing.
--