At one point/. used to post occasional Boston centric articles and people would complain about that on a site with national readership. Besides lets face it, our elections affect everyone in the globe because we make it our responibility to go around and tell me how to run their lives. US Presidential elections are essentially electing the emporer of the world so you will read about it and like it or we'll bomb your ass.
In the sense that it, too, will be a totally ineffective waste of time?
The "Do Not Call" list has been extremely effective for me. The only calls I receive now are to people with whom I have a preexisting relationship, ie ive donated money to them before(like a political party) or I went to school there. In fact, I only ever had one call that I think was in violation of the list and I told them that 1) im on the "Do Not Call" list and 2) dont call me again or ill report this abuse. I have not received a call from them since.
I dont see how it can be a waste of time(for you anyway), it takes 20 secs to add yourself to the list, even if everyone ignored it at most you wasted 20 secs and Ive found that mentioning it when telling them to stop calling adds weight. Before the list, I would tell people stop calling and they would happily ignore.
You can only read one book in any instant, and only a few "at a time". Why not share the others with people who'd get value from them, especially if the library will allow you to borrow them "back" later? We like the idea of rewarding authors of good works, but really -- given the insane amount of overconsumption the Western World engages in, reducing consumption by reusing items, including books, makes more and more sense.
Typically I buy books second hand for between 25 cents and a dollar. I have hundreds, occasionally i go through and unload a bunch to a second hand store or a library. But realistically giving to a libary for me is not that great for the library. Libraries mostly would just toss my books in a box in the basement and would wait there until they had a book sale or someone went through them and decided they wouldnt mind that book for themselves(When i was young i would volunteer at the library to do exactly that, id organize the donated books and take one or two that i was interested in).
That said I think its funny to talk about western waste and overconsumption as though the ideal is consuming only so much that you survive? only consume as much as you need(by whose standards)? There is no "waste" by overconsumption, because some other person benefits from that over indulgence. You could argue that eventually we will run out of raw materials for paper, ie trees, but as we do prices will rise reducing consumption and making recycling more profitable.
I guess im outdated but i still believe that if you earn the means to "overindulge" you've earned the right as well.
Yes actually you are, you would realize had you read past the , that ends your quote, that I said the same exact thing you just did. I was pointing at that the parent framed it as a problem with key distrobution, which it isnt. I was trying to point out that while we solved the key problem we still have the problem of the plaintext and "trust".
P.S. It's not a godwin unless your opponent tries to refute you by drawing a paralle between your argument and Hitler's. I mentioned Nazi Germany to illustrate mankind's willingness to join any evil as long as it is personally profitable.
It is Godwin Law's since Godwins law just states that the longer the dicussion is the probability that comparinsons to Nazi/Hitler are made approaches 0.
Godwin's law has no stipulation that anything is fallacious about the arguments its just a observation. The argument using Nazis/Hitler must be ruled fallacious on its own terms.
Completely not joking, a physical attack is better and heres why. Physical destruction of lives and things pisses off the populace. People will get up in arms about ending the war and making peace. If its "just" some cyber attacks people will be apt to let it go on a long time or indefinitely being a constant strain on the economy. The economy as you know is what feeds us. If cyberwar destroys the economy to the point where unemployment is riding high thats much worse off than a few thousand killed before we get upset about the conflict.
If they encrypt your data for you, guess what? They have the key! If you want your data safe from them, YOU need to encrypt it.
This is patently wrong. Why can't I supply them with a public key that they use to encrypt, but I never reveal my private key thats used to decrypt the data. I mean honestly this is what public key encryption was invented for.
That said they dont need the key as you gave them the DATA to encrypt in the first place. So you'd have to trust them that once they encrypt it they throw away that data stream. But this is not a problem of key distribution as we have already solved that.
Has ANY measure taken since 2001 done anything to actually prevent terrorism?
They all have, we haven't had another 9/11 have we?
Also in an unrelated matter, the house of representatives has approved $100 million in funding for the development of rocks that keep tigers away by someone named L. Simpson.
s/Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich/ and s/republican/democrat/ and you get the same thing. Democrat philosophy is the same as republicans with reguards to foreign policy and for the most part domestic policy, if you think for an instant Hillary will have us out of Iraq you are sorely mistaken, she is nearly as hawkish as McCain or Guiliani. Furthermore, Katrina being a shit fest for NO is mostly the fault of New Orleans. Similiar sized disasters that happen in other places in the US did not go as poorly. Personally I think the big problem is a certain loud mouth mayor and an ineffective state gov't.
Ron Paul has said on numerous occasions that he has lost faith in third parties in this country. In order to get anything done you HAVE to be republican or democrat. You kinda just have to pick your poison. Do you want to associate with a bunch of socialist leaning nut jobs or a bunch of religious authoritarian nut jobs? Because choosing not to associate with one or the other results in your career being on the fast track to no where.
How can this result in any problem for anyone since you could easily say: I can't give you the encryption key as that information would incriminate me. This is in fact why we have the 5th amendment(in the US anyway).
So for a tiny amount of $ the poster got a mechanical turk to critique his argument, the experience has led him to submit it to/. which forces an indepth argument existence. Hundreds of people respond to each others points and another group of people who have not commented on the discussion rate the reponses so you can effectively weed out the trolls and the morons.
Let's look at the facts here: if the market would solve these problems, the Burmese government would not have this software. They do, and that means that the market is not going to solve the problem.
This predefines Burma having this software as objectionable. So of course you can point at it and say something bad just happened free markets don't work. But ultimately that is a stupid argument, because you've already decided the conclusion and are defining the argument around it.
Ultimately, this is a issue for Burmese courts(or the burmese people through use of arms or other method to achieve revolution). Does the burmese constitution if any allow for cencorship of its people. If so then you have no standing to argue that its bad and should be illegal to sell said software to them. This happens time and time again where the people of western countrys think that all countries have the same protections we do. They don't and ultimately its no business of ours what another country or person decides to do with the products we sell them.
Think of it this way, if I sell you a pitchfork and you stab someone with it, have I committed murder? No I have not. If i write software that can be used for censorship, and someone who buys it uses the software for that purpose have I committed censorship? Hell the same group of people here who are yelling loudly that it should be illegal to sell that software get all uppity about not being able to export encryption algorithms, free speech they say! Who cares if terrorists can use it to hide from us, its not the fault of the software programmers. Why is it that this is suddenly a case of fault and that it should be illegal(FWIW I think we should be able to export any encryption software without restrictions and conversely we should be able to export any good without restrictions)
Of course we shouldn't sell weapons to Burma. You're kidding, right? That's like selling bullets to a semi-Hitler.
I take a bit of an issue with this. It requires that we take a side in a conflict that largely does not concern us. It also assumes that we are in such a position of moral superiority that we should in fact dictate who can and should own arms. My personal position is that we should sell arms to anyone who wishes to buy(revolutionary groups in burma as well) such that we give the tools necessary to enact change(namely arms) without making moral decisions about whats happening a few thousand miles away.
Im sure detractors will say well we should make moral decisions and point at Hitler as an example. Well truth be told we did not get into WW2 over any moral issue and we never have/never will. Moral issues are icing on the cake for a war that is started for economic or political(ie lust for power) reasons.
I predict this will last until a woman does the webcam thing and the person on the other end says "no way you look too much like a dude to play a girl character". She sues and this retarded policy is amended.
you don't care about commercial entities taking your code, making changes, distributing it to users, and then refusing to give those users (which may include you) access to their modified code, then release your code under the BSD license, or into the public domain. It's your choice. Stop complaining about other peoples' choices.
Translation: If you don't agree with my point of view. STFU.
As I started reading the comments on here I noticed that many were quick to down Ingo for his transgressions and its quite obvious from the comments that no one has bothered to read the exchange on LKML in order to become familiar with what is going on. I have read it, I have 0 bias for either Zippel or Molnar and I can say without any reservation that Zippel is a wank and Molnar is borderline saintly.
A recap of what I have read and understood about the entire situation:
Zippel shows up with some patches out of the blue and makes some claims about them.
Molnar takes time out of his day to look at and understand the patches and points out a few things such as lack of comments and missing functionality, also points out that some of the things Zippel wants to do have been done since the last time Zippel looked at the code and that he should look into the latest they've done.
At this point Zippel decides to try to get into a pissing contest with Molnar and makes more claims about the superiority of his math and how the patches aren't the point.
They argue back and forth all the while Molnar very seriously considering and understanding Zippels concerns. Molnar asks Zippel to split up his giant patch into smaller pieces that are commented and cleaned in order to bring the useful ones into the kernel more easily.
Zippel essentially whines and repeats the same arguments over and over for a bunch of threads.
Molnar basically pleads for him to cooperate so CFS can get the benefits Zippel has to offer.
Zippel refuses, acts like a child.
Molnar reworks a few of Zippel's ideas into smaller patches and incorporated them into CFS and attributes this to Zippel.
Zippel is very rude about this and accuses Molnar of stealing from Zippel.
Molnar again asks him to cooperate.
Other people get annoyed start criticizing Zippel.
Ultimately I think Zippel is purposefully trying to provoke Molnar throughout all of this. His wild accusations are nothing more than games that he is playing, the guy has a chip on his shoulder and if Linux was my toy, I would have blocked him from the mailing lists.
Please have tact, you should have informed the maintainer of the infringing code in private to allow him to correct it rather than going public and CCing hundreds of people in order to degrade him and make him look stupid.
Honestly... Theo is the last person who should be telling you to be professional and have tact. If its come to that you really did cross a boundary.
Would not this defeat the purpose of dual license for redistribution of source? Effectively your interpretation forces a single license since the two licenses must be distributed together. Immediately, what happens when two license conflict, as GPL and BSD licenses do? I am no lawyer, but a license that is contradictory can't be good.
This also means that use and redistribution are governed differently by the same licenses of which at least one may make no such distinction. So a commercial company may incorporate a dual licensed, say BSD and GPL, code freely but when they redistribute that code in any form and shape they must respect and distribute bot licenses? Now that must
be a headache no one wants. I am not saying you are wrong, just pointing out some of the implications of your assertion, which is counter-intuitive. I will say one thing though, this artifice of copyright is definitely being stretched nowadays to the point of insanity.
YES!!! Dual licensing is essentially trouble because its ambiguous and people don't really care so they just hack up the license however they feel like and then post diatribes about how evil the GPL/BSD/ISC is.
You're being disingenuous. In the context of this discussion we're talking about modification and redistribution. Neither the GPL or the BSD license say anything about mere use of a program.
On what basis do you do you say that
I am not being disingenuous. The purpose of this discussion is to talk about the rights under the terms of a dual license and the licenses definitely talk about the "mere" use of the code which is in fact what im refering too.
Remember that this is the law, and "but that's not what I meant!" counts for nothing; only what's written down matters. In this case, if I see "This code is dual-licensed A or B, your choice" then that's exactly what it means: on my derivative work I get to decide if I want to use A or B (or retain a dual license). If you mean "all derivative works must also be dual licensed" then say that.
You have a choice which license to use in reguards to certain aspects of "use". For instance you can use and modify the code under either license. However when you distribute you must distribute under BOTH licenses because the licenses clearly state that the copyright notices must be preserved...
Theo is not a copyright lawyer and it's clear that neither are you. (But then again, neither am I.)
I dont think I need to be here. This is very obvious to me if you read the text of both licenses, if you append them together you get a file that must be distributed with the appeneded license information. However you can choose which license to use with reguards to rights that aren't distrobution of the source.
The code in question is dual licensed: you can use it either under the BSD license or the GPL. It's your choice. In this case the person chose the GPL (and not BSD).
SIGH... You are right you can USE it under either license. But you must distribute the source as dual license unless all the authors allow you to relicense the code.
This is why Theo is harping so much on this because many people fail to understand this very basic concept in copyright law...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the phone companies keep transcripts of you calls and probably don't keep track of who you are saying mean things about.
Alas, I long for the days when I was this naive.
At one point /. used to post occasional Boston centric articles and people would complain about that on a site with national readership. Besides lets face it, our elections affect everyone in the globe because we make it our responibility to go around and tell me how to run their lives. US Presidential elections are essentially electing the emporer of the world so you will read about it and like it or we'll bomb your ass.
In the sense that it, too, will be a totally ineffective waste of time?
The "Do Not Call" list has been extremely effective for me. The only calls I receive now are to people with whom I have a preexisting relationship, ie ive donated money to them before(like a political party) or I went to school there. In fact, I only ever had one call that I think was in violation of the list and I told them that 1) im on the "Do Not Call" list and 2) dont call me again or ill report this abuse. I have not received a call from them since.
I dont see how it can be a waste of time(for you anyway), it takes 20 secs to add yourself to the list, even if everyone ignored it at most you wasted 20 secs and Ive found that mentioning it when telling them to stop calling adds weight. Before the list, I would tell people stop calling and they would happily ignore.
You can only read one book in any instant, and only a few "at a time". Why not share the others with people who'd get value from them, especially if the library will allow you to borrow them "back" later? We like the idea of rewarding authors of good works, but really -- given the insane amount of overconsumption the Western World engages in, reducing consumption by reusing items, including books, makes more and more sense.
Typically I buy books second hand for between 25 cents and a dollar. I have hundreds, occasionally i go through and unload a bunch to a second hand store or a library. But realistically giving to a libary for me is not that great for the library. Libraries mostly would just toss my books in a box in the basement and would wait there until they had a book sale or someone went through them and decided they wouldnt mind that book for themselves(When i was young i would volunteer at the library to do exactly that, id organize the donated books and take one or two that i was interested in).
That said I think its funny to talk about western waste and overconsumption as though the ideal is consuming only so much that you survive? only consume as much as you need(by whose standards)? There is no "waste" by overconsumption, because some other person benefits from that over indulgence. You could argue that eventually we will run out of raw materials for paper, ie trees, but as we do prices will rise reducing consumption and making recycling more profitable.
I guess im outdated but i still believe that if you earn the means to "overindulge" you've earned the right as well.
It is true. You denying it is true is like denying that Nazis existed or the holocaust happened! :)
Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Maybe I'm just completely mising your point, but:
Yes actually you are, you would realize had you read past the , that ends your quote, that I said the same exact thing you just did. I was pointing at that the parent framed it as a problem with key distrobution, which it isnt. I was trying to point out that while we solved the key problem we still have the problem of the plaintext and "trust".
P.S. It's not a godwin unless your opponent tries to refute you by drawing a paralle between your argument and Hitler's. I mentioned Nazi Germany to illustrate mankind's willingness to join any evil as long as it is personally profitable.
It is Godwin Law's since Godwins law just states that the longer the dicussion is the probability that comparinsons to Nazi/Hitler are made approaches 0.
Godwin's law has no stipulation that anything is fallacious about the arguments its just a observation. The argument using Nazis/Hitler must be ruled fallacious on its own terms.
Completely not joking, a physical attack is better and heres why. Physical destruction of lives and things pisses off the populace. People will get up in arms about ending the war and making peace. If its "just" some cyber attacks people will be apt to let it go on a long time or indefinitely being a constant strain on the economy. The economy as you know is what feeds us. If cyberwar destroys the economy to the point where unemployment is riding high thats much worse off than a few thousand killed before we get upset about the conflict.
If they encrypt your data for you, guess what? They have the key! If you want your data safe from them, YOU need to encrypt it.
This is patently wrong. Why can't I supply them with a public key that they use to encrypt, but I never reveal my private key thats used to decrypt the data. I mean honestly this is what public key encryption was invented for.
That said they dont need the key as you gave them the DATA to encrypt in the first place. So you'd have to trust them that once they encrypt it they throw away that data stream. But this is not a problem of key distribution as we have already solved that.
Has ANY measure taken since 2001 done anything to actually prevent terrorism?
They all have, we haven't had another 9/11 have we?
Also in an unrelated matter, the house of representatives has approved $100 million in funding for the development of rocks that keep tigers away by someone named L. Simpson.
s/Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich/ and s/republican/democrat/ and you get the same thing. Democrat philosophy is the same as republicans with reguards to foreign policy and for the most part domestic policy, if you think for an instant Hillary will have us out of Iraq you are sorely mistaken, she is nearly as hawkish as McCain or Guiliani. Furthermore, Katrina being a shit fest for NO is mostly the fault of New Orleans. Similiar sized disasters that happen in other places in the US did not go as poorly. Personally I think the big problem is a certain loud mouth mayor and an ineffective state gov't.
Ron Paul has said on numerous occasions that he has lost faith in third parties in this country. In order to get anything done you HAVE to be republican or democrat. You kinda just have to pick your poison. Do you want to associate with a bunch of socialist leaning nut jobs or a bunch of religious authoritarian nut jobs? Because choosing not to associate with one or the other results in your career being on the fast track to no where.
How can this result in any problem for anyone since you could easily say: I can't give you the encryption key as that information would incriminate me. This is in fact why we have the 5th amendment(in the US anyway).
So for a tiny amount of $ the poster got a mechanical turk to critique his argument, the experience has led him to submit it to /. which forces an indepth argument existence. Hundreds of people respond to each others points and another group of people who have not commented on the discussion rate the reponses so you can effectively weed out the trolls and the morons.
The poster is a genius.
Let's look at the facts here: if the market would solve these problems, the Burmese government would not have this software. They do, and that means that the market is not going to solve the problem.
This predefines Burma having this software as objectionable. So of course you can point at it and say something bad just happened free markets don't work. But ultimately that is a stupid argument, because you've already decided the conclusion and are defining the argument around it.
Ultimately, this is a issue for Burmese courts(or the burmese people through use of arms or other method to achieve revolution). Does the burmese constitution if any allow for cencorship of its people. If so then you have no standing to argue that its bad and should be illegal to sell said software to them. This happens time and time again where the people of western countrys think that all countries have the same protections we do. They don't and ultimately its no business of ours what another country or person decides to do with the products we sell them.
Think of it this way, if I sell you a pitchfork and you stab someone with it, have I committed murder? No I have not. If i write software that can be used for censorship, and someone who buys it uses the software for that purpose have I committed censorship? Hell the same group of people here who are yelling loudly that it should be illegal to sell that software get all uppity about not being able to export encryption algorithms, free speech they say! Who cares if terrorists can use it to hide from us, its not the fault of the software programmers. Why is it that this is suddenly a case of fault and that it should be illegal(FWIW I think we should be able to export any encryption software without restrictions and conversely we should be able to export any good without restrictions)
Of course we shouldn't sell weapons to Burma. You're kidding, right? That's like selling bullets to a semi-Hitler.
I take a bit of an issue with this. It requires that we take a side in a conflict that largely does not concern us. It also assumes that we are in such a position of moral superiority that we should in fact dictate who can and should own arms. My personal position is that we should sell arms to anyone who wishes to buy(revolutionary groups in burma as well) such that we give the tools necessary to enact change(namely arms) without making moral decisions about whats happening a few thousand miles away.
Im sure detractors will say well we should make moral decisions and point at Hitler as an example. Well truth be told we did not get into WW2 over any moral issue and we never have/never will. Moral issues are icing on the cake for a war that is started for economic or political(ie lust for power) reasons.
It boggles my mind that /. does not have a mod -1 Pedantic.
why are you bitching so much about why people are bitching about the choices other people make?
I predict this will last until a woman does the webcam thing and the person on the other end says "no way you look too much like a dude to play a girl character". She sues and this retarded policy is amended.
They modded you "offtopic" because mod "stupid" is not available.
you don't care about commercial entities taking your code, making changes, distributing it to users, and then refusing to give those users (which may include you) access to their modified code, then release your code under the BSD license, or into the public domain. It's your choice. Stop complaining about other peoples' choices.
Translation: If you don't agree with my point of view. STFU.
As I started reading the comments on here I noticed that many were quick to down Ingo for his transgressions and its quite obvious from the comments that no one has bothered to read the exchange on LKML in order to become familiar with what is going on. I have read it, I have 0 bias for either Zippel or Molnar and I can say without any reservation that Zippel is a wank and Molnar is borderline saintly.
A recap of what I have read and understood about the entire situation:
Ultimately I think Zippel is purposefully trying to provoke Molnar throughout all of this. His wild accusations are nothing more than games that he is playing, the guy has a chip on his shoulder and if Linux was my toy, I would have blocked him from the mailing lists.
As I recall his flame war consisted all of:
Please have tact, you should have informed the maintainer of the infringing code in private to allow him to correct it rather than going public and CCing hundreds of people in order to degrade him and make him look stupid.
Honestly... Theo is the last person who should be telling you to be professional and have tact. If its come to that you really did cross a boundary.
Would not this defeat the purpose of dual license for redistribution of source? Effectively your interpretation forces a single license since the two licenses must be distributed together. Immediately, what happens when two license conflict, as GPL and BSD licenses do? I am no lawyer, but a license that is contradictory can't be good. This also means that use and redistribution are governed differently by the same licenses of which at least one may make no such distinction. So a commercial company may incorporate a dual licensed, say BSD and GPL, code freely but when they redistribute that code in any form and shape they must respect and distribute bot licenses? Now that must be a headache no one wants. I am not saying you are wrong, just pointing out some of the implications of your assertion, which is counter-intuitive. I will say one thing though, this artifice of copyright is definitely being stretched nowadays to the point of insanity.
YES!!! Dual licensing is essentially trouble because its ambiguous and people don't really care so they just hack up the license however they feel like and then post diatribes about how evil the GPL/BSD/ISC is.
You're being disingenuous. In the context of this discussion we're talking about modification and redistribution. Neither the GPL or the BSD license say anything about mere use of a program.
On what basis do you do you say that
I am not being disingenuous. The purpose of this discussion is to talk about the rights under the terms of a dual license and the licenses definitely talk about the "mere" use of the code which is in fact what im refering too.
Remember that this is the law, and "but that's not what I meant!" counts for nothing; only what's written down matters. In this case, if I see "This code is dual-licensed A or B, your choice" then that's exactly what it means: on my derivative work I get to decide if I want to use A or B (or retain a dual license). If you mean "all derivative works must also be dual licensed" then say that.
You have a choice which license to use in reguards to certain aspects of "use". For instance you can use and modify the code under either license. However when you distribute you must distribute under BOTH licenses because the licenses clearly state that the copyright notices must be preserved...
Theo is not a copyright lawyer and it's clear that neither are you. (But then again, neither am I.)
I dont think I need to be here. This is very obvious to me if you read the text of both licenses, if you append them together you get a file that must be distributed with the appeneded license information. However you can choose which license to use with reguards to rights that aren't distrobution of the source.
The code in question is dual licensed: you can use it either under the BSD license or the GPL. It's your choice. In this case the person chose the GPL (and not BSD).
SIGH... You are right you can USE it under either license. But you must distribute the source as dual license unless all the authors allow you to relicense the code.
This is why Theo is harping so much on this because many people fail to understand this very basic concept in copyright law...