Question: how can you tell GPL code is GPL code unless you know that it's GPL code? My point is that code reviews are cool, but they cannot catch things that the reviewers don't know to look for. And it's impossible for anyone to be familiar with every piece of GPL'd code out there, and it's impossible to build a database of such code. The best way to handle it was the way that they handled it. Someone found the error, told MS, and MS became compliant by releasing the code.
In what world could he be liable for the company's/management's actions? That's not how it works. It sounds to me like he's an IT grunt, and has no power other than warning management about possible pirated software. If the hammer falls, it will fall on them, not him.
>The same is true for not saying anything when you witness a crime being committed.
He made management aware of the situation. It's the company's problem now, and since he's an agent of the company, it's highly doubtful that he bears any personal liability.
But the catch here is that you, as the user, have to have permission to elevate your account's rights. The system in this article allows you to user a different user's account, which is automatically displayed to you.
No, it's not like PolicyKit either. You apparently have no idea what the patent is describing. Let me help you. If you want to do something on your computer, but you don't have the rights, and your account does not have rights elevation privileges, the system described in this patent will show you an account that does have access, and you can type in the password for that account to get the job done. As far as I know, sudo, gksudo, and PolicyKit do not do this.
Everyone's getting caught up in the privilege escalation part and missing that the whole point of the patent is that it allows you use the rights of a different user to perform an action, and it shows you that user instead of you having to type in a name.
"I get a dialog pop up asking me to enter my password to authenticate as administrator in order to perform this action."
AH HAH! That's the whole point! This doesn't ask for your password. It asks for an administrator's password. Not every account on a computer has elevation rights.
So gksudo and OS X will show you the name of a user with sufficient privileges automatically if your account does not have sufficient privileges? Because as far as I know, OS X and sudo simply as you to put in your password, not the password for another account.
It's only because you didn't take the time to read the patent. It's not patenting the sudo functionality. It's patenting a system that displays an account with the proper rights automatically. Sudo doesn't do that, and sudo only can use your account, not someone elses.
Nonsense. PJ at Grocklaw can't read worth shiat. Here's the crux of the patent right here:
"In one embodiment, the tools present a user interface to a user whereby the user may elevate his or her rights without having to search for or type in an account name. This user interface may be presented in response to a request to perform a task requiring a right not permitted by the user's current account. In some cases, for example, the tools determine which accounts have rights sufficient to enable a user to perform a task not permitted by a user's current account. The tools may then present these accounts and enable the user to select and submit an authenticator for one of these accounts. "
If you don't have rights to perform an action, and your account doesn't have rights elevation privileges (e.g. you aren't in the sudoers file), then the OS will pop up a window that shows an account that DOES have the correct rights that you can type the password into if you know it. As far as I know, sudo doesn't automatically find a different user's account for you to log in with, so if you're account isn't in the sudoers file, you're screwed. And you could use su, but you'd still have to know that account name.
It's not "sudo with a gui". PJ apparently couldn't take the time to actually read what the patent was for. The system here isn't for rights elevation in general, it's for showing which user accounts have rights to do the selected action. So if you're trying to install something (and you don't have admin rights at all...no rights elevation privs or anything like that), it doesn't pop up and say "Please enter the username/password for an administrator account". Instead, it will pop up and say something like "Pick one of these admin accounts and type in the password".
Because I don't give two shits if someone closes or opens their source code. There's nothing magical about someone's source code that can't be reproduced by someone else.
My point is that Bing is a web service, and even if you had access to see their code, you couldn't just go onto their serves and fix it for them. So whether or not they use open source code is irrelevant to the end user.
If someone doesn't want to make the source for their project available, they can't do that with GPL'd code in the project. I'd call that a restriction.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/agency.html
>MS at one point tried to say that, if something like this happened, you'd have to release all your source code.
[Citation Needed] [Context Needed]
There's no such thing as getting "permission" to use GPL code. It's already granted, you just have to follow the license terms.
Question: how can you tell GPL code is GPL code unless you know that it's GPL code? My point is that code reviews are cool, but they cannot catch things that the reviewers don't know to look for. And it's impossible for anyone to be familiar with every piece of GPL'd code out there, and it's impossible to build a database of such code. The best way to handle it was the way that they handled it. Someone found the error, told MS, and MS became compliant by releasing the code.
Oh fuck off, it wouldn't have mattered what they did in this situation, trolls like yourself would never have been happy.
In what world could he be liable for the company's/management's actions? That's not how it works. It sounds to me like he's an IT grunt, and has no power other than warning management about possible pirated software. If the hammer falls, it will fall on them, not him.
>The same is true for not saying anything when you witness a crime being committed.
He made management aware of the situation. It's the company's problem now, and since he's an agent of the company, it's highly doubtful that he bears any personal liability.
I just read the man page for consolehelper...it sounds similar, but not really the same function or mechanism.
Do you understand how sudo knows who can use sudo?
And you have to explicitly use sudo, vs a screen popping up on demand. It is totally different.
I understand, but this doesn't ask for the administrator's name, it shows you who the administrator is and you only have to know the password.
Does sudo suggest an account that you can use if your account isn't in the sudoers list? No. And that's the entire point of this patent.
But the catch here is that you, as the user, have to have permission to elevate your account's rights. The system in this article allows you to user a different user's account, which is automatically displayed to you.
No, it's not like PolicyKit either. You apparently have no idea what the patent is describing. Let me help you. If you want to do something on your computer, but you don't have the rights, and your account does not have rights elevation privileges, the system described in this patent will show you an account that does have access, and you can type in the password for that account to get the job done. As far as I know, sudo, gksudo, and PolicyKit do not do this.
Everyone's getting caught up in the privilege escalation part and missing that the whole point of the patent is that it allows you use the rights of a different user to perform an action, and it shows you that user instead of you having to type in a name.
"I get a dialog pop up asking me to enter my password to authenticate as administrator in order to perform this action."
AH HAH! That's the whole point! This doesn't ask for your password. It asks for an administrator's password. Not every account on a computer has elevation rights.
So gksudo and OS X will show you the name of a user with sufficient privileges automatically if your account does not have sufficient privileges? Because as far as I know, OS X and sudo simply as you to put in your password, not the password for another account.
It's only because you didn't take the time to read the patent. It's not patenting the sudo functionality. It's patenting a system that displays an account with the proper rights automatically. Sudo doesn't do that, and sudo only can use your account, not someone elses.
Nonsense. PJ at Grocklaw can't read worth shiat. Here's the crux of the patent right here:
"In one embodiment, the tools present a user interface to a user whereby the user may elevate his or her rights without having to search for or type in an account name. This user interface may be presented in response to a request to perform a task requiring a right not permitted by the user's current account. In some cases, for example, the tools determine which accounts have rights sufficient to enable a user to perform a task not permitted by a user's current account. The tools may then present these accounts and enable the user to select and submit an authenticator for one of these accounts. "
If you don't have rights to perform an action, and your account doesn't have rights elevation privileges (e.g. you aren't in the sudoers file), then the OS will pop up a window that shows an account that DOES have the correct rights that you can type the password into if you know it. As far as I know, sudo doesn't automatically find a different user's account for you to log in with, so if you're account isn't in the sudoers file, you're screwed. And you could use su, but you'd still have to know that account name.
It's not "sudo with a gui". PJ apparently couldn't take the time to actually read what the patent was for. The system here isn't for rights elevation in general, it's for showing which user accounts have rights to do the selected action. So if you're trying to install something (and you don't have admin rights at all...no rights elevation privs or anything like that), it doesn't pop up and say "Please enter the username/password for an administrator account". Instead, it will pop up and say something like "Pick one of these admin accounts and type in the password".
Because I don't give two shits if someone closes or opens their source code. There's nothing magical about someone's source code that can't be reproduced by someone else.
Hate to ruin Rennt's Law for you, but I have never used BSD nor am I familiar with any licensing associated with it.
Please try to make sense when you post things. It helps us to understand your point.
What's your point in relation to this discussion?
My point is that Bing is a web service, and even if you had access to see their code, you couldn't just go onto their serves and fix it for them. So whether or not they use open source code is irrelevant to the end user.
If someone doesn't want to make the source for their project available, they can't do that with GPL'd code in the project. I'd call that a restriction.