The future is product placement, my friend. Only with product placement can commercial content get to viewers without such interference from pesky technology. Law & Order Classic, 2004:
"Before we investigate and inevitably arrest the prime suspect, why don't we relax and enjoy the soothing, refreshing taste of a Vanilla Coke?"
"Your honor, I request a recess so that we can try the new Subway Select Sweet Onion Chicken Teriyaki sandwich, only $2.99 for a limited time."
"The jury is hopelessly deadlocked, your honor. Half of the jury believes that the the defendant's beverage tastes great. The other half is convinced that it is less filling."
My correspondence (so far) with Sigma Designs
on
Sigma Designs/XVid Update
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:05:24 -0700 To: kal@sdesigns.com, stephanie.porter@edelman.com, RMP4@sdesigns.com, tech_support@sdesigns.com Subject: MPEG-4 Video Codec Source Code
To whom it may concern:
Thank you for making the source code to the REALmagic MPEG-4 codec available. As you are now aware, this is a required term of the GNU General Public License (GPL). I have downloaded the source code release (RMP4V1_1.zip) from your website, and have concerns pertaining to the notices that appear at the top of the source files.
In the top of the source files, there is a vague assertion that they are related to the XVID MPEG-4 video codec with the following statement: "This code inspired by the XVID MPEG-4 VIDEO CODEC".
I have performed a side-by-side comparison between the above-mentioned REALmagic MPEG-4 codec and the XVID (xvid_snapshot_20020822.tar.gz) source code, and it is clear to me that the source files you published are not merely "inspired by" the XVID MPEG-4 codec, but are in fact derivative works.
If this is true, then your source distribution appears on its face to be in violation of the GPL. Section 2(a) states: "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change." I could find no such notices of changes in the source files you released.
I request you remedy this problem by ammending the source code files in accordance with section 2(a), so that this apparent violation can be corrected. Doing so is a legal requirement of the license you accepted by creating a derivative work of the XVID MPEG-4 video codec. Failure to adhere to the terms of the GPL constitutes a copyright infringment by Sigma Designs.
You are clearly using and benefiting from the work of the authors of the XVID MPEG-4 video codec, yet you have hardly credited the development team for making this possible. I strongly urge you to consider to properly acknowledge the XVID development team. Please, give credit where credit is due.
-----
From: Tech Support Subject: Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:59:09 -0700
Thank you for contacting Sigma Designs and requesting information that relates to our MPEG-4 CODEC and the availability of its source code. We would like to take this opportunity to address the relevant issues that have been raised.
To begin with, Sigma developed an MPEG-4 CODEC to assist in the proliferation of MPEG-4 content and to ensure that users can create content libraries compatible with the ISO MPEG-4 video specifications and its implementation in silicon. Fulfilling this goal was carried out in two steps. The first was the introduction of an MPEG-4 CODEC, provided free of charge, so that worldwide users could begin encoding new content. The second was the release of source code, so that the development community could continue with technical improvements. Sigma never intended in making, nor realized, any profits from this code base.
Several weeks after the CODEC was first released, Sigma was contacted by the XVID development team regarding the use of certain portions of their code. Upon examination, it was determined that one of our programmers, unbeknownst to management and contrary to Sigma's policy, had utilized some routines posted by XVID as open source. During the past four weeks, Sigma had communicated with XVID to resolve the situation. As a result, Sigma has decided to make the current version of the MPEG-4 CODEC available under the GPL license.
Sigma is a supporter of the Linux operating system, appreciates the work being done by the open source community, and continues to issue certain other code under open source arrangements. Though we believe that we have reacted as expediently as possible, Sigma Designs sincerely apologizes to the open source community for this inadvertent use of GPL code and for the several weeks it took to resolve the situation.
Sincerely,
Ken Lowe Vice President of Business Development
-----
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 21:42:33 -0700 To: Tech Support Subject: Re: (no subject)
Dear Mr. Lowe:
Thank you for your prompt response to my message regarding the Sigma Designs REALmagic MPEG-4 video codec. I URGE YOU TO READ THIS MESSAGE CAREFULLY.
In your response, you indicated that Sigma has decided to make the current version of the MPEG-4 video codec available under the GNU General Public License (GPL). This is indeed great news.
You also alluded to the fact that the situation is now resolved. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS NOT TRUE.
As I mentioned in my previous message, it appears that Sigma Designs is presently in violation of section 2(a) of the GPL. This section stipulates that any modifications to source code carry a prominant notice stating that you made changes and the date of the change. I can find no such notices in the REALmagic MPEG-4 codec source code.
If true, then SIGMA DESIGNS IS STILL VIOLATING THE COPYRIGHT OF THE AUTHORS OF XVID. I strongly urge you to take action, by either ammending the REALmagic MPEG-4 video codec source code to adhere to section 2(a) of the GPL, or else stop distributing the REALmagic codec altogher. Either action will remedy your current violation of the GPL.
Also, I urge you to give proper credit to the XVID development team in your source code. My comparison of REALmagic and XVID reveals that the Sigma source code is much more than "inspired by the XVID MPEG-4 VIDEO CODEC"; it is clearly derivative of XVID and as such deserves proper acknowledgement to the original authors.
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:28:26 -0700 To: RMP4@sdesigns.com Subject: REALmagic MPEG-4 Video Codec
It has come to my attention that your REALmagic MPEG-4 Video Codec contains portions of the XVID [http://www.xvid.org/] software. XVID is licensed under the General Public License (GPL), which requires you to make the source code available for any binary distributions that you release.
I have just downloaded the REALmagic MPEG-4 Video Codec for Windows 2000, XP (RMP4_v1.1_W2K1.zip) binary distribution. Under the terms of the GPL, you must make the source code available to me. Please indicate where I can download the source code, or provide instructions for me to request it via alternate methods.
You make a news annoucement saying "I've discovered a terrible secret, but I won't tell you what it is..." Then... later you finally announce your discovery to people... you sound just like another crackpot trumpeting hidden vauge doom.
I won't forget it, but I have forgiven HP for their error. I appreciate that individuals (vice presidents, overzealous lawyers) can do things that are overruled by their superiors. When the one hand discovered what the other was doing, the situation was quickly remedied.
I believe our collective response, and that of HP's engineers, was instrumental in reversing HP's highly flawed position. I'm farily confident that HP's executive won't forget this lesson, and will likely not repeat it anytime soon. Of course, there's never any guarantees.
Unless HP crosses the line again, I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and continue purchasing their products and recommending them to those I have influence with. HP's committment to open source development so far has been laudable, and it appears to remain strong.
In contrast, Adobe, I haven't forgotten, nor forgiven. They didn't just posture and threaten. They followed through by sicking the feds on an unfortunate individual, and it had devastating consequences. No, I won't recommend Abobe products to anyone in the foreseeable future.
I believe the act of fraud is already illegal in nearly every jurisdiction on the planet. I'm unsure what this special case is intended to address. To wit:
If I walk into a bank and use someone else's bank account number to withdraw money, I'm guilty of fraud.
If I order a product over the phone, and use someone else's credit card number, I'm guilty of fraud.
If I place a telephone call, and bill it to someone else's calling card number, I'm guilty of fraud.
If I modify my cellular telephone to use someone else's ESN, I'm guilty of fraud.
Why special laws to prevent me from actually modifying my own property? If I modify my property to misrepresent myself in a financial transaction, I'm guilty of fraud.
According to a recent c|net article [http://news.com.com/2100-1023-947325.html], Kent Ferson alleged that the public disclosure of a vulnerability in the Tru64 OS represents a violation of the DMCA, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Furthermore, Mr. Ferson indicated that those who disclose such vulnerabilities "could be fined up to $500,000 and imprisioned for up to five years".
HP's recent activities in the open source movement has motivated me to purchase HP products, and to strongly recommend the purchase of HP products. If HP's new attitude towards the open communication about its products is to seek suppression of this communication through the highly flawed DMCA, then be assured I will no longer support the purchase of HP products, and in fact will actively steer those I influence to seek alternatives to HP products.
Apparently, the MTA still accepts the message in its entirety before filtering it through TMDA, thus consuming bandwidth even for blacklisted senders. Furthermore, veteran spammers use random addresses in order to bypass email-address blacklists.
Ultimately, bandwidth waste will probably be most important to service providers, while clean INBOXes will probably be most important to end-users.
I've come to the conclusion that a two-tiered approach to spam reduction will be most effective in my environment:
The first line of defense is a realtime IP-address-blacklist (e.g. RBL, SpamCop), which allows the MTA to reject messages outright before they're sent.
The second line of defense is a message filter (e.g. procmail, TMDA, SpamAssassin), which allows messages themselves to be filtered for content and possibly intervene on behalf of the recipient to request confirmation before delivering the message.
TMDA does have a disadvantage over blacklists: it doesn't reduce wasted server bandwidth. Not only do I want to keep my INBOX neat and tidy, I also don't want spammers to usurp the bandwidth that I pay $$$ for.
Blacklists would allow my MTA to reject the email before the body is even sent. TMDA receives the body, stores the message and attempts to send a confirmation request to the spammer, all taking bandwidth.
TMDA is ideal if nobody cares about bandwidth utilization, but today spam is costing me more. If traffic continues to grow at existing rates, spam will account for more traffic than my web services in a matter of months.
Nor should tax dollars be spent on Bic pens, or Bostitch staplers, or Lockheed jets, or any other product built by an evil moneygrubbing company!
Tax dollars should not be spent on products with closed architectures. As far as I know, Bic has not vendor-locked a government to use only its pens.
Like it or not, years ago M$ was the logical choice for software. And, like it or not, M$ has advanced, through a common user interface, the state of desktop computing.
I don't necessarily disagree with this opinion. But in order for your statement to be credible, back it up with supporting evidence. Otherwise, you're just trolling.
That's my point exactly... MS *knows* what they are selling, and have admitted that it is a security risk.
All software has vulnerabilities -- some known, many unknown. Microsoft may have more than others. It would be unreasonable to expect any differently. Calling the sale of software to government treason is unreasonable.
Microsoft isn't selling top secrets to the enemies of the USA. Microsoft is selling an operating system, whose risks are not fully known to anyone, at best. The spy, in your example, was selling secrets, and knew the direct consequences of his actions.
Microsoft is selling software, with "no warranty... either expressed or implied", with no "fitness for use a particular purpose". Users of this software are free to not accept the agreement, and choose an alternative. Evidently, the government is seeking one in Linux. Good for them.
Spy: "No, your honor, I did not sell the plans to the new top secret submarine to undermine the security of the country, I sold it becuase I was greedy and wanted to make a quick buck."
And such an argument should be summarily rejected, because the so-called 'Spy' in your example was a spy, knew he was a spy, knew what he was selling, knew the consequences of his actions, and should be culpable for his actions.
There's a saying: "If you choose to dance with an elephant, you can only stop when the elephant wants to stop." It is conversely true that if the elephant stops, ain't nothing you can do to get it to dance.
If you choose to base the entire success of your company on the whims of a company like Microsoft, then don't be surprised if the whims of Microsoft don't go your way. Microsoft will do what's in its best interests, and that often doesn't coincide with the interests of others.
I take exception to Teare's comment:
In this case the widespread use of the browser and its absolute requirement for our system means that Microsoft's decision has resulted in innovation being stopped. The only naming technology in the world capable of allowing non-ASCII characters to be used as web addresses is being killed at birth - before it succeeds and becomes "out of control". A small private company is being denied an audience - not because of money - but because of fear of losing control. If Microsoft wants to become a major player in internet platform technologies it will have to overcome this fear. What is shared cannot be controlled.
Microsoft denied his company nothing that wasn't legitimately its to deny. Microsoft chose not to renew a consentual agreement between it and RealNames. There is nothing wrong with that. It's the basis of a free market.
This is hardly an example of Microsoft attempting to stifle innovation. If Microsoft were buying their company, then closing the business, maybe. If Microsoft were writing incompatibilities into their code, maybe.
Microsoft opted to not engage in further agreements with RealNames. Too bad for RealNames. Get back up, brush the dust off, and find a business model that doesn't depend on the good intentions of Microsoft.
I'm telling you, software makers NEED liability. It's the only way we will ever have responsible programs released. Right now, software makers can get away with selling products that have defects in them on the order of ones that if they were in cars, would send Ford or GM into receivership.
I'm concerned that attaching liability to software will send a chill through the software development community, especially the free/open source software projects. Large corporations might have the resources to insure against and pay liability claims. Individuals developing software in their free time certainly do not.
In my opinion, writing software is an exercise in freedom of speech, and deserves the same protections afforded to other forms of speech. If I make my speech available to others, under the condition that they accept responsibility for all damage that may occur as a result of its use, I believe that is reasonable.
A few thoughts...
1. Perhaps the burden of non-EULA-immune liability should only be attached when a piece of software is designed to transport, support or safeguard human life, and has failed to meet specific safety standards. Otherwise, I believe you're opening up a huge can of worms, in the already litigious American culture.
2. Software developers and vendors should have the right to dictate any other terms for licensing their software, including limitation of liability, waiver of warrantee, and "as is" delivery. Users and consumers are free to decline to use any software whose licenses are not acceptable to them.
3. Some free software developers have already stopped releasing their software, citing concerns over liability. Broadcast 2000 is one example I am aware of. This is a concrete example of the chilling effects liability can have on software development.
4. People are free to choose software platforms that are more stable, reliable and less prone to being exploited by viruses and worms. If they persist in using unsecure platforms, and take no steps to protect themselves (e.g. antivirus software), they shouldn't be particularly surprised by the outcome.
5. Those who purposely unleash viruses and worms on the Internet with the intent to do damage should be answering for their actions.
Did you notice that the "Buy Now" button, which was on the page when they were selling it, and is present for virtually every other product on their site, is now gone?
The VoIP Blaster had huge potential, IMHO, because it was easy for non-internet-telephony-experts to plug in their POTS telephones and place a call. I was preparing to buy more when I discovered there were no more available.
In a desperate effort to find out how to buy more VoIP Blasters, I called Creative Labs. Yes, it's official, they have discontinued sales of this product. That explains why they were blowing them out at $10 a pop. But, it goes deeper than this.
I discovered that Creative Labs didn't manufacturer the VoIP Blaster. They were value added resellers of the InnoMedia InfoAccel USB. I decided to send a message to InnoMedia to find out who else resold their units.
My Question to InnoMedia, made through their "contact us" page:
"Creative Labs has now officially discontinued the VoIP Blaster (the repackaged InfoAccel USB). Are there other OEM partners who are repackaging the InfoAccel USB I can purchase from? Is InnoMedia considering releasing a consumer version of the InfoAccel USB?"
Short yet concise response from Kelly Zhang, Director of Sales, InnoMedia:
"We do not intend to release any more version of InfoAccel USB."
Now that the VoIP Blaster party is officially over, what other inexpensive hardware platforms look promising to allow Grandma to pick up a phone and place a call without a Ph.D in Internet Telephony?
First, the whole premise of your comment seems to be that Lindows.com gaining market share is somehow important, especially to the Linux community, and that this somehow supercedes people's rights in their own work. This premise seems flawed, or at least requires some supporting evidence.
Lindows has a very good chance of becoming popular and gaining some market share if it does everything it says it will.
Why should this be a concern to the numerous people who made their work publicly available, but only on certain conditions -- conditions which apparently Lindows.com is not meeting?
Why should this be a concern to a person who purchased a license, on the basis that Lindows.com is derived from GPL software, and who now wants to track down a bug or customize the software in some way?
The success of Lindows.com is Lindows.com's concern, not anyone else's. Their market share is their responsibility, not ours. Lindows.com has a tremendously difficult task ahead -- but it's their responsibility.
If Lindows.com is going to use other people's work, then today, under current intellectual property law, an obligation falls on Lindows.com to abide by the terms of the license under which it was supplied. If it can't do this and be successful at the same time, then it should fail.
So I propose that we let them tweak their software with these beta releases. Then when they release a final version we will see the source code.
When did you (or I, for that matter) get to decide what happens with other people's work? People worked hard on their software, and allowed us to see, use, improve, communicate about and collaborate on it. They dictate how their software is used, not us. This is not a democracy. We don't get to vote on how other people's work is licensed.
Why do we need to see it now? It almost sounds like a bunch of three-year-olds that can't wait to open presents.
Lindows.com must supply source because it those are the terms of the GPL. Actually, to be precise, we don't need to see it now. Lindows.com only has an obligation under the GPL to provide the source code to those who received binary versions of their software.
Does anyone remember when Microsoft released Novell NetWare compatibility into its Windows NT operating systems? At that time, Novell was the dominant player, and Microsoft was playing catchup.
Microsoft quickly eroded Novell's network operating system market share, eventually becoming the dominant player in office network servers. Novell Netware installations now seem a rarity.
Microsoft, the dominant player, is now threatened by people creating compatible implementations of its own services. This turn of events, though not surprising, somehow seems ironic.
Re:How Incredibly Discourteous
on
KDE 3.0 is Out
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
With due respect to your position, the KDE group should know by now that if news like this is leaked and there's a credible place to verify it (e.g. an FTP site), it will be reported on by sites such as Slashdot.
The onus is on anyone who wants to keep a secret, and steps should be taken to keep it that way until they're ready for its announcement, and IMHO this includes the KDE development team.
A possible solution? Put the distribution on a mirrors-only site, let it propogate to the mirrors, put it up on your FTP site last.
In my opinion, what the KDE group faces is the ante for participating in the information freedom, everyone collaborates, communicates and participates age.
The (Hopefully) Great April Fools Blackout
on
CPAN Shifts Focus
·
· Score: 4, Funny
For the record, my feelings on the Slashdot April Fools Embroglio rests firmly in the uninterested. I have almost zero opinion on the final outcome of April Fools postings. I love Slashdot, and will probably subscribe at some point to support the site, but April Fools jokes are dull (to me).
This easy dismissal of the value of the only providers of interesting and insightful content on Slashdot is offensive. Thus, I propose a small revolt. The (Hopefully) Great April Fools Blackout.
T(H)GAFB will be during April 1 through April 1. Easy to remember, a shitload of useless articles will be posted. During that time, I will not be enjoying posting, or reading comments from the home page.
During that day, I'd like to see if Slashdot becomes a better place, or if it becomes the Hallowed Shrine of Troll.
This is where the (Hopefully) comes in. This is only meaningful if enough agree to go along and participate. If there is only me and a handful of others who cease enjoying Slashdot during that week, it will be pretty meaningless.
... that Zero Knowledge couldn't make a go (financially, as well as politically, especially post-911) with their Freedom service. It was really great. The good news is there are open networks opening up to fill the gap they left.
KN is focusing on a business model that at least has a hope of succeeding financially, because an "Internet Explorer-only, not-really-private-at-all service" is designed for the masses (moo), which at least has the possibility of capturing enough users to generate enough revenue to be profitable.
They are definitely not targeting techno-geeks, which while k3w1, evidently won't generate the necessary d0ugh to pay people's $a1ari3$ so they can feed their chi1dr3n and pay off their n3w c0mp4ct f3u1 3ffici3nt c4r5.
Slashdot Mirror
The future is product placement, my friend. Only with product placement can commercial content get to viewers without such interference from pesky technology. Law & Order Classic, 2004:
"Before we investigate and inevitably arrest the prime suspect, why don't we relax and enjoy the soothing, refreshing taste of a Vanilla Coke?"
"Your honor, I request a recess so that we can try the new Subway Select Sweet Onion Chicken Teriyaki sandwich, only $2.99 for a limited time."
"The jury is hopelessly deadlocked, your honor. Half of the jury believes that the the defendant's beverage tastes great. The other half is convinced that it is less filling."
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:05:24 -0700
To: kal@sdesigns.com, stephanie.porter@edelman.com, RMP4@sdesigns.com, tech_support@sdesigns.com
Subject: MPEG-4 Video Codec Source Code
To whom it may concern:
Thank you for making the source code to the REALmagic MPEG-4 codec available. As you are now aware, this is a required term of the GNU General Public License (GPL). I have downloaded the source code release (RMP4V1_1.zip) from your website, and have concerns pertaining to the notices that appear at the top of the source files.
In the top of the source files, there is a vague assertion that they are related to the XVID MPEG-4 video codec with the following statement: "This code inspired by the XVID MPEG-4 VIDEO CODEC".
I have performed a side-by-side comparison between the above-mentioned REALmagic MPEG-4 codec and the XVID (xvid_snapshot_20020822.tar.gz) source code, and it is clear to me that the source files you published are not merely "inspired by" the XVID MPEG-4 codec, but are in fact derivative works.
If this is true, then your source distribution appears on its face to be in violation of the GPL. Section 2(a) states: "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change." I could find no such notices of changes in the source files you released.
I request you remedy this problem by ammending the source code files in accordance with section 2(a), so that this apparent violation can be corrected. Doing so is a legal requirement of the license you accepted by creating a derivative work of the XVID MPEG-4 video codec. Failure to adhere to the terms of the GPL constitutes a copyright infringment by Sigma Designs.
You are clearly using and benefiting from the work of the authors of the XVID MPEG-4 video codec, yet you have hardly credited the development team for making this possible. I strongly urge you to consider to properly acknowledge the XVID development team. Please, give credit where credit is due.
-----
From: Tech Support
Subject:
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:59:09 -0700
Interested Parties concerning Sigma's MPEG-4 CODEC
Thank you for contacting Sigma Designs and requesting information that relates to our MPEG-4 CODEC and the availability of its source code. We would like to take this opportunity to address the relevant issues that have been raised.
To begin with, Sigma developed an MPEG-4 CODEC to assist in the proliferation of MPEG-4 content and to ensure that users can create content libraries compatible with the ISO MPEG-4 video specifications and its implementation in silicon. Fulfilling this goal was carried out in two steps. The first was the introduction of an MPEG-4 CODEC, provided free of charge, so that worldwide users could begin encoding new content. The second was the release of source code, so that the development community could continue with technical improvements. Sigma never intended in making, nor realized, any profits from this code base.
Several weeks after the CODEC was first released, Sigma was contacted by the XVID development team regarding the use of certain portions of their code. Upon examination, it was determined that one of our programmers, unbeknownst to management and contrary to Sigma's policy, had utilized some routines posted by XVID as open source. During the past four weeks, Sigma had communicated with XVID to resolve the situation. As a result, Sigma has decided to make the current version of the MPEG-4 CODEC available under the GPL license.
Sigma is a supporter of the Linux operating system, appreciates the work being done by the open source community, and continues to issue certain other code under open source arrangements. Though we believe that we have reacted as expediently as possible, Sigma Designs sincerely apologizes to the open source community for this inadvertent use of GPL code and for the several weeks it took to resolve the situation.
Sincerely,
Ken Lowe
Vice President of Business Development
-----
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 21:42:33 -0700
To: Tech Support
Subject: Re: (no subject)
Dear Mr. Lowe:
Thank you for your prompt response to my message regarding the Sigma Designs REALmagic MPEG-4 video codec. I URGE YOU TO READ THIS MESSAGE CAREFULLY.
In your response, you indicated that Sigma has decided to make the current version of the MPEG-4 video codec available under the GNU General Public License (GPL). This is indeed great news.
You also alluded to the fact that the situation is now resolved. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS NOT TRUE.
As I mentioned in my previous message, it appears that Sigma Designs is presently in violation of section 2(a) of the GPL. This section stipulates that any modifications to source code carry a prominant notice stating that you made changes and the date of the change. I can find no such notices in the REALmagic MPEG-4 codec source code.
If true, then SIGMA DESIGNS IS STILL VIOLATING THE COPYRIGHT OF THE AUTHORS OF XVID. I strongly urge you to take action, by either ammending the REALmagic MPEG-4 video codec source code to adhere to section 2(a) of the GPL, or else stop distributing the REALmagic codec altogher. Either action will remedy your current violation of the GPL.
Also, I urge you to give proper credit to the XVID development team in your source code. My comparison of REALmagic and XVID reveals that the Sigma source code is much more than "inspired by the XVID MPEG-4 VIDEO CODEC"; it is clearly derivative of XVID and as such deserves proper acknowledgement to the original authors.
Please, give credit where credit is due.
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:28:26 -0700
To: RMP4@sdesigns.com
Subject: REALmagic MPEG-4 Video Codec
It has come to my attention that your REALmagic MPEG-4 Video Codec contains portions of the XVID [http://www.xvid.org/] software. XVID is licensed under the General Public License (GPL), which requires you to make the source code available for any binary distributions that you release.
I have just downloaded the REALmagic MPEG-4 Video Codec for Windows 2000, XP (RMP4_v1.1_W2K1.zip) binary distribution. Under the terms of the GPL, you must make the source code available to me. Please indicate where I can download the source code, or provide instructions for me to request it via alternate methods.
You make a news annoucement saying "I've discovered a terrible secret, but I won't tell you what it is..." Then ... later you finally announce your discovery to people ... you sound just like another crackpot trumpeting hidden vauge doom.
Is this what happened with Theo de Raadt?
I won't forget it, but I have forgiven HP for their error. I appreciate that individuals (vice presidents, overzealous lawyers) can do things that are overruled by their superiors. When the one hand discovered what the other was doing, the situation was quickly remedied.
I believe our collective response, and that of HP's engineers, was instrumental in reversing HP's highly flawed position. I'm farily confident that HP's executive won't forget this lesson, and will likely not repeat it anytime soon. Of course, there's never any guarantees.
Unless HP crosses the line again, I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and continue purchasing their products and recommending them to those I have influence with. HP's committment to open source development so far has been laudable, and it appears to remain strong.
In contrast, Adobe, I haven't forgotten, nor forgiven. They didn't just posture and threaten. They followed through by sicking the feds on an unfortunate individual, and it had devastating consequences. No, I won't recommend Abobe products to anyone in the foreseeable future.
I believe the act of fraud is already illegal in nearly every jurisdiction on the planet. I'm unsure what this special case is intended to address. To wit:
If I walk into a bank and use someone else's bank account number to withdraw money, I'm guilty of fraud.
If I order a product over the phone, and use someone else's credit card number, I'm guilty of fraud.
If I place a telephone call, and bill it to someone else's calling card number, I'm guilty of fraud.
If I modify my cellular telephone to use someone else's ESN, I'm guilty of fraud.
Why special laws to prevent me from actually modifying my own property? If I modify my property to misrepresent myself in a financial transaction, I'm guilty of fraud.
My message to HP:
According to a recent c|net article [http://news.com.com/2100-1023-947325.html], Kent Ferson alleged that the public disclosure of a vulnerability in the Tru64 OS represents a violation of the DMCA, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Furthermore, Mr. Ferson indicated that those who disclose such vulnerabilities "could be fined up to $500,000 and imprisioned for up to five years".
HP's recent activities in the open source movement has motivated me to purchase HP products, and to strongly recommend the purchase of HP products. If HP's new attitude towards the open communication about its products is to seek suppression of this communication through the highly flawed DMCA, then be assured I will no longer support the purchase of HP products, and in fact will actively steer those I influence to seek alternatives to HP products.
Apparently, the MTA still accepts the message in its entirety before filtering it through TMDA, thus consuming bandwidth even for blacklisted senders. Furthermore, veteran spammers use random addresses in order to bypass email-address blacklists.
Ultimately, bandwidth waste will probably be most important to service providers, while clean INBOXes will probably be most important to end-users.
I've come to the conclusion that a two-tiered approach to spam reduction will be most effective in my environment:
The first line of defense is a realtime IP-address-blacklist (e.g. RBL, SpamCop), which allows the MTA to reject messages outright before they're sent.
The second line of defense is a message filter (e.g. procmail, TMDA, SpamAssassin), which allows messages themselves to be filtered for content and possibly intervene on behalf of the recipient to request confirmation before delivering the message.
Anybody smart enough to make a spam bot work around this sort of thing in general will win a Nobel Prize.
:P
Nobel Prize? For what? Pissing off hundreds of thousands of netizens?
TMDA does have a disadvantage over blacklists: it doesn't reduce wasted server bandwidth. Not only do I want to keep my INBOX neat and tidy, I also don't want spammers to usurp the bandwidth that I pay $$$ for.
Blacklists would allow my MTA to reject the email before the body is even sent. TMDA receives the body, stores the message and attempts to send a confirmation request to the spammer, all taking bandwidth.
TMDA is ideal if nobody cares about bandwidth utilization, but today spam is costing me more. If traffic continues to grow at existing rates, spam will account for more traffic than my web services in a matter of months.
Nor should tax dollars be spent on Bic pens, or Bostitch staplers, or Lockheed jets, or any other product built by an evil moneygrubbing company!
Tax dollars should not be spent on products with closed architectures. As far as I know, Bic has not vendor-locked a government to use only its pens.
Like it or not, years ago M$ was the logical choice for software. And, like it or not, M$ has advanced, through a common user interface, the state of desktop computing.
I don't necessarily disagree with this opinion. But in order for your statement to be credible, back it up with supporting evidence. Otherwise, you're just trolling.
That's my point exactly... MS *knows* what they are selling, and have admitted that it is a security risk.
... either expressed or implied", with no "fitness for use a particular purpose". Users of this software are free to not accept the agreement, and choose an alternative. Evidently, the government is seeking one in Linux. Good for them.
All software has vulnerabilities -- some known, many unknown. Microsoft may have more than others. It would be unreasonable to expect any differently. Calling the sale of software to government treason is unreasonable.
Microsoft isn't selling top secrets to the enemies of the USA. Microsoft is selling an operating system, whose risks are not fully known to anyone, at best. The spy, in your example, was selling secrets, and knew the direct consequences of his actions.
Microsoft is selling software, with "no warranty
Spy: "No, your honor, I did not sell the plans to the new top secret submarine to undermine the security of the country, I sold it becuase I was greedy and wanted to make a quick buck."
And such an argument should be summarily rejected, because the so-called 'Spy' in your example was a spy, knew he was a spy, knew what he was selling, knew the consequences of his actions, and should be culpable for his actions.
One has to wonder how selling the Pentagon software with SEVERE, KNOWN FLAWS that threaten NATIONAL SECURITY is *not* treason...
IANAL, but the amateur lawyer in me says:
"Treason requires the requisite intent to undermine the security of your country. Treason cannot be charged due to negligence or greed."
There's a saying: "If you choose to dance with an elephant, you can only stop when the elephant wants to stop." It is conversely true that if the elephant stops, ain't nothing you can do to get it to dance.
If you choose to base the entire success of your company on the whims of a company like Microsoft, then don't be surprised if the whims of Microsoft don't go your way. Microsoft will do what's in its best interests, and that often doesn't coincide with the interests of others.
I take exception to Teare's comment:
In this case the widespread use of the browser and its absolute requirement for our system means that Microsoft's decision has resulted in innovation being stopped. The only naming technology in the world capable of allowing non-ASCII characters to be used as web addresses is being killed at birth - before it succeeds and becomes "out of control". A small private company is being denied an audience - not because of money - but because of fear of losing control. If Microsoft wants to become a major player in internet platform technologies it will have to overcome this fear. What is shared cannot be controlled.
Microsoft denied his company nothing that wasn't legitimately its to deny. Microsoft chose not to renew a consentual agreement between it and RealNames. There is nothing wrong with that. It's the basis of a free market.
This is hardly an example of Microsoft attempting to stifle innovation. If Microsoft were buying their company, then closing the business, maybe. If Microsoft were writing incompatibilities into their code, maybe.
Microsoft opted to not engage in further agreements with RealNames. Too bad for RealNames. Get back up, brush the dust off, and find a business model that doesn't depend on the good intentions of Microsoft.
I'm telling you, software makers NEED liability. It's the only way we will ever have responsible programs released. Right now, software makers can get away with selling products that have defects in them on the order of ones that if they were in cars, would send Ford or GM into receivership.
I'm concerned that attaching liability to software will send a chill through the software development community, especially the free/open source software projects. Large corporations might have the resources to insure against and pay liability claims. Individuals developing software in their free time certainly do not.
In my opinion, writing software is an exercise in freedom of speech, and deserves the same protections afforded to other forms of speech. If I make my speech available to others, under the condition that they accept responsibility for all damage that may occur as a result of its use, I believe that is reasonable.
A few thoughts...
1. Perhaps the burden of non-EULA-immune liability should only be attached when a piece of software is designed to transport, support or safeguard human life, and has failed to meet specific safety standards. Otherwise, I believe you're opening up a huge can of worms, in the already litigious American culture.
2. Software developers and vendors should have the right to dictate any other terms for licensing their software, including limitation of liability, waiver of warrantee, and "as is" delivery. Users and consumers are free to decline to use any software whose licenses are not acceptable to them.
3. Some free software developers have already stopped releasing their software, citing concerns over liability. Broadcast 2000 is one example I am aware of. This is a concrete example of the chilling effects liability can have on software development.
4. People are free to choose software platforms that are more stable, reliable and less prone to being exploited by viruses and worms. If they persist in using unsecure platforms, and take no steps to protect themselves (e.g. antivirus software), they shouldn't be particularly surprised by the outcome.
5. Those who purposely unleash viruses and worms on the Internet with the intent to do damage should be answering for their actions.
</rant>
Did you notice that the "Buy Now" button, which was on the page when they were selling it, and is present for virtually every other product on their site, is now gone?
The VoIP Blaster had huge potential, IMHO, because it was easy for non-internet-telephony-experts to plug in their POTS telephones and place a call. I was preparing to buy more when I discovered there were no more available.
In a desperate effort to find out how to buy more VoIP Blasters, I called Creative Labs. Yes, it's official, they have discontinued sales of this product. That explains why they were blowing them out at $10 a pop. But, it goes deeper than this.
I discovered that Creative Labs didn't manufacturer the VoIP Blaster. They were value added resellers of the InnoMedia InfoAccel USB. I decided to send a message to InnoMedia to find out who else resold their units.
My Question to InnoMedia, made through their "contact us" page:
"Creative Labs has now officially discontinued the VoIP Blaster (the repackaged InfoAccel USB). Are there other OEM partners who are repackaging the InfoAccel USB I can purchase from? Is InnoMedia considering releasing a consumer version of the InfoAccel USB?"
Short yet concise response from Kelly Zhang, Director of Sales, InnoMedia:
"We do not intend to release any more version of InfoAccel USB."
Now that the VoIP Blaster party is officially over, what other inexpensive hardware platforms look promising to allow Grandma to pick up a phone and place a call without a Ph.D in Internet Telephony?
I currently SSH tunnel for IRC, but for IM related software, I can't seem to SSH tunnel and get the relevant ports forwarded.
Assuming you have a recent version of OpenSSH, follow these instructions:
1. Run ssh -D 1080 hostname. This causes ssh provide a SOCKS v4 proxy services when connecting to localhost on port 1080.
2. Set your IM client to use your SOCKS v4 proxy server and point it to localhost on port 1080. Most IM clients support the SOCKS proxy protocol.
3. Chat.
First, the whole premise of your comment seems to be that Lindows.com gaining market share is somehow important, especially to the Linux community, and that this somehow supercedes people's rights in their own work. This premise seems flawed, or at least requires some supporting evidence.
Lindows has a very good chance of becoming popular and gaining some market share if it does everything it says it will.
Why should this be a concern to the numerous people who made their work publicly available, but only on certain conditions -- conditions which apparently Lindows.com is not meeting?
Why should this be a concern to a person who purchased a license, on the basis that Lindows.com is derived from GPL software, and who now wants to track down a bug or customize the software in some way?
The success of Lindows.com is Lindows.com's concern, not anyone else's. Their market share is their responsibility, not ours. Lindows.com has a tremendously difficult task ahead -- but it's their responsibility.
If Lindows.com is going to use other people's work, then today, under current intellectual property law, an obligation falls on Lindows.com to abide by the terms of the license under which it was supplied. If it can't do this and be successful at the same time, then it should fail.
So I propose that we let them tweak their software with these beta releases. Then when they release a final version we will see the source code.
When did you (or I, for that matter) get to decide what happens with other people's work? People worked hard on their software, and allowed us to see, use, improve, communicate about and collaborate on it. They dictate how their software is used, not us. This is not a democracy. We don't get to vote on how other people's work is licensed.
Why do we need to see it now? It almost sounds like a bunch of three-year-olds that can't wait to open presents.
Lindows.com must supply source because it those are the terms of the GPL. Actually, to be precise, we don't need to see it now. Lindows.com only has an obligation under the GPL to provide the source code to those who received binary versions of their software.
Does anyone remember when Microsoft released Novell NetWare compatibility into its Windows NT operating systems? At that time, Novell was the dominant player, and Microsoft was playing catchup.
Microsoft quickly eroded Novell's network operating system market share, eventually becoming the dominant player in office network servers. Novell Netware installations now seem a rarity.
Microsoft, the dominant player, is now threatened by people creating compatible implementations of its own services. This turn of events, though not surprising, somehow seems ironic.
With due respect to your position, the KDE group should know by now that if news like this is leaked and there's a credible place to verify it (e.g. an FTP site), it will be reported on by sites such as Slashdot.
The onus is on anyone who wants to keep a secret, and steps should be taken to keep it that way until they're ready for its announcement, and IMHO this includes the KDE development team.
A possible solution? Put the distribution on a mirrors-only site, let it propogate to the mirrors, put it up on your FTP site last.
In my opinion, what the KDE group faces is the ante for participating in the information freedom, everyone collaborates, communicates and participates age.
For the record, my feelings on the Slashdot April Fools Embroglio rests firmly in the uninterested. I have almost zero opinion on the final outcome of April Fools postings. I love Slashdot, and will probably subscribe at some point to support the site, but April Fools jokes are dull (to me).
This easy dismissal of the value of the only providers of interesting and insightful content on Slashdot is offensive. Thus, I propose a small revolt. The (Hopefully) Great April Fools Blackout.
T(H)GAFB will be during April 1 through April 1. Easy to remember, a shitload of useless articles will be posted. During that time, I will not be enjoying posting, or reading comments from the home page.
During that day, I'd like to see if Slashdot becomes a better place, or if it becomes the Hallowed Shrine of Troll.
This is where the (Hopefully) comes in. This is only meaningful if enough agree to go along and participate. If there is only me and a handful of others who cease enjoying Slashdot during that week, it will be pretty meaningless.
Face recognition? Expensive? Bah, the ED-209 has all these features, and more.
... that Zero Knowledge couldn't make a go (financially, as well as politically, especially post-911) with their Freedom service. It was really great. The good news is there are open networks opening up to fill the gap they left.
KN is focusing on a business model that at least has a hope of succeeding financially, because an "Internet Explorer-only, not-really-private-at-all service" is designed for the masses (moo), which at least has the possibility of capturing enough users to generate enough revenue to be profitable.
They are definitely not targeting techno-geeks, which while k3w1, evidently won't generate the necessary d0ugh to pay people's $a1ari3$ so they can feed their chi1dr3n and pay off their n3w c0mp4ct f3u1 3ffici3nt c4r5.