"A nice idea, but not really an option. Hubble is in a low earth orbit right now. To get it up to even geosynchronous orbit would require an immense amount of fuel. I'm not *that* kind of rocket scientist, so I don't know how much fuel it would take (relative to it's size). I do know that it would take a lot more fuel (at least one order of magnitude, maybe several) than is required to de-orbit it. NASA would probably have to dig up an old Saturn V to get enough fuel up there to send it towards the moon."
Nope, your not that kind of rocket scientist.
Fuel required to deorbit is near 0 or 0 due to gravity and atmospheric drag.
Fuel needed to go translunar is far lower than what gould be carried by a Saturn V.
Your logic is the same logic that nearly kept us from going to the moon in the first place.
Pointing straight for the moon is not even an option due to orbital mechanics, the object you are pointed towords is also in motion. Apollo required more fuel to go from orbital to lunar due to time constraints for life support for the crew, not any orbital mechanics. Almost all of the fuel that the SV carried was for the purpose of getting to the edge of the gravity well. After orbit has been achieved, motion outward can be done through vector mechanics where time is the tool, not thrust.
In 1998 Hughes saved the HGS-1 communications satellite with not one, but 2 trips to the moon, back to earth orbit.
Sure HGS-1 was intended for Geo, not LEO but it certainly was not intended for a trip to the moon and back.
If Hubble could be nudged into an eliptical, with care and time it could be put almost anywhere, with a bucket of fuel.
The remaining problem is that Hubble has no onboard propulsion systems, so anything strapped on poses both control and structural problems.
Suggestions to move Hubble to the ISS are far less practical without use of the shuttle and far more dangerous even with the shuttle.
Hubble would have to lose 200 km in altitude (Hubble 600km , ISS 400km), change direction and speed and then match speed and direction with ISS. The weight of Hubble is 11110 kg, I don't even want to start thinking about the mass.
So it looks like unless Nasa can mount mission SM4 in November 2004 Hubble will probably become another streak across earths canopy.
Then again maybe there's an option that hasn't been considered or been created yet. (Solar Sails?)
b - bring it back (maybe if the transporter survives the trip)
c - patch it (and give up other items)
and myabe others I missed in the convoluted article.
But one I didn't see in the article was to give it a good hard shove and put it into solar, or translunar orbit.
If this option were followed there would be a chance that it could be retieved later when bugdets were better, or could serve as a permanent exhibit in an solar space museum if we ever get serious about getting off this rock in a more permanent way.
The destruction of our orbital heritige is a symptom of our throw away society, the mass has been moved the hardest part of the journey. Why waste the effort spent by turning it into terrestrial litter.
Ok lets see if you can read.
The License for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 WS is at
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/
Click the Show Products button.
Select Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 WS in the dropdown below.
Click the Continue button.
The resulting document is titled Subscription Agreement.
1.1 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be for the duration of all Services provided under this Agreement.
The initial term for Services shall commence on the Effective
Date of this Agreement and shall continue for a period of one (1) year. Thereafter, the
term for Services shall renew for successive terms of one (1) year each unless either party
gives written notice to the other of its intention not to renew at least sixty (60) days prior
to the commencement of the next term; provided, however, Customer shall have the right
to terminate this Agreement at any time after the first year by giving sixty (60) days prior
written notice of termination to Red Hat. Customer shall remain obligated for all fees
through the date of termination.
Your contention derives from this portion
The initial term for Services shall commence on the Effective
Date of this Agreement and shall continue for a period of one (1) year.
However the conflict arises from the Title Subscription Agreement and paragraph 3 which states The Effective Date of this Agreement is the earlier of the date that Customer accepts this Agreement or the date that Customer uses Red Hat's products or services.
It appears that Red Hat legal has worded the document for laywers and not for users and decision makers. It needs fixing.
I would not interpret it so narrowly considering that 99% or more of the product is covered by GPL and cannot be further restricted by any license.
The license document appears to mean support and services and has incidentally included the word product without clarification, the word product can also be used for services or subscriptions in fact the document no-where mentions Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS creating doubt that there is any license for the 'product' at all.
Contrary to your assertion 'The service comes with the software, you agree by buying it. If you reject it after you buy it, it still applies for 1 year after termination, read the f**king EULA.
The Letter of the agreement is undefinable being that the product and the service are not stated.
The nearest product license on Red Hat's list is Subscription Agreement for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1 http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_2-1.html? country=United+States&
This License clearly defines product, services and associated rights, some possibly in violation of the GPL.
Again, there appears to be no valid license as of yet for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 WS.
I bought two at a Wolf location. The afternoon after this article reached/.
The display still had 15+ remaining when I left, so I didn't feel too guilt about being a pig.
And only a little guilty about taking advantage of a good idea, done in a stupid way. Well, really I didn't feel guilty at all, it took 20 minutes to get one of the 3 sales people to ring me up at the check out and there were only 2 customers in the store. After the wait the clerk made it a point to tell me that the camera had to brought back to that store to get the pictures out, I didn't bother to inform her otherwise.
I've seen lots of comments about how 'cheesey' the cameras supposedly are. I'd have to disagree, they are well balanced, have a well thought out 'swoosh' ridge for a finger grip, and as important as anything else the have some substantial weight that makes it easier to hold steady.
SCO takes off the wrapper and makes it absolutely clear that it intends make an attempt to destroy Open Source.
There can be no other reason for delivering subpoenas on Stallman and Cohen, to a lesser degree Torvolds.
They are going to go after the license, they almost _have_ to try and discredit GPL after distributing the code themselves.
They can't shine a light of accusation at IBM until they have done so.
I think it's time that the FSF put a call in to the ACLU. Even with the help of IBM this portends to be big, dirty and long. The stakes go much deeper than software they go to the heart of freedom and a free society.
I'm reminded of my reaction to Novell buying Unix System Labs in 92/93 and the sale to SCO in 1995 and the SCO rename to Caldera later. It all seemed to Rosey. Unix appeared to be in reliable hands and was being freed into Linux, Caldera even said as much. Then came per seat, and all the rest to the point where we are now with SCO attempting to steal Linux and claim far more in Unix than the law ever intended for.
It keeps me from getting any warm fuzzies over Novell aquireing Suse.
On the Redhat front. I find it odd being a registered adoptee of Redhat (can you really be the owner of OS software?) and a shareholder in the company that I have yet to recieve the email about the end of Redhat Linux.
Redhat's site backed up the stories.
BUT it's being misunderstood. Yes RH9 appears to be the last in it's line BUT RH Enterprise Linux WS is actually it's repacement. The License for RHEL WS is the same as for RH9. The only real change is that to get support from Redhat, you are going to HAVE TO PAY for the support. Your free to get support elsewhere free or otherwise.
Reasonable and overdue, it's a sign of the maturity of commercial Linux. I'll probably step up to RH Enterprise, and now that Suse is under Novell I'll give it another cautious try, but there really isn't a reason to leave RH.
AT&T Consumer and Business Services is a different company from AT&T Wireless.
I don't mean independantly operated, I mean a different company.
AT&T Wireless moved from independant operation to independant in 2000 over 3 years ago.
Trust me, if you had been foolish enough to buy the stock (AWE) you would remember. The Credit Card is yet another non AT&T company carrying the AT&T brand.
If that's all the violations they've had then they have done quite well. Or I should say thier contractors have done well.
Only plain ascii can guarantee the largest possible access to the documents.
This as you reference was by design and has positive indications for both creation and retrieval.
That simple clear text file can be created on the most humble of computers, printed on virutally any printer with or without WP software, and viewed on any device that has the ability to hold the plain text file and display in monochrome, or print.
Maximum access was the point of Project Gutenberg.
Only Ascii can satisfy that in the core project.
From the projects history and philosophy, "The value of Plain Vanilla ASCII is obvious. ..so is very much of the value of most of the various markup systems we have in the world. But until some real standards arrive-- we would be limiting our options a great deal if we do not keep copies of all etexts in Plain Vanilla ASCII as well. "
XML is not forbidden, but for inclusion in the project core ascii is required. You or anyone else are welcome to process them into XML but the volunteers who are so few, so valuable, and so varied cannot be required to add the work that XML would require.
10,000 is a major accompishment. And in my opinion in it's own way comparable to anything ever done by any group for the selfless betterment of all mankind. PG deserves a Nobel prize.
"Every time I get a hit for/*/FormMail.* I log it. I go through these logs and notify the ISPs from which they came that they have a user committing "Unauthorized Access" to my site,..."
You really need to go back to Matts's site and update your script,
http://www.scriptarchive.com/formmail.html
If your still getting spam after that, then you need to switch to a different script.
Sure the spammer is way off base using your script to spam, but if they are sending you email via your own formmail then it probably isn't a technical unauthorized access, and the ISP could face a lawsuit for freezing them out.
A good way to handle this, is for scripts to require a valid email address that the user would have to respond to in order for the formmail type program actually process the request. Then at least you make it a lot more work for the spammer.
I would expect VeriSwine to call it 'innovation'.
I wouldn't expect anyone at the registrar to call it what it really is, vandalism and theft.
Vandalism in that they broke the net, things no longer worked the way they were designed to and caused probably 10's of thousands of manhours worldwide just trying to cope.
Theft in that they did not pay for all the unregistered domains they highjacked to sitefinder.
I'm furious as hell and have mailed (not emailed) various authorities requesting an evaluation of both ICANN and Virisign, with a view to replacing both.
And Troll you they must.
I just couldn't get past this part of -your- confession, I've gotten a few hard to find tracks here and there from KaZaA, but the minute I heard of the lawsuites, I got rid of KaZaA.
You said you got rid of Kazaa, but apparently you kept those stolen tracks(a.k.a. copyrighted property).
I'd love to know the address of this little girl so I could send her a radio and tape recorder so that she can record music without breaking the law.
I'm sure others see the irony in all of this.
Had she taped from the radio she would have been free and clear, the RIAA companies get paid by the radio stations and they get a cut of each blank tape on the assumption that it will be used for piracy.
But because she does what is apparently (to her) the same thing using a computer she's a criminal.
The RIAA has had repeated opportunities to legitimize online music and have repeatedly refused, obstructed, and interfered.
In my book, they are the criminals, and racketeers, not the lowly users.
Copyright is a limited licence, not a right, the grant of which is supposed to be for the public good as well as the good of the copyright grantee.
The RIAA and it's member companies have violated an important part the contract and now attempt to use the law to continue that violation.
If a company's primary business is to provide voice/pots type service, then they are going to have to cough up an pay to play.
Sorry, that's just the way it is. Somebody has to pay the freight to maintain the local loop infrastructure/plant.
Primative, unreliable voip through the computer is probably another story altogether.
The other option is to treat all computer connections the same as POTS, and that will kill the internet goose.
Eventually, one way or the other these issues will have to be hashed out, but I can't see that coming soon, not until we establish a unified national plan that ties in Cell, Cable, Satellite, Internet and traditional.
I can see the fighting/mergers that will make that possible, sure.
Vince doesn't have any monopoly on vision, just a big name from a past event.
The simpleminded answers is 'sure for everybodys protection block the ports'.
But you see they are our ports, and our tools
Each port taken away removes a piece of the net, the net isn't the web.
The wrongful lesson in a post 911 world is that we all somehow can be protected.
And that, that protection requires giving up freedoms, privacy, ports, DNA it's all the same thing.
There is no way in hell you would have given these things up when you felt strong and safe, but now that you are frightened you'll do almost anything suggested in an attempt to hide at momma's breast.
Ports are power, and if North American and European ISPs plock ports, the effect won't be to make us more secure, only to make us weaker. And to make us less than those regions of the internet map that won't block those ports.
Which four ports will we be left, and how much easier will it be to monitor and control the traffic on those ports?
Trading freedom for security is like trading love for life, it's a bad deal.
Georgia Secreatary of States Position on H.R. 2239
Cathy asked that I pass on her message to you. Please do not hesitate to call if I or Cathy can be of any service.
Ann Rosenthal
Campaign Director
404-728-NNNN
Mx. Xxxxx,
Thank you for your e-mail regarding proposed H.R. 2239.
The passage of this legislation would be extremely damaging,
both to Georgia?s new electronic voting system and to those
which other states around the country are putting into
place. The legislation is based on a lack of understanding
of the operation of our machines and the software which
supports them. In fact, in discussing this legislation with
Congresswoman Denise Majette, I suggested that it should
more accurately be called the Voter Delay and Loss of
Integrity act.
After you touch the names of all candidates you wish to vote
for, the computer itself gives you a summary of your choices
and enables you to change those choices before you leave the
voting booth. That summary screen is the opportunity for
voters to verify their votes, and adding a paper receipt,
which presumably would be printed out while the voter waits,
would add delay (as printers are very susceptible to
breakdowns, paper and ink shortages, and other problems).
Additionally, after a paper receipt is printed, the voter
would have no ability to make further changes to their vote
without a very complicated adjustment to the voting machine,
which most poll workers would not be well-equipped to
accomplish. Additionally, placing a paper receipt into a
voting box or other instrument would add tremendous
potential for fraud, as pieces of paper have been known to
disappear from voting boxes in overnight and can otherwise
be very easily manipulated. Such ease of manipulation does
not exist with the new voting machines.
The second primary objection to the proposed legislation in
H.R. 2239 is that all software used in the voting machines
would be disclosed and available on the internet, which
would open up the integrity of our voting systems to every
interested hacker around the world. Once it is disclosed,
any hacker, any person interested in manipulating the
machines, would have access to all of the security built
into the software code and could then with ease manipulate a
state or county?s system if they could gain access to the
equipment. We have the source code available in a secure
escrow account, and our office can access it any time we
need to check the integrity of our systems. And each and
every unit used for voting in Georgia -- more than 22,000
individual units -- is individually submitted to logic and
accuracy testing before every election.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can answer any
additional questions on HR 2239
I think Open Source is clearly here.
Established with more than a mere toehold.
Is the SCO situation an attempt to put the Open Source Jin out of business, if not do you see the old line IP factions as being able to pull off such a stunt?
There's no doubt that bits online for media could very well be the future of distribution.
I don't think anyone has put together a working model at this point.
You are on the right track from the tone of your query.
After all the financial stuff has been taken care of the succes or failure is going to hinge on the customer experiance.
I hate subscriptions, I don't mean dislike, or annoyment, I mean hate. Like many other folks I am often required to pay subscriptions for things I only use occasionally. The folks selling subscription services love it initally, as they can predict a minimum revenue stream that will exceed costs, but in time they find it as much of a problem as it is a solution, because it's hard to increase sales when your typical customer is unlikely to be using what they are paying for.
My prefered method, as a customer is a minimal annual membership fee to help keep the lights on, but not so high as to destroy the incentive for sales. Just a cover fee if you will.
Then say 2 free drinks as a thank you for the cover fee.
I don't mean 2 free drinks like in a bar, since the cover is annual and customer incentive disappears with the next mornings light.
More like the way Radio Shack used to provide batteries every month.
The cost of the battery card did not come close to covering the real value of the batteries, but it was incentive to get Dad and the kids into the store for another sale.
It worked! Then some bean counter got in and figured that money could be made directly from those batteries (that you could buy anywhere) and they should charge for them, and blew the sales incentive for the customer to come in once a month.
A discount for the whole package (MP3, EP, LP whatever you want to call it), is fine but I think the advantage of ondemand online electronic delivery is the ability to provide individual selections, something that really hasn't existed at brickandmorter since the death of the 45.
The author sure loves to write.
Skip reading the article on this one, it can be summed up as follows; the state of the browser is bad, and He expects it to stay bad.
I don't think I can argue.
What was missed, and is still being missed is that the browser didn't evolve, it just changed.
It's grown a second tail, maybe a third eye, and possible an extra lung or two, but it's still pretty much Mosaic no matter what flavor you take.
What was originally intended was that browsers would eventually support the entire SGML suite not just HTML and XML.
For some reason XML for the most part crawled into the server side instead of the browser where it was supposed to live, and evolution stopped.
What should have happened, and I had expected to happen was for a new browser to evolve from the goo of gaming and replace the neanderthal Mosaic.
I expected something to come out of the Quake engine. It didn't but who knows it still could.
Certainly something is going to have to happen, broadband doesn't make sense otherwise.
. If you read the article, you'll see that the current SCO was formerly Caldera. Caldera bought the Unix rights from SCO, the old SCO became Tarantella (which was one of their products IIRC...), and then Caldera renamed to The SCO Group.
Which pill makes me small?
Seriously though, this is going to be part of what hurts NewSCO if this ever get's to the courts.
They are going to have a darned hard time showing what they really own, what they stole, and what was borrowed... long before they ever became NewSCO.
The wiggle room that they have built into thier complaint is they are not really using copyright, or patent as the basis for the suit, they are using contract law.
And they are alleging the transfer and or use of 'Unix Methods and proceedures'. This is a fuzzy area that may not even be answerable.
Part trade secret, part dogma. If you didn't know about how to do something, or that something could be done, you might never have developed it yourself, even without using the original Unix code, or seeing the affect.
Might be true, might not, but the contract kinda binds you up and makes you liable, even if you didn't peek under the covers.
These are the kind of arguments that RMS had for creating GNU in the first place.
Owning code is one thing, controlling ideas is another, and what SCO is attempting is not protection of code, but restriction of ideas.
The temptation is to throw out the phrase UnAmerican right about here, but that's not right. Corperations are not American, or Canadian, or Egyptian... they are just big money making machines that have more rights, fewer morals, than individuals and total disregard for anything but more profit/power.
I would expect that the Greman readers of/. could best answer the question of truth in advertising.
Whin I lived there in the early Late 70's, early 80's one of the cultural differences between Germany and the United States that stood out was that the law prohibited making false claims, and was strictly enforced. If Volkswagen claimed that it's car was better than Ford of Germany, it has better be specific, and provable, not just opinion, inference, subjection.
And the Government took great joy in persuit.
So would software be better if it had to tell the truth? Again, Ask Germany.
I'm not going to copy the full body of your text, for the sake of brevity, hovever I encourage anyone reading my message to read yours before considering mine.
I'm only going to copy your interpretation of GPL;
Quote
"I read that to mean that you are only required to relese the source to those people you've released the binaries to, and it says nothing of making the source available to the general public (unless the binaries are as well, of course)."
EndQuote
Response
Partly correct, just as important is that you must extend to the person the same rights that were extended to you, as in the ability to pass the source along to others freely. Of course this does not apply to Click-N-Run, I'll expand on that below.
EndResponse
Quote "In summation: Buy Lindows, install it and then you should be able to get the source to Click-n-run. After that, you can modify and re-distribute it to your hearts content."
EndQuote
Response
Nope, your not entitled to the source for Click-N-Run, it's not GPL. And because it ties into other programs it does not have to be GPL, it's proprietory and that's ok according to the GPL. If it contained GPL code inside of itself, then it would have to pass on the GPL rights.
The GPL is not infective, it is built to give rights, not take them. Copyright can sit side by side with copyleft without contamination.
EndResponse
Sure I've go some bones to pick with LindowsOS, and RedHat and Suse, and IBM, SCO and MicroSoft for that matter, but the GPL couldn't be any clearer.
The muddy water I see in the LindowsOS Distro, is that the released "source" is not going to make it possible to recreate the total of the GPL'd portions of the Distro.
If I give you a GPL'd Binary, I have to make the source available to you. Lindows does not.
EndResponse
I also don't see LindowsOS giving back to the community, only taking. It's not a requirement of GPL that you give back, but it is an expectation of the GNU community and if you expect the support of that community you need to make a real effort to meet the expectations of the community. LindowsOS does not.
"If you can emulate PC on Mac, it only makes sense that you could emulate Mac on PC."
Thanks, this is good news, I can emulate a ZX81 on my PC, so it only makes sense that I could emulate the PC on my ZX81.
Now I can slap up a 9V battery load Win2K... Where'd the function keys go? Where'd my my mouse Go? Oh, and it appears that we never needed more than 16k.
No, no and no.
Yes Copyright should go back to 14yrs with one renewal.
Or even the lifetime of the original author, provided the original author is an individual, not a corperation.
Allow copy protection with severe limits on reverse engineering, and independant implimentation?
No
There isn't a societal plus in that, just a perpetuation of damaging the public good.
The Supreme Court blew it, the constitution said for a limited time, and why.
This is a sure sign of the end times.
The end times for Novell/SCO.
A quick look at SCO's financials show that the company of under 600 employees is bleeding red, and it's stock is hovering around $1.30usd a share, if it falls under $1.00usd it could be delisted and that would spell the end for financing.
I didn't investigate what the companies debt load it, but I can guarentee, like almost every other legacy IT coperation, they are loaded heavy from the past.
As for claims to any of the Linux IP, they are going to have to contend with HP, IBM, SUN, in addition to Red Hat and the Monster from Redmond.
Nope, they may make a fuss, but I suspect that the 2 and 3 letter name OS makers will be on this in a blink.
"Do you think the project took so much time because the people didn't speak English as a native language?"
Duh!?
Did you read who did and didn't speak english, natively?
I came in (non management) near the end of the project and pulled what I could together.
It's not about, race, heritige, or nationality it's about communications and culture.
When you have to reference every sublty by line number, page number and redefine coma, semicolon, and period in a printed display 5 times it tends to slow thing to a crawl. Think about hearding cats, now think doing it blindfolded, with the cats blindfolded also.
Purpose got completely lost in a quagmire of communication.
How did I pull something out of it?
I speak english a primary language as did the process eng. and the end user, I speak bits and pieces of 4 of the other 7 languages, I have lived and travelled enough that I can listen with an accent, and I program, understand the hardware.
Probably on top of all of that I didn't bring my bruised, unpromoted ego to the project, just my get the job done, don't hurt each other attitude. Some of the other cultures in the project only allowed for winning, and losing.
As far as everyone was concerned in the end, they had won (and those who had to be winners thought everyone else lost).
Slashdot Mirror
"A nice idea, but not really an option. Hubble is in a low earth orbit right now. To get it up to even geosynchronous orbit would require an immense amount of fuel. I'm not *that* kind of rocket scientist, so I don't know how much fuel it would take (relative to it's size). I do know that it would take a lot more fuel (at least one order of magnitude, maybe several) than is required to de-orbit it. NASA would probably have to dig up an old Saturn V to get enough fuel up there to send it towards the moon."
Nope, your not that kind of rocket scientist.
Fuel required to deorbit is near 0 or 0 due to gravity and atmospheric drag.
Fuel needed to go translunar is far lower than what gould be carried by a Saturn V.
Your logic is the same logic that nearly kept us from going to the moon in the first place.
Pointing straight for the moon is not even an option due to orbital mechanics, the object you are pointed towords is also in motion. Apollo required more fuel to go from orbital to lunar due to time constraints for life support for the crew, not any orbital mechanics.
Almost all of the fuel that the SV carried was for the purpose of getting to the edge of the gravity well. After orbit has been achieved, motion outward can be done through vector mechanics where time is the tool, not thrust.
In 1998 Hughes saved the HGS-1 communications satellite with not one, but 2 trips to the moon, back to earth orbit.
Sure HGS-1 was intended for Geo, not LEO but it certainly was not intended for a trip to the moon and back.
If Hubble could be nudged into an eliptical, with care and time it could be put almost anywhere, with a bucket of fuel.
The remaining problem is that Hubble has no onboard propulsion systems, so anything strapped on poses both control and structural problems.
Suggestions to move Hubble to the ISS are far less practical without use of the shuttle and far more dangerous even with the shuttle.
Hubble would have to lose 200 km in altitude (Hubble 600km , ISS 400km), change direction and speed and then match speed and direction with ISS. The weight of Hubble is 11110 kg, I don't even want to start thinking about the mass.
So it looks like unless Nasa can mount mission SM4 in November 2004 Hubble will probably become another streak across earths canopy.
Then again maybe there's an option that hasn't been considered or been created yet. (Solar Sails?)
There have been several options listed
a - burn it up
b - bring it back (maybe if the transporter survives the trip)
c - patch it (and give up other items)
and myabe others I missed in the convoluted article.
But one I didn't see in the article was to give it a good hard shove and put it into solar, or translunar orbit.
If this option were followed there would be a chance that it could be retieved later when bugdets were better, or could serve as a permanent exhibit in an solar space museum if we ever get serious about getting off this rock in a more permanent way.
The destruction of our orbital heritige is a symptom of our throw away society, the mass has been moved the hardest part of the journey.
Why waste the effort spent by turning it into terrestrial litter.
Ok lets see if you can read.
The License for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 WS is at
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/
Click the Show Products button.
Select Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 WS in the dropdown below.
Click the Continue button.
The resulting document is titled Subscription Agreement.
1.1 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be for the duration of all Services provided under this Agreement.
The initial term for Services shall commence on the Effective
Date of this Agreement and shall continue for a period of one (1) year. Thereafter, the
term for Services shall renew for successive terms of one (1) year each unless either party
gives written notice to the other of its intention not to renew at least sixty (60) days prior
to the commencement of the next term; provided, however, Customer shall have the right
to terminate this Agreement at any time after the first year by giving sixty (60) days prior
written notice of termination to Red Hat. Customer shall remain obligated for all fees
through the date of termination.
Your contention derives from this portion
The initial term for Services shall commence on the Effective
Date of this Agreement and shall continue for a period of one (1) year.
However the conflict arises from the Title Subscription Agreement and paragraph 3 which states
The Effective Date of this Agreement is the earlier of the date that Customer accepts this
Agreement or the date that Customer uses Red Hat's products or services.
It appears that Red Hat legal has worded the document for laywers and not for users and decision makers.
It needs fixing.
I would not interpret it so narrowly considering that 99% or more of the product is covered by GPL and cannot be further restricted by any license.
The license document appears to mean support and services and has incidentally included the word product without clarification, the word product can also be used for services or subscriptions in fact the document no-where mentions Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS creating doubt that there is any license for the 'product' at all.
Contrary to your assertion 'The service comes with the software, you agree by buying it.
If you reject it after you buy it, it still applies for 1 year after termination, read the f**king EULA.
The Letter of the agreement is undefinable being that the product and the service are not stated.
The nearest product license on Red Hat's list is Subscription Agreement for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_2-1.html
This License clearly defines product, services and associated rights, some possibly in violation of the GPL.
Again, there appears to be no valid license as of yet for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 WS.
No longer on sale?
/.
I bought two at a Wolf location. The afternoon after this article reached
The display still had 15+ remaining when I left, so I didn't feel too guilt about being a pig.
And only a little guilty about taking advantage of a good idea, done in a stupid way.
Well, really I didn't feel guilty at all, it took 20 minutes to get one of the 3 sales people to ring me up at the check out and there were only 2 customers in the store.
After the wait the clerk made it a point to tell me that the camera had to brought back to that store to get the pictures out, I didn't bother to inform her otherwise.
I've seen lots of comments about how 'cheesey' the cameras supposedly are. I'd have to disagree, they are well balanced, have a well thought out 'swoosh' ridge for a finger grip, and as important as anything else the have some substantial weight that makes it easier to hold steady.
So this is it.
SCO takes off the wrapper and makes it absolutely clear that it intends make an attempt to destroy Open Source.
There can be no other reason for delivering subpoenas on Stallman and Cohen, to a lesser degree Torvolds.
They are going to go after the license, they almost _have_ to try and discredit GPL after distributing the code themselves.
They can't shine a light of accusation at IBM until they have done so.
I think it's time that the FSF put a call in to the ACLU.
Even with the help of IBM this portends to be big, dirty and long.
The stakes go much deeper than software they go to the heart of freedom and a free society.
I'm reminded of my reaction to Novell buying Unix System Labs in 92/93 and the sale to SCO in 1995 and the SCO rename to Caldera later. It all seemed to Rosey.
Unix appeared to be in reliable hands and was being freed into Linux, Caldera even said as much.
Then came per seat, and all the rest to the point where we are now with SCO attempting to steal Linux and claim far more in Unix than the law ever intended for.
It keeps me from getting any warm fuzzies over Novell aquireing Suse.
On the Redhat front. I find it odd being a registered adoptee of Redhat (can you really be the owner of OS software?) and a shareholder in the company that I have yet to recieve the email about the end of Redhat Linux.
Redhat's site backed up the stories.
BUT it's being misunderstood.
Yes RH9 appears to be the last in it's line BUT RH Enterprise Linux WS is actually it's repacement.
The License for RHEL WS is the same as for RH9. The only real change is that to get support from Redhat, you are going to HAVE TO PAY for the support.
Your free to get support elsewhere free or otherwise.
Reasonable and overdue, it's a sign of the maturity of commercial Linux.
I'll probably step up to RH Enterprise, and now that Suse is under Novell I'll give it another cautious try, but there really isn't a reason to leave RH.
AT&T Consumer and Business Services is a different company from AT&T Wireless.
I don't mean independantly operated, I mean a different company.
AT&T Wireless moved from independant operation to independant in 2000 over 3 years ago.
Trust me, if you had been foolish enough to buy the stock (AWE) you would remember.
The Credit Card is yet another non AT&T company carrying the AT&T brand.
If that's all the violations they've had then they have done quite well. Or I should say thier contractors have done well.
Only plain ascii can guarantee the largest possible access to the documents.
This as you reference was by design and has positive indications for both creation and retrieval.
That simple clear text file can be created on the most humble of computers, printed on virutally any printer with or without WP software, and viewed on any device that has the ability to hold the plain text file and display in monochrome, or print.
Maximum access was the point of Project Gutenberg.
Only Ascii can satisfy that in the core project.
From the projects history and philosophy, "The value of Plain Vanilla ASCII is obvious. .
XML is not forbidden, but for inclusion in the project core ascii is required. You or anyone else are welcome to process them into XML but the volunteers who are so few, so valuable, and so varied cannot be required to add the work that XML would require.
10,000 is a major accompishment. And in my opinion in it's own way comparable to anything ever done by any group for the selfless betterment of all mankind. PG deserves a Nobel prize.
"Every time I get a hit for
You really need to go back to Matts's site and update your script,
http://www.scriptarchive.com/formmail.html
If your still getting spam after that, then you need to switch to a different script.
Sure the spammer is way off base using your script to spam, but if they are sending you email via your own formmail then it probably isn't a technical unauthorized access, and the ISP could face a lawsuit for freezing them out.
A good way to handle this, is for scripts to require a valid email address that the user would have to respond to in order for the formmail type program actually process the request. Then at least you make it a lot more work for the spammer.
I would expect VeriSwine to call it 'innovation'.
I wouldn't expect anyone at the registrar to call it what it really is, vandalism and theft.
Vandalism in that they broke the net, things no longer worked the way they were designed to and caused probably 10's of thousands of manhours worldwide just trying to cope.
Theft in that they did not pay for all the unregistered domains they highjacked to sitefinder.
I'm furious as hell and have mailed (not emailed) various authorities requesting an evaluation of both ICANN and Virisign, with a view to replacing both.
And Troll you they must.
I just couldn't get past this part of -your- confession, I've gotten a few hard to find tracks here and there from KaZaA, but the minute I heard of the lawsuites, I got rid of KaZaA.
You said you got rid of Kazaa, but apparently you kept those stolen tracks(a.k.a. copyrighted property).
I'd love to know the address of this little girl so I could send her a radio and tape recorder so that she can record music without breaking the law.
I'm sure others see the irony in all of this.
Had she taped from the radio she would have been free and clear, the RIAA companies get paid by the radio stations and they get a cut of each blank tape on the assumption that it will be used for piracy.
But because she does what is apparently (to her) the same thing using a computer she's a criminal.
The RIAA has had repeated opportunities to legitimize online music and have repeatedly refused, obstructed, and interfered.
In my book, they are the criminals, and racketeers, not the lowly users.
Copyright is a limited licence, not a right, the grant of which is supposed to be for the public good as well as the good of the copyright grantee.
The RIAA and it's member companies have violated an important part the contract and now attempt to use the law to continue that violation.
If a company's primary business is to provide voice/pots type service, then they are going to have to cough up an pay to play.
Sorry, that's just the way it is. Somebody has to pay the freight to maintain the local loop infrastructure/plant.
Primative, unreliable voip through the computer is probably another story altogether.
The other option is to treat all computer connections the same as POTS, and that will kill the internet goose.
Eventually, one way or the other these issues will have to be hashed out, but I can't see that coming soon, not until we establish a unified national plan that ties in Cell, Cable, Satellite, Internet and traditional.
I can see the fighting/mergers that will make that possible, sure.
Vince doesn't have any monopoly on vision, just a big name from a past event.
The simpleminded answers is 'sure for everybodys protection block the ports'.
But you see they are our ports, and our tools
Each port taken away removes a piece of the net, the net isn't the web.
The wrongful lesson in a post 911 world is that we all somehow can be protected.
And that, that protection requires giving up freedoms, privacy, ports, DNA it's all the same thing.
There is no way in hell you would have given these things up when you felt strong and safe,
but now that you are frightened you'll do almost anything suggested in an attempt to hide at momma's breast.
Ports are power, and if North American and European ISPs plock ports, the effect won't be to make us more secure, only to make us weaker.
And to make us less than those regions of the internet map that won't block those ports.
Which four ports will we be left, and how much easier will it be to monitor and control the traffic on those ports?
Trading freedom for security is like trading love for life, it's a bad deal.
Georgia Secreatary of States Position on H.R. 2239
Cathy asked that I pass on her message to you. Please do not hesitate to call if I or Cathy can be of any service.
Ann Rosenthal
Campaign Director
404-728-NNNN
Mx. Xxxxx,
Thank you for your e-mail regarding proposed H.R. 2239.
The passage of this legislation would be extremely damaging,
both to Georgia?s new electronic voting system and to those
which other states around the country are putting into
place. The legislation is based on a lack of understanding
of the operation of our machines and the software which
supports them. In fact, in discussing this legislation with
Congresswoman Denise Majette, I suggested that it should
more accurately be called the Voter Delay and Loss of
Integrity act.
After you touch the names of all candidates you wish to vote
for, the computer itself gives you a summary of your choices
and enables you to change those choices before you leave the
voting booth. That summary screen is the opportunity for
voters to verify their votes, and adding a paper receipt,
which presumably would be printed out while the voter waits,
would add delay (as printers are very susceptible to
breakdowns, paper and ink shortages, and other problems).
Additionally, after a paper receipt is printed, the voter
would have no ability to make further changes to their vote
without a very complicated adjustment to the voting machine,
which most poll workers would not be well-equipped to
accomplish. Additionally, placing a paper receipt into a
voting box or other instrument would add tremendous
potential for fraud, as pieces of paper have been known to
disappear from voting boxes in overnight and can otherwise
be very easily manipulated. Such ease of manipulation does
not exist with the new voting machines.
The second primary objection to the proposed legislation in
H.R. 2239 is that all software used in the voting machines
would be disclosed and available on the internet, which
would open up the integrity of our voting systems to every
interested hacker around the world. Once it is disclosed,
any hacker, any person interested in manipulating the
machines, would have access to all of the security built
into the software code and could then with ease manipulate a
state or county?s system if they could gain access to the
equipment. We have the source code available in a secure
escrow account, and our office can access it any time we
need to check the integrity of our systems. And each and
every unit used for voting in Georgia -- more than 22,000
individual units -- is individually submitted to logic and
accuracy testing before every election.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can answer any
additional questions on HR 2239
Cathy
I think Open Source is clearly here.
Established with more than a mere toehold.
Is the SCO situation an attempt to put the Open Source Jin out of business, if not do you see the old line IP factions as being able to pull off such a stunt?
There's no doubt that bits online for media could very well be the future of distribution.
I don't think anyone has put together a working model at this point.
You are on the right track from the tone of your query.
After all the financial stuff has been taken care of the succes or failure is going to hinge on the customer experiance.
I hate subscriptions, I don't mean dislike, or annoyment, I mean hate. Like many other folks I am often required to pay subscriptions for things I only use occasionally.
The folks selling subscription services love it initally, as they can predict a minimum revenue stream that will exceed costs, but in time they find it as much of a problem as it is a solution, because it's hard to increase sales when your typical customer is unlikely to be using what they are paying for.
My prefered method, as a customer is a minimal annual membership fee to help keep the lights on, but not so high as to destroy the incentive for sales.
Just a cover fee if you will.
Then say 2 free drinks as a thank you for the cover fee.
I don't mean 2 free drinks like in a bar, since the cover is annual and customer incentive disappears with the next mornings light.
More like the way Radio Shack used to provide batteries every month.
The cost of the battery card did not come close to covering the real value of the batteries, but it was incentive to get Dad and the kids into the store for another sale.
It worked!
Then some bean counter got in and figured that money could be made directly from those batteries (that you could buy anywhere) and they should charge for them, and blew the sales incentive for the customer to come in once a month.
A discount for the whole package (MP3, EP, LP whatever you want to call it), is fine but I think the advantage of ondemand online electronic delivery is the ability to provide individual selections, something that really hasn't existed at brickandmorter since the death of the 45.
The author sure loves to write.
Skip reading the article on this one, it can be summed up as follows; the state of the browser is bad, and He expects it to stay bad.
I don't think I can argue.
What was missed, and is still being missed is that the browser didn't evolve, it just changed.
It's grown a second tail, maybe a third eye, and possible an extra lung or two, but it's still pretty much Mosaic no matter what flavor you take.
What was originally intended was that browsers would eventually support the entire SGML suite not just HTML and XML.
For some reason XML for the most part crawled into the server side instead of the browser where it was supposed to live, and evolution stopped.
What should have happened, and I had expected to happen was for a new browser to evolve from the goo of gaming and replace the neanderthal Mosaic.
I expected something to come out of the Quake engine.
It didn't but who knows it still could.
Certainly something is going to have to happen, broadband doesn't make sense otherwise.
.
If you read the article, you'll see that the current SCO was formerly Caldera. Caldera bought the Unix rights from SCO, the old SCO became Tarantella (which was one of their products IIRC...), and then Caldera renamed to The SCO Group.
Which pill makes me small?
Seriously though, this is going to be part of what hurts NewSCO if this ever get's to the courts.
They are going to have a darned hard time showing what they really own, what they stole, and what was borrowed... long before they ever became NewSCO.
The wiggle room that they have built into thier complaint is they are not really using copyright, or patent as the basis for the suit, they are using contract law.
And they are alleging the transfer and or use of 'Unix Methods and proceedures'. This is a fuzzy area that may not even be answerable.
Part trade secret, part dogma. If you didn't know about how to do something, or that something could be done, you might never have developed it yourself, even without using the original Unix code, or seeing the affect.
Might be true, might not, but the contract kinda binds you up and makes you liable, even if you didn't peek under the covers.
These are the kind of arguments that RMS had for creating GNU in the first place.
Owning code is one thing, controlling ideas is another, and what SCO is attempting is not protection of code, but restriction of ideas.
The temptation is to throw out the phrase UnAmerican right about here, but that's not right. Corperations are not American, or Canadian, or Egyptian... they are just big money making machines that have more rights, fewer morals, than individuals and total disregard for anything but more profit/power.
I would expect that the Greman readers of
Whin I lived there in the early Late 70's, early 80's one of the cultural differences between Germany and the United States that stood out was that the law prohibited making false claims, and was strictly enforced. If Volkswagen claimed that it's car was better than Ford of Germany, it has better be specific, and provable, not just opinion, inference, subjection.
And the Government took great joy in persuit.
So would software be better if it had to tell the truth? Again, Ask Germany.
I'm not going to copy the full body of your text, for the sake of brevity, hovever I encourage anyone reading my message to read yours before considering mine.
I'm only going to copy your interpretation of GPL;
Quote
"I read that to mean that you are only required to relese the source to those people you've released the binaries to, and it says nothing of making the source available to the general public (unless the binaries are as well, of course)."
EndQuote
Response
Partly correct, just as important is that you must extend to the person the same rights that were extended to you, as in the ability to pass the source along to others freely. Of course this does not apply to Click-N-Run, I'll expand on that below.
EndResponse
Quote
"In summation: Buy Lindows, install it and then you should be able to get the source to Click-n-run. After that, you can modify and re-distribute it to your hearts content."
EndQuote
Response
Nope, your not entitled to the source for Click-N-Run, it's not GPL. And because it ties into other programs it does not have to be GPL, it's proprietory and that's ok according to the GPL.
If it contained GPL code inside of itself, then it would have to pass on the GPL rights.
The GPL is not infective, it is built to give rights, not take them. Copyright can sit side by side with copyleft without contamination. EndResponse Sure I've go some bones to pick with LindowsOS, and RedHat and Suse, and IBM, SCO and MicroSoft for that matter, but the GPL couldn't be any clearer.
The muddy water I see in the LindowsOS Distro, is that the released "source" is not going to make it possible to recreate the total of the GPL'd portions of the Distro.
If I give you a GPL'd Binary, I have to make the source available to you. Lindows does not.
EndResponse
I also don't see LindowsOS giving back to the community, only taking. It's not a requirement of GPL that you give back, but it is an expectation of the GNU community and if you expect the support of that community you need to make a real effort to meet the expectations of the community. LindowsOS does not.
"If you can emulate PC on Mac, it only makes sense that you could emulate Mac on PC."
Thanks, this is good news, I can emulate a ZX81 on my PC, so it only makes sense that I could emulate the PC on my ZX81.
Now I can slap up a 9V battery load Win2K... Where'd the function keys go? Where'd my my mouse Go? Oh, and it appears that we never needed more than 16k.
This looks like a 'man in the middle' attack to me, not so much a failure of ssl.
The details are at best sketchy, anyone else see it this way?
No, no and no.
Yes Copyright should go back to 14yrs with one renewal.
Or even the lifetime of the original author, provided the original author is an individual, not a corperation.
Allow copy protection with severe limits on reverse engineering, and independant implimentation?
No
There isn't a societal plus in that, just a perpetuation of damaging the public good.
The Supreme Court blew it, the constitution said for a limited time, and why.
The Supreme Court forgot to look at the why part.
This is a sure sign of the end times.
The end times for Novell/SCO.
A quick look at SCO's financials show that the company of under 600 employees is bleeding red, and it's stock is hovering around $1.30usd a share, if it falls under $1.00usd it could be delisted and that would spell the end for financing.
I didn't investigate what the companies debt load it, but I can guarentee, like almost every other legacy IT coperation, they are loaded heavy from the past.
As for claims to any of the Linux IP, they are going to have to contend with HP, IBM, SUN, in addition to Red Hat and the Monster from Redmond.
Nope, they may make a fuss, but I suspect that the 2 and 3 letter name OS makers will be on this in a blink.
Bye Bye SCO
"Do you think the project took so much time because the people didn't speak English as a native language?"
Duh!?
Did you read who did and didn't speak english, natively?
I came in (non management) near the end of the project and pulled what I could together.
It's not about, race, heritige, or nationality it's about communications and culture.
When you have to reference every sublty by line number, page number and redefine coma, semicolon, and period in a printed display 5 times it tends to slow thing to a crawl.
Think about hearding cats, now think doing it blindfolded, with the cats blindfolded also.
Purpose got completely lost in a quagmire of communication.
How did I pull something out of it?
I speak english a primary language as did the process eng. and the end user, I speak bits and pieces of 4 of the other 7 languages, I have lived and travelled enough that I can listen with an accent, and I program, understand the hardware.
Probably on top of all of that I didn't bring my bruised, unpromoted ego to the project, just my get the job done, don't hurt each other attitude.
Some of the other cultures in the project only allowed for winning, and losing.
As far as everyone was concerned in the end, they had won (and those who had to be winners thought everyone else lost).