No Apple app store app can, currently, be in compliance with the GPL. This is about Clause 6, which requires you to allow redistribution of any GPL app, as is (something that apple prevents via license and technical measures) and has nothing to do with source code.
No, they did not say they were the rights holder, they said they were authorized to authorize apple to distribute the program, and they are (as am I) due to the GPL. Apple, through maliciousness or ignorance, then went about distributing the program in a manner inconsistent with the GPL, something they were not authorized, nor could ever be authorized, to do. I may be mistaken about all the facts in this particular case, but a situation could trivially be arranged where the same issue would result even if the original author was fully compliant with the GPL and with the Apple license.
The developer is in compliance with the apple license, and is possibly in compliance with the GPL, AFAICT, it is APPLE that is in breach due to clause 6:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
The developer does have the rights to allow apple to distribute the program, it's apple that doesn't have the right to restrict distribution of the program. 3.1(e) is satisfied, but apple screwed up and did something they are not authorized to do above and beyond the authorization they required.
3.3.16 is not relevant to this violation in anyway.
Ignoring for the moment that I'm pretty much always grinding on some problem in my head, anywhere from 5 to 80 with 30 being normal. It's not something I can really control, sometimes it just flows, sometimes it's pulling nails to do anything. But from another perspective, the 5 hour weeks usually preceed the 80 hour weeks, and it's often thinking about the project/problems that gets in the way of doing them, so probably it's a good thing.
"Afford" is extraneous. In general, you just plain can't tell if the person that is uploading stuff is authorized to do so. The information to do so doesn't exist for most content. You can't even determine that someone is authorized to specify that something ISN'T authorized, as this case is demonstrating.
From previous coverage, it seemed pretty clear that SF didn't HAVE a "security administered global password management database", outside of what Childs was himself maintaining (and I've seen no specific indication that he wasn't maintaining such a database, nor that he would have been the wrong person to maintain it).
It did seem clear that the people who ambushed him didn't, shouldn't and wouldn't have had access to the contents of such a database.
Hmm, actually, by that policy it would be perfectly valid to store the decryption key for the database in the database. If it was public key encrypted, you could make it 'perfectly' secure (and effectively write only).
In my experience, the client (software, hardware and wetware) must be considered part of the repro case until demonstrated otherwise. I don't know how many bugs we've tracked down to interesting browser behaviors when certain windows accessibility features are turned on.
I will admit that as I do web and infrastructure development, I probably have a leg up on those doing traditional software deployment.
If you don't have a repro case for a problem, you are getting way ahead of yourself trying to fix it, as even if you fix it, you won't KNOW that you've fixed it.
Without tests (and note, I did not specify automated unit tests, those are handy and speed things up, but I personally prefer end to end integration tests when dealing with a system I didn't write) you can't figure out how a system is intended to work, at which point understanding how it does work usually isn't helpful, and can actually be harmful as you internalize a model of how it does work as how it should work. It hides bugs from you, and often leads to your internal model being horribly flawed (from the perspective of what the program should do).
Does your boss have expectations about what the system does? If so, and if they tell you those expectations, you have tests. Sure, they are the manual integration kind and probably underspecified, but it's a starting point.
And yes, tests make a code base easier to learn as they give you a something to trace through and a basis for reasoning about how the code base should work. Fleshing out and automating those tests refines that understanding.
I currently maintain several million lines of perl. It's not hard, it mostly just works, and when it doesn't, it's not that hard to figure out where it's broken IFF there is a consistent repro case for the problem.
If you have a proper development/production divide, there shouldn't be any weird production issues unless you or your predecessor missed some test cases. If you don't have test cases, that's a problem, if you don't have a properly firewalled and complete development environment, that's a problem, the code itself? Shouldn't be a problem.
Are the rates you quoted % of list price, % of wholesale price or % of retail price?
If a retailer, after paying the normal wholesale price for one of your wife's books, drops the retail price to the wholesale price, does this increase your cash flow from increased units or decrease it from some wacky royalties of retail price clause?
From my perspective, what Macmillan is up to feels like some of the dirty tricks Holywood pulls to cut down on the amount of royalties they need to pay after the fact. I really hope I'm wrong, as I'm not seeing how Amazon has the leverage to stop it.
The main reasons libraries aren't currently a threat is the granularity of lending at the book level and the temporary nature of lending. Conceptually, imagine a lending system that worked on a page by page basis, with pages only being loaned out when actively being read. Ignoring bibliophiles (like me) that buy books that they already have free ebook copies of (aka, ignoring Baen's contention that free books drive revenue), I think this would cut in to profitability somewhat for 'best sellers'
"II. AT TRIAL THE COURT ERRED BY PREJUDICIALLY REDACTING DEFENDANT’S OFFER OF EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT HE WAS WILLING TO TAKE RESONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS, ALLOWING IT TO BE TWISTED INTO DEVASTATING IMPEACHMENT OF HIS CHARACTER."
and after seeing the original vs what was entered into evidence, it makes me want to redact a bunch of RIAA member company offers and then take them to small claims court for not following through with their promises.
In other words, some portion of the article is in fact news.
Whats next? Mandatory sedation. Sure a few people won't wake up, but thats a small* price to pay to stop someone from trying to blow up the plane they are on.
* For point of reference, a medical report I found rates anesthesia to result in 10 to 100 times more deaths than air travel per hour of exposure. So the small price is 10 to 100 flights worth of passengers killed per fractional flight loss prevented, fractional since the vast majority of flight loss are not from internal terrorism.
A desire is not an intent, plan nor threat. It is against societal interests to directly punish people for their desires as doing so will curtail their honest expressions of those desires through words rather than actions.
Most of the pre reagan conservatives could be considered some brand of libertarian, the particular form dependent on the value weights assigned to competing freedoms. As far as I can tell, most post reagan conservatives are can be considered some brand of authoritarian.
... right, drink more coke before replying: s/knows the root password/knows their own password (and has sudo)/
But maybe that isn't actually normal, and every account I've had at every company I've worked at and on my own laptops was set up weird.
But then, I recognize that I shouldn't be entering my password all over the place and should know and udnerstand what I'm running (especially when sudo is involved).
Lets see, OP said "sudo rm..." not "sudo rm", the ellipsis isn't part of the command, it's indicating that what has been written before it is a prefix sufficient to identify the full phrase/list, one of the more devastating finales would be (written out as a perl string)
"sudo rm -rf/\n$password\n"
Which, if the user knows the root password (and if it's their home PC, they probably will) it's a simple matter of social engineering to destroy the root filesystem.
OP was correct, you just seem to have some misconceptions about what is and is not normal and lack the imagination to complete the OPs command, which would seem to indicate you lack the imagination to recognize the prefix of something dangerous, which is itself dangerous since the suffix can be obfuscated.
Citation Needed (what twitter account, where are the tweets)? If you mean @IslandRecords, one tweet, sent before the event, no indication that Roppo was the author.
Then they should do that, rather than attempting to compel someone else to do their job for them, especially when it seems that someone was the wrong person (the mob's "target" did tweet that he wasn't being allowed in and that the event was canceled)
* disclaimer, I'm going off of TFA and the links off the TFA, if the quotes and timelines presented are materially wrong (such as, the alternately presented scenario involving the exec tweeting that the event was still on when it was already canceled) I'd support the charges described, but not the TFA quoted reason for them.
If thats what he was charged with, I don't see how it could have anything to do with twitter (especially from his account), as it is not "radio, telephone, television or other telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county, city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service".
Unless of course him tweeting is "a public servant from performing an official function", which doesn't seem to be the case since it would a) be the exec acting, who is not a public servant and b) tweeting is not an official function.
Slashdot Mirror
No Apple app store app can, currently, be in compliance with the GPL. This is about Clause 6, which requires you to allow redistribution of any GPL app, as is (something that apple prevents via license and technical measures) and has nothing to do with source code.
AFAICT, the violation is in Clause 6 of the GPLv2 rather than clauses 3 or 4. This is not about source code, nor is it about apples SDK.
No, they did not say they were the rights holder, they said they were authorized to authorize apple to distribute the program, and they are (as am I) due to the GPL. Apple, through maliciousness or ignorance, then went about distributing the program in a manner inconsistent with the GPL, something they were not authorized, nor could ever be authorized, to do. I may be mistaken about all the facts in this particular case, but a situation could trivially be arranged where the same issue would result even if the original author was fully compliant with the GPL and with the Apple license.
The developer is in compliance with the apple license, and is possibly in compliance with the GPL, AFAICT, it is APPLE that is in breach due to clause 6:
The developer does have the rights to allow apple to distribute the program, it's apple that doesn't have the right to restrict distribution of the program. 3.1(e) is satisfied, but apple screwed up and did something they are not authorized to do above and beyond the authorization they required.
3.3.16 is not relevant to this violation in anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine
Under http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2005/09/02/the_latest_ip_crime_boxwrap_patent_infringement.php, they may be able to get you if it is designated 'on the box', but if not...
Those bad decisions could themselves land you in jail if you have a hand in implementing them.
Ignoring for the moment that I'm pretty much always grinding on some problem in my head, anywhere from 5 to 80 with 30 being normal. It's not something I can really control, sometimes it just flows, sometimes it's pulling nails to do anything. But from another perspective, the 5 hour weeks usually preceed the 80 hour weeks, and it's often thinking about the project/problems that gets in the way of doing them, so probably it's a good thing.
"Afford" is extraneous. In general, you just plain can't tell if the person that is uploading stuff is authorized to do so. The information to do so doesn't exist for most content. You can't even determine that someone is authorized to specify that something ISN'T authorized, as this case is demonstrating.
From previous coverage, it seemed pretty clear that SF didn't HAVE a "security administered global password management database", outside of what Childs was himself maintaining (and I've seen no specific indication that he wasn't maintaining such a database, nor that he would have been the wrong person to maintain it).
It did seem clear that the people who ambushed him didn't, shouldn't and wouldn't have had access to the contents of such a database.
Hmm, actually, by that policy it would be perfectly valid to store the decryption key for the database in the database. If it was public key encrypted, you could make it 'perfectly' secure (and effectively write only).
You can get condensation in a non-condensing environment on surfaces that are substantially colder than the environment.
In my experience, the client (software, hardware and wetware) must be considered part of the repro case until demonstrated otherwise. I don't know how many bugs we've tracked down to interesting browser behaviors when certain windows accessibility features are turned on.
I will admit that as I do web and infrastructure development, I probably have a leg up on those doing traditional software deployment.
If you don't have a repro case for a problem, you are getting way ahead of yourself trying to fix it, as even if you fix it, you won't KNOW that you've fixed it.
Without tests (and note, I did not specify automated unit tests, those are handy and speed things up, but I personally prefer end to end integration tests when dealing with a system I didn't write) you can't figure out how a system is intended to work, at which point understanding how it does work usually isn't helpful, and can actually be harmful as you internalize a model of how it does work as how it should work. It hides bugs from you, and often leads to your internal model being horribly flawed (from the perspective of what the program should do).
Does your boss have expectations about what the system does? If so, and if they tell you those expectations, you have tests. Sure, they are the manual integration kind and probably underspecified, but it's a starting point.
And yes, tests make a code base easier to learn as they give you a something to trace through and a basis for reasoning about how the code base should work. Fleshing out and automating those tests refines that understanding.
I currently maintain several million lines of perl. It's not hard, it mostly just works, and when it doesn't, it's not that hard to figure out where it's broken IFF there is a consistent repro case for the problem.
If you have a proper development/production divide, there shouldn't be any weird production issues unless you or your predecessor missed some test cases. If you don't have test cases, that's a problem, if you don't have a properly firewalled and complete development environment, that's a problem, the code itself? Shouldn't be a problem.
Are the rates you quoted % of list price, % of wholesale price or % of retail price?
If a retailer, after paying the normal wholesale price for one of your wife's books, drops the retail price to the wholesale price, does this increase your cash flow from increased units or decrease it from some wacky royalties of retail price clause?
From my perspective, what Macmillan is up to feels like some of the dirty tricks Holywood pulls to cut down on the amount of royalties they need to pay after the fact. I really hope I'm wrong, as I'm not seeing how Amazon has the leverage to stop it.
The main reasons libraries aren't currently a threat is the granularity of lending at the book level and the temporary nature of lending. Conceptually, imagine a lending system that worked on a page by page basis, with pages only being loaned out when actively being read. Ignoring bibliophiles (like me) that buy books that they already have free ebook copies of (aka, ignoring Baen's contention that free books drive revenue), I think this would cut in to profitability somewhat for 'best sellers'
This is the first I've seen of:
"II. AT TRIAL THE COURT ERRED BY PREJUDICIALLY REDACTING DEFENDANT’S OFFER OF EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT HE WAS WILLING TO TAKE RESONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS, ALLOWING IT TO BE TWISTED INTO DEVASTATING IMPEACHMENT OF HIS CHARACTER."
and after seeing the original vs what was entered into evidence, it makes me want to redact a bunch of RIAA member company offers and then take them to small claims court for not following through with their promises.
In other words, some portion of the article is in fact news.
Whats next? Mandatory sedation. Sure a few people won't wake up, but thats a small* price to pay to stop someone from trying to blow up the plane they are on.
* For point of reference, a medical report I found rates anesthesia to result in 10 to 100 times more deaths than air travel per hour of exposure. So the small price is 10 to 100 flights worth of passengers killed per fractional flight loss prevented, fractional since the vast majority of flight loss are not from internal terrorism.
A desire is not an intent, plan nor threat. It is against societal interests to directly punish people for their desires as doing so will curtail their honest expressions of those desires through words rather than actions.
Most of the pre reagan conservatives could be considered some brand of libertarian, the particular form dependent on the value weights assigned to competing freedoms. As far as I can tell, most post reagan conservatives are can be considered some brand of authoritarian.
... right, drink more coke before replying:
s/knows the root password/knows their own password (and has sudo)/
But maybe that isn't actually normal, and every account I've had at every company I've worked at and on my own laptops was set up weird.
But then, I recognize that I shouldn't be entering my password all over the place and should know and udnerstand what I'm running (especially when sudo is involved).
Lets see, OP said "sudo rm ..." not "sudo rm", the ellipsis isn't part of the command, it's indicating that what has been written before it is a prefix sufficient to identify the full phrase/list, one of the more devastating finales would be (written out as a perl string)
"sudo rm -rf /\n$password\n"
Which, if the user knows the root password (and if it's their home PC, they probably will) it's a simple matter of social engineering to destroy the root filesystem.
OP was correct, you just seem to have some misconceptions about what is and is not normal and lack the imagination to complete the OPs command, which would seem to indicate you lack the imagination to recognize the prefix of something dangerous, which is itself dangerous since the suffix can be obfuscated.
Citation Needed (what twitter account, where are the tweets)? If you mean @IslandRecords, one tweet, sent before the event, no indication that Roppo was the author.
Then they should do that, rather than attempting to compel someone else to do their job for them, especially when it seems that someone was the wrong person (the mob's "target" did tweet that he wasn't being allowed in and that the event was canceled)
* disclaimer, I'm going off of TFA and the links off the TFA, if the quotes and timelines presented are materially wrong (such as, the alternately presented scenario involving the exec tweeting that the event was still on when it was already canceled) I'd support the charges described, but not the TFA quoted reason for them.
If thats what he was charged with, I don't see how it could have anything to do with twitter (especially from his account), as it is not "radio, telephone, television or other telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county, city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service".
Unless of course him tweeting is "a public servant from performing an official function", which doesn't seem to be the case since it would a) be the exec acting, who is not a public servant and b) tweeting is not an official function.
IANAL TINLA
This presumes that there are income taxs levied by the state. Washington, for example, does not have a state income tax. Instead, it has sales tax.