Interesting. Perhaps you're right, but I think a better analogy would be that if the FSF were like the **AA, they'd be asking for the distribution of the source code of the illegally distributed program, and the distribution of the source code for 749 other programs of the same company, even if those other programs weren't distributed in violation of the GPL.
1) I can't remember anyone being sued for non-commercial distribution of GPL-ed software, and it's safe to assume that anyone distributing it commercially is trying to distribute it as much as possible, since every distribution is profitable.
Actually, if this case is like many of the others, and the RIAA has proof that she distributed the song to Media Sentry, then they have proof that she distributed the content to 1 other person, a single copy right violation.
Actually, my impression is that from a legal standpoint, the distribution to Media Sentry isn't a copyright violation because Media Sentry is the authorized agent of the copyright owner. And before everyone jumps in, remember that this is law we're talking about, so common sense doesn't necessarily apply (as we've seen in some of the other results of RIAA trials).
The original post makes it sound like he's asking for suggestions on how to make things more interesting for his teenage son (and that he's already explained a bit about the "shell"). Unless his son is quite special, I doubt that formal programming is going to be more interesting for him than something with graphics and user interaction.
I agree about encouraging the son to program in some high-level language (in which the father is also proficient), but I disagree with your dismissive "it's the same as basic was twenty years ago".
Twenty years ago, the computer had a kind of mystique which is now, if it still exists at all, much less strong. The way society relates to computers now, compared to twenty years ago, is really different. I have the distinct feeling that this is causing there to be less interest in learning about computers because they're much less exotic.
Or maybe just a different demographic is interested in computers --- perhaps the kind of kids who were interesting in computers then, might now be more interested in far-out stuff like nanotechnology, space exploration, particle physics, and genetic engineering, and the kids interested in computers now are more like the hot-rodders/car freaks of then (note: this is not meant to be judgmental of either group).
In addition, twenty years ago society wasn't saturated with exposure to computers running impressive programs like interactive 3D games, or with computer generated movies. A dreaming teenager today must be a bit more intimidated looking at all this stuff when he is starting out, writing "Hello world".
> what keywords do you think governments would like to scan calendars for?
Donno, say, the local DA has just managed to convict P. Ed Erast for child porn, and he says to himself, 'Hmm, maybe I should run a scan on everyone's online calendars for the phrase "P. Ed Erast"?' He can't do that legally in the US, but that doesn't mean he might not want to do it.
> I don't think there is much of a market for online calendar services for > drug dealers or terrorists...
That's a funny strawman, thanks for the chuckle, but in the end it is a strawman. Do you actually think, given what kind of data-mining measures are being pushed by the US government in the name of "think of the children/terror", that they would disagree to add calendar info to their trove?
Even if you are right, and my mention of governments was a bit over-the-top, you have to admit that I did mention Google as the major "threat" here. I log certain health-related events in my online calendars, but I don't do that in cleartext. By having this ability for obfuscation, I can squeeze more use from that resource than I otherwise would be able to, and I have more control over the profile that Google and other online services are compiling on me.
I also obfuscate some of my entries in Google Notebook and Google Docs. Paranoia? Perhaps. But probably not much more than many people who make security a career (which I don't, it's only a hobby with me).
If the German student population is anything like the German geek population I have the distinct impression that even if they would win the lawsuit even fewer people will use their German site.
I wonder if their PR department is taking lessons from the **AA.
Frankly, I think most people don't need military grade encryption for their calendar, they just need to be able to obfuscate some of the entries in a repeatable fashion (so you can search for obfuscated events) which is not trivially unobfuscated by Google (or any others, e.g., governments, who would like to search everyone's calendar for particular keywords).
For most people, even the "Leet Key" extension is overkill.
I've been thinking about this, have even worked up a Javascript-based very weak, keyed, repeatable encryption (base64 encoding + single letter substitution) which I was planning one day on posting to Sourceforge. I guess I should get moving on that....
It's Domesday, not Doomsday. Judging from Wikipedia, the Domesday Book was, well, kind of like the first British census?
Thanks for the interesting link. One of the things which stuck out was:
Sadly, it is unlikely that Domesday will become available for the general public to use. The contents of the discs are heavily tied up in copyright - parts are owned by the BBC, the Ordinance Survey, and possibly the Local Education Authorities and schools.
Another example of how the inflexibility of copyright strangles reuse and archival of information.
> But if I have a website selling Apple Pies and I link every > instance of the word "Apple Pie" to the front page of the site, > how, really, can you have an issue with that?
Personally, I wouldn't that consider that "evil" as long as all those internal words and links are displayed to the viewer of the website and not hidden somewhere by magic. This way websites can trade off being annoying and appearing brain-dead (by increasing the number of such links) and having better search rankings.
OTOH, now that you tell me about this technique, I wish that Google would have a preference which I could set which would enable me to either disable that part of their evaluation algorithm, or even invert the sign on it (so those sites would get lower rankings). But somehow, I don't think that's going to happen in the near future. Google could do this automatically for me if it would base its rankings not (only) on what I click from the search results, but in addition, enable me to send it my personal ranking info about a website which I just clicked and found useless.
In order for that to work, I have to let Google assemble a personal profile for myself, which other people view as "evil". YMMV.
Yeah, I understand that, there are two things I'd pirate if I had the opportunity because there is no other way to obtain them: the original version of the first Star Wars movie, and "Between Time and Timbuktu" (which Vonnegut refused to allow to be redistributed after 1973, I understand).
At $0.25 / movie, no one would bother to pirate it --- or practically no one, anyway.
I can't talk for the mindset of the masses, not really being part of them, but as for myself, if a content provider would sell content for very low prices, I wouldn't bother to try to pirate it. $0 isn't a reasonable price for most content with value, but neither is the official price, either, in a lot of cases.
I would go out of my way to pirate content if I had the idea that otherwise I would finance imbalanced lawsuits against the public, or gaming the legislative system to arbitrarily extend copyright, or other bad stuff. But what I most often do in that case is just "skip it" --- there's just too much interesting free stuff out there now! And that's something which the content providers have no idea how to change. Let's just hope they don't get their hands on a time machine or something.
Donno about that, looked like a standard Slashdot post to me? I would have thought a Redundant mod was more in line than a Troll, tho... And to continue that thought, this post is Offtopic.
Effectively, the US gov't is saying that information/human knowledge (or at least, some information) is a weapon. That would make Stallman's position that everyone deserves access to all human knowledge somewhat analgous to the Fourth Amendment, no?
> Is the freedom to modify code not the entire point of GPL licenced software?
Well, not exactly. The freedom to modify your own code is the entire point of LGPL licensed software. This obviously means that the GPL, which is a more restrictive license, is giving you more freedom --- the freedom to modify other people's code which uses yours.
From RMS's philosophical standpoint, it is perfectly reasonable to want to have the freedom to modify all code, no matter who wrote it, and the difference between the LGPL and the GPL is an echo of his desire for that (ultimate) freedom.
OK, now I understand your point: you trust information only based on who supplies it.
If you analyze the various media you've discussed, you find a wide range of probability that you could actually use that system to assign positive trust. I list them in (roughly) ascending order:
Wiki - the information is supplied by a large number of anonymous suppliers, many of whom only supply a very few pieces of information so you cannot easily judge their trustworthiness
TV - the information is supplied by an identifiable corporation and possibly by identifiable people working for that corporation
Book - practically the same as a website but slightly worse (because publishers allow authors to use pseudonyms and even have invented pseudonyms of their own in order to publish many books written by many different authors as the works of one "author")
Website - the information is supplied by one (usually, and sometimes a small group of) anonymous (or practically anonymous, because the probability you are acquainted with them is vanishingly small, and many times their stated identities cannot be verified) supplier(s)
Personal communication - the information is supplied by someone you are acquainted with
This is what people are talking about when they "grade" information channels. Understand now?
Most books, for example, aren't vulnerable to the kind of fly-by anonymous vandalism which many wikis allow.
> Why do you ( and others.. ) seem to think they one is > more trustworthy than another?
Don't be hypocritical --- do you really trust me just as much as you trust your closest friend? Everyone estimates and prioritizes the reliability of the information sources they encounter.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. Perhaps you're right, but I think a better analogy would be that if the FSF were like the **AA, they'd be asking for the distribution of the source code of the illegally distributed program, and the distribution of the source code for 749 other programs of the same company, even if those other programs weren't distributed in violation of the GPL.
1) I can't remember anyone being sued for non-commercial distribution of GPL-ed software, and it's safe to assume that anyone distributing it commercially is trying to distribute it as much as possible, since every distribution is profitable.
2) The FSF, at least, will gladly settle for the distribution of the source code (in the case of GPL2 --- at least, this is what Eben Moglen claims were RMS's instructions to him while he was counsel to the FSF). This isn't "many times the damages they actually perceive".
Actually, if this case is like many of the others, and the RIAA has proof that she distributed the song to Media Sentry, then they have proof that she distributed the content to 1 other person, a single copy right violation.
Actually, my impression is that from a legal standpoint, the distribution to Media Sentry isn't a copyright violation because Media Sentry is the authorized agent of the copyright owner. And before everyone jumps in, remember that this is law we're talking about, so common sense doesn't necessarily apply (as we've seen in some of the other results of RIAA trials).
Er, maybe I just read "Rings of Ice" at a too impressionable age.
Never mind.
An AC posted it above, but he was lame enough to quote the vendor's response without commentary!
http://pwnie-awards.org/2008/awards.html#lamestvendor
The response from Transport of London to the news of successful cloning of Oyster cards includes this priceless comment:
This was not a hack of the Oyster system. It was a single instance of a card being manipulated.
You don't have teenage children, I suppose?
The original post makes it sound like he's asking for suggestions on how to make things more interesting for his teenage son (and that he's already explained a bit about the "shell"). Unless his son is quite special, I doubt that formal programming is going to be more interesting for him than something with graphics and user interaction.
I agree about encouraging the son to program in some high-level language (in which the father is also proficient), but I disagree with your dismissive "it's the same as basic was twenty years ago".
Twenty years ago, the computer had a kind of mystique which is now, if it still exists at all, much less strong. The way society relates to computers now, compared to twenty years ago, is really different. I have the distinct feeling that this is causing there to be less interest in learning about computers because they're much less exotic.
Or maybe just a different demographic is interested in computers --- perhaps the kind of kids who were interesting in computers then, might now be more interested in far-out stuff like nanotechnology, space exploration, particle physics, and genetic engineering, and the kids interested in computers now are more like the hot-rodders/car freaks of then (note: this is not meant to be judgmental of either group).
In addition, twenty years ago society wasn't saturated with exposure to computers running impressive programs like interactive 3D games, or with computer generated movies. A dreaming teenager today must be a bit more intimidated looking at all this stuff when he is starting out, writing "Hello world".
> what keywords do you think governments would like to scan calendars for?
Donno, say, the local DA has just managed to convict P. Ed Erast for child porn, and he says to himself, 'Hmm, maybe I should run a scan on everyone's online calendars for the phrase "P. Ed Erast"?' He can't do that legally in the US, but that doesn't mean he might not want to do it.
> I don't think there is much of a market for online calendar services for
> drug dealers or terrorists...
That's a funny strawman, thanks for the chuckle, but in the end it is a strawman. Do you actually think, given what kind of data-mining measures are being pushed by the US government in the name of "think of the children/terror", that they would disagree to add calendar info to their trove?
Even if you are right, and my mention of governments was a bit over-the-top, you have to admit that I did mention Google as the major "threat" here. I log certain health-related events in my online calendars, but I don't do that in cleartext. By having this ability for obfuscation, I can squeeze more use from that resource than I otherwise would be able to, and I have more control over the profile that Google and other online services are compiling on me.
I also obfuscate some of my entries in Google Notebook and Google Docs. Paranoia? Perhaps. But probably not much more than many people who make security a career (which I don't, it's only a hobby with me).
If the German student population is anything like the German geek population I have the distinct impression that even if they would win the lawsuit even fewer people will use their German site.
I wonder if their PR department is taking lessons from the **AA.
Frankly, I think most people don't need military grade encryption for their calendar, they just need to be able to obfuscate some of the entries in a repeatable fashion (so you can search for obfuscated events) which is not trivially unobfuscated by Google (or any others, e.g., governments, who would like to search everyone's calendar for particular keywords).
For most people, even the "Leet Key" extension is overkill.
I've been thinking about this, have even worked up a Javascript-based very weak, keyed, repeatable encryption (base64 encoding + single letter substitution) which I was planning one day on posting to Sourceforge. I guess I should get moving on that....
It's Domesday, not Doomsday. Judging from Wikipedia, the Domesday Book was, well, kind of like the first British census?
Thanks for the interesting link. One of the things which stuck out was:
Sadly, it is unlikely that Domesday will become available for the general public to use. The contents of the discs are heavily tied up in copyright - parts are owned by the BBC, the Ordinance Survey, and possibly the Local Education Authorities and schools.
Another example of how the inflexibility of copyright strangles reuse and archival of information.
> But if I have a website selling Apple Pies and I link every
> instance of the word "Apple Pie" to the front page of the site,
> how, really, can you have an issue with that?
Personally, I wouldn't that consider that "evil" as long as all those internal words and links are displayed to the viewer of the website and not hidden somewhere by magic. This way websites can trade off being annoying and appearing brain-dead (by increasing the number of such links) and having better search rankings.
OTOH, now that you tell me about this technique, I wish that Google would have a preference which I could set which would enable me to either disable that part of their evaluation algorithm, or even invert the sign on it (so those sites would get lower rankings). But somehow, I don't think that's going to happen in the near future. Google could do this automatically for me if it would base its rankings not (only) on what I click from the search results, but in addition, enable me to send it my personal ranking info about a website which I just clicked and found useless.
In order for that to work, I have to let Google assemble a personal profile for myself, which other people view as "evil". YMMV.
Yeah, I understand that, there are two things I'd pirate if I had the opportunity because there is no other way to obtain them: the original version of the first Star Wars movie, and "Between Time and Timbuktu" (which Vonnegut refused to allow to be redistributed after 1973, I understand).
At $0.25 / movie, no one would bother to pirate it --- or practically no one, anyway.
I can't talk for the mindset of the masses, not really being part of them, but as for myself, if a content provider would sell content for very low prices, I wouldn't bother to try to pirate it. $0 isn't a reasonable price for most content with value, but neither is the official price, either, in a lot of cases.
I would go out of my way to pirate content if I had the idea that otherwise I would finance imbalanced lawsuits against the public, or gaming the legislative system to arbitrarily extend copyright, or other bad stuff. But what I most often do in that case is just "skip it" --- there's just too much interesting free stuff out there now! And that's something which the content providers have no idea how to change. Let's just hope they don't get their hands on a time machine or something.
Jack, Jack, is that you?
I didn't realize that there was an Internet connection down there!
Donno about that, looked like a standard Slashdot post to me?
I would have thought a Redundant mod was more in line than a Troll, tho...
And to continue that thought, this post is Offtopic.
Ooops, I was thinking about the second amendment, my bad...
Maybe I should have posted that RMS == NRA, I wonder what kind of sparks might have flown...
Effectively, the US gov't is saying that information/human knowledge (or at least, some information) is a weapon. That would make Stallman's position that everyone deserves access to all human knowledge somewhat analgous to the Fourth Amendment, no?
Weird!
If you had licensed your post with either of the the two licenses, I could have fixed it directly using the Slashdot edit fun...
Never mind!
> Is the freedom to modify code not the entire point of GPL licenced software?
Well, not exactly. The freedom to modify your own code is the entire point of LGPL licensed software. This obviously means that the GPL, which is a more restrictive license, is giving you more freedom --- the freedom to modify other people's code which uses yours.
From RMS's philosophical standpoint, it is perfectly reasonable to want to have the freedom to modify all code, no matter who wrote it, and the difference between the LGPL and the GPL is an echo of his desire for that (ultimate) freedom.
They've mixed their metaphors, since it was the founders of Apple who innovated in a garage, and Google who provide a scalable Internet service...
> That is so sick and wrong
Yeah, he didn't even bother to cite a reference!
"herding programmers is like herding cats" --- I love it! First time I've heard that expression.
What's even better is the video.
OK, now I understand your point: you trust information only based on who supplies it.
If you analyze the various media you've discussed, you find a wide range of probability that you could actually use that system to assign positive trust. I list them in (roughly) ascending order:
Wiki - the information is supplied by a large number of anonymous suppliers, many of whom only supply a very few pieces of information so you cannot easily judge their trustworthiness
TV - the information is supplied by an identifiable corporation and possibly by identifiable people working for that corporation
Book - practically the same as a website but slightly worse (because publishers allow authors to use pseudonyms and even have invented pseudonyms of their own in order to publish many books written by many different authors as the works of one "author")
Website - the information is supplied by one (usually, and sometimes a small group of) anonymous (or practically anonymous, because the probability you are acquainted with them is vanishingly small, and many times their stated identities cannot be verified) supplier(s)
Personal communication - the information is supplied by someone you are acquainted with
This is what people are talking about when they "grade" information channels. Understand now?
Most books, for example, aren't vulnerable to the kind of fly-by anonymous vandalism which many wikis allow.
> Why do you ( and others.. ) seem to think they one is
> more trustworthy than another?
Don't be hypocritical --- do you really trust me just as much as you trust your closest friend? Everyone estimates and prioritizes the reliability of the information sources they encounter.