... which is why when I release a 1.0 app, marketing material simply refers to it as "App Name" without a version. Coinpurse 1.0 will simply be "Coinpurse".
What your boss is doing is ridiculous. He is basically lying to his customers by saying that there have been six or seven versions of your app before then -- implying the product has undergone more on-the-field iterations than it actually has.
Customer: "You've done six versions and it's so buggy? Oh, come on."
Well, actually, it's not "the owner of Draco's wand" -- due to the mysterious magic of the Elder Wand, it "knew" Harry had disarmed Draco in the chapter "Malfoy Mansion", so Draco having lost a duel also meant Draco lost mastery over the Elder Wand.
Broadcast restrictions are due to agreements between companies, right? So, I don't see how is it a problem if a customer does what he want, without infringing copyright, with the contents he was given. Duh.
A: When you use a public wireless network, an untrusted Internet connection, or a wireless home router with the default password set.
That means that this attack only works if the local area network is hijacked! Which reduces its danger substantially for the population at large as the huge majority of home connections is on its own link.
It is only a problem in the situation above (that are atypical nowadays) and in work or other large-network settings where it is possible to connect an untrusted computer to the network.
IT ALSO MEANS IT IS NOT FIREFOX SPECIFIC, as hijacking a connection can lead to many unpleasant things that may be as dangerous as that without requiring Firefox (ie grabbing passwords!).
... so any version of Vista can run on a Mac without any kind of penalty. Only VMs are affected, and then on all platforms, not just Mac.
Can we go on or do we really have to repeat this every five minutes?
... which is done to encapsulate some implementation, to allow easy reuse and possibly overriding. I know, I know, it's just a small part of OOP; but it's in there for that, too.
The problem is, the original poster is (IMHO) referring to the horror stories that can easily be heard, where management will "scold" users that work using FOSS tools because they are FOSS and, in their infinite "wisdom", believe that the FOSS license somehow also applies to the app's output.
Which completely misses the point. What I meant is, FOSS tools are safe to use in an environment where one wants to produce non-FOSS final products of any kind, including software, as long as the final products do not include any part of the original FOSS tool. I can put any license I want on a file made with OpenOffice, GIMP, Inkscape or -- yes -- GCC.
The problem with BSD is that it can become proprietary at any time - you have to be actively involved in your BSD project for it not to disappear. GPL is a pledge that whatever happens, your code will be there, ready to be read and possibly used by anyone even after you have lost interest in it.
Yep, the GPL works for the good of humanity, you cinic:)
Use how? What if one of the engineers needs a snippet of code, copies it from Spring, and incorporates it into their product without attribution? Suddenly, that company is legally vulnerable.
Oh, come on! The dev community has worked twenty years to get to the point where you can reuse existing code without having to copy and paste it. We were calling this inheritance if I'm not mistaken.
Also, it's common sense that other people's code is other people's. If your developers are not intelligent enough to understand that and actively research the license for the code they're taking, they should not be your developers. I can do it, and I'm just a Slashdot-reading moron!
No, that is not correct - the Spring framework does not require you to distribute your changes. You just proved the point: licensing mistakes are easy to make.
They're also easy not to make. Not as easy as they are to make, but easy enough. Think safe sex.
If any contributions are properly documented (it's easy with a proper source management system), and made by a group of competent developers, as above, things work out correctly. If you cannot keep your devs in check, you have more to worry than just licensing problems. Google does this, Apple does this, Microsoft (!) might be even doing this, and none of them ever had licensing problems of any kind.
Open source hacks is another fear they have: the fear that somehow using open source tools will make their client sue them.
And that's a reasonable fear. If I sell code that violates a license to a client, that client becomes legally vulnerable and might sue me. Because open source software is so accessible, it becomes easier to inadvertently violate a license.
Using an open source tool and modifying it are two deeply different things. No FOSS tool that I know of limits what you can do with its output. OS X is compiled with GCC, but it's a commercial OS, for instance.
The Apple philosophy to security is, if you are running as an admin, then security has ALREADY been breached. Applications become trusted when first launched, and all. You can do much worse if you have code running on the target machine than replacing Terminal.app.
This is why all security updates have focused on having code NOT getting ON the machine without user consent (such as the Safari warning dialogs).
Admin user in OS X are regular users on the admin group. The default setup creates an admin user.
Installer.app allows PKGs run by admin TO RUN AS ROOT AND WRITE ON ROOT:WHEEL OWNED FILES WITHOUT A PASSWORD PROMPT.
It's more-or-less OK for admins to write to/Applications. It's not to change/etc/sudoers or similar nefarious things without a prompt.
Wanna talk of Italy? No broadband except in the big cities, the same customer situation but _worse_, blatant abuse of project work contracts, and a ex-monopolistic giant that has all the "last miles" and pretty much does whatever it wants, including failing to activate lines for competitors and then calling you with their offers whenever you activate a contract with everyone else.
Thank God some providers offer their own infrastructure. I get free unlimited national telephony and 10Mbps FTTP (or is it FTTH, fiber-to-the-home? the fiber enters my apartment:D) for 70 euro/m and pretty good tech support. Thank you Fastweb:)
...for example, The Games Machine in Italy's great, full of dedicated people who know what they're talking about and have no fear in bashing a crappy game if needed. See their site (in Italian).
This tax is, officially, to give authors their money back if you are making a LEGAL copy of a disc you OWN rather than buying a second copy of the disc.
ILLEGAL activity isn't covered by this tax. They can still take you in a court.
The same happens in a lot of other European countries (and respective **AA's) that have similar laws and similar taxes.
...in Italy, at the very least. The amount of the tax (out of the total cost of the iPod) is shown in red at the bottom of each iPod price page at the Apple Italy store (http://apple.com/italystore).
Slashdot Mirror
... which is why when I release a 1.0 app, marketing material simply refers to it as "App Name" without a version. Coinpurse 1.0 will simply be "Coinpurse".
What your boss is doing is ridiculous. He is basically lying to his customers by saying that there have been six or seven versions of your app before then -- implying the product has undergone more on-the-field iterations than it actually has.
Customer: "You've done six versions and it's so buggy? Oh, come on."
Well, actually, it's not "the owner of Draco's wand" -- due to the mysterious magic of the Elder Wand, it "knew" Harry had disarmed Draco in the chapter "Malfoy Mansion", so Draco having lost a duel also meant Draco lost mastery over the Elder Wand.
ClamAV is really the way to go. Fully open. Fully accountable for. And if a definition is malicious, you can alter or remove it with relative ease.
Broadcast restrictions are due to agreements between companies, right? So, I don't see how is it a problem if a customer does what he want, without infringing copyright, with the contents he was given. Duh.
That means that this attack only works if the local area network is hijacked! Which reduces its danger substantially for the population at large as the huge majority of home connections is on its own link.
It is only a problem in the situation above (that are atypical nowadays) and in work or other large-network settings where it is possible to connect an untrusted computer to the network.
IT ALSO MEANS IT IS NOT FIREFOX SPECIFIC, as hijacking a connection can lead to many unpleasant things that may be as dangerous as that without requiring Firefox (ie grabbing passwords!).
... we can see you, and it's not going to do Linux any bad or you any good all this way-too-ridicolous FUD.
... so any version of Vista can run on a Mac without any kind of penalty. Only VMs are affected, and then on all platforms, not just Mac. Can we go on or do we really have to repeat this every five minutes?
... which is done to encapsulate some implementation, to allow easy reuse and possibly overriding. I know, I know, it's just a small part of OOP; but it's in there for that, too.
The problem is, the original poster is (IMHO) referring to the horror stories that can easily be heard, where management will "scold" users that work using FOSS tools because they are FOSS and, in their infinite "wisdom", believe that the FOSS license somehow also applies to the app's output.
Which completely misses the point. What I meant is, FOSS tools are safe to use in an environment where one wants to produce non-FOSS final products of any kind, including software, as long as the final products do not include any part of the original FOSS tool. I can put any license I want on a file made with OpenOffice, GIMP, Inkscape or -- yes -- GCC.
The problem with BSD is that it can become proprietary at any time - you have to be actively involved in your BSD project for it not to disappear. GPL is a pledge that whatever happens, your code will be there, ready to be read and possibly used by anyone even after you have lost interest in it.
Yep, the GPL works for the good of humanity, you cinic :)
Oh, come on! The dev community has worked twenty years to get to the point where you can reuse existing code without having to copy and paste it. We were calling this inheritance if I'm not mistaken.
Also, it's common sense that other people's code is other people's. If your developers are not intelligent enough to understand that and actively research the license for the code they're taking, they should not be your developers. I can do it, and I'm just a Slashdot-reading moron!
They're also easy not to make. Not as easy as they are to make, but easy enough. Think safe sex.
If any contributions are properly documented (it's easy with a proper source management system), and made by a group of competent developers, as above, things work out correctly. If you cannot keep your devs in check, you have more to worry than just licensing problems. Google does this, Apple does this, Microsoft (!) might be even doing this, and none of them ever had licensing problems of any kind.
Using an open source tool and modifying it are two deeply different things. No FOSS tool that I know of limits what you can do with its output. OS X is compiled with GCC, but it's a commercial OS, for instance.
The Apple philosophy to security is, if you are running as an admin, then security has ALREADY been breached. Applications become trusted when first launched, and all. You can do much worse if you have code running on the target machine than replacing Terminal.app. This is why all security updates have focused on having code NOT getting ON the machine without user consent (such as the Safari warning dialogs).
Admin user in OS X are regular users on the admin group. The default setup creates an admin user. Installer.app allows PKGs run by admin TO RUN AS ROOT AND WRITE ON ROOT:WHEEL OWNED FILES WITHOUT A PASSWORD PROMPT. It's more-or-less OK for admins to write to /Applications. It's not to change /etc/sudoers or similar nefarious things without a prompt.
Wanna talk of Italy? No broadband except in the big cities, the same customer situation but _worse_, blatant abuse of project work contracts, and a ex-monopolistic giant that has all the "last miles" and pretty much does whatever it wants, including failing to activate lines for competitors and then calling you with their offers whenever you activate a contract with everyone else.
:D) for 70 euro/m and pretty good tech support. Thank you Fastweb :)
Thank God some providers offer their own infrastructure. I get free unlimited national telephony and 10Mbps FTTP (or is it FTTH, fiber-to-the-home? the fiber enters my apartment
...for example, The Games Machine in Italy's great, full of dedicated people who know what they're talking about and have no fear in bashing a crappy game if needed. See their site (in Italian).
This tax is, officially, to give authors their money back if you are making a LEGAL copy of a disc you OWN rather than buying a second copy of the disc. ILLEGAL activity isn't covered by this tax. They can still take you in a court. The same happens in a lot of other European countries (and respective **AA's) that have similar laws and similar taxes.
...in Italy, at the very least. The amount of the tax (out of the total cost of the iPod) is shown in red at the bottom of each iPod price page at the Apple Italy store (http://apple.com/italystore).