I'm not aware of any case where copyright law (in America) is not unified over different mediums. But I may be ignorant.
Copyright is not a "thing" though -- and can't be bought or sold. Copyright is "granted" by creator to a publisher and this is where the law has split with reality. If you read a copyright contract (they may have recently begun wording them differently as a political ploy) it states that you, as author, give permission to publisher to reproduce *your* work. It may or may not be exclusive and can be granted for specific duration (one time only, etc.) location (North American rights only) media (serialization) or any other stipulation deemed legal in a contract.
Recently, because of the power granted to corporations, and more specifically, the monopoly on distribution by a cartel of huge media corporations, the terms of copyright contracts have become heavily weighted in favor of the cartel.
You never actually sell your copyright ownership -- you can't sign a piece of paper that says "I did not write this, Bertlesmann AG, is the true originator of this work." That's a false claim. You can grant Bertelsmann an exclusive right to reproduce your work as long as it shall remain in copyright (20 years *fixed* seems reasonable to me. I'd say lifetime of the author, but then, what of the deathbead bestseller and the poor widow) and grant them the right to license it to anyone else they choose, which, in effect, is equivalent to selling the copyright, but the right of ownership is never actually transferred.
While I'm not thrilled about the sudden fad of projects abandoning the GPL, there is one potential positive thing that can come of it. It shows corporation that may be thinking of developing for linux that they can start with the GPL and fairly easily switch to a proprietary (or BSD style) license with relative ease -- especially compared to going the other way around. In both instances, you would need to track down contributions from independent copyright holders, but in the case GPL software, it would be easier to re-implement (or link to) than proprietary modules.
This may help companies that would like to grow a user base with a GPL product and then pull a bait and switch on their users and close it up and start charging. Or charge for "add ons". From the companies perspective, it shows that while the GPL may be viral, the disease is not terminal (sorry for pun). One downside they may perceive are that users will continue to use the earlier GPL versions, but everyone loves new features.
While this sounds like encouraging bad ideas and proprietary trojan horses into a free software, I'm confident that the majority will eventually see the benefit of open source and be reluctant to branch. If not the majority, then survival of the fittest. We don't really *need* seven office suites (5 plus vi, emacs, and latex is plenty.1) anyway. Sure, there'll be times (when the stock price takes a dip, or a new accountant is hired) when companies make mistakes and experiment with creative new money making schemes, but eventually, it will become obvious that the expense of proprietary software development outweighs its benefits.
I know open relay mail servers are the bugbear of current anti-spam dogma, but all they do is provide an IP address/host name that isn't directly traceable to the sender, and (thusly blocked by the filter). I can't think of any way it is related to the speed with which email addresses are harvested (sold?) -- The easiest and probably most prevalent way for spammers to get emails is directly from ISPs. Most accounts come with webhosting or at the least a directory for storing email. These are usually readable. The next best thing is to run a dictionary against the mail server itself (or login) and record the positive hits. Web-spiders are used, but probably aren't a first resort.
Newton's gravity model has been un-dis-provable except for a few astronomic observations. In point of fact, for *all* practical purposes, Newton's gravity model still holds.
Just because in Austin, Texas the summers have been getting warmer for the past decade, (as both you and Bruce Sterling have so scientifically observed) doesn't mean its happening globally. Actually, just up the road in Dallas, the winters are getting colder!
what makes this any more complex? Its just as easy to implement (barring namespace issues) and your latter example is very misleading. You can't simply add the address of one matrix to another and get a bigger matrix.
ooh, scary! I'm sure I'll be cut off from a sizeable subsystem of the.cx domain.
Open relays aren't the problem. Without them, you're stuck with webmail and large ISPs. Some joker with a DSL or Cable modem (his or somebody else's) sends more than any open relay. Most of your spam is your ISP's fault directly -- either through bad security or bad configuration or willfull participation. *cough*AOL*Hotmail*cough
Bruce Schneier talks about measuring trustworthiness but then goes into a list about featuritis. While I don't think that enabling/disabling features by default is the answer (someone could just script the annoying click-thru enables anyway), that's not what I want to see. There is a way to measure trustworthiness, and its how I'd like to see Microsoft measured.
1. Honesty
When a vulnerability is discovered, Microsoft should freely admit it, admit it was their mistake, and not try to pass the blame or put a spin on it.
2. Accountability
Microsoft should be willing to accept responsibility for their products and any problems they cause. No more click through absolutions. No more blaming it on harware or third party applications or user error. If something I bought needs a fix, they should make it freely available, to the point of sending me a disk in the mail. If I shelled out $200 for their cardboard box, they can spend an extra buck to send me a disk and a stamp. If they feel a need to charge $201.50 in order to achieve accountability, so be it.
3. Responsiveness
No more brushing things under the table, hoping noone will post an exploit to bug traq. No more suppressing information for months until they feel like dealing with it. Microsoft is getting better about posting fixes online, but they have a long way to go.
5. Openness
Microsot should tell us what each product and each fix is doing -- *exactly*. They should describe the problem instead of villianizing those who find it. They should allow people to fix their own problems. I'm not mandating the open sourcing of Windows, but if they were serious, they'd think about it. Even if you need to sign a 100 NDAs to get it. A much more reasonable and realistic request is the opening of the.DOC file format.
6. Cooperation
Microsoft should be more willing to work with other Software companies. No more DOS or Browser or Mulitimedia player wars. No more games with SMB or Java or HTML. No more buying out or undercutting the competition. Microsoft should accept that they aren't the only software developers in the world and encourage a more heterogeneous environment. Not only is it good for security, its good for business.
No, it needs more support from users. Those who go into Best Buy and get a Compaq and wipe away (or dual boot with) Windows to install Linux, or order their laptop from Dell.
I'm not saying you should have bought VA or Tuxtops, but next time you think about getting a computer, look around. If you're putting together your own hardware and you can do it cheaper, good for you -- but I hope to see Linux pre-installed grow out of small companies run by people in the community, not co-opted by large corporations looking for a free ride.
Oh, and visit my site (linux-pc.net) -- Its not up, but I could use a DoS on my DSL.
So I will need to purchase XML Spy, Microsoft.NET Framework, or learn to use Emacs in order to process information. That cuts out 99% of the population.
Do you think more or fewer people create their own websites now that we have FrontPage?
Those Aiee!!! messages are what first got me interested in Linux. My dad had an ISP and when I'd go out to the server room (a shed in our back yard) and reset modems, I remember seeing that and just laughing. That was a computer crash that had some flair. Calling the sysadmin and explaining that was fun.
I'm a big fan of JBOSS, and (though I haven't tried it) would've liked to see Enhydra succeed as open source. But I don't see why Sun should grant a J2EE trademark to them. Sure, the price might have been outrageous, but companies like IBM and and BEA seem willing to pay it. Sun allowed them to see the source from the reference implementation and allows them to use the parts of it that haven't been implemented independently yet.
The spirit of open source isn't about marketing. And the J2EE mark is just that. JBOSS is very successful on its own right, and whether Sun blesses it shouldn't matter. Apache has succeeded without Netscape or Microsoft's compatibility certification, though there are still companies who feel more comfortable with a web server branded by a large corporation. Though this draws comparison with Versign refusing to recognize certificates from Apache, its not quite as bad, and eventually, they were forced to accept. Anyway, verisign isn't exactly to be held up as a model corporate citizen
It might be desirable for Sun to open up java to public standardization, but I don't think anyone build on java expecting that to happen. Its like WINE expecting Microsoft to certify it as 100% Windows compatible (even if it really were.)
It may be one day that people will want their J2EE implementations to be JBoss compatible.
Slashdot Mirror
in ten years no one will care about Pokemon, but I get your (very good) point.
I'm not aware of any case where copyright law (in America) is not unified over different mediums. But I may be ignorant.
Copyright is not a "thing" though -- and can't be bought or sold. Copyright is "granted" by creator to a publisher and this is where the law has split with reality. If you read a copyright contract (they may have recently begun wording them differently as a political ploy) it states that you, as author, give permission to publisher to reproduce *your* work. It may or may not be exclusive and can be granted for specific duration (one time only, etc.) location (North American rights only) media (serialization) or any other stipulation deemed legal in a contract.
Recently, because of the power granted to corporations, and more specifically, the monopoly on distribution by a cartel of huge media corporations, the terms of copyright contracts have become heavily weighted in favor of the cartel.
You never actually sell your copyright ownership -- you can't sign a piece of paper that says "I did not write this, Bertlesmann AG, is the true originator of this work." That's a false claim. You can grant Bertelsmann an exclusive right to reproduce your work as long as it shall remain in copyright (20 years *fixed* seems reasonable to me. I'd say lifetime of the author, but then, what of the deathbead bestseller and the poor widow) and grant them the right to license it to anyone else they choose, which, in effect, is equivalent to selling the copyright, but the right of ownership is never actually transferred.
so will probably be dismissed by the court immediately.
While I'm not thrilled about the sudden fad of projects abandoning the GPL, there is one potential positive thing that can come of it. It shows corporation that may be thinking of developing for linux that they can start with the GPL and fairly easily switch to a proprietary (or BSD style) license with relative ease -- especially compared to going the other way around. In both instances, you would need to track down contributions from independent copyright holders, but in the case GPL software, it would be easier to re-implement (or link to) than proprietary modules.
This may help companies that would like to grow a user base with a GPL product and then pull a bait and switch on their users and close it up and start charging. Or charge for "add ons". From the companies perspective, it shows that while the GPL may be viral, the disease is not terminal (sorry for pun). One downside they may perceive are that users will continue to use the earlier GPL versions, but everyone loves new features.
While this sounds like encouraging bad ideas and proprietary trojan horses into a free software, I'm confident that the majority will eventually see the benefit of open source and be reluctant to branch. If not the majority, then survival of the fittest. We don't really *need* seven office suites (5 plus vi, emacs, and latex is plenty.1) anyway. Sure, there'll be times (when the stock price takes a dip, or a new accountant is hired) when companies make mistakes and experiment with creative new money making schemes, but eventually, it will become obvious that the expense of proprietary software development outweighs its benefits.
I know open relay mail servers are the bugbear of current anti-spam dogma, but all they do is provide an IP address/host name that isn't directly traceable to the sender, and (thusly blocked by the filter). I can't think of any way it is related to the speed with which email addresses are harvested (sold?) -- The easiest and probably most prevalent way for spammers to get emails is directly from ISPs. Most accounts come with webhosting or at the least a directory for storing email. These are usually readable. The next best thing is to run a dictionary against the mail server itself (or login) and record the positive hits. Web-spiders are used, but probably aren't a first resort.
on those days, do the uwary sometimes catch on fire?
Newton's gravity model has been un-dis-provable except for a few astronomic observations. In point of fact, for *all* practical purposes, Newton's gravity model still holds.
Just because in Austin, Texas the summers have been getting warmer for the past decade, (as both you and Bruce Sterling have so scientifically observed) doesn't mean its happening globally. Actually, just up the road in Dallas, the winters are getting colder!
how come there isn't any link to his highly accurate previous timeline?
matrix_add(MatrixA, matrix_multiply(MatrixB, MatrixC));
what makes this any more complex? Its just as easy to implement (barring namespace issues) and your latter example is very misleading. You can't simply add the address of one matrix to another and get a bigger matrix.
ooh, scary! I'm sure I'll be cut off from a sizeable subsystem of the .cx domain.
Open relays aren't the problem. Without them, you're stuck with webmail and large ISPs. Some joker with a DSL or Cable modem (his or somebody else's) sends more than any open relay. Most of your spam is your ISP's fault directly -- either through bad security or bad configuration or willfull participation. *cough*AOL*Hotmail*cough
Bruce Schneier talks about measuring trustworthiness but then goes into a list about featuritis. While I don't think that enabling/disabling features by default is the answer (someone could just script the annoying click-thru enables anyway), that's not what I want to see. There is a way to measure trustworthiness, and its how I'd like to see Microsoft measured.
.DOC file format.
1. Honesty
When a vulnerability is discovered, Microsoft should freely admit it, admit it was their mistake, and not try to pass the blame or put a spin on it.
2. Accountability
Microsoft should be willing to accept responsibility for their products and any problems they cause. No more click through absolutions. No more blaming it on harware or third party applications or user error. If something I bought needs a fix, they should make it freely available, to the point of sending me a disk in the mail. If I shelled out $200 for their cardboard box, they can spend an extra buck to send me a disk and a stamp. If they feel a need to charge $201.50 in order to achieve accountability, so be it.
3. Responsiveness
No more brushing things under the table, hoping noone will post an exploit to bug traq. No more suppressing information for months until they feel like dealing with it. Microsoft is getting better about posting fixes online, but they have a long way to go.
5. Openness
Microsot should tell us what each product and each fix is doing -- *exactly*. They should describe the problem instead of villianizing those who find it. They should allow people to fix their own problems. I'm not mandating the open sourcing of Windows, but if they were serious, they'd think about it. Even if you need to sign a 100 NDAs to get it. A much more reasonable and realistic request is the opening of the
6. Cooperation
Microsoft should be more willing to work with other Software companies. No more DOS or Browser or Mulitimedia player wars. No more games with SMB or Java or HTML. No more buying out or undercutting the competition. Microsoft should accept that they aren't the only software developers in the world and encourage a more heterogeneous environment. Not only is it good for security, its good for business.
a spammer doesn't need open relay turned on on his own box
you must use BSD
No, it needs more support from users. Those who go into Best Buy and get a Compaq and wipe away (or dual boot with) Windows to install Linux, or order their laptop from Dell.
I'm not saying you should have bought VA or Tuxtops, but next time you think about getting a computer, look around. If you're putting together your own hardware and you can do it cheaper, good for you -- but I hope to see Linux pre-installed grow out of small companies run by people in the community, not co-opted by large corporations looking for a free ride.
Oh, and visit my site (linux-pc.net) -- Its not up, but I could use a DoS on my DSL.
So I will need to purchase XML Spy, Microsoft .NET Framework, or learn to use Emacs in order to process information. That cuts out 99% of the population.
Do you think more or fewer people create their own websites now that we have FrontPage?
I think we know what a W3C reference implementation looks like.
Those Aiee!!! messages are what first got me interested in Linux. My dad had an ISP and when I'd go out to the server room (a shed in our back yard) and reset modems, I remember seeing that and just laughing. That was a computer crash that had some flair. Calling the sysadmin and explaining that was fun.
I'm a big fan of JBOSS, and (though I haven't tried it) would've liked to see Enhydra succeed as open source. But I don't see why Sun should grant a J2EE trademark to them. Sure, the price might have been outrageous, but companies like IBM and and BEA seem willing to pay it. Sun allowed them to see the source from the reference implementation and allows them to use the parts of it that haven't been implemented independently yet.
The spirit of open source isn't about marketing. And the J2EE mark is just that. JBOSS is very successful on its own right, and whether Sun blesses it shouldn't matter. Apache has succeeded without Netscape or Microsoft's compatibility certification, though there are still companies who feel more comfortable with a web server branded by a large corporation. Though this draws comparison with Versign refusing to recognize certificates from Apache, its not quite as bad, and eventually, they were forced to accept. Anyway, verisign isn't exactly to be held up as a model corporate citizen
It might be desirable for Sun to open up java to public standardization, but I don't think anyone build on java expecting that to happen. Its like WINE expecting Microsoft to certify it as 100% Windows compatible (even if it really were.)
It may be one day that people will want their J2EE implementations to be JBoss compatible.
IE cost me 150 bucks. Plus, I need to pay $50 a month just to install patches.
It affects trillian too -- but only your MSN contacts. And you have to use IE when you click on the link.
they're ActiveX viruses, and will do more than send MSN Messenges to your friends if you're using IE
if you just clicked:
NEXT->NEXT->YES->ACCEPT->NEXT->ACCE PT->NEXT->NEXT->MASTERCARD->5499840000 000121->billg@microsoft.com->SUBMIT->REBO OT
then you wouldn't have any trouble at all installing WinXP. It's about limiting choice.
The above should be the highest modded post.
it may not exist in the database, but it is in their log files.