I'm becoming a fan of Roundup (roundup.sourceforge.net) for this sort of thing. It's a bit complex, mostly because it's incredibly flexible (you can change almost everything about the database schema with just a few config file changes). It's also DB-agnostic, so if you prefer MySQL over Postgres (or vice versa), Roundup doesn't care, as long as it can log in & make its schema.
and yet, in all of this text, not a shred of evidence that this isn't a scam. You/CitizenRe are collecting money from people, you don't have any product to deliver to them, there's no evidence that there's even a factory available to manufacture any product in the near future, even your language gives it away: talking about the "decisive" and "committed" and promising multi-level marketing-style rewards for early adopters. Real companies don't need that kind of language.
From what I'm reading, Citizenre don't have any cells to sell at this point, but promise they will this year...the story according to their faq is they have a plant coming online in 2007 in Delaware. Solar cell factories aren't cheap...where did citizenre get that kind of money? For matter, where's the factory?
They own the copyright, they can license it under whatever scheme they like. They could release a future version under the "I get to sleep with your daughter" license, if they liked. What they *can't* do is take back earlier releases, since those were released as GPL. But, since MySQL AB own the copyright, they can do whatever they like with it going forward. It's their code.
The default behavior on the SMTP servers I've worked with (sendmail and exim4) is to reject the mail before the DATA segment if the source is listed in a DNSBL...so you should be getting bounces from most organizations that do this (that's certainly how mine's working).
SORBS has one useful list: the dial-up DNS blacklist (spare me the diatribes about being able to send mail from a dynamic address. I know the arguments, but the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost of the spam coming from that address space).
I'm not willing to pay Trend Micro for access to what used to be MAPS for my one, small domain, and I haven't found anyone other than SORBS offering a collection of dial-up addresses as a DNS blacklist. If there are other, reliable, dial-up blacklists, I'd love to hear about them.
Because you're far less likely to accidentally smack the shit out of a fellow shopper with the driving game. (note: not impossible, just far less likely.)
I'm more amused by the fact that Symantec seems to think that repeating 4-month-old DefCon presentations and claiming them as thier own is somehow "newsworthy" or "dangerous."
Reading comprehension, my friend. He didn't say to look around for how many minorities there *are*, he said to ask the government how many *it* *thinks* there are. The difference between what the government thinks and reality can be surprisingly large.
You've missed my point, I think. My concern comes from two questions:
1) What do we do when the portion of the US law specifically mentioned in GPLv3 (aka the DMCA) changes?
2) What do we do when (not if) someone finds another way to do restricted execution (aka DRM aka treacherous computing) without encryption keys? (I can think of at least one way, there are probably others.)
Both of these cases are problems with the v3 of the GPL, and both of these cases, from what I can see, will require a new version of the GPL to be released.
I'm not saying that the DRM restrictions or the DMCA limitations are a bad idea, just that they're overly specific. It's better to be general...that way you make it harder to weasel out of the restrictions with clever interpretations.
You're missing my point: what if Congress changes the DMCA? Do we really want to be in a situation where Congress can invalidate parts of the GPL just by re-wording a section of US law? Further, how much of it can people get around by restricting execution by means other than encryption keys?
That's why I'm arguing for generality: rather than calling out specifics (DMCA, encryption keys, etc), the GPL should stick to general principles (like no restricting end-user usage or execution of code). If the GPL gets specific, it just invites the wordsmithing and "meaning of is" weaseling that we all hate.
I'm not saying that the DRM stuff in the GPL v3 is bad, just that it's trying to be overly specific, which will lead to all sorts of problems down the road. If they make it more general, I think it will have a better chance of surviving long-term challenges.
Honestly, the whole DRM fight is really a mistake, if you ask me, for several reasons:
Calling out specific parts of the US code just *begs* for someone to go change that part of the law. Once they do that, we'll need a GPL v4, and fast.
Calling out specific parts of the US code make it much harder to internationalize the license. General principles are always better, since they translate better.
It's very narrowly focused on DRM. If someone comes up with another scheme to accomplish the same thing, without cryptography (don't ask how, I'm projecting the future here), then we will need GPL v4 (or 5 or 6, whatever we're up to at that point) to cover that loophole, as well.
If Stallman/et al really want to handle the DRM stuff, they shouldn't put in the convoluted bit about encryption keys, etc. They should simply include a new line along the lines of:
If you distribute this work, you may not restrict how the recipients use it, nor may you restrict how derivates of this work are used or executed by the recipients.
The second clause would prevent TiVO from distributing both a DRM'd box *and* GPL'd software. They could distribute the box still, but they couldn't distribute the code with it, since the box is restricting how derivatives are executed.
Agreed. If this is really so bad, then the courts and/or the cops should step in & pull the blogs. If the blogs are legal, then google should continue to index them. Google isn't a nanny, and they're not a proxy for the 'net police.
If you want something taken down because it's illegal or wrong, get the actual *authorities* to take it down, don't cry to google.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm becoming a fan of Roundup (roundup.sourceforge.net) for this sort of thing. It's a bit complex, mostly because it's incredibly flexible (you can change almost everything about the database schema with just a few config file changes). It's also DB-agnostic, so if you prefer MySQL over Postgres (or vice versa), Roundup doesn't care, as long as it can log in & make its schema.
Fedoraland? Bah. Tuxembourg!
Nah, I suspect they heard about it from the flying penises. Anything that has those must be a real internet mover and shaker.
Show me some evidence and I'll consider it. That's been my point this whole time.
and yet, in all of this text, not a shred of evidence that this isn't a scam. You/CitizenRe are collecting money from people, you don't have any product to deliver to them, there's no evidence that there's even a factory available to manufacture any product in the near future, even your language gives it away: talking about the "decisive" and "committed" and promising multi-level marketing-style rewards for early adopters. Real companies don't need that kind of language.
You're running a scam.
Collects no money? The $500 deposit (payable on agreement to install, not on installation, I note) sure looks like they're collecting money to me.
This really looks like a scam.
From what I'm reading, Citizenre don't have any cells to sell at this point, but promise they will this year...the story according to their faq is they have a plant coming online in 2007 in Delaware. Solar cell factories aren't cheap...where did citizenre get that kind of money? For matter, where's the factory?
Screw the iPhone & the iPod...make that "multi-touch" screen work on a tablet PC, and you've suddenly made Tablet PCs usable.
Interesting?! Comments on human-bovine marriage laws get modded "Interesting"?! This explains so much about Slashdot.
They own the copyright, they can license it under whatever scheme they like. They could release a future version under the "I get to sleep with your daughter" license, if they liked. What they *can't* do is take back earlier releases, since those were released as GPL. But, since MySQL AB own the copyright, they can do whatever they like with it going forward. It's their code.
They did one thing right, which we should be thanking them for: they fought SCO.
The default behavior on the SMTP servers I've worked with (sendmail and exim4) is to reject the mail before the DATA segment if the source is listed in a DNSBL...so you should be getting bounces from most organizations that do this (that's certainly how mine's working).
SORBS has one useful list: the dial-up DNS blacklist (spare me the diatribes about being able to send mail from a dynamic address. I know the arguments, but the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost of the spam coming from that address space).
I'm not willing to pay Trend Micro for access to what used to be MAPS for my one, small domain, and I haven't found anyone other than SORBS offering a collection of dial-up addresses as a DNS blacklist. If there are other, reliable, dial-up blacklists, I'd love to hear about them.
If you're irreplaceable, you're un-promotable. Welcome to your dead-end job.
Because you're far less likely to accidentally smack the shit out of a fellow shopper with the driving game. (note: not impossible, just far less likely.)
I'm more amused by the fact that Symantec seems to think that repeating 4-month-old DefCon presentations and claiming them as thier own is somehow "newsworthy" or "dangerous."
They settled, ending the case without discovery finishing, so the judges order didn't have to be followed, since it was a moot issue.
Yes, the title's stupid.
Reading comprehension, my friend. He didn't say to look around for how many minorities there *are*, he said to ask the government how many *it* *thinks* there are. The difference between what the government thinks and reality can be surprisingly large.
You've missed my point, I think. My concern comes from two questions:
1) What do we do when the portion of the US law specifically mentioned in GPLv3 (aka the DMCA) changes?
2) What do we do when (not if) someone finds another way to do restricted execution (aka DRM aka treacherous computing) without encryption keys? (I can think of at least one way, there are probably others.)
Both of these cases are problems with the v3 of the GPL, and both of these cases, from what I can see, will require a new version of the GPL to be released.
I'm not saying that the DRM restrictions or the DMCA limitations are a bad idea, just that they're overly specific. It's better to be general...that way you make it harder to weasel out of the restrictions with clever interpretations.
Heh. No worries.
You're missing my point: what if Congress changes the DMCA? Do we really want to be in a situation where Congress can invalidate parts of the GPL just by re-wording a section of US law? Further, how much of it can people get around by restricting execution by means other than encryption keys?
That's why I'm arguing for generality: rather than calling out specifics (DMCA, encryption keys, etc), the GPL should stick to general principles (like no restricting end-user usage or execution of code). If the GPL gets specific, it just invites the wordsmithing and "meaning of is" weaseling that we all hate.
I'm not saying that the DRM stuff in the GPL v3 is bad, just that it's trying to be overly specific, which will lead to all sorts of problems down the road. If they make it more general, I think it will have a better chance of surviving long-term challenges.
I beg to differ:
quoted from here
- Calling out specific parts of the US code just *begs* for someone to go change that part of the law. Once they do that, we'll need a GPL v4, and fast.
- Calling out specific parts of the US code make it much harder to internationalize the license. General principles are always better, since they translate better.
- It's very narrowly focused on DRM. If someone comes up with another scheme to accomplish the same thing, without cryptography (don't ask how, I'm projecting the future here), then we will need GPL v4 (or 5 or 6, whatever we're up to at that point) to cover that loophole, as well.
If Stallman/et al really want to handle the DRM stuff, they shouldn't put in the convoluted bit about encryption keys, etc. They should simply include a new line along the lines of: The second clause would prevent TiVO from distributing both a DRM'd box *and* GPL'd software. They could distribute the box still, but they couldn't distribute the code with it, since the box is restricting how derivatives are executed.good programmer and loud-mouthed "baffoon" are not mutually exclusive.
(I just like saying "baffoon"...baffoon, baffoon, baffoon.)
Agreed. If this is really so bad, then the courts and/or the cops should step in & pull the blogs. If the blogs are legal, then google should continue to index them. Google isn't a nanny, and they're not a proxy for the 'net police.
If you want something taken down because it's illegal or wrong, get the actual *authorities* to take it down, don't cry to google.