Even on a far more secure box, you'd be a fool to trust the package. It will be assembled off the server, however, and signed by a maintainer. So don't trust the package -- trust the maintainer sig. Which means you need the key way ahead of time, so you know the key wasn't just replaced along with the package.
The author is wrong, because there is no lock-in effect. Ebay, which is cited as an example, has a lock-in effect because with buyers and sellers, each additional buyer or seller increases the total pool available to each other. Ebay creates the lock-in effect by acting as a middle-man.
There is no such lock-in effect for a filesharing service. A company like google can simple mass-burn CDs, or auto-download mp3s from elsewhere on the net and analyze them automatically for quality. If they can put catalogs online by the hundreds or thousands, they can certainly manage mp3s, given they are fully digital.
An example of a company that DOES have a lock-in effect is Lending Tree. Again, like Ebay, they act as a middle man, in this case between lenders and loan consumers. The more banks they have, the more choices consumers have and the more likely they are to want to see LT's deals. The more consumers they have, the more potential business that pool represents, and so they are more likely to attract banks. (And that's why they were bought out, since it was becoming clear they had passed the critical mass point for that lock-in effect)
There is no middle-man after compulsory licensing. There will be some services will all music on them. You'll D/L whatever you want. So it's traditional competition to attract customers.
First, this is more like because there's a terrorist in a town 30 miles from you, the military parks a tank in your living room until that terrorist moves out of state.
Second, were you aware that by consuming fossil fuels, you are funneling money the middle east, which produces almost all terrorist threats to the United States? That's supporting terrorism. I don't see you volunteering to stop buying fossil fuels until the OPEC countries clean up their terrorist problem.
Third, the idea behind spam prevention is to make email MORE USEFUL for legitimate users. SPEWs does not meet that criteria, because it causes more problems for legitimate users than gain. Moreover, it hides the true cost because few people are fully aware of what spews is doing and why. Even most email admins using spews are NOT AWARE of how it operates. They should publish their philosophy everywhere related to it. If every SPEWS doc had said, "We block enormous blocks of legitimate users, trying to use collateral damage to force ISPs to take action against their tiny fraction of spamming users", SPEWs would be irrelevant today.
Finally, spews is horribly non-responsive and error prone. I still have a colocated server blocked because some ISP on a block that's not even in the same/10 as my ISP happens to have a similar name to my ISP. (the spammer was once a customer of my ISP; they spammed, they were removed. They moved across town to ISP #2, and continued to spam. But customer name and my ISP name are highly similar. Spews concludes they are the same company, despite NO evidence but the name. Result: my ISP is permanently blacklisted on spews because of a spammer that is NOT on their network). Both sets of IPs -- my ISPs and the spammer's new ISP -- are in the same evidence file, and my ISP continues to look 'fresh' as a spammer because of activity on the other net.
A better analogy would be would I be upset if, say, everyone in my apartment complex was arrested because one islamic terrorist lived there and was arrested. Yes, I'd be upset. Horrified at the injustice, really. In other words, it would be just like I feel about SPEWS listings affected a hundred times as many legitimate servers as they do actual spammers.
Although the vast majority is filtered, I get as many as 2000 spams per day, personally (the downside to having the same email for 8 years). And I am NOT sorry to see SPEWS go. There's no question SPEWS was effective at getting spammers kicked off their networks. Likewise, arresting everyone in a town every time a crime was committed would probably be effective at stopping crime. That doesn't mean it is a good idea. When a blackhole list has something like a 100:1 legit-mai:spam ratio for blocked messages, the ends no longer justifies the means, in my book. I've had more legitimate mail blocked to or from me or companies I've administered servers for by SPEWS than any other cause in the past few years.
Now, let's continue to turn our attention towards methods of stopping spam that don't involve dropping 100x as much legitimate mail.
I would love to hear the answer from a lawyer. Let's say the requirements of the GPL are, for one reason or another, held unlawful. Would that mean that anyone using GPL code would lose the benefit of the agreement? It seems preposterous that in the era of insane shrink-wrap license agreements, where you have to commit your pets and small children to research by aliens in order to use a calculator program, that something as simple as the GPL could be shot down. But if it were, would that leave code licensed so far under the GPL as freeware, or as code without any license that it would become illegal to copy?
SCO has shipped these products for many years, in some cases for nearly two decades, and this is the first time that IBM has ever raised an issue about patent infringement in these products.
Okay, work with us, here, SCO. What might have changed recently that would cause IBM to want to enforce their patent portfolio? Hmm.... could it be.... wait! You sued them for $3B! That must be it!
You better hope you haven't infringed in the past 6 years. There's no such thing as patent dilution, and they can sue just you if they want to. (Go IBM!)
Sorry, but how is this different from ANY operating system? Or any technology? What's to stop someone from claiming that your car infringes on their patent -- for something -- and you need to pay $99 to continue to legally drive it?
Also, the fact is, copyright violations would not affect consumer embedded devices. The manufacturer does the copying when the manufacture the device. At that point, you're sold the device and are using it. The person or organization doing the copying is liable; not you.
You're always at risk of IP violations possibly affecting your product. But with Linux, the people doing the violating usually don't own most of the code anyhow! If a company like SCO, with its feeble market cap, were to violate someone's IP, it would be the end of SCO. Their IP would be sold or passed to whoever won a judgement against them for a significant amount, because they would be unable to pay. Even if SCO were to prevail, the offending source would be removed, and since the vast majority of code is still copyright the original authors, it is still available under the GPL and can be re-assembled into a SCO-free version of Linux. So Linux will survive regardless, specifically BECAUSE no one owns the IP -- no commercial company can make that claim.
If SCO is successful in establishing its claims, "Linux would die," said Haff. But he doesn't expect that will happen.
Uh, wrong. If SCO proves their IP was misappropriated, it will be immediately removed from the kernel, and replaced with non-infringing code, and linux will go on. Regardless of who they sue for infringement, they'll have to reveal WHAT was infringed to pursue it legally, and if there's ANY merit to their claim, it will be instantly rectified. And let's be honest: SCO knows this. Otherwise they'd release the purported infringement. If it's floating around in the linux kernel, it's not like it can be "covered up" as SCO says. (I nominate the idea of a community of a million users sweeping millions upon millions of copies of kernel source code "under the rug" for completely absurd notion of the decode)
There's a lot of funny stuff that could happen here, but I don't see how in anyone's wildest dreams that the "end of linux" is part of it.
I'd say it's time for the esteemed Attourney General John Ashcroft to prosecute SCO and its executives for Racketeering. In the 20s, they used guns. In this century, they use unsubstantiated IP claims. But either way, they're demanding 'protection money' they aren't entitled to. Maybe we can re-open Alcatraz and put Darl there as a tourist attraction.
Barnes expressed some concern about a possible lawsuit but was confident that "more likely they will probably come out with a cease and desist order" to stop him sharing music files on the Internet.
"I think they're trying to scare people," Barnes said.
And it IS going to be pretty scary when they bankrupt you and all the other users.
The first politician to run on a more enlightened IP platform (more fair use, stricter patent rules, etc), will get my vote and my dollars. Let's hope someone steps up. I guess in the mean time, I'll just have to set my donations to Boucher.
You should try actually reading the book before you speak in platitudes. I started Exodus's Managed Security Services group, which had thousands of firewalls under management when I left. Despite this book being published in 1994, it remained my #1 recommended reading on the topic of network security, right up until the end my time there in 2001. The principles are timeless, and for the discerning reader, they transcend firewall brands, configuration recommendations, or changes in protocols. It is a book about security principles, how layers of security interoperate, how human error and fallacy can wreck the best-designed security measures, and so on.
You'd be well advised to read it.
Trying to say that this book is not insightful because "security changes every day" is like trying to say that Knuth's Art of Computer Programming is not insightful because programming languages change all the time.
Re:Streaks of brilliance drowned in tedium.
on
A Game of Thrones
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Eddard Stark isn't objectionably passive; he's a man whose projects his own sense of duty onto others, and as such he is unable to anticipate the depth of treachery and intrigue going on around him. Also, I thought he was truly the focus of the first book. The tension at court when he goes to act as Robert's Hand is palpable, and if I had any frustration it was that that plot line wasn't focused on enough -- or that I couldn't scream at Eddard and clue him in.
It's funny that you call Daenerys passive, because of what she goes through in later books; not at all passive. Catelyn is an emotional mother; what can you do?
Tyrion _is_ very unsympathetic in Game, which makes it all the more dramatic when he almost seems the 'hero' in a later book. That's what amazed me most about the series is how many layers of interaction there are, and how your perception of the characters changes so dramatically from book to book.
Just wondering... will the 3rd party support provide patches? Because this is why when the support EOL comes, you're better off with OSS. You'll always have the source; and with the sort of size of even the NT4 community, there'd be no problem finding patches.
First off, inserting 500 lines of incompatibly licensed code into your work is pretty damn willful.
I didn't say it wasn't willful. But that's neither here nor there. If you want to incorporate GPL source into your own code and release your code, the GPL forces you to release your code under the GPL to do so. To phrase it another way, you could say, "The GPL permits you to release combined source containing your own code and GPL code if you agree to license the complete work under the GPL." In either sense, the net effect is the same. The GPL is a great tool for doing what it's intended to do; stopping people from building on the source code that is free, and making derivatives unfree. If that's what you want, the GPL is great for it, and I'm happy for everyone who opts to use it.
Correctemundo! He who writes the code chooses the license. If you don't like the license then don't use the code.
I was never whining about the GPL. But apparently/. has a lot of push-button GPL warriors that want to play terminology police. Apparently if you call it 'viral' or 'restrictive', you must be part of some enemy GPL-hating camp. Whatever. It's true: the GPL is viral. It was meant to be. That's why there's an LGPL, in fact, because some people wanted to lessen those restrictions.
The problem here is that SCO needs to rewrite history to get what they want.
SCO is on crack on so many levels, we needn't even touch that. And in fact, the point of my original post in this thread was simply that even IF all SCO alleged were true, it's still irrelevent to linux as a whole. Linux removes the offending code, and life goes on. The poster seemed to think that the fact that misappropriated code made its way into the kernel might give the owner of that code some nebulous rights to the whole codebase. Not so; they can only stop derivates which contain their code.
But please, no whinging because someone else's hard work is commercially useless to you.
What piece of code did I complain about? I'm not whining, and there's no hard work I somehow want to be mine. And, in fact, I've given away code in the past of my own, and been happy to give something back.
The exact same thing would happen if you released your code public domain.
And did I ever say it wouldn't? My original post was discussing the fact that just because SCO's code somehow made it into the kernel, doesn't mean they can control derivatives of ALL the code, only branches containing their copyrighted code (assuming it is theirs, and their own linux distribution ends up being non-binding because of the circumstances).
And don't you dare say you are "forced to grant the rights to your code to anybody" by the GPL.
Why not? In order to use GPL code in your code, yo must release the complete work as GPL. It forces you to; it is a requirement. Yes, you can obviously not use it.
Many people are confused because most source code
Okay, well, I'm not at all confused. I hope you've enjoyed your crusade to 'educate' me, or whatever, but about the only point you've made is that you don't like my terminology. Whether you view it as permissive or restrictive depends on what you want to do with it. Clearly, any code the GPL code comes in contact with must become GPL to be released; just as any cell a virus comes in contact with becomes a host for viral production. Thus, the GPL is viral. I don't really say that in a bad way, because personally, I like having lots of GPL software available, and I view it as an awesome tool for people who put time and effort into code and want to avoid people misappropriating it for their own gain. That said, stop being a terminology nazi and go try to write some code.
WRONG!!!!! When are people going to stop this FUD. You still own the copyright to your original work even after you distribute it under the GPL. If you removed the other GPL code from it you could then distribute the portion that is left (the part you wrote) under any rules you want.
First: deep breath. Hand off the exclamation key. Ah! Ah! I saw that. Ok, now:
If I write 10,000 lines of proprietary code, and then take a 500 line chunk of GPL'd code, say, and insert it, and then distribute the whole 10,500 as a complete work, all 10,500 lines is now released to the world under the GPL. Anyone who gets a copy has all the rights the GPL grants them; rights I was forced, by the GPL, to grant them, by virtue of using GPL code.
Yes, I do still own the copyright to my work. I can, in fact, release the work under another more or restrictive license. But I can never retrieve the code I have released under GPL. The GPL does not leave a choice; if you use GPL code, then the complete work that it is used in can only be released as GPL code as well. Otherwise you have no rights to the GPL code under the GPL license.
Please explain clearly why you think removing the GPL portions does not do the same thing. Don't give me any bullshit about people already having the code, that is true of your copyright example as well. If they did not break into your office and steal it, you have already granted them rights to use the code, by giving it to them, it does not matter if you said it was GPL or not.
I'm not quite sure I even understand what you're asking here. Let's just examine the two scenarios, however:
Scenario one, I incoroprate some GPL code into my own software which I hold the copyright on, and I release it. My software can now be redistributed under GPL, modified, and further redistributed, etc. I cannot control derivative works. This is because the GPL has regulated my behavior. It forces me to grant the rights I received with the GPL to anyone who receives my code which contains GPL'd parts.
Scenario two, I have a piece of code I own the copyright to. I find some applicable code on the net which claims to be under the BSD license. I incorporate it into my code. Since the BSD license does NOT require me to release my derivative work under the BSD license, I can release the code under any license I want, including not granting rights the GPL would grant.
Now, taking scenario two further to line up with SCO: let's say I am notified that the code I added was actually not legitimately BSD license, because an employee without the rights to do so 'released' it without permission of the owner (his employer). My code is 'tainted' by virtue of that persons copyright. I cannot release it in any form because it would constitute a derivative work. If I released it already, I have to desist. The people I released it to gained no rights in the code I released because the rights weren't actually mine to give. Now, I can go back and REMOVE that code, however, because I still own the copyright on my own code, and I can then distribute my work again, without the tainted code. In other words, the taint does not irrevocably stain MY code.
If you're saying that if I release something under GPL, I can still later release a derivative work not under the GPL, that's true. The portions which are the original are still covered by the GPL from my GPL release, but I can do new work and release proprietary derivatives.
Repeat after me: the GPL is an EXCEPTION to US and world copyright rules. It lets the receiver of the code do MORE than they could do if there was no GPL and the code was just copyrighted normally. The GPL adds no laws or anything and is entirely based on copyright. If copyright was repealed the GPL would be meaningless and you could do anything with the code.
The first part of this is true with any software license. Copyright always protects the code, and barring an agreement, you have no rights to it whatsoever. Only the author do
A lot of the early bugs have been dealt with, and record companies say they will continue to roll out new copy-protected discs and offer online downloads that expire after a few listens based on the latest DRM systems.
And consumers will continue to buy less and less music. You have to love the recording industry; they're probably the only group that constantly FUDs itself.
Let's assume that SCO owned the RCU code in question. Not just via IBM. They reveal the code; all derivatives of linux containing it are tainted. It is now longer legal to distribute those distributions or version of the source. The next day, Linus replaces that RCU code with a new implementation which does the same thing but is not copyrighted.
SCO now has the marvelous ability to block a subset of old kernel versions from being distributed. It does not help them, it does not matter to linux.
The GPL is viral because when you incorporate anything GPL and then redistribute, your whole work is then irrevocably GPL. But copyright is not that way; if you incorporate a piece of copyrighted code and distribute, you may have violated a copyright, and there may be rights to damages and injunctions against distribution of that product, but that doesn't give the owned of the copied code a right to all the other code. You remove that code, you're good to go again. In other words; it is possible to 'remove' a copyright derivative-work taint by removing the portions that are derivative. It is not possible to do the same with the GPL once you've released code, because the license terms for the GPL stipulate that you MUST license the work as a whole to those you distribute it to.
This is pretty much like the BSD dispute. "Yes, these 10 lines are stolen." "ok, we removed them." "Er, ok, thanks."
I've spent four months working for a client. Their previous programmer was a college student who worked on the cheap and programmed their app over a summer. Then he vanished, and left behind a gruesome, tangled, undocumented mess, which they've spent thousands and thousands of dollars 'keeping up' with consultants who actually started to avoid taking their work because they didn't want to touch it.
I came in and replaced it whole; I was neither fast, nor cheap, but everything works as it should. The application is now far faster, far easier for follow for another consultant, and far more extendable and interoperable. And I won't disappear when they need support for it because I change careers or need to go back to school.
Now, I was partial to younger people myself, but that tended to be because the older people I was encountering:
(1) Were totally ignorant of new technology. When you're apply for a job coding C, C++, Java, etc, I really couldn't care how good you were with COBOL. Seriously.
(2) Had know-it-all-attitudes. We had enough young know it alls without older knowitalls -- especially ones that didn't. Hint: don't let your insecurity cause you to try to hide what ignorance you DO have with arrogance. That doesn't help.
(3) Were slow. Drink a lot of caffeine before you interview or something. If a company is fast-paced, people hiring want to see it. I would never judge on age, but the older candidates did often come in, and their stories were punctuated with long sighs, and they leisurely crossed their legs and gestured softly and made me feel like they felt they had seen it all before and were beyond it. Denied. If you've got energy, show it. Get excited. Just because you're 30, 40, or more doesn't mean you can't look at something new with a child's (or a 21 year olds, if there's a difference;)) eyes.
Despite this generality, we did hire some of the older crowd; but they got paid more and did less than the younger generation. However, I was glad to have them around. They were great at putting on smaller tasks that required meticulous precision with good documentation -- in other words, if they lacked in speed, they gained in wisdom.
That said, I think the wave of the future in tech is contract-to-hire. It's better for employers (weed out the cruft) AND for employees (you get to prove your worth BEFORE they offer you money, so they're more likely to pay you want you deman than let you go). And with that sort of arrangement, the proof is in the pudding.
Slashdot Mirror
Even on a far more secure box, you'd be a fool to trust the package. It will be assembled off the server, however, and signed by a maintainer. So don't trust the package -- trust the maintainer sig. Which means you need the key way ahead of time, so you know the key wasn't just replaced along with the package.
The author is wrong, because there is no lock-in effect. Ebay, which is cited as an example, has a lock-in effect because with buyers and sellers, each additional buyer or seller increases the total pool available to each other. Ebay creates the lock-in effect by acting as a middle-man.
There is no such lock-in effect for a filesharing service. A company like google can simple mass-burn CDs, or auto-download mp3s from elsewhere on the net and analyze them automatically for quality. If they can put catalogs online by the hundreds or thousands, they can certainly manage mp3s, given they are fully digital.
An example of a company that DOES have a lock-in effect is Lending Tree. Again, like Ebay, they act as a middle man, in this case between lenders and loan consumers. The more banks they have, the more choices consumers have and the more likely they are to want to see LT's deals. The more consumers they have, the more potential business that pool represents, and so they are more likely to attract banks. (And that's why they were bought out, since it was becoming clear they had passed the critical mass point for that lock-in effect)
There is no middle-man after compulsory licensing. There will be some services will all music on them. You'll D/L whatever you want. So it's traditional competition to attract customers.
I think it might be time to go digging for the redhat installer version which had Redneck as a language choice. Go easter eggs!
"Y'all sure ya be wantin' to be overwritin' them thar partitions? Y'all won't be gittin' much data back off 'em after."
First, this is more like because there's a terrorist in a town 30 miles from you, the military parks a tank in your living room until that terrorist moves out of state.
/10 as my ISP happens to have a similar name to my ISP. (the spammer was once a customer of my ISP; they spammed, they were removed. They moved across town to ISP #2, and continued to spam. But customer name and my ISP name are highly similar. Spews concludes they are the same company, despite NO evidence but the name. Result: my ISP is permanently blacklisted on spews because of a spammer that is NOT on their network). Both sets of IPs -- my ISPs and the spammer's new ISP -- are in the same evidence file, and my ISP continues to look 'fresh' as a spammer because of activity on the other net.
Second, were you aware that by consuming fossil fuels, you are funneling money the middle east, which produces almost all terrorist threats to the United States? That's supporting terrorism. I don't see you volunteering to stop buying fossil fuels until the OPEC countries clean up their terrorist problem.
Third, the idea behind spam prevention is to make email MORE USEFUL for legitimate users. SPEWs does not meet that criteria, because it causes more problems for legitimate users than gain. Moreover, it hides the true cost because few people are fully aware of what spews is doing and why. Even most email admins using spews are NOT AWARE of how it operates. They should publish their philosophy everywhere related to it. If every SPEWS doc had said, "We block enormous blocks of legitimate users, trying to use collateral damage to force ISPs to take action against their tiny fraction of spamming users", SPEWs would be irrelevant today.
Finally, spews is horribly non-responsive and error prone. I still have a colocated server blocked because some ISP on a block that's not even in the same
A better analogy would be would I be upset if, say, everyone in my apartment complex was arrested because one islamic terrorist lived there and was arrested. Yes, I'd be upset. Horrified at the injustice, really. In other words, it would be just like I feel about SPEWS listings affected a hundred times as many legitimate servers as they do actual spammers.
Although the vast majority is filtered, I get as many as 2000 spams per day, personally (the downside to having the same email for 8 years). And I am NOT sorry to see SPEWS go. There's no question SPEWS was effective at getting spammers kicked off their networks. Likewise, arresting everyone in a town every time a crime was committed would probably be effective at stopping crime. That doesn't mean it is a good idea. When a blackhole list has something like a 100:1 legit-mai:spam ratio for blocked messages, the ends no longer justifies the means, in my book. I've had more legitimate mail blocked to or from me or companies I've administered servers for by SPEWS than any other cause in the past few years.
Now, let's continue to turn our attention towards methods of stopping spam that don't involve dropping 100x as much legitimate mail.
I would love to hear the answer from a lawyer. Let's say the requirements of the GPL are, for one reason or another, held unlawful. Would that mean that anyone using GPL code would lose the benefit of the agreement? It seems preposterous that in the era of insane shrink-wrap license agreements, where you have to commit your pets and small children to research by aliens in order to use a calculator program, that something as simple as the GPL could be shot down. But if it were, would that leave code licensed so far under the GPL as freeware, or as code without any license that it would become illegal to copy?
From the press release:
Regarding Patent Accusations
SCO has shipped these products for many years, in some cases for nearly two decades, and this is the first time that IBM has ever raised an issue about patent infringement in these products.
Okay, work with us, here, SCO. What might have changed recently that would cause IBM to want to enforce their patent portfolio? Hmm.... could it be.... wait! You sued them for $3B! That must be it!
You better hope you haven't infringed in the past 6 years. There's no such thing as patent dilution, and they can sue just you if they want to. (Go IBM!)
Freudian slip, or something. Code...code...code...just can't get it out of my head. :D
Sorry, but how is this different from ANY operating system? Or any technology? What's to stop someone from claiming that your car infringes on their patent -- for something -- and you need to pay $99 to continue to legally drive it?
Also, the fact is, copyright violations would not affect consumer embedded devices. The manufacturer does the copying when the manufacture the device. At that point, you're sold the device and are using it. The person or organization doing the copying is liable; not you.
You're always at risk of IP violations possibly affecting your product. But with Linux, the people doing the violating usually don't own most of the code anyhow! If a company like SCO, with its feeble market cap, were to violate someone's IP, it would be the end of SCO. Their IP would be sold or passed to whoever won a judgement against them for a significant amount, because they would be unable to pay. Even if SCO were to prevail, the offending source would be removed, and since the vast majority of code is still copyright the original authors, it is still available under the GPL and can be re-assembled into a SCO-free version of Linux. So Linux will survive regardless, specifically BECAUSE no one owns the IP -- no commercial company can make that claim.
If SCO is successful in establishing its claims, "Linux would die," said Haff. But he doesn't expect that will happen.
Uh, wrong. If SCO proves their IP was misappropriated, it will be immediately removed from the kernel, and replaced with non-infringing code, and linux will go on. Regardless of who they sue for infringement, they'll have to reveal WHAT was infringed to pursue it legally, and if there's ANY merit to their claim, it will be instantly rectified. And let's be honest: SCO knows this. Otherwise they'd release the purported infringement. If it's floating around in the linux kernel, it's not like it can be "covered up" as SCO says. (I nominate the idea of a community of a million users sweeping millions upon millions of copies of kernel source code "under the rug" for completely absurd notion of the decode)
There's a lot of funny stuff that could happen here, but I don't see how in anyone's wildest dreams that the "end of linux" is part of it.
I'd say it's time for the esteemed Attourney General John Ashcroft to prosecute SCO and its executives for Racketeering. In the 20s, they used guns. In this century, they use unsubstantiated IP claims. But either way, they're demanding 'protection money' they aren't entitled to. Maybe we can re-open Alcatraz and put Darl there as a tourist attraction.
Barnes expressed some concern about a possible lawsuit but was confident that "more likely they will probably come out with a cease and desist order" to stop him sharing music files on the Internet.
"I think they're trying to scare people," Barnes said.
And it IS going to be pretty scary when they bankrupt you and all the other users.
The first politician to run on a more enlightened IP platform (more fair use, stricter patent rules, etc), will get my vote and my dollars. Let's hope someone steps up. I guess in the mean time, I'll just have to set my donations to Boucher.
-1, Clueless.
You should try actually reading the book before you speak in platitudes. I started Exodus's Managed Security Services group, which had thousands of firewalls under management when I left. Despite this book being published in 1994, it remained my #1 recommended reading on the topic of network security, right up until the end my time there in 2001. The principles are timeless, and for the discerning reader, they transcend firewall brands, configuration recommendations, or changes in protocols. It is a book about security principles, how layers of security interoperate, how human error and fallacy can wreck the best-designed security measures, and so on.
You'd be well advised to read it.
Trying to say that this book is not insightful because "security changes every day" is like trying to say that Knuth's Art of Computer Programming is not insightful because programming languages change all the time.
Eddard Stark isn't objectionably passive; he's a man whose projects his own sense of duty onto others, and as such he is unable to anticipate the depth of treachery and intrigue going on around him. Also, I thought he was truly the focus of the first book. The tension at court when he goes to act as Robert's Hand is palpable, and if I had any frustration it was that that plot line wasn't focused on enough -- or that I couldn't scream at Eddard and clue him in.
It's funny that you call Daenerys passive, because of what she goes through in later books; not at all passive. Catelyn is an emotional mother; what can you do?
Tyrion _is_ very unsympathetic in Game, which makes it all the more dramatic when he almost seems the 'hero' in a later book. That's what amazed me most about the series is how many layers of interaction there are, and how your perception of the characters changes so dramatically from book to book.
Everyone I know uses mutt, because Pine is a slow-ass memory hog.
Just wondering... will the 3rd party support provide patches? Because this is why when the support EOL comes, you're better off with OSS. You'll always have the source; and with the sort of size of even the NT4 community, there'd be no problem finding patches.
First off, inserting 500 lines of incompatibly licensed code into your work is pretty damn willful.
/. has a lot of push-button GPL warriors that want to play terminology police. Apparently if you call it 'viral' or 'restrictive', you must be part of some enemy GPL-hating camp. Whatever. It's true: the GPL is viral. It was meant to be. That's why there's an LGPL, in fact, because some people wanted to lessen those restrictions.
I didn't say it wasn't willful. But that's neither here nor there. If you want to incorporate GPL source into your own code and release your code, the GPL forces you to release your code under the GPL to do so. To phrase it another way, you could say, "The GPL permits you to release combined source containing your own code and GPL code if you agree to license the complete work under the GPL." In either sense, the net effect is the same. The GPL is a great tool for doing what it's intended to do; stopping people from building on the source code that is free, and making derivatives unfree. If that's what you want, the GPL is great for it, and I'm happy for everyone who opts to use it.
Correctemundo! He who writes the code chooses the license. If you don't like the license then don't use the code.
I was never whining about the GPL. But apparently
The problem here is that SCO needs to rewrite history to get what they want.
SCO is on crack on so many levels, we needn't even touch that. And in fact, the point of my original post in this thread was simply that even IF all SCO alleged were true, it's still irrelevent to linux as a whole. Linux removes the offending code, and life goes on. The poster seemed to think that the fact that misappropriated code made its way into the kernel might give the owner of that code some nebulous rights to the whole codebase. Not so; they can only stop derivates which contain their code.
But please, no whinging because someone else's hard work is commercially useless to you.
What piece of code did I complain about? I'm not whining, and there's no hard work I somehow want to be mine. And, in fact, I've given away code in the past of my own, and been happy to give something back.
The exact same thing would happen if you released your code public domain.
And did I ever say it wouldn't? My original post was discussing the fact that just because SCO's code somehow made it into the kernel, doesn't mean they can control derivatives of ALL the code, only branches containing their copyrighted code (assuming it is theirs, and their own linux distribution ends up being non-binding because of the circumstances).
And don't you dare say you are "forced to grant the rights to your code to anybody" by the GPL.
Why not? In order to use GPL code in your code, yo must release the complete work as GPL. It forces you to; it is a requirement. Yes, you can obviously not use it.
Many people are confused because most source code
Okay, well, I'm not at all confused. I hope you've enjoyed your crusade to 'educate' me, or whatever, but about the only point you've made is that you don't like my terminology. Whether you view it as permissive or restrictive depends on what you want to do with it. Clearly, any code the GPL code comes in contact with must become GPL to be released; just as any cell a virus comes in contact with becomes a host for viral production. Thus, the GPL is viral. I don't really say that in a bad way, because personally, I like having lots of GPL software available, and I view it as an awesome tool for people who put time and effort into code and want to avoid people misappropriating it for their own gain. That said, stop being a terminology nazi and go try to write some code.
WRONG!!!!! When are people going to stop this FUD. You still own the copyright to your original work even after you distribute it under the GPL. If you removed the other GPL code from it you could then distribute the portion that is left (the part you wrote) under any rules you want.
First: deep breath. Hand off the exclamation key. Ah! Ah! I saw that. Ok, now:
If I write 10,000 lines of proprietary code, and then take a 500 line chunk of GPL'd code, say, and insert it, and then distribute the whole 10,500 as a complete work, all 10,500 lines is now released to the world under the GPL. Anyone who gets a copy has all the rights the GPL grants them; rights I was forced, by the GPL, to grant them, by virtue of using GPL code.
Yes, I do still own the copyright to my work. I can, in fact, release the work under another more or restrictive license. But I can never retrieve the code I have released under GPL. The GPL does not leave a choice; if you use GPL code, then the complete work that it is used in can only be released as GPL code as well. Otherwise you have no rights to the GPL code under the GPL license.
Please explain clearly why you think removing the GPL portions does not do the same thing. Don't give me any bullshit about people already having the code, that is true of your copyright example as well. If they did not break into your office and steal it, you have already granted them rights to use the code, by giving it to them, it does not matter if you said it was GPL or not.
I'm not quite sure I even understand what you're asking here. Let's just examine the two scenarios, however:
Scenario one, I incoroprate some GPL code into my own software which I hold the copyright on, and I release it. My software can now be redistributed under GPL, modified, and further redistributed, etc. I cannot control derivative works. This is because the GPL has regulated my behavior. It forces me to grant the rights I received with the GPL to anyone who receives my code which contains GPL'd parts.
Scenario two, I have a piece of code I own the copyright to. I find some applicable code on the net which claims to be under the BSD license. I incorporate it into my code. Since the BSD license does NOT require me to release my derivative work under the BSD license, I can release the code under any license I want, including not granting rights the GPL would grant.
Now, taking scenario two further to line up with SCO: let's say I am notified that the code I added was actually not legitimately BSD license, because an employee without the rights to do so 'released' it without permission of the owner (his employer). My code is 'tainted' by virtue of that persons copyright. I cannot release it in any form because it would constitute a derivative work. If I released it already, I have to desist. The people I released it to gained no rights in the code I released because the rights weren't actually mine to give. Now, I can go back and REMOVE that code, however, because I still own the copyright on my own code, and I can then distribute my work again, without the tainted code. In other words, the taint does not irrevocably stain MY code.
If you're saying that if I release something under GPL, I can still later release a derivative work not under the GPL, that's true. The portions which are the original are still covered by the GPL from my GPL release, but I can do new work and release proprietary derivatives.
Repeat after me: the GPL is an EXCEPTION to US and world copyright rules. It lets the receiver of the code do MORE than they could do if there was no GPL and the code was just copyrighted normally. The GPL adds no laws or anything and is entirely based on copyright. If copyright was repealed the GPL would be meaningless and you could do anything with the code.
The first part of this is true with any software license. Copyright always protects the code, and barring an agreement, you have no rights to it whatsoever. Only the author do
Nope. But it's my wife's store, and she spends too much time running it to actually enjoy the hobby. Heh.
A lot of the early bugs have been dealt with, and record companies say they will continue to roll out new copy-protected discs and offer online downloads that expire after a few listens based on the latest DRM systems.
And consumers will continue to buy less and less music. You have to love the recording industry; they're probably the only group that constantly FUDs itself.
The last line should be:
Dr. Evil: "You have *100 DAYS* to make your decision!" Laugh, laugh.
Let's assume that SCO owned the RCU code in question. Not just via IBM. They reveal the code; all derivatives of linux containing it are tainted. It is now longer legal to distribute those distributions or version of the source. The next day, Linus replaces that RCU code with a new implementation which does the same thing but is not copyrighted.
SCO now has the marvelous ability to block a subset of old kernel versions from being distributed. It does not help them, it does not matter to linux.
The GPL is viral because when you incorporate anything GPL and then redistribute, your whole work is then irrevocably GPL. But copyright is not that way; if you incorporate a piece of copyrighted code and distribute, you may have violated a copyright, and there may be rights to damages and injunctions against distribution of that product, but that doesn't give the owned of the copied code a right to all the other code. You remove that code, you're good to go again. In other words; it is possible to 'remove' a copyright derivative-work taint by removing the portions that are derivative. It is not possible to do the same with the GPL once you've released code, because the license terms for the GPL stipulate that you MUST license the work as a whole to those you distribute it to.
This is pretty much like the BSD dispute. "Yes, these 10 lines are stolen." "ok, we removed them." "Er, ok, thanks."
I've spent four months working for a client. Their previous programmer was a college student who worked on the cheap and programmed their app over a summer. Then he vanished, and left behind a gruesome, tangled, undocumented mess, which they've spent thousands and thousands of dollars 'keeping up' with consultants who actually started to avoid taking their work because they didn't want to touch it.
;)) eyes.
I came in and replaced it whole; I was neither fast, nor cheap, but everything works as it should. The application is now far faster, far easier for follow for another consultant, and far more extendable and interoperable. And I won't disappear when they need support for it because I change careers or need to go back to school.
Now, I was partial to younger people myself, but that tended to be because the older people I was encountering:
(1) Were totally ignorant of new technology. When you're apply for a job coding C, C++, Java, etc, I really couldn't care how good you were with COBOL. Seriously.
(2) Had know-it-all-attitudes. We had enough young know it alls without older knowitalls -- especially ones that didn't. Hint: don't let your insecurity cause you to try to hide what ignorance you DO have with arrogance. That doesn't help.
(3) Were slow. Drink a lot of caffeine before you interview or something. If a company is fast-paced, people hiring want to see it. I would never judge on age, but the older candidates did often come in, and their stories were punctuated with long sighs, and they leisurely crossed their legs and gestured softly and made me feel like they felt they had seen it all before and were beyond it. Denied. If you've got energy, show it. Get excited. Just because you're 30, 40, or more doesn't mean you can't look at something new with a child's (or a 21 year olds, if there's a difference
Despite this generality, we did hire some of the older crowd; but they got paid more and did less than the younger generation. However, I was glad to have them around. They were great at putting on smaller tasks that required meticulous precision with good documentation -- in other words, if they lacked in speed, they gained in wisdom.
That said, I think the wave of the future in tech is contract-to-hire. It's better for employers (weed out the cruft) AND for employees (you get to prove your worth BEFORE they offer you money, so they're more likely to pay you want you deman than let you go). And with that sort of arrangement, the proof is in the pudding.