"62% said they had accessed another person's computer without permission, 50% read confidential or sensitive information without a legitimate reason"
I find it worrisome that such a large percentage of out IT workforce is so cavalier about ethics and privacy. I'll ignore the intentional violations of security policy because much of they MIGHT be attributed to one-off circumventions in order to get a necessary job done. It is curious that so many would find snooping such a permissible activity. A professional code of ethics isn't necessary here, these people simply have little ethics at all if they will "snoop" through private or sensitive information simply because they can.
This just highlights yet another area where our society has lost its moral compass. This isn't merely a problem in IT, and there is no need for a "professional" code of ethics. This is something that all people should share. We shouldn't need a document spelling out "don't go snooping around you neighbour's things for no reason.
Yes, using an affirmative defense might be costly, if you are sued, but a company will generally not bring suit when the particular use has long been established under fair use.
If I place an entire album on my blog and then include two sentences about it, that really isn't fair use when the length of the "commentary" is significantly shorter than the excerpted work and has little relevance.
Defining fair use as a right would require too strict a codification, as it might be valid for someone to take a documentary by Michael Moore and add commentary to the entire work, and action which may be a fair use. That would have to codified as a right.
Before using a copyrighted work, one should consider whether the use fair or not. And if you can find a lawyer worth his salt if sued, you'll recoup your legal cost from the plaintiff.
Apple's stock is actually up, though marginally right now, so investors don't seem to worried about this.
My guess is that NBC Universal are trying to get a better deal, so they are "announcing" that the contract is dead. Now they'll spend the next several months hammering out a new deal with Apple and there wil be an announcement sometime in November that the NBC/Apple deal is back on.
iTunes is a behemoth of digital media downloads. Downloads are a great way to get more viewers to new shows, especially with the new trend towards serialized shows. Until NBC actually pulls its content in December, don't believe it is going to happen. If they really wanted out, they'd have found a way top pull them now.
I mean really, how many users, without super-computer-competant friends, actually upgrade their base OS?
I have upgraded my version of MacOS a twice, but I am a top end user. The Macs my parents own haven't been upgraded in quite some time. In the time that I owned Windows PCs, I didn't upgraded th eOS, I got a new PC. This seems the way it has been with most of the average users that I know. They use the same version of OS that was installed and use it for a few years until the whole machine needs to be replace and they replace the whole lot.
In that sense, the OS is always free because they never made a line item payment for the OS on purchase, and never upgraded the machine they originally purchased. People don't choose Linux because it requires them to do something other than plug the box in. Unless they special order something, but your local big box generally offers PCs with Windows.
On privacy and other matters
on
Manhattan 1984
·
· Score: 1
You can complain all you want about the privacy issues, but The Framers could never envision a world where traffic snarled a major city. The trade off here is your privacy(marginally) for the right to do something that you shouldn't be doing in the first place, namely driving in a city.
I am going to generalize and say that more than half of the people that drive into downtown areas like Chicago, or Manhattan, or London, or Paris do so because they are vain and want people to know that they have cars. Or they are to uppity to use public transportation. The simple fact that our world is too bloody crowded with worthless automobiles driven by people who don't need them. I recently saw a guy argue with a delivery truck driver over a minor scratch on the bumper of his Mercedes. Here is some news, if you park on a city street, expect your car to bumped, dinged and scratched. Don't spend several times more than an average person's annual salary on a motorcar and then complain about the minor fraction of your weekly income that it'll cost to get it repainted because you are shallow, vain, SOB.
Congestion charges and their assocciated privacy issues ought to make people think twice about whether or not they actually need to drive somewhere. Maybe if more people would be worried about whether or not they actually needed to drive somewhere rather than if their driving habits are being monitored, we'd all be better off.
And by the way, you don't have any reasonable right to privacy in a public place. Most American guarantees of privacy center on whether the government may arbitrarily delve into your private doings. Using a PUBLIC motorway is not PRIVATE act. A private act is scratching your nose on your couch, not getting into a publicly registered vehicle, using a public motorway and driving amongst the general public.
If the thing runs on Linux and uses other GPL code, can we expect that RMS and the EFF will be hounding the miniOne developers to comply with the GPL and release the source code and allow the device to run modified code?
The article didn't tell me where I could find the source for the GPL code used on the device.
Everything you learn in an "IT" programme you can learn by getting a CS degree. The real, practical difference is that, with a CS degree, you'll know
why you are choosing certain solutions.
I've worked with a great deal of people whose education is some kind of IT programme and they are limited in their ability to understand the underlying reasons behind what is happening with their systems. With a CS degree, you can also move between an software development career and an IT career if you decide. Very few of the "IT" folks that I have known are capable of writing large scale, efficient code. There is a tremendous difference between writing a shell script to automate an rsync process and writing an application designed to analyze several million tuples of data.
Slashdot is not a journalism site, it is an aggregator. The important thing to note about The outrage over AllofMp3 being shutdown and the actions of the RIAA is that many people believe that the most valid form of protest against an industry and its actions is to commit some kind of "theft" against the industry rather than engaging in a real boycott. To a great part of the community seemingly represented on slashdot, a complete boycott of the major labels supporting the RIAA is too inconvenient, so they redefine their illegal or quasi-legal actions as a kind of protest.
I love that you hit the nail by noting that many belive that copyright infringement is not stealing, even though the end effect is the same.
I've been saying it for weeks, and I still don't understand why just having the source isn't enough.
The requirements of the GPL have been to release the source, and TiVo has done so, and I assume Apple has done so for whatever GPL software they have modified.
I don't understand why these companies need to be forced to open their platforms to arbitrary development. This is a question that ought to be left up to the market decide whether such a model is viable. The devices don't take away anyone's freedom because those that want the freedom to run arbitrary software should simply not purchase them.
The source is more valuable than the device, the source will include any novel changes and can be rebuilt to run a platform of the user's choosing. Why the FSF can't reconcile itself that TiVo, Apple, et al are still contributing back to the community regardless of thestate of the devices they produce.
Copyright infringement limits the ability of the content owner to receive compensation for his work. Even though nothing physical is taken in the act, the result is the same and, in such instances, can be considered a proper analog for theft.
It is all well and good to deny that copyright infringement is not theft and hide behind a naive technicality in order to continue to be in the wrong.
By your logic, were I to acquire your credit card and purchase items, I am not committing theft because i never actually took anything from you and never intended to permanently deprive you of the use of any property.
Re:tivoisation
on
GPLv3 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
First, the relevant text:
A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product, doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular product received by a particular user, "normally used" refers to a typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product.
"Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).
The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a network may be denied when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network.
Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented (and with an implementation available to the public in source code form), and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying.
I have a problem with this for multiple reasons. First, the license makes a clear distinction between products for a home and a business. If freedom is the essence of the GPL, this clause is the antithesis of that. By making the distinction, since the specification of a user product provides a way to classify a non-user product, the license admits that practice is a valid one. If the practice has some validity, then the license should err on the side of more freedom by allowing the practice generally, or the license should not allow for the practice at all. Again, the GPL is aimed at freedom, and this freedom ought to extend to all users, as has been its application. The cost of "tivoization" needs to be considered as a by product of freedom. By not applying the freedom equally and targetting one behavior while simultaneous admitting that a similar behavior is within the bounds of the license, the FSF is no longer supporting true freedom.
My second issue regarding the anti-tivoization clause is simply that there has been no sufficient argument made that the practice actually harms anyone. With the source available, users are free to build there own versions that are not closed and will run any arbitrary code.
With no proof of real harm, and a license clause that contradicts the aims of RMS and
What if said hardware was proprietary and only available through the systems provider? What then?
There should be no expectation that a manufacturer make its hardware available for third party development. Proprietary systems have there drawbacks, but they are a fact of life. If one has an issue with the fact that a given consumer device is a closed platform, one ought not purchase the device. This ought to be how the issue of so-called Tivoization ought to be decided, by making the business model non-viable for the company, not some poorly constructed, arbitrarily defined licensing scheme that restricts only the freedom of some, and not all. The fact that there is a "commercial device" exception indicates that the case for so-called Tivoization has a valid application and should therefore be allowed. Banning the practice for "consumer devices" is simply an arbitrary confinement of freedom that is a slippery slope.
Again, the quandry should not arise because those who even care about being able to run aribtrary code on the device would not buy it in the first place, and would therefore not be harmed.
I think that is a great sentiment, but the mere fact that you release the source to world means that someone is going to make a buck off of it.
One thing that I truly don't understand about certain provisions of the GPL is why the punitive, capricious actions are necessary.
If somebody chooses to make a buck from your work, without letting you make changes in a specific environment, so what? Why not create an environment of your own in which to run the software. A lot of people are very quick to create emulators for all manner of game systems in order to play and trade them in some kind of legal gray area. Where are the emulators/HowTos for running the software from these "closed" systems?
The phrase "If they want to lock the code down.." makes it sound as if you have no access to the code or the ability to create your own system. To think that code you release will only be used as you see fit is naive at best. The fact that you release code "into the wild" ought to imply that you reccognize that someone else may want to make a few dollars from it. If you don't like this, release it under a more restrive license.
With GPLv3, the RMS community seems to have taken a kind of punitive actions merely because their world-concept of "freedom" doesn't match reality and, rather than accepting this reality, they seek to make so-called "free" software less free.
There irs nothing wrong with commercial motivation, and like or not, this world is better, on balance, due to profit motives. I would like to see a clear, concise explanation as to how companies like TiVo have harmed the OSS community.
I can modify the software, but I can't run the modified software. That makes the ability to modify it moot.
I disagree, the ability to read the code and to modify it provides a great deal of value. Were I to wish to do something simliar, but with added features, I could start from what TiVo has already done and improve upon it. I am still free to compile the TiVo code for whatever system I have on hand.
Were I to create some novel piece of hardware that runs Linux, would similar reasoning lead to the assumption that I must provide the hardware?
Let's say that a company uses OSS to create some kind of novel algorithm, but the code is written specifically for an in-house piece of hardware that is not sold. Would it be the intent of the GPL that this company should provide the harware to the community because the software running on it is so novel and useful? I realize the the GPL would not require this fictional company to release code that it is not distributing it, but if the GPL requirements extend to hardware, and this company is using this software and hardware to run a back-end web system, where does one draw the line?
Better yet, when will "the community" demand that the ability to RUN the modified code is also a requirement of the GPL?
But you can modify the software. That is why I don't understand the argument. The source is available as required by the license, so why is the closed box a problem? Sure TiVo is missing out people b eing able to do interesting things with there devices like the Linsys WRT, but isn't that really TiVo's loss?
Shouldn't the market decide whether a closed hardware system is viable or not?
As to the claim that the security argument is moot, The fact that my box is verified before it gets information is precisely the problem. A savvy code may be able to find ways to exploit TiVo's system because the users device is implicitly trusted. The proper use of functions like fgets() is lacking in this world, as evidenced by the infinite number buffer overflow/code injection exploits you find. It might be weak, but I don't need to justify any explanation when I don't agree that the complaint is valid.
I am curious as to why I can't seem to find a pre-configured MythTV system anywhere, at least not in the first page of Google hits.
If MythTV is so great, how come no one has built a company around providing MythTV for a fee? I have no interest in rolling my own because my TiVo provides all of the features that I need with none of the hassle. Certainly, If MORE features were available, I'd be interested.
Can MythTV work with CableCards? Why doesn't someone produce these things commercially? BTW, I am going to patent, copyright, and trademark this idea, so if anyone does do it, I am going sue, sue, sue.
The whole argument over who skips commercials better is moot at best.
Commercials are going to be a thing of the past, at least commercials as we have grown used to them. As DVRs become more ingrained, advertisers and providers will find new ways to get the message across, ways that blend the content with the message. We are probably a couple of years away from a real change in how "Commercials" are shown on TV.
I'll submit that what you indicate about the "Four Freedoms is true, but that does not change the fact the GPL, at least in v2, does not prohibit closing hardware.
I have not investigated it too much, but I would assume that one could assemble the proper hardware and build his own system based off of TiVo code, no? I haven't seen any real argument against this so-called "tivoization" that makes a clear demonstration of how it damages "the community". TiVo has produced its code and made it readily available to anyone that wants it, in keeping with what is specified in the license.
If TiVo prevents one from being able to make use of their code due to specialized hardware that is not available on the open market, then i think that there is an argument against "tivoization", but if the argument is merely that the hardware Tivo sells will only run a signed version of the code, then I think that the argument is specious at best.
Personally, I believe that GPLv3 is more effective in removing freedoms. There are a host of reasons why hardware should only run a signed version of an OS. Perhaps TiVo wants to try and guarantee that their network won't be infiltrated via a TiVo box. By requiring signed code, they ensure that no one will be able to code some kind of trojan or virus into a TiVo box that can cause harm to TiVo's infrastructure. Theft of service is another. By using GPL code with the requirement to release such, TiVo is well aware that the most minor security flaw could be exploitable, and the best protection is to clode oneself off to the outside, which TiVo has done.
I just don't see the logic behind requiring that the hardware be required to run any old thing when the hardware is covered by the GPL. The anti-tivoization clause just seems to me to be the kind of capricious action of someone who can't get what he wants and so changes the rules.
I have read the GPL, and I find nothing that specifically bars me from creating hardware to run only a specific derivative of GPL'ed work. The GPL tells me how I may redistribute code, how my changes are to be licensed, and other obligations, but I find no obligation that I provide hardware on which derivative works of my work will function.
I respectfully submit that anti-tivoization was never the intent of the GPL.
how does it affect you materially? juvenile snarky commentary about your sexuality affects you materially? are you a prostitute? if i say something negative about your tits on the internet, that's going to affect your job as a lawyer?! how?
now let's say some hypothetical retarded hiring manager is just as juvenile as one of the posters, and it DOES affected your ability to get hired at a firm
Dude, new sentences start with capital letters.
Also, we all know that hiring decisions are rarely, if ever, made solely by the hiring manager. I am sure a great number of the/. crowd has been involved in hiring decisions, interviewed candidates, and provided feedback on whether or not s candidate should be hired. I would be likely to assume that a hiring manager didn't so much take what was said in these posts, but was influenced by others that did. If a number of interviewers don't recommend the candidate, the manager is likely not to hire him or her and might be oblivious to the real reason why others don't feel said candidate to be "a good fit".
g There is a tremendous difference between posting on a message board something to the effect of "I met Chris Matthews and he is a tremndous douchebag" and writing a bloguhouot a recognizable national outlet cannot be considered as a public figure.
The definition of celebrity would need to be greatly expanded to consider Lee Kaplan a celebrity. I spend read and listen to a great deal of media criticism and I don't believe that Lee Kaplan has occurred enough to register as national figure. A Google search doesn't list a lot of general, national media outlets. I would argue that Lee Kaplan is not a public figure and therefore should be granted any and all protections aginst libel and slander.
Ypur argument would seem to indicate that in any case involving two private parties in a dispute over speech necessarily implies that the power of the government is being used, and the First Ammendment applies.
Base don your reasoning, I could sue my employer on First Ammendment grounds becasue they fired due to the fact that every fourth word out of my mouth was "fuck", or that I always wore a T-shirt claiming that the CEo was "a temendous douchebag".
The only thing wrong with your assumption is that, in my examples, the case law is firmly established in the employer's favor.
Slashdot Mirror
"62% said they had accessed another person's computer without permission, 50% read confidential or sensitive information without a legitimate reason"
I find it worrisome that such a large percentage of out IT workforce is so cavalier about ethics and privacy. I'll ignore the intentional violations of
security policy because much of they MIGHT be attributed to one-off circumventions in order to get a necessary job done. It is curious that so many would
find snooping such a permissible activity. A professional code of ethics isn't necessary here, these people simply have little ethics at all if they will
"snoop" through private or sensitive information simply because they can.
This just highlights yet another area where our society has lost its moral compass. This isn't merely a problem in IT, and there is no need for a "professional" code of ethics. This is something that all people should share. We shouldn't need a document spelling out "don't go snooping around you neighbour's things for no reason.
I know there is a Dune reference in here somewhere.
Can't seem to find the proper quote from my O.C. Bible
And I thought that future was never predictable.
Yes, using an affirmative defense might be costly, if you are sued,
but a company will generally not bring suit when the particular use
has long been established under fair use.
If I place an entire album on my blog and then include two sentences about it,
that really isn't fair use when the length of the "commentary" is significantly
shorter than the excerpted work and has little relevance.
Defining fair use as a right would require too strict a codification, as it
might be valid for someone to take a documentary by Michael Moore and add commentary
to the entire work, and action which may be a fair use. That would have to codified as a right.
Before using a copyrighted work, one should consider whether the use fair or not. And if you can find
a lawyer worth his salt if sued, you'll recoup your legal cost from the plaintiff.
Apple's stock is actually up, though marginally right now, so investors don't seem to worried about this.
My guess is that NBC Universal are trying to get a better deal, so they are "announcing" that the contract is dead.
Now they'll spend the next several months hammering out a new deal with Apple and there wil be an announcement sometime
in November that the NBC/Apple deal is back on.
iTunes is a behemoth of digital media downloads. Downloads are a great way to get more viewers to new shows, especially
with the new trend towards serialized shows. Until NBC actually pulls its content in December, don't believe it is going to happen.
If they really wanted out, they'd have found a way top pull them now.
I mean really, how many users, without super-computer-competant friends, actually upgrade their base OS?
I have upgraded my version of MacOS a twice, but I am a top end user. The Macs my parents own haven't been upgraded
in quite some time. In the time that I owned Windows PCs, I didn't upgraded th eOS, I got a new PC. This seems the
way it has been with most of the average users that I know. They use the same version of OS that was installed and use
it for a few years until the whole machine needs to be replace and they replace the whole lot.
In that sense, the OS is always free because they never made a line item payment for the OS on purchase, and never
upgraded the machine they originally purchased. People don't choose Linux because it requires them to do something
other than plug the box in. Unless they special order something, but your local big box generally offers PCs with Windows.
You can complain all you want about the privacy issues, but The Framers could never envision
a world where traffic snarled a major city. The trade off here is your privacy(marginally) for the
right to do something that you shouldn't be doing in the first place, namely driving in a city.
I am going to generalize and say that more than half of the people that drive into downtown areas like
Chicago, or Manhattan, or London, or Paris do so because they are vain and want people to know that they have
cars. Or they are to uppity to use public transportation. The simple fact that our world is too bloody crowded
with worthless automobiles driven by people who don't need them. I recently saw a guy argue with a delivery
truck driver over a minor scratch on the bumper of his Mercedes. Here is some news, if you park on a city street,
expect your car to bumped, dinged and scratched. Don't spend several times more than an average person's annual
salary on a motorcar and then complain about the minor fraction of your weekly income that it'll cost to get it
repainted because you are shallow, vain, SOB.
Congestion charges and their assocciated privacy issues ought to make people think twice about whether or not they
actually need to drive somewhere. Maybe if more people would be worried about whether or not they actually needed
to drive somewhere rather than if their driving habits are being monitored, we'd all be better off.
And by the way, you don't have any reasonable right to privacy in a public place. Most American guarantees of privacy
center on whether the government may arbitrarily delve into your private doings. Using a PUBLIC motorway is not PRIVATE
act. A private act is scratching your nose on your couch, not getting into a publicly registered vehicle, using a public
motorway and driving amongst the general public.
If the thing runs on Linux and uses other GPL code, can we expect that RMS and the EFF will be hounding the miniOne developers
to comply with the GPL and release the source code and allow the device to run modified code?
The article didn't tell me where I could find the source for the GPL code used on the device.
Everything you learn in an "IT" programme you can learn by getting a CS degree. The real, practical difference is that, with a CS degree, you'll know
why you are choosing certain solutions.
I've worked with a great deal of people whose education is some kind of IT programme and they are limited in their ability to understand the underlying
reasons behind what is happening with their systems. With a CS degree, you can also move between an software development career and an IT career
if you decide. Very few of the "IT" folks that I have known are capable of writing large scale, efficient code. There is a tremendous difference between writing
a shell script to automate an rsync process and writing an application designed to analyze several million tuples of data.
Slashdot is not a journalism site, it is an aggregator. The important thing to note about
The outrage over AllofMp3 being shutdown and the actions of the RIAA is that many people
believe that the most valid form of protest against an industry and its actions is to commit
some kind of "theft" against the industry rather than engaging in a real boycott. To a great
part of the community seemingly represented on slashdot, a complete boycott of the major labels
supporting the RIAA is too inconvenient, so they redefine their illegal or quasi-legal actions
as a kind of protest.
I love that you hit the nail by noting that many belive that copyright infringement is not stealing,
even though the end effect is the same.
I've been saying it for weeks, and I still don't understand why just having the source isn't enough.
The requirements of the GPL have been to release the source, and TiVo has done so, and I assume
Apple has done so for whatever GPL software they have modified.
I don't understand why these companies need to be forced to open their platforms to arbitrary development.
This is a question that ought to be left up to the market decide whether such a model is viable. The devices
don't take away anyone's freedom because those that want the freedom to run arbitrary software should simply
not purchase them.
The source is more valuable than the device, the source will include any novel changes and can be rebuilt to
run a platform of the user's choosing. Why the FSF can't reconcile itself that TiVo, Apple, et al are
still contributing back to the community regardless of thestate of the devices they produce.
That is a poor rhetorical trick to justify theft.
Copyright infringement limits the ability of the content owner to receive compensation for his
work. Even though nothing physical is taken in the act, the result is the same and, in such instances,
can be considered a proper analog for theft.
It is all well and good to deny that copyright infringement is not theft and hide behind a naive technicality
in order to continue to be in the wrong.
By your logic, were I to acquire your credit card and purchase items, I am not committing theft because i never actually
took anything from you and never intended to permanently deprive you of the use of any property.
First, the relevant text :
A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product, doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular product received by a particular user, "normally used" refers to a typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product.
"Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).
The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a network may be denied when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network.
Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented (and with an implementation available to the public in source code form), and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying.
I have a problem with this for multiple reasons. First, the license makes a clear distinction between products for a home and a business. If freedom is the essence of the GPL, this clause is the antithesis of that. By making the distinction, since the specification of a user product provides a way to classify a non-user product, the license admits that practice is a valid one. If the practice has some validity, then the license should err on the side of more freedom by allowing the practice generally, or the license should not allow for the practice at all. Again, the GPL is aimed at freedom, and this freedom ought to extend to all users, as has been its application. The cost of "tivoization" needs to be considered as a by product of freedom. By not applying the freedom equally and targetting one behavior while simultaneous admitting that a similar behavior is within the bounds of the license, the FSF is no longer supporting true freedom.
My second issue regarding the anti-tivoization clause is simply that there has been no sufficient argument made that the practice actually harms anyone. With the source available, users are free to build there own versions that are not closed and will run any arbitrary code.
With no proof of real harm, and a license clause that contradicts the aims of RMS and
What if said hardware was proprietary and only available through the systems provider? What then?
There should be no expectation that a manufacturer make its hardware available for third party development.
Proprietary systems have there drawbacks, but they are a fact of life. If one has an issue with the fact that a given consumer
device is a closed platform, one ought not purchase the device. This ought to be how the issue of so-called Tivoization ought
to be decided, by making the business model non-viable for the company, not some poorly constructed, arbitrarily defined licensing
scheme that restricts only the freedom of some, and not all. The fact that there is a "commercial device" exception indicates
that the case for so-called Tivoization has a valid application and should therefore be allowed. Banning the practice for
"consumer devices" is simply an arbitrary confinement of freedom that is a slippery slope.
Again, the quandry should not arise because those who even care about being able to run aribtrary code on the device would not
buy it in the first place, and would therefore not be harmed.
I think that is a great sentiment, but the mere fact that you release the source to world means that someone is going to make a buck off of it.
One thing that I truly don't understand about certain provisions of the GPL is why the punitive, capricious actions are necessary.
If somebody chooses to make a buck from your work, without letting you make changes in a specific environment, so what? Why not create an environment
of your own in which to run the software. A lot of people are very quick to create emulators for all manner of game systems in order to play and trade them in
some kind of legal gray area. Where are the emulators/HowTos for running the software from these "closed" systems?
The phrase "If they want to lock the code down.." makes it sound as if you have no access to the code or the ability to create your own system. To think that code you release
will only be used as you see fit is naive at best. The fact that you release code "into the wild" ought to imply that you reccognize that someone else may want to make a few dollars from it.
If you don't like this, release it under a more restrive license.
With GPLv3, the RMS community seems to have taken a kind of punitive actions merely because their world-concept of "freedom" doesn't match reality and, rather than accepting
this reality, they seek to make so-called "free" software less free.
There irs nothing wrong with commercial motivation, and like or not, this world is better, on balance, due to profit motives. I would like to see a clear, concise
explanation as to how companies like TiVo have harmed the OSS community.
I can modify the software, but I can't run the modified software. That makes the ability to modify it moot.
I disagree, the ability to read the code and to modify it provides a great deal of value. Were I to wish to do something simliar,
but with added features, I could start from what TiVo has already done and improve upon it. I am still free to compile the TiVo
code for whatever system I have on hand.
Were I to create some novel piece of hardware that runs Linux, would similar reasoning lead to the assumption that I must provide the hardware?
Let's say that a company uses OSS to create some kind of novel algorithm, but the code is written specifically for an in-house piece of hardware
that is not sold. Would it be the intent of the GPL that this company should provide the harware to the community because the software running
on it is so novel and useful? I realize the the GPL would not require this fictional company to release code that it is not distributing it, but if the GPL
requirements extend to hardware, and this company is using this software and hardware to run a back-end web system, where does one draw the line?
Better yet, when will "the community" demand that the ability to RUN the modified code is also a requirement of the GPL?
Who looks at ads?
I remember a time when the Internet was free of advertising. Now, I just ignore them.
But you can modify the software. That is why I don't understand the argument. The source is available as required by the license, so why is the closed box a problem?
Sure TiVo is missing out people b eing able to do interesting things with there devices like the Linsys WRT, but isn't that really TiVo's loss?
Shouldn't the market decide whether a closed hardware system is viable or not?
As to the claim that the security argument is moot, The fact that my box is verified before it gets information is precisely the problem.
A savvy code may be able to find ways to exploit TiVo's system because the users device is implicitly trusted. The proper use of functions
like fgets() is lacking in this world, as evidenced by the infinite number buffer overflow/code injection exploits you find. It might be weak, but I don't need to justify
any explanation when I don't agree that the complaint is valid.
I am curious as to why I can't seem to find a pre-configured MythTV system anywhere, at least not in the first page of Google hits.
If MythTV is so great, how come no one has built a company around providing MythTV for a fee?
I have no interest in rolling my own because my TiVo provides all of the features that I need with none of the hassle. Certainly,
If MORE features were available, I'd be interested.
Can MythTV work with CableCards?
Why doesn't someone produce these things commercially?
BTW, I am going to patent, copyright, and trademark this idea, so if anyone does do it, I am going sue, sue, sue.
The whole argument over who skips commercials better is moot at best.
Commercials are going to be a thing of the past, at least commercials as we have grown used to them.
As DVRs become more ingrained, advertisers and providers will find new ways to get the message across,
ways that blend the content with the message. We are probably a couple of years away from a real change in how
"Commercials" are shown on TV.
I'll submit that what you indicate about the "Four Freedoms is true, but that does not change the fact the GPL, at least in v2, does not prohibit closing hardware.
I have not investigated it too much, but I would assume that one could assemble the proper hardware and build his own system based off of TiVo code, no?
I haven't seen any real argument against this so-called "tivoization" that makes a clear demonstration of how it damages "the community". TiVo has produced its
code and made it readily available to anyone that wants it, in keeping with what is specified in the license.
If TiVo prevents one from being able to make use of their code due to specialized hardware that is not available on the open market, then i think that there is an argument
against "tivoization", but if the argument is merely that the hardware Tivo sells will only run a signed version of the code, then I think that the argument is specious at best.
Personally, I believe that GPLv3 is more effective in removing freedoms. There are a host of reasons why hardware should only run a signed version of an OS.
Perhaps TiVo wants to try and guarantee that their network won't be infiltrated via a TiVo box. By requiring signed code, they ensure that no one will be able to code some kind of trojan or virus into a TiVo box that can cause harm to TiVo's infrastructure. Theft of service is another. By using GPL code with the requirement to release such, TiVo is well aware that the most minor security flaw could be exploitable, and the best protection is to clode oneself off to the outside, which TiVo has done.
I just don't see the logic behind requiring that the hardware be required to run any old thing when the hardware is covered by the GPL. The anti-tivoization clause just seems to me to be the kind of capricious action of someone who can't get what he wants and so changes the rules.
Was that merely the intent or the actual terms.
I have read the GPL, and I find nothing that specifically bars me from creating hardware to run only a specific derivative
of GPL'ed work. The GPL tells me how I may redistribute code, how my changes are to be licensed, and other obligations, but I find no obligation that I provide hardware on which derivative works of my work will function.
I respectfully submit that anti-tivoization was never the intent of the GPL.
how does it affect you materially? juvenile snarky commentary about your sexuality affects you materially? are you a prostitute? if i say something negative about your tits on the internet, that's going to affect your job as a lawyer?! how?
/. crowd has been involved in hiring decisions,
now let's say some hypothetical retarded hiring manager is just as juvenile as one of the posters, and it DOES affected your ability to get hired at a firm
Dude, new sentences start with capital letters.
Also, we all know that hiring decisions are rarely, if ever, made solely by the hiring manager. I am sure a great number of the
interviewed candidates, and provided feedback on whether or not s candidate should be hired. I would be likely to assume that a hiring manager didn't so much
take what was said in these posts, but was influenced by others that did. If a number of interviewers don't recommend the candidate, the manager is likely not to hire him or her and might be oblivious to the real reason why others don't feel said candidate to be "a good fit".
Satire, thy name is Annonymous Coward
g
There is a tremendous difference between posting on a message board something to the effect of "I met Chris Matthews
and he is a tremndous douchebag" and writing a bloguhouot a recognizable national outlet cannot be
considered as a public figure.
The definition of celebrity would need to be greatly expanded to consider Lee Kaplan a celebrity. I spend read and listen to
a great deal of media criticism and I don't believe that Lee Kaplan has occurred enough to register as national figure. A Google
search doesn't list a lot of general, national media outlets. I would argue that Lee Kaplan is not a public figure and therefore
should be granted any and all protections aginst libel and slander.
Ypur argument would seem to indicate that in any case involving two private parties in a dispute over speech necessarily implies that the power of the government is being used, and the First Ammendment applies.
Base don your reasoning, I could sue my employer on First Ammendment grounds becasue they fired due to the fact that every fourth word out of my mouth was "fuck", or that I always wore a T-shirt claiming that the CEo was "a temendous douchebag".
The only thing wrong with your assumption is that, in my examples, the case law is firmly established in the employer's favor.