Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Unfortunately? (Score 1) 76

by vux984 (#47571541) Attached to: seL4 Verified Microkernel Now Open Source

I'm just pointing out that you are acting like a sociopath. A license (contract) is supposed to be a "meeting of minds"; perverting the intention of the contract terms is a sociopathic thing to do. Not ad hominem -- merely an observation.

Because as he has made clear many many times that's all that matters, what the authors of the GPLv2 think about that or what you think they intended the license for has no relevance whatsoever.

To whom?

So? Clearly the authors of the GPLv2 didn't consider it either or they didn't care about Tivoization at all.

Clearly. If they didn't care theyd' never have released a GPLv3 specifically to close that loop hole in what they wrote vis-a-vis their intent. Oh wait... they did release a GPLv3. Guess they cared.

if the license explicitly placed restrictions on the use of the code outside of contributing it back then the GPLv2 would not have been used because Linus has made clear many times that it is about "tit for tat" and nothing more.

Its impossible to say what Linus would have done at 22 years old in 1992 if the GPL had been slightly differently worded. Whether he'd have cared about an anti-tivoization clause at the time... you'll maybe recall that Linux 0.01 through 0.11 was released under a license that forbade commercial use in 1991.

He switched to the GPL in 1992. Your indulging in some serious mythologizing to even suggest he had such an extremely nuanced understanding and appreciation for a license that had only been around for a couple years. (GPL v1 was released in 89), and GPLv2 was barely 6 months old when Linus adopted it.

You are saying the same person that you argue thought tivoization was a good thing when he selected GPL was against any commercial use at all just a few months earlier? That doesn't add up. Unless maybe, just maybe Linus' stance on the license has evolved and become a lot more nuanced over the last 20+ years.

So what is your point?

1) That Linus in 2007 isn't really the same kid that picked GPLv2 for his experimental kernel project in 1992.

2) That Linus in 1992 wasn't really making pro-tivoization arguments in 1992 when he selected that license.

Comment: Re:Homosexuals and marriage: ability vs. right (Score 1) 831

by vux984 (#47570559) Attached to: Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

They want the society to change the meaning of the word "marriage" to include homosexual unions (which no civilization in the history of the world has ever equated with regular marriage).

You sure about that? Pre christian roman, ancient chinese, and ancient egypt all have instances of same sex marriages.

For example, the Roman Empire's equivalent of gay marriage was banned in the 3rd century Roman Empire, where it had previously been legal.

Your sense of the word marry as being specifically man to female is clearly proto-Christian; and quite bluntly archaic in the face of modern understanding that many *people* are neither strictly maile or female. Are you going to deny them the ability to get married too? If you are hermaphroditic? What if you are chimeric with both male and female DNA? Nevermind the transgendered.

There is no way the legal status 'marriage' in any modern country should be tied to such an archaic and religious definition. Society itself has largely moved on to understand and accept that a relationship can have all the characteristics of marriage irrespective of the absence or presence of physical appendages or genetic markers.

"Straight marriage" is just as much a tautology [..]

Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every known human society since ancient times.

The idea that it necessarily and inherently implies straight is as ridiculous as the idea that it implies male ownership of the bride as chattel, such as it did in the Hebrew bible.

Comment: Re:Wow ... (Score 1) 408

by vux984 (#47570479) Attached to: A 24-Year-Old Scammed Apple 42 Times In 16 Different States

What reasons? Because it isn't obvious.

Printing a fake card is dirt cheap, and the 'customer can put an accomplices number on the back. Remember, the whole scam revolves around the card not working properly in the machine; so they can pretty much hand you anything.

You must call your own merchant account provider, and THEY will look up any bank phone numbers that they might need to validate the card and authorize the transaction.

Comment: Re:Fire(wall) and forget (Score 1) 332

On the other hand, if something else does go wrong, the firewall become another obstacle for the attacker.

What is this "something else that goes wrong"?

That someone outside the system gains access to the system via the ports that were publicly open, that the firewall would have let them in through anyway? (And once in, they can change your firewall... so that's not buying you much.)

What else can go wrong? That you the admin opened a service you weren't supposed to? Ok... yes, that could happen.

And a firewall gives you some defense in depth to that. But so would a separate hardware firewall between the server and the rest of the network.

I suppose you could misconfigure THAT one too. Oops. Is adding yet another firewall really a solution? Why not 2 hardware firewalls, one after the other? Why not 7 just in case you botch the first 6? Is that better? If you need that, maybe you shouldn't be in network admin?

Meanwhile, this additional firewall you add, its software, so you've added another point of failure that could itself have vulnerabilities, defects, and of course you have to configure it correctly.

Sure, in 99% of scenarios a local firewall makes sense, is a no-brainer, is defense in depth, etc. But one can absolutely deploy a system without one in the right circumstances.

Comment: Re:Homosexuals and marriage: ability vs. right (Score 1) 831

by vux984 (#47568903) Attached to: Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

Not true. If we redefine, what "karate" means [...]

Then there is no point in talking about karate anymore in the context of the argument, and we should switch to another sport that is defined such that the point makes sense.

Arbitrarily redefining the terms to suit your argument doesn't make you right, and ins't a valid form. If karate is suddenly redefined as something else, then naturally any claims I've made about it become meaningless.

Why not redefine "marriage" as "eat" and then "barglespock" as what was formerly meant by marriage, and perhaps "homosexual" to mean "fish" and "cheetos" as what was formerly meant by homosexual. And then you can triumphantly declare that homosexuals can marry (fish can eat) all they like. Win!!

But the real debate now is whether cheetos can barglespock.

So how about we leave "marriage" and "karate" defined the way they commonly defined, rather than try to splice new semantics which only confuse the argument.

There are, indeed, organizations trying to keep the semantics of the term "marriage" from being redefined to include same-sex partners.

Nobody is out there trying to prevent homosexuals from marrying somebody of the opposite sex. It is not the law, that prevents them from entering into marriage, it is their own biology (or preference, or whatever).

Now you are just being obtuse. Gays want to be "married". We all KNOW what they mean by that. And your silly argument is attempting to substitute a particularly narrow legal definition of marriage (that only applies in *some* jurisdictions) for the common and well understood broad definition of marriage, in a silly attempt to score points.

Stop playing games with sematics. Its clear to everyone that when I wrote "the law prevents gays from getting married" I was not suggesting that the law prevented gays from entering into straight marriages.

At this stage your just trolling. Perhaps that was your intent, in which case, gratz, you got me.

Comment: Re:Unfortunately? (Score 1) 76

by vux984 (#47564275) Attached to: seL4 Verified Microkernel Now Open Source

What the authors of the GPL intended is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is what they actually wrote.

Spoken like a true sociopath.

As for Linus' endorsement of tivoization; I've read the thread -- he's satisfied that Tivo followed the rules and contributed the code back. Yes, he writes that "tivoization is good" but that seems strictly within the context of that particular argument about tit-for-tat code especially with someone who was clearly arguing the FSF case, which Linus has repeatedly rebuffed.

In any case I remain unconvinced that Linus considered the Tivoization scenario when he selected the license, or that he really consciously desired specifically to enable it.

My read on it that his take on it is ragmatic, that it's happened, that it hasn't been "bad for the linux kernel", and that gplv3 is a worse "solution".

Comment: Re:And it'll keep happening, again and again... (Score 1) 174

I can tell you one thing, if such a system were implemented there'd probably be an uptick in efficiency as now [...]

As all the SaaS they'd bought into broke completely, half the onsite software that relies on various web services and "phone-home" systems for licensing etc broke, all the B2B tools for everything from tracking/shipping packages to payroll tax tools to JIT supply chain management from their suppliers broke.

Yeah, there would be a real productivity bump. :)

Comment: Re:whats the difference? (Score 1) 76

by vux984 (#47564037) Attached to: seL4 Verified Microkernel Now Open Source

whats the difference between tivoized code and non-tivoized code

Primarily, that the (majority) of users of said code are unable to effectively exercise the rights the GPL was intended to confer upon them.

Specifically, the right to change the code. That they can copy the code to some other deivces, change it, and run it there, but not be allowed to on the original device was not the intent of the GPL, or its author.

Comment: Re:So! The game is rigged! (Score 1) 551

by vux984 (#47564019) Attached to: 35% of American Adults Have Debt 'In Collections'

Except, no, it costs you. The whole point of a credit card is to obtain credit.

Actually no.

To obtain credit (money), interest is charged

Again no. There are all manner of no-annual fee cards, that will not charge you any interest provided you pay off your monthly balance in full, each month.

The business model is that VISA etc still make 3% give or take from every transaction, in merchant fees, so they really don't need to charge you interest to make money... of course, if you fail to pay your bill in full, that's just gravy for them, but the interest is entirely avoidable, if you are disciplined. (And if you are able to live off cash, then using a cc occasionally for stuff you were going to buy anyway, and then paying it off right away, really, and truly costs you nothing.

You will be charged interest for credit you don't need to build a made-up score.

Not if you use the strategy above.

Comment: Re:Unfortunately? (Score 1) 76

by vux984 (#47563311) Attached to: seL4 Verified Microkernel Now Open Source

Wrong, I don't need a Tivo to use their code.

That is beside the point. This isn't about *you*.

This is about the 99.99% of people who use Tivo code, use it on a Tivo, and as a result they are denied the particular freedoms the original authors of the code it is licensed under intended for them to have.

Granted 98% of them don't care about the license or about changing the code. But the authors of the original code AND the license cared a great deal about it.

A loophole that clearly many authors wanted and have accepted as "by design".

Absolutlely not an outcome the authors of the license wanted. And I'm skeptical you can find any developers who expressly WANTED the GPL for tivoization... i mean if you want that, then use the BSD or something. There are lots of perfectly suitable licenses for that use.

What realistic scenario can you put forth where the developer actively wants to license their code under the GPL and simultaneously doesn't want people to be able to modify the code they received to run on on the equipment the code is installed on?

Seriously. Find one.

And no, Tivo itself doesn't count, they didn't author original code and actively select the GPL... they merely took the GPL code that was out there because it was out there and used it, and ran a legal end run around the authors intentions.

Not everybody who uses the GPLv2 (or any FSF license) subscribes to the FSF ideology,

There does have to be a fairly substantial overlap with FSF ideology though, otherwise you'd pick something else, like BSD.

in fact some of the most prominent ones (Linux for example) explicitly do not.

By "Linux" I assume you mean Linus? And while its clear he disagrees with the FSF on some key points, you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that he actively approves of Tivoization. At best I'd say he doesn't like the GPLv3's method of trying to prevent it. But I could be mistaken. I'm not Linus.

Comment: Re:Unfortunately? (Score 1) 76

by vux984 (#47562471) Attached to: seL4 Verified Microkernel Now Open Source

So don't buy a TiVo then. "Tivoization of your code" is nonsense because Tivoization doesn't have anything to do with the code, in fact you can get the code here licensed under GPLv2 and use it under those terms just as you would any GPLv2 project.

Read the preamble to the GPLv2 or the philosophy of the FSF. Tivoization is a legal end run around the philosophical purpose the license.

"Specifically, free software means users have the four essential freedoms: (0) to run the program, (1) to study and change the program in source code form, (2) to redistribute exact copies, and (3) to distribute modified versions."

Tivoization of GPL code preserves those 4 rights, but withholds the implicit desire of GPL users to be able to exercise those rights on the hardware the software is running on.

Tivoization is a manifestation of "what good is your right to a phone call, if we take away your ability to speak".

When the GPL2 was written no one had conceived that you might receive GPL code installed on a device, be allowed to run it, be allowed to change it, be allowed to redistribute it... but NOT be allowed to run the changed software on the original device.

It was a loophole that was implicitly intended by the GPLv2, but not made explicit. The GPLv3 attempts to close the loophole.

And as an aside, the AGPL3 is mean to meant to close another loophole that wasn't originally conceived of... developers would use GPL code, and distribute only access to the code running remotely rather than copies of the code itself, thereby exempting them from the need to share the source.