Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Work for Hire (Score 2, Insightful) 447

by zysus (#31380664) Attached to: Why Paying For Code Doesn't Mean You Own It

I deal with this frequently with sub-contractors (and firms) doing development.

It's actually very simple.
The understanding starts out as: This is a work-for-hire. All work product is property of the company.

Which eventually leads to a contract containing:
All source-code, build scripts, documentation, keys, any other materials required to use or reproduce the deliverable item are exclusive property and proprietary information of the company.
The contractor shall not release, reuse or redistribute any component of this work in any other business. This includes any custom libraries, headers or other application work-product.
This does not apply to off-the-shelf open-source tools and libraries, however such items shall be documented and approved in advance to avoid GPL contamination.

I don't see a problem here.
I expect to pay through the nose if i want exclusive rights and ownership to someone's special library, for exactly the reasons the article dictates.
Otherwise a non-exclusive source-code license that I may do with as I please is cheaper. A binary-only license might be cheaper still.

They devs have to make a living and if it wasn't cheaper/faster to use them in the first place I'd just write it myself.

Just try explaining these legal subtleties to someone who doesn't understand software.

XBox (Games)

Modded Xbox Bans Prompt EFF Warning About Terms of Service 254

Posted by Soulskill
from the by-reading-this-you-bequeath-me-all-your-possessions dept.
Last month we discussed news that Microsoft had banned hundreds of thousands of Xbox users for using modified consoles. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has now pointed to this round of bans as a prime example of the power given to providers of online services through 'Terms of Service' and other usage agreements. "No matter how much we rely on them to get on with our everyday lives, access to online services — like email, social networking sites, and (wait for it) online gaming — can never be guaranteed. ... he who writes the TOS makes the rules, and when it comes to enforcing them, the service provider often behaves as though it is also the judge, jury and executioner. ... While the mass ban provides a useful illustration of their danger, these terms can be found in nearly all TOS agreements for all kinds of services. There have been virtually no legal challenges to these kinds of arbitrary termination clauses, but we imagine this will be a growth area for lawyers."

Comment: Re:Not specifically MacBook/Windows/BootCamp probl (Score 5, Informative) 396

by zysus (#28970863) Attached to: Windows Drains MacBook's Battery; Who's To Blame?

I write driver level embedded code for a living. Everything from bootstrapping embedded linux to SoC level power management.

Power management is usually the last thing to get done (if at all)... why? Because management usually sees it as icing on the cake. Attitudes are typically just make it work and we'll ship a bigger battery to make it last. Or we'll ship an upgrade in 6 months, if the product starts to take off and we decide to fund further development.

Time to market is everything.

Power management is also really hard to get right 100% of the time. It's really hard to debug code/hardware where stuff is shutting itself off, or worse, a controller uP is shutting you off unexpectedly.

It has NOTHING to do with 'bad code' or 'shitty programmers'. It's just management grinding down on the engineers to do it: better, faster, cheaper, pick two. Usually faster and cheaper win.

Comment: Hashes in general (Score 3, Informative) 125

by zysus (#26191433) Attached to: NIST Announces Round 1 Candidates For SHA-3 Competition

I hate to state the obvious, but a hash by nature is breakable. You are (typically) distilling a large number of unique bits down to a smaller number of bits.

Of course there will be more than one set of inputs that generate the same output.

Its more an issue of:
1. How hard it is to find colliding inputs.
2. What the hash is used for.

Passwords typically generate more bits, so different rules apply.

"Everyone's head is a cheap movie show." -- Jeff G. Bone