Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Wrong! (Score 2) 337

I do not vocalize anything when reading.

One of the key things about learning 20 WPM Morse Code was that you could no longer think of it as dots and dashes because that would slow you down. You had to recognize the entire sound of the letter as just a sound. Similarly, good readers read entire words at once, not the letters, and they don't sound anything out. Those things slow you down.

Comment I don't get it. (Score 5, Interesting) 352

If there is an issue that keeps process termination and cleanup from being properly parallelized; I can understand why that might cause unexpectedly poor utilization of additional cores for computationally intensive tasks that also massacre lots of processes; but why would that cause the GUI to stop responding?

Unless moving the cursor also depends on terminating a bunch of processes; and hangs until that task is finished, wouldn't the inefficiency imposed on the build process be expected to keep the GUI more responsive; by preventing it from occupying as much CPU time as it otherwise would?

Am I just confused? Does keeping the desktop and cursor drawn actually involve lots of time sensitive process killing? Does this indeed not make sense?

Comment Re:So? (Score 1) 115

The thing to remember is that most artists don't get paid that long(despite copyright terms indeed being ridiculous); because somebody has to care enough about their work to pay for it.

The rock stars get to coast on their back catalogs; but the people who can be replaced by anonymous filler without audience displeasure probably aren't them;

Comment Re:So? (Score 4, Insightful) 115

I suspect that your sentiment may have something to do with why they are so particularly displeased by the idea:

If Spotify is just doing something dubiously legal; Team RIAA can sue them into a smoking crater and call it a day; it'd hardly be the first time that has happened.

If there are genres where some adequately competent musicians banging together a work for hire are considered by listeners to be an acceptable substitute for "real" artists; and can be used for 95 years for whatever one-time payment got them into the studio; well, really, really, sucks to be an artist in that genre.

Comment Re:What's the motive for wosign? (Score 1) 57

Unfortunately, one of the disadvantages of deviating from strictly correct behavior as a CA is that it makes it harder for people trying to figure out who the threat is to answer that question; and 'all of the above' benefit from those bad practices.

If your approach to 'customer service' involves a willingness to forge certs for them; it may start with a few extra sales to admins trying to dodge deadlines; but criminals will have an obvious interest in someone willing to issue dodgy certs for a few extra sales. And if you already have a noise floor of private sector shady actors; that's attractive to governments looking to do something quietly and deniably.

As a matter of intent; I wouldn't be at all surprised if it started out innocently enough, doing a little favor for someone who really, really needed that backdated cert to keep his creaky infrastructure up; but this isn't the sort of business where innocent mistakes get to stay innocent for long; so ultimately it doesn't really matter that much. There job was to be trustworthy; they aren't. Game over.

Comment Re:Please Read The Entire Statement (Score 1) 474

You are also ignoring the paragraph after the one you cited:

Protection Against Additional Restrictions Usersâ(TM) freedoms cannot be protected if parties can add restrictive terms to the copyleft. The âoeno additional restrictionsâ principle is therefore unwaivable if the GPL licenses are to achieve their primary objective. GPLv2 therefore requires that the only license terms available for works based on GPLv2 works are the terms of GPLv2. GPLv3, in Â7, enumerates a few classes of permissible additional terms, to allow very limited license variations in particular circumstances. But with these exceptions, the âoeno further restrictionsâ principle applies strictly. For these reasons, acceptance requirements or ceremonies, including âoeclick to acceptâ installation routines, violate the terms of GPL.

By this interpretation, both the distributor who offered an additional term and the customer who accepted it in breach.

I should also add that SFLC's interpretation of the GPL is not binding upon anyone but SFLC, and arguably not even them. I certainly don't have to accept it or abide by it.

Comment Re:Please Read The Entire Statement (Score 1) 474

The infringing derivative work is not the software which the Linux developers license to people under the GPL. It is a separate work to which the GPL does not apply and to which the Linux developers hold a copyright interest and the only remedy which can permit its legal use. The Linux developers never intended to license that work, they still haven't, the GPL doesn't apply to it.

Comment Re:Uhhhhhhh (Score 2) 474

I got a copy of the agreement. It's here. It's pretty clearly in violation. The offending language is:

Notwithstanding these rights and obligations, the User acknowledges that redistribution of the provided stable patches or changelogs outside of the explicit obligations under the GPL to User's customers will result in termination of access to future updates of grsecurity stable patches and changelogs.

The entire point of the langauge in section 6 of the GPL is so that another party can not cause you to negotiate away your GPL rights.

Comment Re:Not related to their mark (Score 1) 474

I got a copy of Grsecurity's Stable Patch Access Agreement. It's a written term, given to you before the act of distribution. It's rather imprudent of them to write it down if you ask me.

The entire point of the language against additional terms in the GPL is so that others can not negotiate with you for you to give up any of your GPL rights.

I don't think this gives you an obligation to support software you didn't provide. You are not, in that case, refusing to support the software that you did provide. In contrast, Grsecurity shuts the customer off entirely.

Comment Perception of the GPL (Score 2) 474

If you wanted to stoke the perception that GPLed code is "toxic" in yet another unhelpful and nebulous way, you couldn't have picked a better way...

Actually, all I see so far is that an intentional GPL violator's customers are not protected from that intentional violation. It's not at all clear that this is in any way different from the proprietary software licensing world, where a contributory infringement case brought on the customer rather than the vendor is a frequent strategy.

I check out the software licenses that are offered to my customers. Sometimes I red-light a proprietary software vendor because I don't believe they have the right to offer their own software. This is often obvious from their licensing. Similarly, a company should not accept a commercial issue of a GPL work if it's not sure the vendor has a right to offer the work.

I am sorry that due diligence is required, but of course the Free Software folks didn't invent this intellectual property mess.

Comment Re:Please Read The Entire Statement (Score 1) 474

I just copied Eben again this morning, as I'd received a copy of the Grsecurity Stable Patch Access Agreement, which I had not previously had in hand. I also included another link to my article. No word from Eben yet.

While the user may not be responsible for the sins of the distributor, this is only the case after the distributor successfully conveys the GPL to the user upon the work. I contend that the distributor never had the right to convey the GPL to the user at all upon an infringing derivative work, and that a direct grant by the kernel developers to the user is thus never triggered.

Also, keep in mind that if the user does successfully receive the GPL on a work, they must be fully in compliance (section 4) for the GPL to continue. If the "sins" of the distributor are repeated by the user, the user is not in compliance. The point here is that the user need not pay for a "sin" which they do not repeat, nor may the distributor perform a deliberate action which terminates the user's GPL rights unless the user repeats that action.

When the user receives the infringing derivative work, and when the user applies the patch, they inherit the previous infringement from the distributor. The GPL does not wash clean that infringing status for the user.

Comment Re:Please Read The Entire Statement (Score 2) 474

No. Merely purchasing the existing combination of code does not provide the required right and ability to supervise or control the infringing activity. You are well outside the bounds of your expertise, and it shows.

In this case, it's the reverse. I understand how the software is applied (this is why I'm an expert witness in demand) and you're out of your expertise, sorry. The customer applies the patch. That gives them control of the infringing activity.

Those portions of the original work have been licensed to the customers by the GPLv2 sec 6. The license to those portions of the original work cannot be terminated per GPLv2 sec 4. The customer is also expressly licensed to make such a combination by GPLv2 sec. 2 so long as they do not publish or distribute the combined work.

Weren't you going to ask Eben about this? Why don't you do so, and get back to me. I still don't believe they're licensed.

By the way, I got the Grsecurity agreement. They actually put down in writing how they restrict the customer's GPL rights.

Comment Re:Please Read The Entire Statement (Score 1) 474

Because the GPL doesn't apply to the infringing derivative work, as it terminated when it was not complied with, and Open Source Security, Inc. doesn't have a right to license it to others or to apply the GPL to it. So, the customers have a work with no valid license and the kernel developers own the only remedy that would permit its legal use.

If the customers had the GPL on that work, distribution might be relevant. They don't. Also keep in mind that distribution is not the only thing you can do to violate the GPL. You can create a derivative work that is in violation even before distribution.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"