Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Uh ... What? (Score 1) 320

Except you've waived that right by using github. From their ToS:

"We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. However, by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories."(emphasis mine)

So technically, even if you do scream bloody murder, by uploading the content to github, you have given blanket permission to users to not only view, but fork your code.

Comment Re:You may... (Score 1) 597

Most software that returns results from/sends queries to an outside source is opt-in. You're asked on installation if you want to send anonymous usage statistics to improve later versions of <software_package> You're asked if you want to send a crash report to <software_vendor>.

Even Microsoft is asking you what search providers you want to use when you first run IE. How difficult would it be during the ubuntu installation to ask "Do you want to include results from Amazon in dash searches?" and only install the package if the box is ticket? Like Debian does with popcon?

Why Opt-in Marketing Matters. Point 1.b in the comparison in this short article seems to apply perfectly to what RMS is saying.

Comment Re:The Missing Link (Score 1) 77

If Unix ownership is going to be transferred to anyone, it should be transferred to someone who actually has some interest in Unix. IBM(AIX), HP(HP-UX), Oracle(Solaris)...

At least at one time, Novell had some hand in the game, as a co-developer of UnixWare.

Linux, as has been mentioned many, many times, is not Unix. There is no reason any of those organizations would or should be interested in ownership of something that doesn't benefit them in the slightest. It just doesn't make any sense.

Comment Re:Two reasons for SSL (Score 1) 269

You, my good sir, are right. From the DNSSEC FAQ:

Within the context of DNS, security only refers to authentication, not confidentiality. DNSSEC extends DNS so that resolvers can receive provably correct information. DNS itself (the protocol, not necessarily all implementations) has no way of hiding data - a query can originate from any host, and any host will receive the same answer to the same query. Access control is not part of DNS, and it is not part of DNSSEC. Information designed for private viewing should not be stored in DNS.

Slashdot Top Deals

To be is to program.

Working...