Recent Comments

Slashdot is doing this as well with a new type of ad that is located in the same location as traditional stories.

Not always. Try Runbox?

What above posts?

>US law doesn't allow revocation, unless explicitly specified in license, which the GPLv2 does NOT. See sources above.

Yes it does. Licenses are revokable at will. Property law 101, idiot.
The only thing that prevents license revocation is estoppel.
(Usually arising in a contract to license a work, potentially arising from an utterance by the grantor: such as a no-revocation clause in a license document (explicit disclaimer of the right to revoke gives rise to estoppel which you can argue in-front of a court to give the revocation no effect.))

Copyright is alienable by "any operation of law": property, contract, etc. There aren't "special forms" of alienation written into the statute (there didn't need to be).

Here's someone who disagrees with you, first hit on google for the lazy, if you need someone else to listen to (and obviously don't have a casebook nor a treatise handy, because you haven't bought any since you haven't attended a school where you would need them you piece of filth):
"""
>Default Rule When Silent on Revocability
>Most courts hold that simple, non-exclusive licenses with unspecified durations that are silent on revocability are revocable at will. This means that the licensor may terminate the license at any time, with or without cause. Conversely, courts typically hold that simple non-exclusive licenses that are silent on revocability but specify a set duration are non-terminable during the set duration. Results, however, may vary based on applicable state contract law and federal law preemption principles. We find that many people are unaware of these default rules. Because of the lack of absolute clarity on the default rules themselves and the impact other provisions in a license agreement may have on their application, we believe it is important not to remain silent on revocability in a license.
""" --Sidly Austin LLP

And here's some input from the 1976 US Copyright statute, copied from one of my casebooks in my library:
US 1976 Copyright Act. SS 304(c)(6)(A)
"A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilizd under the trms of the grant after its termination, but this privledge does not extnd to th preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrightd work covered by the terminated grant."

IE: Once the permission to modify linux is revoked, no further work on grsecurity may commence: it's over.
(The license of Linux (GPLv2) lacks a no-revocation clause, GPLv3 had to be drafted for a reason (adding one in) (so you could attempt to argue estoppel)) (Licenses are revokable at will barring estoppel)

Sorry SJW piece of shit. You didn't go through law school, you don't even know the edges of the law, and you are wrong. You can believe the FSF all you want; they have an interest in hiding the truth. I'd be happy for your whole edifice to crumble as that would hurt you pro-women's rights, anti-marry-young-girls pieces of filth.

That used to be true.

Now, even if you pay, you are still the product!

And this is why I prefer going with paid hosting....

Spengler announced he is closing grsecurity

No he isn't doing that at all. The summary states this fact quite clearly.

it's ok to distribute copies of his work for a fee, as long as the source code is published isn't it? He is not publishing the source code. He is keeping it closed, except to people who pay

The GPLv2 has NEVER required source code be "published". It only requires that any recipient of "object code" also be able to receive the source code, and you "may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients" meaning they could redistribute it further.

This is in the FAQ for anyone who spent a few seconds to look for it:
* http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

"the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL."

"The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the program if and when he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to redistribute the program, when that is what he chooses."

"You can charge people a fee to get a copy from you. You can't require people to pay you when they get a copy from someone else."

etc. etc.

licenses can be revoked at any time by the rights holder

The GPL is not revocable:
* http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006062204552163
* http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanDeveloperThirdParty

There's no 'no-revocation' clause. This is why the GPLv3 had to be drafted.

US law doesn't allow revocation, unless explicitly specified in license, which the GPLv2 does NOT. See sources above.

The FSF explained why they needed GPLv3 (patent deals, Tivoization, DRM, etc.), and NOWHERE did they list revocation as being an issue:
* https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html

You ever wonder why the FSF requires all copyrights to be assigned to them in their projects.

No, because they've explained why... "successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors."
* https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

the rights holders never intended that someone may close a derivative work

Your repeated assertions of bad faith are both incredibly lazy and utterly insane, as the GPLv2 explicitly allows modifications & derivatives, explicitly allows you to "charge a fee", and nowhere claims you must make your modified version PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. Stop pretending to be a lawyer who has any clue what he is talking about, when you're clearly unwilling to do the slightest work to investigate the validity of your own unsupported claims. I won't be bothering, again.

At least you managed to avoid blaming Debian or women for any of this...

>BTW: show me the part in the GPL that states that you must make the source code available to anyone?

Please keep up. Read the above posts.

Short story: If the GPLv2 is a license then we simply revoke spenglers permission to modify the linux source code. There's no 'no-revocation' clause. This is why the GPLv3 had to be drafted. Licenses arise from property law, read up on them. They are not a product of copyright law as all lay techies suppose.

If you argue the GPLv2 is a contract, then, as you may note, the GPLv2 is not a fully integrated document (notice there's no integration clause?), then extrinsic evidence comes in to show that the rightsholders never intended source code of derivative works to be closed in this manner. Usage in trade and course of dealings of the party come in.

If it matters, this case is distinguishable from RedHat etc as RedHat is simply failing to distribute binaries to anyone not contracting with them, whereas it does publish source code (and for a reason). Here Spengler wills to close the source code to a derivative work.
And: if it matters: RedHat's approach has not been tested in court.

You probably don't get to argue contract, as has been stated earlier, so a plaintiff just revokes the license and you're done with grsecurity: you want to close it, it will be closed, completely.

You ever wonder why the FSF requires all copyrights to be assigned to them in their projects. Any one of the 10's of 1000s of linux contributors can be a plaintiff, they all have standing.

Not off topic.
Grsecurity is a derivative work.

US 1976 Copyright Act
SS 304(c)(6)(A)
"A derivative work prepard under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilizd under the trms of the grant after its termination, but this privledge does not extnd to th preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrightd work covered by the terminated grant."

IE: Once the permission to modify linux is revoked, no furthur work on grsecurity may commence: it's over.

To be fair, in the pipe| they did warn not to argue with a "law grad"(read: little knowledge & no experience)...I didn't realize just how right they would be :D

At least you managed to avoid blaming Debian or women for any of this...

Hahaa! +1

'legal analysis' by Anonymousis your original submitted post + personal opinion: the definition of redundant. You're welcome to post your opinions, or 'legal analysis'; there was no need to repost your whole submission. If you can't see whats irritating about that.....

Mount a laser on it then send it off to hunt cockroaches, mice, ants, spiders, mites, anything really. Cook up an automatic docking feature ala roomba. Automated pest control at floor level. Can even drive it from a PC to store mapping etc offline with a user interface for past and future travel.

Imagine a world with no capitalization or punctuation ... it's easy if you try!

Your use of the ENTER key instead of a PERIOD just makes a huge mess. I've never been a big fan of the /. lameness filter, but it does stop lots of such bad behavior.

Spengler announced he is closing grsecurity

No he isn't doing that at all. The summary states this fact quite clearly.

it's ok to distribute copies of his work for a fee, as long as the source code is published isn't it? He is not publishing the source code. He is keeping it closed, except to people who pay

The GPLv2 has NEVER required source code be "published". It only requires that any recipient of "object code" also be able to receive the source code, and you "may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients" meaning they could redistribute it further.

This is in the FAQ for anyone who spent a few seconds to look for it:
* http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

"the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL."

"The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the program if and when he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to redistribute the program, when that is what he chooses."

"You can charge people a fee to get a copy from you. You can't require people to pay you when they get a copy from someone else."

etc. etc.

licenses can be revoked at any time by the rights holder

The GPL is not revocable:
* http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006062204552163

the rights holders never intended that someone may close a derivative work

Your repeated assertions of bad faith are both incredibly lazy and utterly insane, as the GPLv2 explicitly allows modifications & derivatives, explicitly allows you to "charge a fee", and nowhere claims you must make your modified version PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. Stop pretending to be a lawyer who has any clue what he is talking about, when you're clearly unwilling to do the slightest work to investigate the validity of your own unsupported claims.

At least you managed to avoid blaming Debian or women for any of this...

It's still a lot easier than eating warm live fish, and the scales.. they always get stuck in your teeth.

Imagine if someone claimed copyrightable works and the alienation thereof, had nothing to do with property law, and infact were not property, and they just kept banging on that.

You try to explain to them that there is realty, personal property, and intellectual property (copyrighted works specifically), and that you grant rights to these via license (under property law) or contract.

And that licenses are revokable at the will of the licensor.

And that v2 of the GPL does not have a no-revokation clause, so you really want to argue it's a contract (which it isn't...), otherwise spengler's permission to modify the linux kernel can be revoked at will by any plaintiff (linux kernel contributor).

Then the person you're talking to says "you can't copyright land", and just keeps repeating that and "hahaha".

#grsecurity
irc.oftc.net

Fuck systemd.

Captcha
The brown ear is what color?
Racist.

Just want this story buried eh?

Go read a case book (3) or a treatise (3) if you want citations on the points of law. I'm not going to teach you it here.
You'll need to study copyright, property, and contract law.

Or you could just ask the grsec folks themselves, they're happy to tell you who the players are.

Sour rice is also awful. That leaves what, a bit of seaweed? OK, that part is edible.

its not asking much. due dilligence?

cite some sources for the controversy. Your word vs. a press-release alone holds little value or weight.

Telstra was given millions to implement the Australian internet backbone but instead just wasted the money and milked the public on dialup and businesses for ISDN. When DSL came along they dragged their feet until forced to get their act in gear. Asshats.

I think their problem was the high barrier of entry. You can't 'get hooked' by starting out with a small change.

I wonder how Wikipedia could be re-structured. Maybe a far larger tier of lieutenants (half-mods, as it were) with the power to stamp out edit-wars and such, but without all mod powers.

No, Citizendium hasn't turned-out well. Whatever the reason... lack of publicity, early policy mistakes, second-mover disadvantage, etc., it's not going to challenge Wikipedia on equal terms. I do, however, whole-heartedly agree with their detailed tirade on why Wikipedia sucks, and firmly believe Wikipedia must either get saner policies or is going to implode and fall apart at some point.

The cell networks would be designed very differently, and much less expensive to deploy and maintain, if they only needed SMS. Look at trusty old alphanumeric pagers for an example. They wouldn't be able to offer all their service for free, but awfully cheap. Without all the other services, their billing and support costs would be vastly lower, bandwidth needs vastly lower, etc. They could make it a very, very inexpensive service.

Pay-per-SMS plans were ridiculous, because they were nearly free to the telco. But it makes perfect sense that data usage dominates the costs of current cellular providers, and it is inherently a constrained resource that needs to be limited.

Careful not to ignore the other side of the story here: it's not just about bandwidth contention.

Telcos have to build and maintain the infrastructure in the first place. Crazy example time: if the government banned phone-calls and mobile-data, SMS would still be 'nearly free' in the sense you use it, but the telcos would still have to recover their infrastrucure costs, so they wouldn't be able to sell SMS-only packages for super cheap.

I get what they're saying, but here's a random topic I thought to compare:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/AK-47 (nope, HTTPS isn't available)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

Wikipedia's article is not only far more complete, it's also better written! The Citizendium article over-emphasises comparison against the M-16, and is openly biased in so doing:

The AK-74M fires the same ammunition, but is made of lighter and more rugged materials and features a side-folding stock.

But no mention is made of the advantages of the M-16.

Citizendium have some interesting ideas, but I really can't see them getting anywhere near Wikipedia.

More examples: there's no article (literally nothing) on OpenCL, for instance, or even CUDA! There's an article on the GPU, but it's absolutely laughable.
This would be fine if Citizendium were a newcomer, but at this stage, it's not.

Will I have to get my code reviewed by mozilla to see if it passes muster?

But... but... Telstra claimed SMS messages were costing them a fortune and that 20c an SMS is cheap. They would not lie to us! Ever! Right?

... does it run SystemD?

Previous attempt didn't endorse their claim either. It's still very poorly written, barely saying what gr secure is, what they're doing, and why.

Story is no longer endorsing Gr-security's claim, only reporting on their actions/statements.

You are a stupid piece of shit that can't understand the legal issues, it's all greek to you, we get it.

That's why you're dismissive "just some opinions, brah"
You have no clue what anyone is talking about.

Fucking piece of shit idiot.

Can't understand the legal issues == commentator is troll.

Bet you wear square glasses.

Go and fuck yourself you lay cuck.

You are correct. Sashimi is raw fish. Sushi is the rice, with or without raw fish and other ingredients, usually including vegetables.

Right, sushi is defined by the rice, not the presence of raw fish.

It's probably some employee they paid to do it.

Sushi may as well be called "cold dead fish" as almost everyone I know immediately rejects it on that basis, regardless of whether there is fish in it at all or if the fish is cooked or not. Admittedly, Utah isn't exactly known for its good sushi (or fresh fish in general), but it can be had. People are just missing out based on bad publicity.

It feels impossible to hit the target when the speed of the spacecraft is faster than a bullet, and to do that at the first try (a second chance seems very unlikely at such speeds). But then again NASA has done almost impossible feats, such as the sky crane which landed Curiosity on Mars.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

It's not! You're not suppose to use a direct hashing function for password storing, you should use a key derivation function, which is different and has a different reason to be. KDF's might (will) be based on hashing functions like SHA or maybe Blake, but they do compute them in such a way so that the resulting value requires a lot of computational work.
Nowadays, on *NIX systems, PBKDF2 is the preferred method for password storing (like /etc/shadow), and it's based on SHA-256/512.

"8.9.1
The key derivation problem
Let us look at the key derivation problem in more detail. Again, at a high level, the problem is to
convert some discreet data that is hard to guess into an n-bit string we can use directly as a key
to some standard cryptographic primitive, such as AES. The solution in all cases will be to hash
the secret to obtain the key. We begin with some motivating examples.
"¢ The secret might be a password. While such a password might be somewhat hard to guess, it
could be dangerous to use such a password directly as an AES key. Even if the password were
uniformly distributed over a large dictionary (already a suspect assumption), the distribution
of its encoding as a bit string is certainly not. It could very well that a significant fraction
of passwords correspond to "weak keys" for AES that make it vulnerable to attack. Recall
that AES was designed to be used with a random bit string as the key, so how it behaves on
passwords is another matter entirely." - http://toc.cryptobook.us/ (v0.2)

Get that last line "AES was designed to be used with a random bit string as the key, so how it behaves on
passwords is another matter entirely". With a KDF such as PBKDF2, you gain output randomization by adding a pseudorandom salt, and removes the possibility of a plain dict attack to your pwd.

"PBKDF2 applies a pseudorandom function, such as a cryptographic hash, cipher, or HMAC to the input password or passphrase along with a salt value and repeats the process many times to produce a derived key, which can then be used as a cryptographic key in subsequent operations. The added computational work makes password cracking much more difficult, and is known as key stretching." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBKDF2

Also, check this out, it's well explained: https://crackstation.net/hashing-security.htm

Cheers!
- - - - -
@hackancuba | GPG: 0xECF0573B1C9B59E8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=cVb+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Yeees but some more information about this opinion would be appreciated

debating with a law grad

ohhh, now its all clear. i'll gladly point out you didn't type, "debating with an employed, experienced lawyer", at which point i may have listened.

law grads are notorious for heads-up-arses. take the tip...and good luck.

what are you, 11 yrs old. grow up.

Provide links to said websites or outlets that run this story, and you may find that it would likely get published here.So far, all that has been supplied is anonymous commentary on a company's press-release. You've done basically no leg work, or the simple fact that there isn't actually a story to do such leg work.

There are no verifiable sources, no public dissenting commentary, no links to posts from the mailing lists, nothing. just angry you. Every article I searched for tohelp bolster your submission, only took a pro-grsecurity stance. show us an angry email from a linux developer, or something.

This isn't the first submission that has been closed for being a not-story this year, and wont be the last: you're not special. It was not rejected due to lack of want for a lively debate; because i want to debate something real, not just some anonymous opinion.

the idea here is to draw comments and discussions, not trolls

maybe find a real news source that is covering the issue you have - because every news post i've found fails to mention GPL violations, including tech-sites.

This is basically what you submitted:

+press-release
-"rah rah rah, i think they are wrong"
+lack of further evidence, or credibility
-"rah rah rah i'm the only one who thinks this is a thing"
+still lacks source material
-"im right and you're all stupid for not thinking so"
+C&P random, irrelevant, anonymous chat logs
-"see? rah rah rah"

if you still have no idea why the submission was closed, then you're missing the whole point of this site -> just goto reddit -the toilet of the interwebs- for troll battles. maybe you can stink up enough interest and attention that a real news source will weigh your claim.

Yes, 2TB on mobile. John Legere should send the guy a cake or something as a "Thank You" present, because that one single extreme case makes him able to claim he's not the bad guy here. For all we know, the other 2,999 users he plans to ban might only be using 8GB of data every month. He didn't bother to get into specifics about the rest of them. And even if they are all far over the limits, these are just the ones he's "starting with", so sooner or later, he'll get to those users, too.

Data limits on cellular phones is a fantasy just like per-TXT and per-MMS charges were. They are holding onto it, and people hate it...but unlimited data is what customers demand.

I don't demand unlimited cellular data... not at all. I can spend most of my time on WiFi and use hardly any cellular data. Instead, I would much rather have lower monthly fees. I know I'm not alone, as many MVNOs (like Republic Wireless) that offer a cheap plan with no data allowance, find those plans overwhelmingly popular with their customers... I, however, would like to have some small amount of cellular data to use.

Back when plans charged fees per-SMS (text message), I just didn't send many of those. I recently switched from a plan with free MMS to one that charges, so I just don't use MMS anymore. Now that it's all about data, I'm happy to cash-in on cheap cell plans with unlimited talk/text/etc., and just be careful to keep my cellular data usage extremely low.

Pay-per-SMS plans were ridiculous, because they were nearly free to the telco. But it makes perfect sense that data usage dominates the costs of current cellular providers, and it is inherently a constrained resource that needs to be limited.

2TB?!? On mobile?!? In Aus you get around 2GB, maybe 6GB if you pay. Wow. Just wow.