Recent Comments

A debate would be terrible, we like all our submissions at 0 comments.

Na man, someone closing a derivative work of the linux kernel is all fine.
Systemd is awsome too.

This is an important story. Some people, who are value-less, shy away from a debate and wish for a story with 0 comments (ie: the opposite of slashdot). Eject them, spit on them, and vote this story up.

So because there is a lively debate you refuse to upvote this (as others requested) and are trying to delete this important story.

Other websites would upvote it for that reason alone. I think there is more to this story.

Who is mikeeusa and how could I sound like mikeeusa?
Does mikeeusa hold a law degree?

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. Idiocy like some guy using 2TB is not going to dissuade me from the obvious point that they whine about people using over 2GB and want to charge incredibly high rates per GB.

Hmm... Haven't used share-point. Must be terrible if Confluence is that much better by comparison.

and it became immediately clear the submitter is looking for an argument, not a discussion. this submission will rapidly (as it has already) run out of control into a he-said-she-said pointless mound of words.

i'm not sure anyone brought up the attacks you just did....but you are starting to sound like mikeeUSA

Yeah, I don't know. They're trying to place limitations where it doesn't technically make sense to put limitations. Its like trying to separate salt water from fresh water at a river intersecting an ocean.

I understand the business case of why Tmobile is trying to separate out Smartphone data from every other kind of data, but it seems kind of silly. Data is data. It can be routed from one device to anther fairly easily.

It would be easier and technically better to just call all data: data and put a cap on it. Make it something absurd like 100 gig. 100 is much bigger than 10 gig and you really don't affect that many people. Tether if you want to or don't

Here is what a GRSecurity supporter threatens if anyone were to make a claim against Spengler for closing the derivative work:

irc.oftc.net
#grsecurity
10:39 < zakalwe_> as soon as these plaintiffs names are made public i will hunt them down, cut their limbs of
bit by bit and dehydrate them. i will then grind them up into powder and make large dong
out of them with epoxy resin. this i will stick to their forehead.
10:40 < zakalwe_> i will keep them alive for years, hung up on my wall, and play darts on their torso.
10:40 < zakalwe_> u fucking cunt

Let there be a record of this.

If you're Spengler, once we have some plaintiffs, I suppose we'll find out the nature of your agreement with them in court.

Nope, they down-voted it to 0 because they either don't like a poster or don't want to show themselves ignorant in a legal debate (they hold themselves out as benevolent geniuses making the world a better place through justice of social means)

I notice this lost it's +1 vote.

You people do not like one of the posters here do you?

You don't like his opinions on other things and you cannot
engage in legal debate because, though you hold yourself
out as a genius and a knowledgeable person, you know
not one thing about the law.

Oh but that poster is just a "Troll" right, can't
code himself out of a paper bag right (that's what you
were claiming before), and hasn't more than an
elementary education. Right?

Hasn't programmed 10's of 1000s (or 100,000+ rather)
of lines of code right?

Didn't graduate law school, right?

Just a misogynist troll. But packaging other people's programs, oh that's divine contribution!

RIGHT?
HAVING THE RIGHT OPINION IS ALL THAT MATTERS, RIGHT??!?!??!

As said before, your grant of permission to use but especially modify a copyrighted work rests either on property law (license) or contract law (unilateral or bilateral contact).

A license can be revoked at any time (unless estoppel prevents this). You don't want the GPL to be a bare license for this reason.

A contract, unless fully integrated, does not rest solely on the four corners of the accompanying document. The intention of the parties to the agreement comes into play, extrinsic evidence comes into play, usage in trade comes into play. You want the GPL to be a contract as some contracts are irrevocable. As said before, and this is important, but you completely gloss over it or ignore it because you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE WORDS BEING USED: the agreement between Spengler and the Linux Kernel devs, of which the GPL is a document, is unlikely to be deemed fully integrated. There is no integration clause in GPLv2 thus the four corners doctrine is not likely to be used in this case

(You do know the four corners doctrine, correct? No, ok then, keep quiet with your useless lay opinion)

Thus, as stated again and again, extrinsic evidence of the parties agreement can be brought in: the plaintiffs
can testify as to their intention, to the usage in trade of the words, to the distribution of the kernel itself traditionally, etc. We can talk about if Brad Spengler, is, in bad-faith, attempting to subvert the intentions of the rights holders (of which intel is one). There is alot to be discovered here.

But you just don't know the law at all so don't see it at all.

(Some more explained: http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/contractvlicense.html )

Not that some would understand these words. Some see the word "License" in the heading of the document and are convinced that that is exactly what it is, legally; and they even think if it were it would be to their advantage!

As for the GPL FAQ: The FSF might (or might not) intend that when they put out their works, but the FSF is not a party to this agreement. The 10's of thousands of programmers/rights-holders who have worked on linux (including Intel) on one side and Brad Spengler and Pax Team on the other side are the parties to this agreement. The GPL FAQ is only extrinsic evidence in disputes arising out of FSF copyrighted works, not wo

This is why you need lawyers, because lay people, such as yourself, only see the surface of the thing (the paper put under your nose), not the vast edifice on which it is hung.

Unfortunately, it seems the NASA scientists made one fatal mistake... They didn't bother to read the opinions of Anonymous Cowards on the internet, who just last year throughly explained why the idea "makes no sense", and flies in the face of "basic orbital mechanics".

https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=3880&cid=92923

On the plus side, I do appreciate CNET calling me "someone as smart as a rocket scientist" for having conceived the idea quite some time ago.

It is... You can give points to ALL of the options, if you like.

you probably should read the gpl a bit more closely...it still provides an avenue for a business to sell a client derivative works, non public, and final distribution method and compliance being the choice of the client. any future work they do can follow this avenue that the GPL even spells out in their FAQ.

*It's like some don't understand that, though the basis for the property interest itself flows from

>they practically pioneered the exploit mitigations now used by windows, openbsd, you name it

And now they're taking it away from us lower classes. We aren't allowed security, and Spengler doesn't give a damn that his work is derived from a freely distributed opensource project: The Linux Kernel, and he'll use every effort he can to subvert the intentions of the authors of the Linux Kernel (this is called bad faith)

Oh and if you want to argue that the GPL is a bare license rather than a unilateral contract (You'd likely be incorrect but...)

Licenses can be revoked at any time, in-which case we need only one linux kernel contributor to issue notice to Brad Spengler that said license to use his portion of the code is hereby revoked. Thence-forth Spengler will be liable for statutory damages ;-)

It's like you don't understand that, though the basis for the property interest itself flows from, in the US, congressional statute (and the constitution itself), and in the UK, AU, etc from parliamentary law, the rules governing alienation of that interest stem from property and contract law.

So Does he wish to be gotten coming or going? Contract, where extrinsic evidence can come into play, or bare license where if we have a plaintiff he can revolk permission (remeber: (C) isn't signed over in linux dev (and you wonder why FSF requires it... It's for more than the one reason they state))

(It ofcourse gets better than that in Central Europe and Commonwealth countries where, IIRC, you don't even have check weather the nature of the license would bar revocation) (Any contributors to the Linux kernel from germany?)

All of the above should have been a choice!

The telcos were kicked in the nuts and told to take down what amounted to false advertising. In our case it was for broadband, but the same theory applies. They also tried the insane 'you can't tether on mobile' plans here, which is easily sidestepped by using a VPN.

Systemd is trash.

Everything good in linux is taken away.

Intel isn't violating anything. If anyone is, it is now (or soon to be) Brad Spengler of Gr-security.
Accusing Intel of a copyright violation here is a libel of Spengler. It makes no difference if he retracts that now and claims a trademark violation (of which, again, there is none: no one created a brand new "thing" within the technology trade and called it "GRSecurity")

Spengler was trying to extort intel and others for money.
He failed. Now he's attempting to close a derivative work of the linux kernel.

>By requiring a subscription or contract, i'd imagine thats the loop hole that allows private sale/distribution without violating the gpl

That's known generally as "bad faith", courts look poorly upon such actions.

As stated before, what is written in the GPL is not the end-all-be-all of the agreement which grants Spengler permission to use and modify the linux kernel, and produce derivative works thereof. (Also, as stated before, the GPL likely rests on contract law, it's not a bare license). We're not even debating the GPL per-se, but the agreement between the 10s of thousands of linux copyright holders and spengler who has created a derivative work, of which the GPL is a document describing in-part, but not fully representative of (in contracts, extrinsic evidence of the agreement can be brought in, even that which contradicts the written document(s). To explain the agreement, usage in trade, and the actual practice of the parties is relevant. (unless the contract is fully integrated (which is made no mention of here with linux, and how could it be, the GPL is about a page long and insufficient to describe fully the relationship)).

If I were intel, holding copyright on parts of linux, I would bring Spengler to court once the case is ripe. I would also sue him for libel aswell. If he wants to ruin linux security and bring a derivative work closed, in the hope of financial gain, we would find out the true nature of the agreement onwhich he relies. There are tens of thousands of potential plaintiffs against spengler.

Remeber: Grsecurity only exists because linux existed 14 years ago and spengler was poking around in it.

GNU/FSF is not a party to this agreement so what exists in their minds is somewhat irrelevant. What matters, when it comes to what anyone thinks, is the understanding that the involved parties had at the time of the agreement.

I think this is fine as is. On the plans page, it clearly says "on-smartphone only" right below "unlimited" in a readable size. There's also no absurd fees. I'll hate on how AT&T and Verizon handled this all day, but this seems reasonable.

just to clarify, would a patch not be a derivative work until actually applied to licensed code? on its own its just code, (EDIT: retracted, this statement made sense: "When the second
work makes sense only in light of the original, it's derivative.") and owned by the author. they don't have to release publicly.

And even if said-patch does infact fall under GPL, the GNU-GPL FAQ makes it clear that you can sell modified versions of GPL code to a client and not release publicly, and its up to the client whether they want to keep the modified version internal, or release it. The only thing that forces public source release, is to likewise distribute any part in any form, to the public.

If that client were to release the modified version, they would need to supply the source, but if kept internally, then no. By requiring a subscription or contract, i'd imagine thats the loop hole that allows private sale/distribution without violating the gpl (if i'm understanding that correctly.) It sounds like this company is ensuring paid-clients are supporting their efforts, while preventing every other company from doing a drive-by-only download instead. It sounds more than reasonable. In the end, the code is still going to make it to the public, eventually.

this would make for a good public discussion, if anyone else would like to up-vote? my feelings still are that the bigger story is the one presented by the company, and not the claim that said-company could be violating the gpl; although commentary for both would be interesting.

That's a tricky problem.

That's a good point. I guess shaming the PR companies would be a good 'compromise' though, if their identities can be reliably established.

They should just stop calling their plans "Unlimited" and most of the confusion would disappear. If a dairy farmer sold you a "gallon" jug of milk but only put 3 quarts of milk in it, the FDA would rightly complain against the incorrect labeling. Likewise, if an ISP sells you an "unlimited" connection but then artificially limits your speed after certain defined caps, the FCC is justified by complaining about the incorrect labeling.

It isn't just paid editing firms they have to worry about. Wikipedia's policies, in general, are entirely untenable, requiring overwhelming force of numbers that just can't be sustained.

Citizendium did a better job than I can, explaining why Wikipedia doesn't work:

* no coherent narrative
* disconnected grab-bags of factoids
* degraded by minor ill-judged tweaks
* intelligent laymen are often mistaken
* "squaters" always win
* blatant and shameless levels of bias
* Vandalism is a headache
* part anarchy, part mob rule
* disputes sometimes go on interminably
etc.
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Why_Citizendium%3F

The best career is to become a plumber, firefighter, etc.

The need for plumbers has been greatly reduced by technology, already. Pipes are designed better and need less maintenance. Clogs can be resolved by chemicals anybody can pour down their sinks. etc. And contractors in general are being undercut by illegal immigrants who will work for less money. If the money is the same, I'd much rather flip burgers than have to travel all over to job sites, work outdoors in the weather, risk serious injuries or death from the power tools, septic fumes, etc.

You can also choose to become a politician or a judge

"Judge" is not a career path. There are no judge schools. You have to be nominated to be a judge, and generally you must be a lawyer, first. Being a successful politician, similarly, requires a lot of luck.

For once, CNN deserves some credit. They were the only source I could find that wasn't incredibly biased and doubling-down on T-Mobile's side, ranting about these evil hackers who are supposedly stealing service.

The NYT blog at least mentioned that 'unlimited' is supposed to mean something. Once T-Mobile goes after this group of excessive users, what's to stop them from lowering the bar and going after more folks using less, until they've successfully kicked all their less-profitable customers?

So I'll just hire them to edit your company article for better, then get you caught for this.
You'll be the one to get shamed.

I suspect they'll have better luck deterring this nonsense if they actively shame the companies who pay for/execute the biased bullshit.

They'll never win the cat-and-mouse if they just ban accounts.

Then you can still be outsourced. The best career is to become a plumber, firefighter, etc. You can also choose to become a politician or a judge, because no they will not allow themselves to become obsoleted by expert systems.

>It's not in violation of any spirit either, as there's nothing that says they have to give you their things, as copyright holders.

Their work is a derivative work.

The contributors to linux very likely intended that any derivative works also be distributed. If any contributor to linux intended this, there may very well be an unwritten clause in the contract which exists between the parties, part of which exists in the form of the document you know as a "copyright license" (WTF did you think it was? A royal patent?). Rarely does a court decide a dispute of this sort solely on the four corners of a document. Only when the document is wholly integrated does that occur.

I don't see those words there in the GPLv2. (Even if those words exist, action taken by the parties can be used as evidence against this, if the court allows the evidence of such to be presented).

That might not be the full conclusion to the issue. The GPL likely falls under the contract theory of copyright licenses: it is not a bare license.

http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/contractvlicense.html

Contracts, unless fully integrated, are not evaluated solely on the words within the four corners of the contract document. The GPL makes no mention of being fully integrated. Brad Spengler may very well be violating an unwritten portion of the agreement with this closing of the derivative work and it's rescission from public use. It is a theory that will have to be tested in court, and one of the thousands of contributors to the kernel will be needed as a plaintiff for standing to sue, but once that is achieved a suit can move forward against Spengler of GRSecurity.

Patches are necessarily derivative code, so covered by the license.

However the GPL never said you have to make your code freely available to the public. It's just that once you give it out, you can't stop anyone else from redistributing it, if they want to.

they produce patches, not redistrib. linux. its their code, and patch, and thus should be able to do what they want, no?

that aside, im upvoting because the full version of the story sounds quite interesting. they themselves are tired of seeing GPL violations, among other complaints, leading to their decision

*I* have never dropped or had allowed to have dropped a cat high on catnip into a cold bath in the middle of winter. Having seen the result of such and in particular the blood spatter and sheer agony resulting I can assure that usage as a comparison is sane.
Perhaps the next poll can vote on what we dislike more. Bankers? Mortgage brokers? Lawyers? Bad programmers? Horrible bosses? Sociopathic work colleagues? Charity collecters on the street? Dice management? Egotistical tier 1 helpdeskers? Fruit ninjas? Robocallers? Politicians? Drunks? Stoners? Anonymous cowards...

OTOH perhaps I just hate banks for their horrible terrible soul sucking demonic more terrible than a cat on catnip dropped into a cold bath in winter attitude to their customers. Read a mortgage contract and disagree if you will.

Sigh. So. Yeah. A friend of mine was screwed over by the asshats who currently provide POS CC facilities. He bought out his partners in a computer shop, mostly single systems and parts sales. This was in the 90s. Business was growing. He had good credit and lots of cashflow. When the business changed hands they cut off the CC POS service citing contract termination due to ownership change. Reducing the number of owners to one person. Right. He applied for a new service. They responded by sending out a technician to retrieve the POS machine. The technician never showed. My friend applied for a new service. After weeks of being able to only accept cash or cheque they declined the request and put it on hold. He contacted other banks. No one would provide a credit card point of sale device and account while a business had an existing request pending or denied. One year later he had to close his shop. The lack of credit card facility crippled him. According to the bank, when he assumed full ownership the business ended and started again as a brand new business. A business with no history. With one owner. And, over time, a business with dwindling sales.

The option being offered by Apple is interesting news, to me. YMMV. TFA mentions an Android version soon from Google and Samsung.

Screw you and the boat you came on. I hate slashvertisements as much as the next riled up dice bashing anti-wtfhappened to my fav news site and ffs fix the damn mobile view antislash person but that was useful information because it may change the visa / mastercard duopoly to breaking point. OK. OK. Those righteous screwblls who tender POS CC need to be kicked off the planet. I am biased.

How many stuffups with a backhoe or auger have taken out a critical link?

Have a job for life. Unless you do something wrong. This excludes, to a very sharp highly flexible degree, the following: fraud, watching porn at work, backstabbing, reading the paper all day, being completely useless, wasting time, destroying other peoples productivity, running your own business on the side, undermining hard workers, theft, running your own business from your desk, simply not being at work, preventing others from working, spend all day talking about your social life, dodge work, or just turn up and play with your phone. Some of these activities may be considered essential for future managers.

Do we have any left for Apple?

Try not to get too worked up. It's still a numbers game... Even with 99% accuracy, that's still going to be several not so good articles per year. It's strange the way some interesting stories turn out as poor summaries, and sometimes press releases do end up as pretty good stories. It's not easy to quickly introduce everyone to a topic and explain why it might matter to them (and nothing is always interesting to everyone).

Everyone can help... with more submissions, it's less tempting to publish the so-so stories, and you havent exactly submitted much yourself.