Page 24 of 25 FirstFirst ... 1422232425 LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 247

Thread: KDBUS & Systemd Now Yields A Working System

  1. #231
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    267

    Default

    Companies which are based on the United States cannot be trusted as US law requires them to provide access to personal information (or even back doors) without ever disclosing this

    Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.5 has just come out [1,2,3]. Red Hat targets the so-called 'cloud' (surveillance-friendly) market with it, quite frankly as usual [4]. Cutting-edge RHEL prototypes like Fedora 20 are to be released soon, and Scientific Linux (not just CentOS) will need to catch up by rebranding RHEL (they are being compared in terms of performance in [5]). Some people are remixing [6] Red Hat’s distributions, not rebranding them. But few people actually audit RHEL code line by line. Disassembling RHEL binaries is an even greater challenge, so nobody knows for sure what RHEL does. It’s a vast body of software and it is deployed in many mission-critical operations, not just in the United States.

    “Trusting Trust” is an old concept, coined by some of the earlier UNIX folks. This subject happened to have been raised during business lunch earlier this week and it speaks on the degree of trust we must place on compiler developers, chipmakers, high-level software companies, and even Free software developers whose code we never personally audited (or continue to audit every time a new release is made available). Verifying the security of a small piece of software like a CMS (as Germany currently does) is feasible, but for entire operating systems it is virtually impossible and then there’s the peril of checking chip designs, their fabrication process, and the same for software (compilers).

    There is currently a discussion in Diaspora about this. It is argued that Red Hat will need to appease the government — especially the Pentagon/DOD — in order to keep winning major contracts that are derived from black budgets sometimes. There are stories I am aware of (but cannot share) about the role spies play in procurement for government. They can veto and influence decisions. This is a very ugly side of procurement which many people are simply not aware of. It only makes sense for Red Hat to try to appease the NSA and perhaps attach code from the NSA, with or without sufficient scrutiny (it goes well beyond involvement in SELinux, which is not the NSA’s only role in Linux). Well, some in Twitter wanted more information about this, so I reminded them that several years ago I wrote about how RHEL goes through the NSA before release; the same is true for SUSE. Now we know for sure that Linux was the target of NSA back doors [1, 2, 3, 4]; more new reporting on this [7-10] is starting to appear (people are catching up) and a new report tells us that “NSA infected 50,000 computer networks with malicious software”

  2. #232
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    267

    Default

    I like this quote.

    If we've learnt nothing else over the past 6 months, it is that even the most paranoid tin-foil hat
    people have not been nearly paranoid enough about the capabilities of the intelligence agencies
    against both software and hardware at all levels

  3. #233
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    The FAT drivers are the case why Android devices were charged by M$, till european (?) court ruled out M$ patent claims on FAT are invalid. In that sense, BSD fits pretty well into embrace, expand, etc. ("Here, take this nice free format..." Smiling at first, smirking later)
    The win2K code is leaked, so certainly not BSD, and the FUSE code is not written by MS (hence why the patent license does not come with it), and probably not BSD either. It was just an example of you can have patent license or code license completely separate, even on the same subject.
    Also, FAT patent is still valid in the US, and probably has never existed in many countries in the world. Patent law is really separate from copyright law.

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    I don't understand whats the reason to modify, if can't use, but .... one never knows the intent of original copyright/patent holder.
    Still, as I see BSD requires separate patent agreement. I don't think that contributor agreement fits here - contributor agreements are for reassigning the authorship rights, and are usually bad if we are talking about free libre software (unless the organization in question has crystal reputation). As for BSD, it allows sublicensing and provides minimal obligations, so unless one wants to step back from just those obligations, its not really needed.
    Well, let's not extend the discussion to contributor agreements, but I was considering them generally, as just a contract you sign with the project owner before it accepts your contributions.
    It can be limited to forfeiting patents litigation rights, without copyright assignment or sub-licensing rights.
    For example, if you want to contribute to the WebM format (or to its BSD reference implementation), I'm pretty sure you need to sign stuff saying you won't use any patent you have against users of the format.

  4. #234
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Lol, if I were to go mod on every license troll and dispute there would hardly be any users on the forum.
    This "moderation" policy explains so much of the tone on phoronix. Quite sad, actually. If you aren't going to moderate extremely obvious and rude trolls, why do you even bother having moderators at all? For show?

  5. #235
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kigurai View Post
    This "moderation" policy explains so much of the tone on phoronix. Quite sad, actually. If you aren't going to moderate extremely obvious and rude trolls, why do you even bother having moderators at all? For show?
    hate speech and spam at the very least, I'd guess.

  6. #236
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    267

    Default

    Did Greg Kroah-Hartman just delete everything from his G+ page or am I blocked?
    Could some check for me please?

    https://plus.google.com/111049168280...ts/4KJxFY8VvT1

  7. #237
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zester View Post
    Did Greg Kroah-Hartman just delete everything from his G+ page or am I blocked?
    Could some check for me please?

    https://plus.google.com/111049168280...ts/4KJxFY8VvT1
    You are blocked.

  8. #238
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    You are blocked.
    Thanks mrugiero

  9. #239
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zester View Post
    Thanks mrugiero
    You're welcome.

  10. #240
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3

    Default

    > Large portions of Qt5 and Kde4 came from research and development I did.

    Wut. I am normally not stupid enough to openly address turnips like you, but of all the people associated with Qt 5 who contributed a whit, you do not register. Not that it matters; more bollocks from the bottomless well, but I just want to spare anyone else any potential confusion.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •