Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Flatpak Officially Announced For "Next Generation Linux Applications"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #81
    Originally posted by unixfan2001 View Post
    Friendly fire?


    And you fell in it.

    Not talking about you, you have some views I don't agree with but you are at least rational. Most of the times.

    Comment


    • #82
      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post


      And you fell in it.

      Not talking about you, you have some views I don't agree with but you are at least rational. Most of the times.
      I kind of half suspected you might talk about a certain other kind of GPL haters.
      The ones who call it Communism and all sorts of names.

      Comment


      • #83

        Originally posted by unixfan2001 View Post

        Friendly fire?

        I have no problem with the GPL per se.
        What I have a problem with are its rabid proponents and the fact that it appears to be written in Legal English (and the fact that using pieces of GPLd software requires me to include something steeped in legalese with my software).

        If I wanted to include a long winded EULA with my software, I'd join Apple or Microsoft.

        EDIT: That being said, if someone were to write a new GPL (let's call it GPL-NEXT) that condensed the whole license down to the average length of a permissive license (no more than 30 lines), the FSF was to elect a more level headed leadership (I do care about who represents my interests and Stallman is not the kind of person I trust to do that) and we started calling it Open Software (which, in my book, is not only what it is but is also far more marketable than both "Free Software" -- to the average layperson that sounds like an inferior product people throw at you because they couldn't possibly sell it -- and "Open Source" -- sounds like something geeks and nerds do in their basements), I'd be the first person to adopt that new model.

        As a bonus, Markdown or LaTex should be chosen as the default text format. Last I checked software engineers weren't barbarians, so why use barbaric txt?
        The problem is that it's a lot easier to concisely say "give me credit" than to define copyleft in terms a lawyer can't wiggle around. They've done their best to make it simultaneously readable, yet legalese enough to be properly enforceable.

        Also, it's not a long-winded EULA because it's not an End-User License Agreement. It applies to the person who distributes the software. No distribution, no GPL restrictions.

        As for the format, I remember reading something about how using anything fancier than "barbaric txt" puts the license's enforceability on uncertain ground because of past precedents regarding things like what satisfies the requirement that certain passages be emphasized. (That's why you always see that unreadable all-caps block. Legal precedent says that's more effectively readable as "emphasis" than something you can actually read.)

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by debianxfce View Post

          When you google "4G network hacked", you do not find any or many sagas from 2016. Of course security holes are fixed in 4G networks like in any advanced computing system. In high tech countries 4G has replaced adsl, so a lot of desktops are using 4G for example via 4G router that has a firewall.
          Most such cases stay quiet because hackers responsible tend to be on the pay of governments and arent even discovered. In which case, if they play on "home field" they'd simply use operator-provided access to get at your device. Abroad, equipment one needs for this is simply impossible to get, hard to build and/or too expensive for private effort. Like setting up fake base station. Making one for GSM is quite trivial and cheap, very much not so for UMTS/LTE. And that's just one possible attack vector.

          As a side note, you probably never know if all the multitude of Huawei consumer modems on the market include back doors or not. For example Australia and Canada have excluded Huawei from participating from their network infrastructure procurements.

          Reason why your 4G router is not being constantly attacked: ISPs generally block off inbound traffic towards mobile clients. Common inbound net traffic never even reaches it.

          But 4G in itself is definitely NOT secure. Want secure connection, you'd have to use heavily encrypted satellite pipe. And you'd have to own the satellite :P
          Last edited by aht0; 11 March 2017, 12:55 PM.

          Comment

          Working...
          X