Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Steve Lamb]

Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
 The person who leaked it is the one doing the distribution or
 conveying.  They are guilty of misappropriating your code and of
 violating the license agreement.  I would think that if you took
 reasonable steps to prvent such leaks that you would be blameless.

Unfortunately with the DMCA Reasonable is a pretty low standard.  I
think ROT13 could qualify.  :/

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 1FC01004   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 24/05/2008, Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Setting that aside, you bring up an interesting point. If I take GPLed
   code, I modify it internally, and somehow it leaks outside, is the
   person who takes it infringing copyright or not? I say they're not,
   since the code isn't copyrighted to me even if I modified it. On the
   other hand, they can't force me to distribute the source either, since
   I didn't convey the code, right? It just got leaked somehow.
  
   Curious hypothetical situation.

  The person who leaked it is the one doing the distribution or
  conveying.

So the person who leaks the modified GPL code is the one who has to
make sure the source is also available? That's weird. :-)

 They are guilty of misappropriating your code and of
  violating the license agreement.

Are they violating the GPL by distributing the code? The only way that
the GPL says you can't distribute anything is with its liberty or
death clause. It says that if you cannot distribute it under the
terms of the GPL (so that you would also need access to the source
code), then you can't distribute it at all. I guess that if you want
to leak the code, you have to leak all of it. Since Airbus doesn't
have copyright on the code they modified (the original authors who
GPLed it still have that copyright, under the interpretation of
derived works), they can't claim copyright infringement.

Anyways, it seems to me that at least in spirit, someone who manages
to distribute secretly-modified GPLed code is not doing any wrong.
Like we say in Spanish, ladrón que roba a ladrón, tiene cien años de
perdón (a thief who steals from another thief has a hundred years of
forgiveness).

- Jordi G. H.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/25/08 14:41, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
 On 24/05/2008, Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Setting that aside, you bring up an interesting point. If I take GPLed
   code, I modify it internally, and somehow it leaks outside, is the
   person who takes it infringing copyright or not? I say they're not,
   since the code isn't copyrighted to me even if I modified it. On the
   other hand, they can't force me to distribute the source either, since
   I didn't convey the code, right? It just got leaked somehow.
  
   Curious hypothetical situation.

  The person who leaked it is the one doing the distribution or
  conveying.
 
 So the person who leaks the modified GPL code is the one who has to
 make sure the source is also available? That's weird. :-)
 
 They are guilty of misappropriating your code and of
  violating the license agreement.
 
 Are they violating the GPL by distributing the code? The only way that
 the GPL says you can't distribute anything is with its liberty or
 death clause. It says that if you cannot distribute it under the
 terms of the GPL (so that you would also need access to the source
 code), then you can't distribute it at all. I guess that if you want
 to leak the code, you have to leak all of it. Since Airbus doesn't
 have copyright on the code they modified (the original authors who
 GPLed it still have that copyright, under the interpretation of
 derived works), they can't claim copyright infringement.
 
 Anyways, it seems to me that at least in spirit, someone who manages
 to distribute secretly-modified GPLed code is not doing any wrong.
 Like we say in Spanish, ladrón que roba a ladrón, tiene cien años de
 perdón (a thief who steals from another thief has a hundred years of
 forgiveness).

Airbus only have to make the source code available to it's
distributees: the purchasers of planes.  It doesn't have to make the
SC available to anyone else.

Now as to whether misappropriating that source code is a crime is
beyond my knowledge.  debian-legal would probably know.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

ESPN makes baseball players better.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIOcRUS9HxQb37XmcRAv87AKCiimArtmZQqu9EN5Js58pfIo2TqACfcbYV
dPnAcor9GcQscjAOMK9qyBM=
=FgE/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 25/05/2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Now as to whether misappropriating that source code is a crime is
  beyond my knowledge.  debian-legal would probably know.

I'm starting to think it is, because you do not receive a license if
you don't obtain the code by legal means. Which further makes me think
what exactly constitutes receiving a license.

Anyways.

- Jordi G. H.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Andrew Sackville-West]

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 03:12:44PM -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
 On 25/05/2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Now as to whether misappropriating that source code is a crime is
   beyond my knowledge.  debian-legal would probably know.
 
 I'm starting to think it is, because you do not receive a license if
 you don't obtain the code by legal means. Which further makes me think
 what exactly constitutes receiving a license.

I tend to agree. The requirements of the GPL only apply (as I
understand it, usual disclaimers apply) to distributed code. If you
make changes to the code, those changes are copyright to the
changer. If those changes aren't distributed, they are not subject to
the GPL. Further, the copyright holder retains all their rights unless
they otherwise license them. Leaking modified code would be
distribution without license to do so. So the leaker would certainly
be violating copyright. And if they leaked GPL'ed code without source,
they would also be violating the license agreement on the portion of
the code subject to GPL.

Sounds like twice damned to me. The leaker certainly doesn't have
rights to distribute the unreleased code and likely violates the
GPL. ouch.


.02. It's an interesting subject.

A


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Steve Lamb]

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
 Since Airbus doesn't
 have copyright on the code they modified (the original authors who
 GPLed it still have that copyright, under the interpretation of
 derived works), they can't claim copyright infringement.

Still trying to figure out how this conclusion was reached.  Seems very
presumptuous.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Douglas A. Tutty]

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 09:25:56AM +1200, Richard Hector wrote:
 On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 15:58 -0500, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:
 
 My understanding is that the FCC (which I believe has no jurisdiction
 over me, but that's another issue) regulations require the manufacturer
 to keep the source closed. Whether it works is debatable, and I agree
 with the principles of what you're saying, but my understanding is Intel
 is doing what they're required to.

The problem is that there are more people willing to change the source
code to see if they can get their wifi card to talk to their cell phone
nowadays than perhaps people a technological-generation ago willing to
study the IC card in a VHF ham radio, snip a diode, and get that VHF to
transmit on marine or commercial VHF bands.  

Its probably a bit of willingness and lack of immediate consequences.
Source code looks so easy to change and revert.  People tinker.  Cutting
off a surface-mounted diode or something is more strongly a one-chance
deal with a real possibility of killing the radio if it breaks.

The other issue is cost.  If someone fries their wifi card, they are
relatively cheap to replace.  Previously, radio transmitting equipment
was rather expensive to be fitzing with.

Doug.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Douglas A. Tutty]

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 08:02:25PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
 On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:58:33 -0500
 Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 You may believe so, but not everyone agrees.  IANAL, but the
 above referenced Madwifi page justifies the need for the binary,
 closed source HAL by claiming that:
 
 Quote
 
 At least the USA Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires that
 any manufactured products have a mechanism for limiting transmission
 power and frequencies, and that these mechanisms are not easily
 modifiable by the consumer.
 
 /Quote

Why didn't they do it in hardware?  Why have the hardware be
software-configurable to go outside of the design spec then limit the
access to the software?

Doug.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Douglas A. Tutty]

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:09:50PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
 On 05/15/08 17:01, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:
  On 15/05/2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  How can the software be conveyed to me if I'm pushing buttons on a
   seat-back screen that's connected to a server in the stewardesses'
   area.  *Especially* since I don't own the seat
  
  Depends on what convey means, doesn't it? I think YOU (and I, for
  that matter) need to read GPLv3 more closely.
 
   Convey \Con*vey\ (k[o^]n*v[=a]), v. t. [imp.  p. p.
  {Conveyed} (k[o^]n*v[=a]d); p. pr.  vb. n. {Conveying}.]
  [OF. conveir, convoier, to escort, convoy, F. convoyer, LL.
  conviare, fr. L. con- + via way. See {Viaduct}, {Voyage}, and
  cf. {Convoy}.]
  1. To carry from one place to another; to bear or transport.
 [1913 Webster]
 
 The software is *not* being conveyed to the airline passenger.  It's
 conveyed from the computer programmers to Airbus and the airlines.

Actually, the software and the passenger are being conveyed at the same
time from point A to point B.  

Doug.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/24/08 11:35, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
 On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 08:02:25PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
 On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:58:33 -0500
 Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
 You may believe so, but not everyone agrees.  IANAL, but the
 above referenced Madwifi page justifies the need for the binary,
 closed source HAL by claiming that:

 Quote

 At least the USA Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires that
 any manufactured products have a mechanism for limiting transmission
 power and frequencies, and that these mechanisms are not easily
 modifiable by the consumer.

 /Quote
 
 Why didn't they do it in hardware?  Why have the hardware be
 software-configurable to go outside of the design spec then limit the
 access to the software?

Flexibility.  If the regulations change, a firmware update gives
your product more features.

And cost.  It's cheaper to manufacture a lot of one thing, than some
of this, some of that, and some of something else.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

ESPN makes baseball players better.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIOEgJS9HxQb37XmcRAvLVAJ9qfgiAnPbmYwSypzC44ygWAgaa/wCeONED
BI4/NumYkirMgLWCC/U673k=
=WN5a
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/24/08 11:39, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
 On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:09:50PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
 On 05/15/08 17:01, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:
 On 15/05/2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 How can the software be conveyed to me if I'm pushing buttons on a
  seat-back screen that's connected to a server in the stewardesses'
  area.  *Especially* since I don't own the seat
 Depends on what convey means, doesn't it? I think YOU (and I, for
 that matter) need to read GPLv3 more closely.
   Convey \Con*vey\ (k[o^]n*v[=a]), v. t. [imp.  p. p.
  {Conveyed} (k[o^]n*v[=a]d); p. pr.  vb. n. {Conveying}.]
  [OF. conveir, convoier, to escort, convoy, F. convoyer, LL.
  conviare, fr. L. con- + via way. See {Viaduct}, {Voyage}, and
  cf. {Convoy}.]
  1. To carry from one place to another; to bear or transport.
 [1913 Webster]

 The software is *not* being conveyed to the airline passenger.  It's
 conveyed from the computer programmers to Airbus and the airlines.
 
 Actually, the software and the passenger are being conveyed at the same
 time from point A to point B.  

Except when you're watching a movie on the tarmac.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

ESPN makes baseball players better.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIOEg5S9HxQb37XmcRAtUIAKDdsiEbRy/yhp6/ceMA1/sMpmrYuACgoZG0
GY3u6RtyTFu/xbjm7jdillI=
=IBpX
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Douglas A. Tutty]

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:57:06PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
 
 There must be a socio-linguistic gap here.
 
 In the US (and probably in Canada/UK/ANZ), there's an expression
 that after the revolution is won, the revolutionary leaders are
 brought out back and shot.

Since Canada has no history of revolution I wouldn't expect that this
could be considered a Canadian expression; at least I haven't heard it
before.  

Those who disagreed with your revolution came to Canada as United Empire
Loyalists (came is a gentle way to say that the victors kicked them out
with perhaps the clothes on their back.  

Of course the British did the same thing when they took over
French-speaking Acadia (now the Maritime Provinces of Canada) and sent
the Acadians to the other French-speaking region of Mosouri (or however
its spelt).  

 
 The meaning is that the firebrand personality and temperament needed
 to foment and lead a revolution is counter to those needed to run
 the country once the revolution is over.  But the revolutionaries
 obviously don't want to give up power, and they'd cause too many
 headaches and embarrassments, so professional politicians quickly
 step in and have the firebrands neutralized.
 
  The GPLv3 does good things and fixes many problems. It's a necessary
  license, and given its growing level of adoption, I'm not alone with
  this opinion.
 
 - --
 Ron Johnson, Jr.
 Jefferson LA  USA
 
 ESPN makes baseball players better.
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
 Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
 
 iD8DBQFILL/BS9HxQb37XmcRAlFKAJsEhpAxqrnMPADzz2dJfF8QgzlTbQCgzQgO
 HIBA8l5khyEB1OHOv7XIQ5M=
 =seI0
 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
 
 
 -- 
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/24/08 11:58, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
 On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:57:06PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
  
 There must be a socio-linguistic gap here.

 In the US (and probably in Canada/UK/ANZ), there's an expression
 that after the revolution is won, the revolutionary leaders are
 brought out back and shot.
 
 Since Canada has no history of revolution I wouldn't expect that this
 could be considered a Canadian expression; at least I haven't heard it
 before.  

Since none of the Founding Fathers were brought out back and shot,
it must be a more modern term.

 Those who disagreed with your revolution came to Canada as United Empire
 Loyalists (came is a gentle way to say that the victors kicked them out
 with perhaps the clothes on their back.  
 
 Of course the British did the same thing when they took over
 French-speaking Acadia (now the Maritime Provinces of Canada) and sent
 the Acadians to the other French-speaking region of Mosouri (or however
 its spelt).  

Missouri?  The Acadians were dispersed along the East Coast, and
many settled in southern Louisiana.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

ESPN makes baseball players better.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIOEw0S9HxQb37XmcRAhaCAJ9y0p6qJ0qRM9OzkXi2bdHImhoP2ACgqjIG
Qm31dwZ7fffXOIqjw8remVo=
=qr+j
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Douglas A. Tutty]

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 11:54:17AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
 On 05/24/08 11:39, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
  On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:09:50PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
  On 05/15/08 17:01, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:
  On 15/05/2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  The software is *not* being conveyed to the airline passenger.  It's
  conveyed from the computer programmers to Airbus and the airlines.
  
  Actually, the software and the passenger are being conveyed at the same
  time from point A to point B.  
 
 Except when you're watching a movie on the tarmac.

Well, motion is always relative, so I suppose is convey.  What is the
speed of the tarmac in relation to the so-called fixed stars?  

:)

Doug.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Douglas A. Tutty]

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 07:41:20AM -0500, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:
 On 15/05/2008, Rich Healey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How does this work with GPLv3? They changed it from distribute to
convey. Is Airbus conveying the software to its customers or not? If
there is a way to bring a USB dongle and get some of the software from
the entertainment system in the Airbus passenger seats, has that
 
  I believe that's called Stealing and in a ruling totally non-GPL
   related, is illegal.
 
 I'll ignore the usage of the word steal in the context of non-rival
 goods, which to me looks like a silly word to use here.
 
 Setting that aside, you bring up an interesting point. If I take GPLed
 code, I modify it internally, and somehow it leaks outside, is the
 person who takes it infringing copyright or not? I say they're not,
 since the code isn't copyrighted to me even if I modified it. On the
 other hand, they can't force me to distribute the source either, since
 I didn't convey the code, right? It just got leaked somehow.
 
 Curious hypothetical situation.

The person who leaked it is the one doing the distribution or
conveying.  They are guilty of misappropriating your code and of
violating the license agreement.  I would think that if you took
reasonable steps to prvent such leaks that you would be blameless.

Doug.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/24/08 12:14, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
 On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 11:54:17AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
 On 05/24/08 11:39, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
 On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:09:50PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
 On 05/15/08 17:01, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:
 On 15/05/2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The software is *not* being conveyed to the airline passenger.  It's
 conveyed from the computer programmers to Airbus and the airlines.
 Actually, the software and the passenger are being conveyed at the same
 time from point A to point B.  
 Except when you're watching a movie on the tarmac.
 
 Well, motion is always relative, so I suppose is convey.  What is the
 speed of the tarmac in relation to the so-called fixed stars?  
 
 :)

Relative to what point?  To the person on the tarmac, the stars are
the ones that move...

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

ESPN makes baseball players better.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIOE+tS9HxQb37XmcRAvNGAKCrMNoBvEvNyRcdsSlqUnN4uOgE9gCg2aQw
lPQSL2yk87qj6P3qhk/J/nc=
=/fsf
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Gregory Seidman]

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 09:44:50PM -0500, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:
 On 15/05/2008, Gregory Seidman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
   Looks like Apple did terrible harm by devoting resources to improving
   the functionality and releasing them to the world, eh? Oh, but it
   isn't getting back to KHTML quickly, you say? That sometimes happens
   in a code fork.
 
 Well, the rules (LGPL) say that they have to give back the code.

No, they don't. They say that if you distribute something built with the
code, you have to release the code. There is a common misconception that
the (L)GPL forces people give their changes to the original authors (or
current maintainers). This is not supported by the actual language of the
(L)GPL, nor by the GNU Foundation's intent in creating the (L)GPL.

Furthermore, if you actually read the Free Software Definition
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html you will notice that the
four freedoms listed specifically support Apple's behavior. They wanted to
run the KHTML code as a Mac web browser (freedom 0), they wanted to adapt
it to work well on the Mac (freedom 1), they wanted to distribute it with
their operating system (freedom 2), and they wanted to make it a
best-in-class web browser engine (freedom 3). 

 Which they did, in large chunks, a year later, in ways that were
 impossible to put back into KDE. They didn't break any written rules,
 just didn't act in a way that is traditional in the free software
 community. They acted like a corporation would (this is not a compliment,
 despite what the profitable == moral people think).

So the problem is that they aren't traditional? Yeah, whatever. They
produced a better, more flexible, more functional version of the library
and have consistently fulfilled and exceeded their responsibilities for
maintaining it as Free software. That they did it by taking it in-house
instead of trying to convince the people who tied it to KDE that it should
be more general is utterly irrelevant.

 Forking is generally seen as a hostile falling apart within our
 community. Forking happens with big disagreements, negative publicity,
 and internal flamewars. Xemacs vs Emacs, XFree86 vs Xorg, Funpidgin vs
 Pidgin... And I don't see Apple's forking as a friendly move either.
 And it's taken a long time for KDE to benefit from it, and in the
 meantime the whole thing caused flamewars within KDE.

It's easy for people to take offense. Apple did what it did for business
reasons, not to piss off KDE. The KDE folks didn't like that Apple made
their code way better and released it in a form that people outside of KDE
actually wanted to use? Yeah, not feeling any sympathy here. Apple took a
weird, niche browser from a bunch of not-invented-here coders and made it
good. So good that the library ON WHICH KDE IS BASED decided to incorporate
it.

Is it hostile to fork code? How about creating an independent, competing
codebase (e.g. KHTML vs. Gecko)? Again, no sympathy.

 Fiasco, I insist.
[...]

And I call bullshit.

   Not KHTML? Actually, since WebKit is part of Qt
   these days, KDE could just ditch KHTML and use WebKit instead.
 
 It's not so easy. Technical obstacles loom ahead:
 
http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/3073

The technical obstacles there are not with ditching KHTML, but with porting
the advantages KHTML currently has over WebKit; the article doesn't go into
detail about what those advantages are. It also makes two important points:
bug-for-bug compatibility with Safari has advantages (if you're using the
same engine as a significant installed base, web sites might actually gear
content to work around your quirks instead of just ignoring you), and
pushing their patches through Qt's branch (i.e. WebKitQt) is a good
alternative to dealing with Apple's turnaround on patches. It sounds to me
like it's mostly a problem with bruised egos, for which I have (say it with
me) no sympathy.

 - Jordi G. H.
--Greg


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 16/05/2008, Gregory Seidman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 09:44:50PM -0500, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:
   On 15/05/2008, Gregory Seidman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
 Looks like Apple did terrible harm by devoting resources to improving
 the functionality and releasing them to the world, eh? Oh, but it
 isn't getting back to KHTML quickly, you say? That sometimes happens
 in a code fork.
  
   Well, the rules (LGPL) say that they have to give back the code.


 No, they don't. They say that if you distribute something built with the
  code, you have to release the code.

That's what I meant.

  That they did it by taking it in-house
  instead of trying to convince the people who tied it to KDE that it should
  be more general is utterly irrelevant.

No, that's the whole point. Because they didn't work with free
developers, they actually created a lot of strife for KDE. They took
the code and told the kdevelopers to fork off.

 It's easy for people to take offense. Apple did what it did for business
  reasons,

Ah, here we go. I was waiting for the profitable==ethical slant. Whatever.

  Is it hostile to fork code? How about creating an independent, competing
  codebase (e.g. KHTML vs. Gecko)? Again, no sympathy.

Competition is good. Forking fragments efforts.

 a problem with bruised egos,

Did you read the article at all? It's not about egos. It really is
*hard* to put Webkit into KDE. Apple ignored KDE's patches, and gave
the impression that they wanted gratis employees, not collaborators.
They didn't play nice with KDE, whatever other benefits to Webkit may
bring to the world at large, but KDE got a lot of problems because of
the whole thing.

- Jordi G. H.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 15/05/2008, Rich Healey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   How does this work with GPLv3? They changed it from distribute to
   convey. Is Airbus conveying the software to its customers or not? If
   there is a way to bring a USB dongle and get some of the software from
   the entertainment system in the Airbus passenger seats, has that

 I believe that's called Stealing and in a ruling totally non-GPL
  related, is illegal.

I'll ignore the usage of the word steal in the context of non-rival
goods, which to me looks like a silly word to use here.

Setting that aside, you bring up an interesting point. If I take GPLed
code, I modify it internally, and somehow it leaks outside, is the
person who takes it infringing copyright or not? I say they're not,
since the code isn't copyrighted to me even if I modified it. On the
other hand, they can't force me to distribute the source either, since
I didn't convey the code, right? It just got leaked somehow.

Curious hypothetical situation.

- Jordi G. H.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Gregory Seidman]

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 07:34:19AM -0500, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:
 On 16/05/2008, Gregory Seidman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
   That they did it by taking it in-house instead of trying to convince
   the people who tied it to KDE that it should be more general is
   utterly irrelevant.
 
 No, that's the whole point. Because they didn't work with free
 developers, they actually created a lot of strife for KDE. They took the
 code and told the kdevelopers to fork off.

There is no strife here. Apple didn't try to take over the KDE project, or
the KHTML project. They took the code and ran with it. KDE developers took
offense because they expected that anyone who improved their code would do
so with the same goals as the developers, i.e. improving KDE. That is an
unrealistic expectation. Apple didn't care about KDE and is under no
obligation, legal or ethical, to care about KDE. If the KDE developers want
to benefit from Apple's improvements to the code then they will have to put
in some effort, but they got along just fine (as far as they were
concerned) without those improvements before Apple got involved.

  It's easy for people to take offense. Apple did what it did for
  business reasons,
 
 Ah, here we go. I was waiting for the profitable==ethical slant.
 Whatever.

I never made that implication. Consider that Apple had a motivation (need a
web browser component) and had five options to get it:

1) license some non-free code from someone
2) write their own in-house and keep it closed
3) write their own in-house and release it as FOSS
4) bend an existing FOSS project to their needs
5) take FOSS code and adapt it to their needs without interfering with the
   current maintainers

Which of these is best for the FOSS community? #1 and #2 provide no value
to anyone but Apple. #3 provides arguable value, but who needs yet another
immature, competing browser engine? #4 would piss off lots of people and
probably wouldn't even work. Only #5 is both respectful of the FOSS
community and actually produces worthwhile software. And remember that the
profit motive is what makes the first two choices, which are of no value to
FOSS, less viable.

   Is it hostile to fork code? How about creating an independent, competing
   codebase (e.g. KHTML vs. Gecko)? Again, no sympathy.
 
 Competition is good. Forking fragments efforts.

Bullshit twice over. Forking builds on what already exists. Unless your
competing codebase is based on designs that are both significantly better
than what you're competing against and so fundamentally different that they
can't be accommodated by the existing codebase, a whole new codebase is a
waste of duplicated effort in *addition* to fragmenting effort. Both
forking and entirely new, competing codebases fragment effort, but at least
forking minimizes wasted effort reinventing the wheel.

  a problem with bruised egos,
 
 Did you read the article at all? It's not about egos. It really is
 *hard* to put Webkit into KDE. Apple ignored KDE's patches, and gave
 the impression that they wanted gratis employees, not collaborators.
 They didn't play nice with KDE, whatever other benefits to Webkit may
 bring to the world at large, but KDE got a lot of problems because of
 the whole thing.

Apple had no more reason to play nice with KDE than KDE had to play nice
with Apple. Their goals are completely unrelated. Apple doesn't want gratis
employees, they want *paid* employees whose vested interests are dictated
by their employer. As long as Apple and KDE have different goals then they
will not benefit one another by working together except accidentally, e.g.
through Qt. The hearts and minds behind KHTML considers it important to be
able to embed kparts in web pages to handle various content types. Apple
doesn't give a rats ass about integrating with KDE, nor should they. They
do, however, consider rich text editing a priority, and KDE isn't as
concerned about that.

I'm still not feeling sympathy for the KHTML folks. It sounds more like
*they* want the gratis employees, but paid by Apple. They want Apple to
deal with KDE's turnaround on patches instead of having to deal with
Apple's turnaround on patches. Both sides want their own release cycles and
control of the codebase. And they both have it!

As things stand, Apple has shown itself to be a better custodian of the
library, in the sense that it has greater functionality with a broader
appeal (note that those are not separate -- the functionality WebKit has
over KHTML is of broader appeal than the functionality KHTML has over
WebKit; I'm not going to open a can of worms about which one is objectively
more functional). More end users benefit from Apple's codebase than KHTML.

Should KDE simply give up control of the codebase and go with WebKitQt?
Well, it's an option, but it's really up to them. If control of the
codebase and the advantages of KHTML over WebKit are worth more to them
than the improvements in WebKit, then they are right to 

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Brian McKee]

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Gregory Seidman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Apple doesn't give a rats ass about integrating with KDE, nor should they. 
 They
 do, however, consider rich text editing a priority, and KDE isn't as
 concerned about that.

This is the one statement I think could be modified - Apple doesn't
care about about integrating with KDE, and thus lost the opportunity
to keep reaping the benefits that the KDE guys could have provided on
going.   I'd like to think that the companies that try harder to work
with the existing community will do better in the long term -
spending some of their resources on things they didn't care about
would return them effort by others on things they do care about.

There's nothing illegal or immoral about it - it's just short sighted
to believe that the code was worth taking, but the coders weren't
worth the effort required (in a direction they didn't care about) to
keep them on board.

Brian


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Gregory Seidman]

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 01:40:30PM -0400, Brian McKee wrote:
 On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Gregory Seidman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Apple doesn't give a rats ass about integrating with KDE, nor should
  they. They do, however, consider rich text editing a priority, and KDE
  isn't as concerned about that.
 
 This is the one statement I think could be modified - Apple doesn't
 care about about integrating with KDE, and thus lost the opportunity
 to keep reaping the benefits that the KDE guys could have provided on
 going.   I'd like to think that the companies that try harder to work
 with the existing community will do better in the long term -
 spending some of their resources on things they didn't care about
 would return them effort by others on things they do care about.

Why do corporations contribute to FOSS? Because (in their analysis) the
benefits of doing so outweigh the costs, including the opportunity cost of
pursuing another option (see my previous post on the options Apple had).
At a finer granularity, there's some analysis about *how* they will
contribute. Is the benefit of potential future improvements to the code by
the current developers worth the cost of working within the KDE community?

Remember that while cost ultimately boils down to dollars, time to market
and PR can be measured in dollars as well. Will an acceptably functioning
adaptation of the code be unacceptably delayed by going through the
existing community? On balance, is the PR issue with walking into a
community and trying to change its focus (even bearing the gift of code)
greater than the PR issue of forking it?

Also, remember the crucial difference in focus. If what the KDE guys are
working on for the foreseeable future (i.e. their stated priorities) is not
of interest, the potential future benefit of their improvements to the code
goes way down. In addition, giving up that benefit isn't really giving up
that benefit.

Just as the KDE guys can expend some effort to take improvements from
WebKit and port them to KHTML, Apple can expend some effort to take
improvements from KHTML and port them to WebKit. If there is some
improvement that is of sufficient value and is easier to port than
reimplement, you can bet that's what will happen. That kind of
cross-pollination is one of the beauties of FOSS. If KHTML is consistently
improving in ways that matter to Apple, I wouldn't be surprised to see
Apple making an effort to make the codebases converge.

Right now, cost/benefit analysis recommends a separate codebase (and
community). That can change, but it's only going to change if the KDE guys
are working on things that matter to Apple. If KDE's and Apple's interests
become aligned, there could be a convergence. Since they weren't initially
(and still aren't), there is a fork.

 There's nothing illegal or immoral about it - it's just short sighted
 to believe that the code was worth taking, but the coders weren't
 worth the effort required (in a direction they didn't care about) to
 keep them on board.

I don't think of it as taking the code without the coders. It's taking the
code without the agenda. Apple has their own agenda. Anyone willing to
follow that agenda, including people working on KHTML, are welcome; on the
other hand, Apple expects to have to pay people to follow their agenda,
which is why paid Apple employees are working on WebKit. This is the only
way they could work with the code without treading on KDE's agenda.

While many authors feel strongly that they have the right to set the agenda
for their code, that is specifically what the (L)GPL seeks to avoid. Just
as we object to being told what we can do with closed code, so should we
object to being told what we can do with Free code.

 Brian
--Greg


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Dotan Cohen]

2008/5/15 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Power to the users. If they break the laws, that's their problem. We
 don't need paternalistic corporations doing the job of law-enforcement
 agencies.

Engineering does not work that way. Neither does medicine, nor
driver's licenses for that matter. _First_ you learn the trade, then
you are permitted to practice it in a public setting. The government
won't wait until you kill someone to prevent you from doing something
dangerous.

For instance, most BMWs are computer-limited to 250 kph. The
drivetrain could probably get them close to 300 kph, but the computer
limits them. That's great, the engineers can then design a braking
system that is good for 250 kph, and tires that are designed for 250
kph. If you reprogram the computer to allow 300 kph, and don't upgrade
the tires and braking systems, you are endangering everyone else on
the road. Also, you forget about pollution controls, which are also
regulated by the government.

 Sure, but it's *my* responsibility not to harm others. If by
 negligence or stupidity I harm others, then by all means, put me on
 trial and remove me from society until I reform. Don't take away
 freedom from me just because I might misuse it; I will also mostly use
 it properly.

If it is the case that most people use power responsibly in your land,
then I want to move there. Most places in the world are not blessed
with such responsible citizens.

 Right, I don't have any details about this. But if I am interacting
 with the software, I do believe we have a fundamental right to know
 how it's working or to hire anyone knowledgeable enough to do modify
 it for us, regardless of their affiliations.

No, you don't.



Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/16/08 14:09, Dotan Cohen wrote:
[snip]
 you are permitted to practice it in a public setting. The government
 won't wait until you kill someone to prevent you from doing something
 dangerous.

Sure they do.  Happens all the time.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

ESPN makes baseball players better.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFILd3oS9HxQb37XmcRAvCSAJwJw6QcYp4QwPcziFsgodYuSks7pACg7XWL
tyM0Bsab68xxwVHiGQUQgkc=
=zPXG
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Dotan Cohen]

2008/5/16 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Windows would not have a more-stable competitor in the 'easy to use'
 space

 How exactly are we free software users benefitted by Windows having a
 non-free competitor?


You free software users are benefited by Windows having a non-free
competitor because us use the best tool for the job users can push
Windows marketshare down far enough where hardware manufacturers have
to acknowledge the fact that Linux exists.

Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Magnus Therning]

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 I'm getting a little tired of Gmail serving me Matlab ads whenever I'm
 browsing the Octave mailing lists. That's quite obnoxious. It looks
 like it's tricky to block Google ads, since it looks like Google can
 detect when you're using Adblock and serves you ads in tables
 instead, making them harder to block.

 Can anyone suggest a fix? I only use Gmail for mailing lists nowadays,
 and have moved my personal email to a server in an undisclosed
 location in a remote island... ;-)

 I'd be happy with a solution that either blocks all Gmail ads or a
 better method to browse the 14 mailing lists I'm currently subscribed
 to, many of them high-volume. I'm beginning to miss Usenet.


I use a rather large /etc/hosts file to block ads.  The initial list of
servers to block came from http://www.ssmedia.com/utilities/hosts/ then I've
added the following to that:

0.0.0.0   a.casalemedia.com
0.0.0.0   a.tribalfusion.com
0.0.0.0   ads.eircom.net
0.0.0.0   adserver.securityfocus.com
0.0.0.0   adservices.google.com
0.0.0.0   adwords.google.com
0.0.0.0   b.casalemedia.com
0.0.0.0   c.casalemedia.com
0.0.0.0   dynamic.fmpub.net
0.0.0.0   imageads.googleadservices.com
0.0.0.0   imageads1.googleadservices.com
0.0.0.0   imageads2.googleadservices.com
0.0.0.0   imageads3.googleadservices.com
0.0.0.0   imageads4.googleadservices.com
0.0.0.0   imageads5.googleadservices.com
0.0.0.0   imageads6.googleadservices.com
0.0.0.0   imageads7.googleadservices.com
0.0.0.0   imageads8.googleadservices.com
0.0.0.0   imageads9.googleadservices.com
0.0.0.0   pagead.googlesyndication.com
0.0.0.0   pagead2.googlesyndication.com
0.0.0.0   show.googleadsenseagent.com
0.0.0.0   ssl.google-analytics.com
0.0.0.0   www.google-analytics.com
0.0.0.0   www.googleadservices.com
0.0.0.0   www.googlecaches.com

/M

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Dotan Cohen]

2008/5/15 Magnus Therning [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I'm getting a little tired of Gmail serving me Matlab ads whenever I'm
 browsing the Octave mailing lists. That's quite obnoxious. It looks
 like it's tricky to block Google ads, since it looks like Google can
 detect when you're using Adblock and serves you ads in tables
 instead, making them harder to block.

 Can anyone suggest a fix? I only use Gmail for mailing lists nowadays,
 and have moved my personal email to a server in an undisclosed
 location in a remote island... ;-)

 I'd be happy with a solution that either blocks all Gmail ads or a
 better method to browse the 14 mailing lists I'm currently subscribed
 to, many of them high-volume. I'm beginning to miss Usenet.

 I use a rather large /etc/hosts file to block ads.  The initial list of
 servers to block came from http://www.ssmedia.com/utilities/hosts/ then I've
 added the following to that:

 0.0.0.0   a.casalemedia.com
 0.0.0.0   a.tribalfusion.com
 0.0.0.0   ads.eircom.net
 0.0.0.0   adserver.securityfocus.com
 0.0.0.0   adservices.google.com
 0.0.0.0   adwords.google.com
 0.0.0.0   b.casalemedia.com
 0.0.0.0   c.casalemedia.com
 0.0.0.0   dynamic.fmpub.net
 0.0.0.0   imageads.googleadservices.com
 0.0.0.0   imageads1.googleadservices.com
 0.0.0.0   imageads2.googleadservices.com
 0.0.0.0   imageads3.googleadservices.com
 0.0.0.0   imageads4.googleadservices.com
 0.0.0.0   imageads5.googleadservices.com
 0.0.0.0   imageads6.googleadservices.com
 0.0.0.0   imageads7.googleadservices.com
 0.0.0.0   imageads8.googleadservices.com
 0.0.0.0   imageads9.googleadservices.com
 0.0.0.0   pagead.googlesyndication.com
 0.0.0.0   pagead2.googlesyndication.com
 0.0.0.0   show.googleadsenseagent.com
 0.0.0.0   ssl.google-analytics.com
 0.0.0.0   www.google-analytics.com
 0.0.0.0   www.googleadservices.com
 0.0.0.0   www.googlecaches.com

 /M


Thanks, this does seem to be a better method. Is there a way to avoid
restarting the computer after adding new entries to /etc/hosts?

Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Eduardo M KALINOWSKI]

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Dotan Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Thanks, this does seem to be a better method. Is there a way to avoid
 restarting the computer after adding new entries to /etc/hosts?

There is no need to reboot after that. At most, you should need to
restart the affected application, but even that might not be
necessary.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/15/08 04:50, Magnus Therning wrote:
 On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 I'm getting a little tired of Gmail serving me Matlab ads whenever I'm
 browsing the Octave mailing lists. That's quite obnoxious. It looks
 like it's tricky to block Google ads, since it looks like Google can
 detect when you're using Adblock and serves you ads in tables
 instead, making them harder to block.
 
 Can anyone suggest a fix? I only use Gmail for mailing lists nowadays,
 and have moved my personal email to a server in an undisclosed
 location in a remote island... ;-)
 
 I'd be happy with a solution that either blocks all Gmail ads or a
 better method to browse the 14 mailing lists I'm currently subscribed
 to, many of them high-volume. I'm beginning to miss Usenet.
 
 
 I use a rather large /etc/hosts file to block ads.  The initial list of
 servers to block came from http://www.ssmedia.com/utilities/hosts/ then
 I've added the following to that:
 
 0.0.0.0 http://0.0.0.0   a.casalemedia.com http://a.casalemedia.com
 0.0.0.0 http://0.0.0.0   a.tribalfusion.com
[snip]
 0.0.0.0 http://0.0.0.0   www.googleadservices.com
 http://www.googleadservices.com
 0.0.0.0 http://0.0.0.0   www.googlecaches.com
 http://www.googlecaches.com

I used to use that list, but there were too many exceptions.  Now I
just use Adblock Plus.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

We want... a Shrubbery!!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFILCwrS9HxQb37XmcRArQ/AJ91Rjb6RaeCuhkZsl4h5mcfmEGFnwCfWCCL
5894ufU3cmmykd4tuYNaXzs=
=rMJH
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2008-05-13 21:38:04, schrieb Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso:
 On 13/05/2008, Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Hate to break it to you but I use FOSS all the time for my private and
personal use as well as my professional use.  There is code I have that 
 will
not ever be redistributed and as such you, nor anyone else, has
 right to that
source because you will never, EVER use it.
 
 
 Difference being that we do use Google's software but we aren't seeing
  its source. It is the ASP loophole which the AGPL closes, and the more
  we see software being distributed as service via our web browsers, the
  more it's going to be like this.

So you want to have access to the sourcecode od the boardcomputer  of  a
BMW?  But you kbnow, that ANY modification in the Electronic or Software
will invalid the right to use the BMW public.

Access to the sourcecode will be a security hole...

OH, Airbus is using Linux too...  So, do you want to have access to  the
sourcecode because you are traveling with an Airbus?

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
+49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
+33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2008-05-13 19:01:17, schrieb Steve Lamb:
 Uhm, that is a gross oversimplification.  You use software you have the
 right to the source.  If you *choose* to release software *to others* they
 have right to the source.
 
 Hate to break it to you but I use FOSS all the time for my private and
 personal use as well as my professional use.  There is code I have that will
 not ever be redistributed and as such you, nor anyone else, has right to that
 source because you will never, EVER use it.  That is my choice.  On the other
 hand if I did release it for others to use I would obligated to release the
 source along with it.  An obligation I have fulfilled on all the software I
 have chosen to release for others to use.
 
 They haven't released it for others to use.  They're under no obligation
 to share the source.  That's not a loophole.  That's freedom.

Now imagine,  the  german  car  manufacturer  BMW  must  give  away  the
sourcecode used in  the  microcontroller  of  there  cars  or  make  the
microcontrollers accessible form outside the tech-support...

This would be a very big security hole...

OK, you CAN access the memory of the  microcontroller,  but  this  would
damage the coardcomputer and you will lost any warranty of the car.

It is realy weird, WHY peoples want to have  access  to  sourcecodes  to
hardware they can not use access legaly.

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
+49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
+33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Dotan Cohen]

2008/5/15 Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 It is realy weird, WHY peoples want to have  access  to  sourcecodes  to
 hardware they can not use access legaly.


I'm having a hard time wording this without sounding offensive, but
here goes. It's usually the people who get all uptight about their
rights. Interestingly enough, there are far more of them than there
are those who are concerned about their responsibilities.

Their exists a famous, revolutionary document called the Bill of
Rights. It contains several amendments to the US Constitution. It is a
terrible shame that the Bill of Rights was not dependent upon a Bill
of Responsibilities. A good example would be that the right to bear
arms would be dependent upon the responsibility to secure the weapon
from children, theft, and to use it only under specific conditions.
Those who are not responsible, loose their right. Of course, today
adding a Bill of Responsibilities would be impossible, because that
would infringe upon their Freedoms.

I stress that my intention was not to offend, and before flaming me
(preferably off list) I suggest thinking up a real world example where
a Bill of Responsibilities would be harmful as opposed to beneficial.

Dotan Cohen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Paul Johnson]

On Thursday 15 May 2008 02:50:48 am Magnus Therning wrote:
 On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 wrote:
  I'm getting a little tired of Gmail serving me Matlab ads whenever I'm
  browsing the Octave mailing lists. That's quite obnoxious. It looks
  like it's tricky to block Google ads, since it looks like Google can
  detect when you're using Adblock and serves you ads in tables
  instead, making them harder to block.
 
  Can anyone suggest a fix? I only use Gmail for mailing lists nowadays,
  and have moved my personal email to a server in an undisclosed
  location in a remote island... ;-)
 
  I'd be happy with a solution that either blocks all Gmail ads or a
  better method to browse the 14 mailing lists I'm currently subscribed
  to, many of them high-volume. I'm beginning to miss Usenet.

 I use a rather large /etc/hosts file to block ads.  The initial list of
 servers to block came from http://www.ssmedia.com/utilities/hosts/ then
 I've added the following to that:

Abusing /etc/hosts can occasionally cause unexpected behavior.  Both Konq and 
Iceweasel support Filterset.G; that's a tad more ideal and regularly updated.

-- 
Paul Johnson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Explaination of .pgp part: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Mail/rant-gpg.html


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 14/05/2008, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 So you want to have access to the sourcecode od the boardcomputer  of  a
  BMW?

That would be nice. I already bought the car, I should know how it
works, and I should be able to take it to any mechanic (or coder) to
get it fixed, not just to the original manufacturer, or I should be
given enough information to fix it myself if I'm so inclined to learn
about its inner workings. Cars used to be like this when they had
fewer software inside them; mechanics enthusiasts could work on their
cars and modify them or upgrade them to their heart's content. I
already bought it, it's mine!

 But you kbnow, that ANY modification in the Electronic or Software
  will invalid the right to use the BMW public.

That's because our laws are wrong, not because it's inherently
problematic to modify source code.

  Access to the sourcecode will be a security hole...

Oh, please. You actually are trying to make me believe that security
through obscurity is a good idea? If I were to modify the source code,
I could make my car blow up and it's a good idea to keep stupid users
away from it?

Freedom to modify code also means freedom to shoot your own feet. I
demand the freedom to self-mutilation! :-)

  OH, Airbus is using Linux too...  So, do you want to have access to  the
  sourcecode because you are traveling with an Airbus?

In fact, I believe it is available. It has to be anyways, according to
the GPL. There is no ASP loophole (I assume you are referring to the
inflight entertainment computers that passengers can use during some
flights).

- Jordi G. H.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Dotan Cohen]

2008/5/15 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 On 14/05/2008, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 So you want to have access to the sourcecode od the boardcomputer  of  a
  BMW?

 That would be nice. I already bought the car, I should know how it
 works, and I should be able to take it to any mechanic (or coder) to
 get it fixed, not just to the original manufacturer, or I should be
 given enough information to fix it myself if I'm so inclined to learn
 about its inner workings.

It's that attitude that brought about the recent openssl issue. I'm
not disagreeing with you, Jordi (actually I agree) but we should be a
tad more trustworthy when modifying something complicated developed by
engineers for a very specific purpose. And a tad more reluctant to get
our own hands dirty.

 Cars used to be like this when they had
 fewer software inside them; mechanics enthusiasts could work on their
 cars and modify them or upgrade them to their heart's content. I
 already bought it, it's mine!

I put a 351W and a T-5 in an '88 Tbird that came with a 2.3 turbo
fourbanger. I know very well what to modify, and how. And I know when
not to. The problem is, that many people don't know where to stop, and
get themselves (and others) into trouble.
http://dotancohen.com/eng/thunderstang.php

 But you kbnow, that ANY modification in the Electronic or Software
  will invalid the right to use the BMW public.

 That's because our laws are wrong, not because it's inherently
 problematic to modify source code.

That's because the vehicle will be used on a public motorway, possibly
endangering other civilians on the motorway. Also, it possibly
interferes with polution controls.

  Access to the sourcecode will be a security hole...

 Oh, please. You actually are trying to make me believe that security
 through obscurity is a good idea? If I were to modify the source code,
 I could make my car blow up and it's a good idea to keep stupid users
 away from it?

I don't buy this one either. Access to the source code will _prevent_
security holes. Only Ballmer would have you believe differently.

 Freedom to modify code also means freedom to shoot your own feet. I
 demand the freedom to self-mutilation! :-)

Ah, but you forget the responsibility _not_ to harm others. Modding
your BMW might just do that.

  OH, Airbus is using Linux too...  So, do you want to have access to  the
  sourcecode because you are traveling with an Airbus?

 In fact, I believe it is available. It has to be anyways, according to
 the GPL. There is no ASP loophole (I assume you are referring to the
 inflight entertainment computers that passengers can use during some
 flights).

Where in the GPL does it state that the applications running on Linux
must be open source. The OS is open source. The inflight entertainment
application running on top of it may or may not be.

Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/15/08 12:41, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
 On 14/05/2008, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
 
  OH, Airbus is using Linux too...  So, do you want to have access to  the
  sourcecode because you are traveling with an Airbus?
 
 In fact, I believe it is available. It has to be anyways, according to
 the GPL. There is no ASP loophole (I assume you are referring to the

You need to study the GPL more closely.

The source only needs to be available to parties that you distribute
binaries to.  In this case, presuming that Airbus subcontracted out
the coding of the in-flight entertainment module, the distributees
are Airbus and the companies that purchase the planes.

So, unless you buy an Airbus, you have *no* right to see that code.

 inflight entertainment computers that passengers can use during some
 flights).

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

ESPN makes baseball players better.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFILH/5S9HxQb37XmcRAkd0AJwMltkBhlYkUB/OqgPYUD3TcULhagCZAfa+
e4pFL8oG5z3i3NVKAAeBf7s=
=HHQX
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Steve Lamb]

On Thu, May 15, 2008 11:24 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
 The source only needs to be available to parties that you distribute
 binaries to.

Presuming the application is also licensed under the GPL and/or links to
GPLed libs as opposed to LGPL libs.  Just because it runs on Linux does
not mean the GPL applies.  In fact I code in Python and run a lot of my
code on Linux.  Linux is mostly GPL.  Python is under the PSL.  The code
I write is not beholden to either the GPL or PSL simply because it is
Python code interpreted by the Python executable which is running atop
Linux.

Use of a licensed product to create something else does not put that
something else under the GPL.  This is a very common misconception about
the GPL.  It is only when one modifies the GPLed product and
redistributes it that the source must be included.

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/15/08 14:33, Steve Lamb wrote:
 On Thu, May 15, 2008 11:24 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
 The source only needs to be available to parties that you distribute
 binaries to.
 
 Presuming the application is also licensed under the GPL and/or links to
 GPLed libs as opposed to LGPL libs.  Just because it runs on Linux does
 not mean the GPL applies.  In fact I code in Python and run a lot of my
 code on Linux.  Linux is mostly GPL.  Python is under the PSL.  The code
 I write is not beholden to either the GPL or PSL simply because it is
 Python code interpreted by the Python executable which is running atop
 Linux.
 
 Use of a licensed product to create something else does not put that
 something else under the GPL.  This is a very common misconception about
 the GPL.  It is only when one modifies the GPLed product and
 redistributes it that the source must be included.

Sorry, I should have specified that any {L}GPL apps/libs need to
have their source made available to distributees.  I'm aware that
products like Oracle do not have make their source code available
just because they run on Linux.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

ESPN makes baseball players better.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFILJdTS9HxQb37XmcRAk22AJ0dg//c1xyMh5GS7hqxtv0SJiP3xQCeMlvZ
a2XbcaKMLwf5GynPDtE7Pj8=
=CIVz
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 15/05/2008, Dotan Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:2008/5/15 
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
  On 14/05/2008, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  wrote:

   But you kbnow, that ANY modification in the Electronic or Software
will invalid the right to use the BMW public.
  
   That's because our laws are wrong, not because it's inherently
   problematic to modify source code.


 That's because the vehicle will be used on a public motorway, possibly
  endangering other civilians on the motorway. Also, it possibly
  interferes with polution controls.

There's actually a very real example of this in Debian, modifications
of BMWs aside. The iwlwifi driver uses a firmware blob that Intel
claims is necessary in order to enforce FCC regulations. This is
ridiculous. First of all, it's not Intel's job to make sure its
customers obey FCC regulations; if the customers break the
regulations, that's their problem, not Intel's. Second, again the
belief that security through obscurity is a good goal. Even with the
blob, people can and will modify the software to do things such as
disobeying FCC regulations. The blob only presents a temporary
obstacle, but not a real solution to what Intel wants to achieve.

Power to the users. If they break the laws, that's their problem. We
don't need paternalistic corporations doing the job of law-enforcement
agencies.

   Freedom to modify code also means freedom to shoot your own feet. I
   demand the freedom to self-mutilation! :-)


 Ah, but you forget the responsibility _not_ to harm others. Modding
  your BMW might just do that.

Sure, but it's *my* responsibility not to harm others. If by
negligence or stupidity I harm others, then by all means, put me on
trial and remove me from society until I reform. Don't take away
freedom from me just because I might misuse it; I will also mostly use
it properly.

OH, Airbus is using Linux too...  So, do you want to have access to  the
sourcecode because you are traveling with an Airbus?
  
   In fact, I believe it is available. It has to be anyways, according to
   the GPL. There is no ASP loophole (I assume you are referring to the
   inflight entertainment computers that passengers can use during some
   flights).


 Where in the GPL does it state that the applications running on Linux
  must be open source. The OS is open source. The inflight entertainment
  application running on top of it may or may not be.

Right, I don't have any details about this. But if I am interacting
with the software, I do believe we have a fundamental right to know
how it's working or to hire anyone knowledgeable enough to do modify
it for us, regardless of their affiliations.

- Jordi G. H.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 15/05/2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
  Hash: SHA1


 On 05/15/08 12:41, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
   On 14/05/2008, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 [snip]

 
OH, Airbus is using Linux too...  So, do you want to have access to  the
sourcecode because you are traveling with an Airbus?
  
   In fact, I believe it is available. It has to be anyways, according to
   the GPL. There is no ASP loophole (I assume you are referring to the


 You need to study the GPL more closely.

  The source only needs to be available to parties that you distribute
  binaries to.  In this case, presuming that Airbus subcontracted out
  the coding of the in-flight entertainment module, the distributees
  are Airbus and the companies that purchase the planes.

How does this work with GPLv3? They changed it from distribute to
convey. Is Airbus conveying the software to its customers or not? If
there is a way to bring a USB dongle and get some of the software from
the entertainment system in the Airbus passenger seats, has that
software been distributed to me or not? How does the AGPL handle a
situation like this, if the software were under the AGPL?

- Jordi G. H.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/15/08 16:01, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
 On 15/05/2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
  Hash: SHA1


 On 05/15/08 12:41, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
   On 14/05/2008, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 [snip]

OH, Airbus is using Linux too...  So, do you want to have access to  the
sourcecode because you are traveling with an Airbus?
  
   In fact, I believe it is available. It has to be anyways, according to
   the GPL. There is no ASP loophole (I assume you are referring to the


 You need to study the GPL more closely.

  The source only needs to be available to parties that you distribute
  binaries to.  In this case, presuming that Airbus subcontracted out
  the coding of the in-flight entertainment module, the distributees
  are Airbus and the companies that purchase the planes.
 
 How does this work with GPLv3? They changed it from distribute to
 convey. Is Airbus conveying the software to its customers or not?

How can the software be conveyed to me if I'm pushing buttons on a
seat-back screen that's connected to a server in the stewardesses'
area.  *Especially* since I don't own the seat

  If
 there is a way to bring a USB dongle and get some of the software from
 the entertainment system in the Airbus passenger seats, has that
 software been distributed to me or not?

If was a skiff, I'd be fishing.

  How does the AGPL handle a
 situation like this, if the software were under the AGPL?

Don't know, don't care.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

ESPN makes baseball players better.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFILKvvS9HxQb37XmcRAtWAAJ44NgN0pc/aFXZAqzoXBfz3otr6PgCfV1FE
/aJkfYYDUx/P9YxR60Y9JVw=
=GwnG
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Richard Hector]

On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 15:58 -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:

 There's actually a very real example of this in Debian, modifications
 of BMWs aside. The iwlwifi driver uses a firmware blob that Intel
 claims is necessary in order to enforce FCC regulations. This is
 ridiculous. First of all, it's not Intel's job to make sure its
 customers obey FCC regulations; if the customers break the
 regulations, that's their problem, not Intel's. Second, again the
 belief that security through obscurity is a good goal. Even with the
 blob, people can and will modify the software to do things such as
 disobeying FCC regulations. The blob only presents a temporary
 obstacle, but not a real solution to what Intel wants to achieve.
 
 Power to the users. If they break the laws, that's their problem. We
 don't need paternalistic corporations doing the job of law-enforcement
 agencies.

My understanding is that the FCC (which I believe has no jurisdiction
over me, but that's another issue) regulations require the manufacturer
to keep the source closed. Whether it works is debatable, and I agree
with the principles of what you're saying, but my understanding is Intel
is doing what they're required to.

Richard



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Alex Samad]

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 07:27:23AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA1
 
 On 05/15/08 04:50, Magnus Therning wrote:
  On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

[snip]

 
 I used to use that list, but there were too many exceptions.  Now I
 just use Adblock Plus.

me too, find it quit useful and noscript as well

 
 - --
 Ron Johnson, Jr.
 Jefferson LA  USA
 
 We want... a Shrubbery!!
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
 Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
 
 iD8DBQFILCwrS9HxQb37XmcRArQ/AJ91Rjb6RaeCuhkZsl4h5mcfmEGFnwCfWCCL
 5894ufU3cmmykd4tuYNaXzs=
 =rMJH
 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
 
 
 -- 
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 

-- 
Quotas are bad for America. It's not the way America is all about.  If 
affirmative action means what I just described, what I'm for, then I'm for it.

- George W. Bush
10/18/2000
St. Louis, Mo.
during the third presidential debate


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 15/05/2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 How can the software be conveyed to me if I'm pushing buttons on a
  seat-back screen that's connected to a server in the stewardesses'
  area.  *Especially* since I don't own the seat

Depends on what convey means, doesn't it? I think YOU (and I, for
that matter) need to read GPLv3 more closely.

How does the AGPL handle a
   situation like this, if the software were under the AGPL?


 Don't know, don't care.

This looks like a good summary of your position.

- Jordi G. H.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/15/08 17:01, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
 On 15/05/2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 How can the software be conveyed to me if I'm pushing buttons on a
  seat-back screen that's connected to a server in the stewardesses'
  area.  *Especially* since I don't own the seat
 
 Depends on what convey means, doesn't it? I think YOU (and I, for
 that matter) need to read GPLv3 more closely.

  Convey \Con*vey\ (k[o^]n*v[=a]), v. t. [imp.  p. p.
 {Conveyed} (k[o^]n*v[=a]d); p. pr.  vb. n. {Conveying}.]
 [OF. conveir, convoier, to escort, convoy, F. convoyer, LL.
 conviare, fr. L. con- + via way. See {Viaduct}, {Voyage}, and
 cf. {Convoy}.]
 1. To carry from one place to another; to bear or transport.
[1913 Webster]

The software is *not* being conveyed to the airline passenger.  It's
conveyed from the computer programmers to Airbus and the airlines.

How can you not see this?

How does the AGPL handle a
   situation like this, if the software were under the AGPL?


 Don't know, don't care.
 
 This looks like a good summary of your position.

Yup.  The GPL3 was designed by revolutionary purists who don't like
the fact that, since the revolution is almost won, they're about to
be brought behind the barn and shot.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

ESPN makes baseball players better.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFILLSuS9HxQb37XmcRAgKNAJ9wku/TuOU7akasIffvMJz4jfePVQCgvXhM
Q6e/qpjhrdlveK/ssHSqG78=
=ErVs
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 15/05/2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
  Hash: SHA1


 On 05/15/08 17:01, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
   On 15/05/2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   How can the software be conveyed to me if I'm pushing buttons on a
seat-back screen that's connected to a server in the stewardesses'
area.  *Especially* since I don't own the seat
  
   Depends on what convey means, doesn't it? I think YOU (and I, for
   that matter) need to read GPLv3 more closely.


   Convey \Con*vey\ (k[o^]n*v[=a]), v. t. [imp.  p. p.
  {Conveyed} (k[o^]n*v[=a]d); p. pr.  vb. n. {Conveying}.]
  [OF. conveir, convoier, to escort, convoy, F. convoyer, LL.
  conviare, fr. L. con- + via way. See {Viaduct}, {Voyage}, and
  cf. {Convoy}.]
  1. To carry from one place to another; to bear or transport.
 [1913 Webster]

No, the legal meaning. The GPLv3 actually defines the term convey in
its preamble.

 To convey a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
 parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user
 through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not
 conveying.

So it looks like you were right. Airbus is not conveying Linux, not
even as the GPLv3 defines it.

   Don't know, don't care.
  
   This looks like a good summary of your position.


 Yup.  The GPL3 was designed by revolutionary purists who don't like
  the fact that, since the revolution is almost won, they're about to
  be brought behind the barn and shot.

The revolution is almost won? DRMed Bluray? Google kicking AGPLed
projects off its servers? Code moving to the web browser thus
disabling users' ability to peruse the code? Apple taking code without
giving back in a usable way, or not giving back at all? The copyright
hoarders managing to pass more laws in their favour to the detriment
of most citizens?

What revolution are you talking about, because this looks like far
from a victory to me.

By the way, unlike you, I do not advocate murder of anyone.

- Jordi G. H.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Steve Lamb]

On Thu, May 15, 2008 3:19 pm, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
 By the way, unlike you, I do not advocate murder of anyone.

Neither did he.  Unlike you, he grasps the concept of allegory.

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 15/05/2008, Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Thu, May 15, 2008 3:19 pm, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
   By the way, unlike you, I do not advocate murder of anyone.


 Neither did he.  Unlike you, he grasps the concept of allegory.

Getting incensed enough about something to suggest that someone is
going to be taken behind a barn and shot borders on having Godwin's
law applied to it. That was my facetious way of pointing that out.

The GPLv3 does good things and fixes many problems. It's a necessary
license, and given its growing level of adoption, I'm not alone with
this opinion.

- Jordi G. H.t


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/15/08 17:37, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
 On 15/05/2008, Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Thu, May 15, 2008 3:19 pm, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
   By the way, unlike you, I do not advocate murder of anyone.


 Neither did he.  Unlike you, he grasps the concept of allegory.
 
 Getting incensed enough about something to suggest that someone is
 going to be taken behind a barn and shot borders on having Godwin's
 law applied to it. That was my facetious way of pointing that out.

There must be a socio-linguistic gap here.

In the US (and probably in Canada/UK/ANZ), there's an expression
that after the revolution is won, the revolutionary leaders are
brought out back and shot.

The meaning is that the firebrand personality and temperament needed
to foment and lead a revolution is counter to those needed to run
the country once the revolution is over.  But the revolutionaries
obviously don't want to give up power, and they'd cause too many
headaches and embarrassments, so professional politicians quickly
step in and have the firebrands neutralized.

 The GPLv3 does good things and fixes many problems. It's a necessary
 license, and given its growing level of adoption, I'm not alone with
 this opinion.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

ESPN makes baseball players better.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFILL/BS9HxQb37XmcRAlFKAJsEhpAxqrnMPADzz2dJfF8QgzlTbQCgzQgO
HIBA8l5khyEB1OHOv7XIQ5M=
=seI0
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/15/08 17:19, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
 On 15/05/2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
  Hash: SHA1


 On 05/15/08 17:01, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
   On 15/05/2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   How can the software be conveyed to me if I'm pushing buttons on a
seat-back screen that's connected to a server in the stewardesses'
area.  *Especially* since I don't own the seat
  
   Depends on what convey means, doesn't it? I think YOU (and I, for
   that matter) need to read GPLv3 more closely.


   Convey \Con*vey\ (k[o^]n*v[=a]), v. t. [imp.  p. p.
  {Conveyed} (k[o^]n*v[=a]d); p. pr.  vb. n. {Conveying}.]
  [OF. conveir, convoier, to escort, convoy, F. convoyer, LL.
  conviare, fr. L. con- + via way. See {Viaduct}, {Voyage}, and
  cf. {Convoy}.]
  1. To carry from one place to another; to bear or transport.
 [1913 Webster]
 
 No, the legal meaning. The GPLv3 actually defines the term convey in
 its preamble.
 
  To convey a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
  parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user
  through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not
  conveying.
 
 So it looks like you were right. Airbus is not conveying Linux, not
 even as the GPLv3 defines it.

But Google (or whoever else) *does* convey software to us by sending
an applet to run in the web browser.  That's what the clause was
added for.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

ESPN makes baseball players better.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFILMN2S9HxQb37XmcRAprKAKCJRyZGmGIiOk9SHqbuaRTAWQ2QnwCggIDA
dcptC1na6mE/96O2y/ew52g=
=aOzk
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Celejar]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 10:07:39 -0700
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Thursday 15 May 2008 02:50:48 am Magnus Therning wrote:
  On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

...

   I'd be happy with a solution that either blocks all Gmail ads or a
   better method to browse the 14 mailing lists I'm currently subscribed
   to, many of them high-volume. I'm beginning to miss Usenet.
 
  I use a rather large /etc/hosts file to block ads.  The initial list of
  servers to block came from http://www.ssmedia.com/utilities/hosts/ then
  I've added the following to that:
 
 Abusing /etc/hosts can occasionally cause unexpected behavior.  Both Konq and 
 Iceweasel support Filterset.G; that's a tad more ideal and regularly updated.

Privoxy.

 Paul Johnson

Celejar
--
mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email
ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 15 May 2008 19:40:21 -0400, Luke S Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
   ...  Apple taking code without

  giving back in a usable way, or not giving back at all?


 see Darwin-  Apple is giving away a bunch of it's OS-level advances.

I was thinking more about the KHTML/Webkit fiasco. Looks like the code
is finally finding its way back to KDE, but Apple didn't make it easy
to happen.

Also, the GPL exception in CUPS for Apple only, of which I have
recently also complained. :-)

 Windows would not have a more-stable competitor in the 'easy to use'
 space

How exactly are we free software users benefitted by Windows having a
non-free competitor?

- Jordi G. H.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/15/08 18:53, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
[snip]
 
 How exactly are we free software users benefitted by Windows having a
 non-free competitor?

We as members of society benefit by the monopoly being prodded to
improve.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

ESPN makes baseball players better.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFILM7FS9HxQb37XmcRAiMaAJoCLCdu+AZpYC/EtebHtZwGVS3dHwCg2awX
ekPLwtkMc0xjt/RVHtiQHNQ=
=IgA9
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Celejar]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:58:33 -0500
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

...

 There's actually a very real example of this in Debian, modifications
 of BMWs aside. The iwlwifi driver uses a firmware blob that Intel
 claims is necessary in order to enforce FCC regulations. This is

Madwifi, too:
http://madwifi.org/wiki/About/HAL

 ridiculous. First of all, it's not Intel's job to make sure its
 customers obey FCC regulations; if the customers break the
 regulations, that's their problem, not Intel's. Second, again the

You may believe so, but not everyone agrees.  IANAL, but the
above referenced Madwifi page justifies the need for the binary,
closed source HAL by claiming that:

Quote

At least the USA Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires that
any manufactured products have a mechanism for limiting transmission
power and frequencies, and that these mechanisms are not easily
modifiable by the consumer.

/Quote

...

 - Jordi G. H.

Celejar
--
mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email
ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Steve Lamb]

On Thu, May 15, 2008 4:53 pm, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
 How exactly are we free software users benefitted by Windows having a
 non-free competitor?

Lighter shades of grey are still lighter.

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Luke S Crawford]

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 ...  Apple taking code without
 giving back in a usable way, or not giving back at all? 

see Darwin-  Apple is giving away a bunch of it's OS-level advances.
Like most companies, they don't want to give away their 'core technology'
(which for apple is the gui/UI)  but they are happy to give back 
in non-competitive areas.   It's in their interest, really, as 
having a good, solid base OS that they can put a gui on helps them,
but doesn't really help their competitors all that much.The closer
they keep the darwin and FreeBSD codebases, the less work they have to
do to incorporate advances that FreeBSD makes, and the more they benefit
from the massive amount of production testing done on FreeBSD.

Most FreeBSD people seem pretty happy with what apple has done, as we 
(both the linux and *BSD community) get some of the OS-level enhancements 
apple makes back-  This is in Apple's best interest as well, as having a 
good, free server platform  (without a nice GUI) doesn't really help 
apple's competitors much- apple competes on it's nice UI, and cooperating 
with the community allows them to get a really good, solid underlying OS 
layer without nearly as much RD cost.  

It's pretty win-win-   I think it's a good example of how the BSD license
can be better than the GPL.  if apple was forced to open-source the
GUI or other 'crown jewels'  they would not have used an open-source OS at
all-  the *BSD  community would have missed their contributions,
and Windows would not have a more-stable competitor in the 'easy to use'
space.  

As Darwin is *BSD based, it's much easier to port changes from it to the 
other *BSD systems than to Linux, but there is no licensing barrier to
taking Darwin code and porting it to Linux.  

Not to say the GPL is bad, or even the AGPL - both enable different business
and development models.  I'm just saying that most of the people who 
wrote the code that Apple is using are pleased with the result.  


here's an interesting discussion on the subject:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat/2004-July/002484.html


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Luke S Crawford]

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Also, the GPL exception in CUPS for Apple only, of which I have
 recently also complained. :-)

This is what I was talking about with the 'gpl enables new business 
models'  -  apple let the main cups developers 'cash out' (thus encouraging
other people to write cool and useful open-source software, or even perhaps
encouraging businesses to pay people to write cool and useful open-source
software in the hopes of cashing out later.) while still giving us 
(open-source users)  access to the fruits of later improvements to those 
labors.  Apple is using the GPL as a tool to open-source code without letting 
competitors use that code without reciprocation.  

Personally, I think it's a good thing, because we, the open source
community, get Apple to pay people to write code for us.  We even get the
same license terms.   We lose nothing, and we gain another path to getting 
paid lots of money to write open-source software.Think of how much
great software we'd get paid to write if VC started funding startups 
that wrote and sold dual-licensed GPL software on the It's free if you
like the GPL, but if you want another license that costs money model?  


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/15/08 19:29, Luke S Crawford wrote:
[snip]
 paid lots of money to write open-source software.Think of how much
 great software we'd get paid to write if VC started funding startups 
 that wrote and sold dual-licensed GPL software on the It's free if you
 like the GPL, but if you want another license that costs money model?  

Isn't that MySQL?

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

ESPN makes baseball players better.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFILNggS9HxQb37XmcRAqLSAJ97sjHygyYiZEgrIANDDyiDQpl+HgCgtrVb
r+bmaKRCq/BQ3XJk4vpxnzg=
=VlEP
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 15 May 2008 20:29:29 -0400, Luke S Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Also, the GPL exception in CUPS for Apple only, of which I have
   recently also complained. :-)
[snip]
 while still giving us
  (open-source users)  access to the fruits of later improvements to those
  labors.  Apple is using the GPL as a tool to open-source code without letting
  competitors use that code without reciprocation.

Are they really giving us access? I've seen screenshots of the printer
setup utility in Mac OS X, and although it looks vaguely like
Foomatic, I'm quite sure there's stuff in there that's not being
shared back thanks to the GPL exception.

There's also the danger of Apple forking off CUPs into a proprietary
program, along with its lead developer. Experience with seemingly
benevolent companies should have taught us that scruples aren't
profitable, and hence we cannot rely on companies to have any. They're
playing nice today, and even Microsoft was once widely thought to be
playing nice too, but there's no reason why they should keep doing so.

- Jordi G. H.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Steve Lamb]

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
 They're
 playing nice today, and even Microsoft was once widely thought to be
 playing nice too, but there's no reason why they should keep doing so.

Er, what?  When did that happen?  Certainly not in the past 20 or so years.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 1FC01004   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 15/05/2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
  Hash: SHA1


 On 05/15/08 19:29, Luke S Crawford wrote:
  [snip]

  paid lots of money to write open-source software.Think of how much
   great software we'd get paid to write if VC started funding startups
   that wrote and sold dual-licensed GPL software on the It's free if you
   like the GPL, but if you want another license that costs money model?


 Isn't that MySQL?


Or Qt. Actually, I think I rather like that model. If you want our
code, you have to give back the modifications you do to it, or you
have to give us money with which we can write more free code.

Nobody takes without giving back. Seems fair to me.

- Jordi G. H.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Luke S Crawford]

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Are they really giving us access? I've seen screenshots of the printer
 setup utility in Mac OS X, and although it looks vaguely like
 Foomatic, I'm quite sure there's stuff in there that's not being
 shared back thanks to the GPL exception.

They aren't giving us all of their changes, I'm certain.  but they are
giving us some, which is more than we would get if the lead developer
decided to abandon CUPS for a regular job.  

I would argue that it's still a win even if they gave us no changes,
and left us with the existing GPL cups codbase, simply
by giving a higher expected return to the normally low-paying job of
writing open-source software. 

 There's also the danger of Apple forking off CUPs into a proprietary
 program, along with its lead developer. Experience with seemingly
 benevolent companies ...

I don't think any company is benevolent -  Companies act in their own 
best interest, even more often than people do.  Sometimes that interest 
coincides with the interests of the open-source community.  

But I believe this is one of those fortunate cases. The gpl being what it is, 
Apple can't take what we already have

I believe that even from a purely selfish point of view, it makes sense for
apple to keep the guts (not the UI) of the GPL version as close 
to to their internal version as possible-  the open-source version has 
millions of beta-testers who won't get mad at apple when something breaks, 
who are trained to send useful bug reports (and sometimes patches)  and who
are willing to work for free.  All Apple needs to do is to keep it's
internal version (the internals, not the ui) in sync with the GPL version.

By keeping it's UI proprietary, Apple preserves differentiation-  in the 
markets that matter for apple, UI is very important, which is much 
less true in the open-source arena.  

But like I said, even if apple chooses to release no more changes to the
GPL CUPS, I think we came out ahead. 


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 15/05/2008, Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
   They're
   playing nice today, and even Microsoft was once widely thought to be
   playing nice too, but there's no reason why they should keep doing so.


 Er, what?  When did that happen?  Certainly not in the past 20 or so 
 years.

Maybe you didn't think Microsoft was playing nice, but when they were
the underdog against IBM, it obtained a similar mindshare as Apple is
now being an underdog to Microsoft.

Of course, with hindsight of all the nasty practices that Microsoft
did from the beginning it's a different story, but back then very few
people were aware of those practices.

- Jordi G. H.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Gregory Seidman]

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 06:53:26PM -0500, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:
 On 15 May 2008 19:40:21 -0400, Luke S Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...  Apple taking code without
   giving back in a usable way, or not giving back at all?
 
  see Darwin-  Apple is giving away a bunch of it's OS-level advances.
 
 I was thinking more about the KHTML/Webkit fiasco. Looks like the code
 is finally finding its way back to KDE, but Apple didn't make it easy
 to happen.
[...]

I believe what Apple did is fork the code. KHTML had code useful to Apple,
but not goals useful to Apple. They decided to call it WebKit (renaming is
allowed by the GPL/LGPL) and have been maintaining a separate code
repository. As a result, KHTML is used in exactly one environment
(Konqueror/KDE) and WebKit is used in all kinds of places (Safari, the Qt
library, Adobe AIR, Google's Android, GNOME's Epiphany, etc.).

Looks like Apple did terrible harm by devoting resources to improving the
functionality and releasing them to the world, eh? Oh, but it isn't getting
back to KHTML quickly, you say? That sometimes happens in a code fork.

I don't think this counts as a fiasco, sorry. Apple played by the rules and
it benefited everyone. (Not KHTML? Actually, since WebKit is part of Qt
these days, KDE could just ditch KHTML and use WebKit instead. Whether they
choose to or not has nothing to do with it.) Remember that forking is one
of the rights the copyleft seeks to protect.

 - Jordi G. H.
--Greg


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 15/05/2008, Gregory Seidman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Looks like Apple did terrible harm by devoting resources to improving the
  functionality and releasing them to the world, eh? Oh, but it isn't getting
  back to KHTML quickly, you say? That sometimes happens in a code fork.

Well, the rules (LGPL) say that they have to give back the code. Which
they did, in large chunks, a year later, in ways that were impossible
to put back into KDE. They didn't break any written rules, just didn't
act in a way that is traditional in the free software community. They
acted like a corporation would (this is not a compliment, despite what
the profitable == moral people think).

Forking is generally seen as a hostile falling apart within our
community. Forking happens with big disagreements, negative publicity,
and internal flamewars. Xemacs vs Emacs, XFree86 vs Xorg, Funpidgin vs
Pidgin... And I don't see Apple's forking as a friendly move either.
And it's taken a long time for KDE to benefit from it, and in the
meantime the whole thing caused flamewars within KDE.

Fiasco, I insist.

- Jordi G. H.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 15/05/2008, Gregory Seidman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Not KHTML? Actually, since WebKit is part of Qt
  these days, KDE could just ditch KHTML and use WebKit instead.

It's not so easy. Technical obstacles loom ahead:

   http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/3073

- Jordi G. H.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Rich Healey]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
 On 15/05/2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
  Hash: SHA1


 On 05/15/08 12:41, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
   On 14/05/2008, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 [snip]

OH, Airbus is using Linux too...  So, do you want to have access to  the
sourcecode because you are traveling with an Airbus?
  
   In fact, I believe it is available. It has to be anyways, according to
   the GPL. There is no ASP loophole (I assume you are referring to the


 You need to study the GPL more closely.

  The source only needs to be available to parties that you distribute
  binaries to.  In this case, presuming that Airbus subcontracted out
  the coding of the in-flight entertainment module, the distributees
  are Airbus and the companies that purchase the planes.
 
 How does this work with GPLv3? They changed it from distribute to
 convey. Is Airbus conveying the software to its customers or not? If
 there is a way to bring a USB dongle and get some of the software from
 the entertainment system in the Airbus passenger seats, has that
I believe that's called Stealing and in a ruling totally non-GPL
related, is illegal.
 software been distributed to me or not? How does the AGPL handle a
 situation like this, if the software were under the AGPL?
 
 - Jordi G. H.
 
 

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFILPwyLeTfO4yBSAcRAr7bAKCYehgtuEg55zSaw9qouQ7jprh/1QCdGOD3
oXb9Q31YrWkGHEPLgKTakzM=
=gUF8
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/15/08 20:38, Gregory Seidman wrote:
[snip]
 repository. As a result, KHTML is used in exactly one environment
 (Konqueror/KDE) and WebKit is used in all kinds of places (Safari, the Qt
 library, Adobe AIR, Google's Android, GNOME's Epiphany, etc.).



Epiphany uses Gecko.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

ESPN makes baseball players better.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFILQRjS9HxQb37XmcRAkCYAKCwt8dxyS/IGwDNK/bmLIqtNSyT0ACgps3K
N5sogYSAKaTRdCdbQbyM9GQ=
=7yds
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Lee Glidewell]

The stable one does, yes, but it's switching to WebKit. The epiphany-webkit 
package has been in the Testing repository for some time now.

It's very fast, but last time I used it, it had quite a few hiccups when 
loading dynamic pages.

On Thursday 15 May 2008 08:49:55 pm Ron Johnson wrote:

 Epiphany uses Gecko.

 --
 Ron Johnson, Jr.
 Jefferson LA  USA

 ESPN makes baseball players better.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/15/08 23:05, Lee Glidewell wrote:
 The stable one does, yes, but it's switching to WebKit. The epiphany-webkit 
 package has been in the Testing repository for some time now.
 
 It's very fast, but last time I used it, it had quite a few hiccups when 
 loading dynamic pages.

Interesting, and good to know.  Thanks.

 On Thursday 15 May 2008 08:49:55 pm Ron Johnson wrote:
 
 Epiphany uses Gecko.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

ESPN makes baseball players better.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFILRCYS9HxQb37XmcRAj32AKCCXI7TvyoQCI/6CSAeTw64wHZ7zACg5ktC
+E1lo7FxB37ZivrqN7wuoOQ=
=jwy9
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Dotan Cohen]

2008/5/14 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 On 13/05/2008, Dotan Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I now _miss_ the ads in gmail, as they are almost always
  relevant to what I'm reading.

 While Google got the relevance right of putting Matlab ads when I'm
 reading the Octave mailing list, their insistence finally got annoying
 enough for me to want to remove them.

 C'mon. I'm using Octave and talking to its developers precisely
 because believe[1] that mathematical software, above other software in
 particular, must be free. Matlab annoys me to no end, especially since
 it's a de facto standard. I don't need to be annoyed while I plot a
 better tomorrow with my comrades. ;-)


That is true. However, why don't you work directly with GNUplot for that? :)

Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Mumia W..]

On 05/13/2008 09:01 PM, Steve Lamb wrote:

[...]
Hate to break it to you but I use FOSS all the time for my private and 
personal use as well as my professional use.  There is code I have that will 
not ever be redistributed and as such you, nor anyone else, has right to that 
source because you will never, EVER use it.  That is my choice.  On the other 
hand if I did release it for others to use I would obligated to release the 
source along with it.  An obligation I have fulfilled on all the software I 
have chosen to release for others to use.


They haven't released it for others to use.  They're under no obligation 
to share the source.  That's not a loophole.  That's freedom.




Exactly. Thank you for liberating me from having to write that.

What some people refer to as a loophole should actually be called 
vendor SaaS freedom. Vendor SaaS freedom just makes sense, and it 
keeps OSS alive. If vendor SaaS freedom were taken away, OSS would start 
facing major opposition from the many people who use OSS to make money 
through software as a service.


There are some individuals companies who have the resources to build 
services from scratch or to use proprietary software. These companies 
have chosen OSS because it's better for their bottom lines and doesn't 
conflict with their business models; however, they could as well choose 
to develop and support proprietary software.


If we force OSS to conflict with the most important way people will make 
money on the Internet in the future, we endanger the future of OSS. 
Without at doubt, a significant number of people who are doing SaaS use 
OSS because they can make money with it--not because of love for the 
principles of OSS. But if free software moves against vendor SaaS 
freedom, we'll lose these people.


Oh, and by the way, one of those people might be Google. Would we be 
smiling if Google abandons its opensource efforts and throws its weight 
behind proprietary software and Microsoft's TCPA?




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Dotan Cohen]

Actually, with Summer of Code, I think that google contributes more to
FOSS software than almost any other entity that I can name. Maybe
their specific patches to the linux kernel they keep to themselves,
but they more than make up for it in paying for developers to write
code that will benefit lots of end users. Those kernel patches are in
all likelihood not suitable for desktop or most non-distributed server
installations anyway. And those who would need them, are likely
Google's competitors.

I thank Google for their contributions to FOSS and SoC in particular.
Evil or not, I cannot say. But I benefit from Google's services on a
day to day basis.

Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/14/08 02:49, Mumia W.. wrote:
[snip]
 
 Oh, and by the way, one of those people might be Google. Would we be
 smiling if Google abandons its opensource efforts and throws its weight
 behind proprietary software and Microsoft's TCPA?

Nah.  They'd just slowly migrate to FreeBSD and drop support for
Google Earth, Summer Of Code, Firefox, etc.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

We want... a Shrubbery!!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIK1GgS9HxQb37XmcRAqAmAJ4rtstjHeYW0T8pZesYFF7aHg8XzQCeNBEB
AUILPDhhkygEixoBBCInfIo=
=35ab
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Nicolas George]

Le quintidi 25 floréal, an CCXVI, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso a écrit :
 I'm getting a little tired of Gmail serving me Matlab ads whenever I'm
 browsing the Octave mailing lists. That's quite obnoxious. It looks
 like it's tricky to block Google ads, since it looks like Google can
 detect when you're using Adblock and serves you ads in tables
 instead, making them harder to block.
 
 Can anyone suggest a fix?

You could try a Greasemonkey script to add the display: none style to the
rule for the div containing the ads. With the current layout, it is the
yxEQwb class, but it may change.

 I'd be happy with a solution that either blocks all Gmail ads or a
 better method to browse the 14 mailing lists I'm currently subscribed
 to, many of them high-volume. I'm beginning to miss Usenet.

I assume you already know all about Gmane.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/13/08 17:03, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
 I'm getting a little tired of Gmail serving me Matlab ads whenever I'm
 browsing the Octave mailing lists. That's quite obnoxious. It looks
 like it's tricky to block Google ads, since it looks like Google can
 detect when you're using Adblock and serves you ads in tables
 instead, making them harder to block.
 
 Can anyone suggest a fix? I only use Gmail for mailing lists nowadays,
 and have moved my personal email to a server in an undisclosed
 location in a remote island... ;-)
 
 I'd be happy with a solution that either blocks all Gmail ads or a
 better method to browse the 14 mailing lists I'm currently subscribed
 to, many of them high-volume. I'm beginning to miss Usenet.

Every MUA of any note has folders, and all have filters either
built-in or via procmail/maildrop.

Even if you want to use gmail to hide your real address from address
vacuums, gmail has POP and IMAP interfaces, plus Thunderbird knows
gmail as a source type.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

We want... a Shrubbery!!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIKhOES9HxQb37XmcRAho0AJ0WIFEMHL79789E52gCTf1SUAS2ZwCeKbLY
yFpuPmO+1oRW/qRC1qkDCM8=
=z3nc
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Emre Sahin]

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


[...]


 I'd be happy with a solution that either blocks all Gmail ads or a
 better method to browse the 14 mailing lists I'm currently subscribed
 to, many of them high-volume. I'm beginning to miss Usenet.

 - Jordi G. H.


You can use Gmail IMAP or POP service with a client of your choice. I
currently use Emacs + Gnus, splitting mails using regular expressions
(checking mostly their List-Id:) into gmail labels. Gnus is originally
a newsreader and may be a good solution for such a task. However, Gnus
IMAP implementation is slow and you may want a more mainstream
client. 

You can also use fetchmail + procmail solution. It is faster than any
IMAP connection but if you have multiple computers, sychronization may
be a mess sometimes. 

Best Regards,

Emre


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Paul Johnson]

On Tuesday 13 May 2008 03:03:27 pm Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:

 Can anyone suggest a fix? I only use Gmail for mailing lists nowadays,
 and have moved my personal email to a server in an undisclosed
 location in a remote island... ;-)

Why not use that for mailing lists as well?  It's not like you can't use 
spambayes or other tools to keep things usable...

-- 
Paul Johnson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Explaination of .pgp part: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Mail/rant-gpg.html


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Gregory Seidman]

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 05:03:27PM -0500, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:
 I'm getting a little tired of Gmail serving me Matlab ads whenever I'm
 browsing the Octave mailing lists. That's quite obnoxious. It looks
 like it's tricky to block Google ads, since it looks like Google can
 detect when you're using Adblock and serves you ads in tables
 instead, making them harder to block.
 
 Can anyone suggest a fix? I only use Gmail for mailing lists nowadays,
 and have moved my personal email to a server in an undisclosed
 location in a remote island... ;-)
 
 I'd be happy with a solution that either blocks all Gmail ads or a
 better method to browse the 14 mailing lists I'm currently subscribed
 to, many of them high-volume. I'm beginning to miss Usenet.

I do all my web browsing through privoxy (apt-cache show privoxy). 
My adblock.action file, which does a good job of blocking lots of ads,
including gmail's, is pasted below. It also blocks a lot of web bugs and
traffic trackers. It isn't perfect, but it vastly improves my web browsing
experience.

 - Jordi G. H.
--Greg

{+block }
.247realmedia.com
.2o7.net
.adbasket.net
.adbrite.com
.adbureau.net
.adknowledge.com
.adlegend.com
.adnetwork.com
.adroll.com
.adserver.com
.adserver.yahoo.com
.adspeed.net
.adsrevenue.net
.adtech.de
.advertising.com
.afy11.com
.atdmt.com
.backbeatmedia.com
.bannerspace.com
blcadserv.shinycomics.com
blogads.com
.blogads.com
stocker.bonnint.net
.burstmedia.com
.burstnet.com
.casalemedia.com
.chitika.net
.claxonmedia.com
.clickforensics.com
.contextweb.com
.coremetrics.com
.doubleclick.net
.esomniture.com
.falkag.net
.fastclick.net
.google-analytics.com
.googlerank.info
.googlesyndication.com
.hitbox.com
.humanclick.com
.indieclick.com
.industrybrains.com
.intellitxt.com
.interclick.com
.interclick.net
.keenmercial.com
gavzad.keenspot.com
merv.keenspot.com
www.keenspot.com/premium*
.kontera.com
.lostfrog.com
.marketwatch.com
.maxserving.com
.mediaplex.com
.overture.com
.paypopup.com
.pheedo.com
.pointroll.com
.primaryads.com
.projectwonderful.com
publish.blanklabelcomics.com
.quantserve.com
.ru4.com
.edge.ru4.com
http.edge.ru4.com
.sitemeter.com
.smarttargetting.co.uk
spa.snap.com
.specificmedia.com
.statcounter.com
.tacoda.net
.textads.biz
syndication.thedailywtf.com
.trackalyzer.com
.trafficmp.com
.tribalfusion.com
.ttzmedia.com
.ugamsolutions.net
.unicast.com
.valueclick.com
.vibrantmedia.com
.web-stat.com
.xplusone.com
.yceml.net
.yieldmanager.com
.zedo.com
ss1.zedo.com
ad.
ad1.
ad2.
adremote.
adsremote.
ads.
ads1.
ads2.
adserv.
adserver.
adv.
advert.
banner.
banners.
metrics.
servedby.
stats.
stats1.
stats2.
webad.
webads.
.facebook.com/beacon/
feeds.feedburner.com/~a/
www.davidszondy.com/images/shop.gif
/(.*/)?adv/.*
/(.*/)?ads/
/(.*/)?adx/.*
/(.*/)?adserver/.*
/(.*/)?banners/.*
/(.*/)?phpAdsNew/.*
/(.*/)?RealMedia/.*
/(.*/)?dealtime_iframe.php\?.*


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 13/05/2008, Nicolas George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Le quintidi 25 floréal, an CCXVI, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso a écrit :

Floréal? :-)

   I'm getting a little tired of Gmail serving me Matlab ads whenever I'm
   browsing the Octave mailing lists.
  
   Can anyone suggest a fix?


 You could try a Greasemonkey script to add the display: none style to the
  rule for the div containing the ads. With the current layout, it is the
  yxEQwb class, but it may change.


Ugh. Obfuscation and deception. I guess I could work around it and we
could have a nice arms race with adblocking, but now I'm starting to
think that the less I have to rely on Google, the better.

   I'd be happy with a solution that either blocks all Gmail ads or a
   better method to browse the 14 mailing lists I'm currently subscribed
   to, many of them high-volume. I'm beginning to miss Usenet.


 I assume you already know all about Gmane.


Actually I didn't... It looks like an option, but now I'm flirting
right now with the idea of using Lavabit, which looks like a nice
alternative, and I'd be quite happy to pay for a quality webmail
service (or at least pay what they're asking, which seems to be 16 USD
per annum), except that they have all this intellectual property
nonsense in their Terms Of Service.

Any recommendation for a quality webmail service that uses free
software? I don't mind paying for the service, but I feel rather more
comfortable if I know that they use free software, maybe even Debian.
:-) If not, I think I may try out Lavabit.

- Jordi G. H.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[John Hasler]

Jordi writes:
 Can anyone suggest a fix?

You want a free service from an advertising agency without advertising?
Right.

 I'm beginning to miss Usenet.

Usenet isn't gone.
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 13/05/2008, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Usenet isn't gone.

I think that Debian must be one of the last organisations that still
uses Usenet. The Wesnoth, Octave, Maxima and VTK mailing lists don't
have Usenet alternatives as far as I can see. Sage uses Google groups.
:-(

- Jordi G. H.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Steve Lamb]

On Tue, May 13, 2008 3:59 pm, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
 Any recommendation for a quality webmail service that uses free
 software? I don't mind paying for the service, but I feel rather more
 comfortable if I know that they use free software, maybe even Debian.
 :-) If not, I think I may try out Lavabit.

aptitude install squirrelmail


 ^.^

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Allan Wind]

On 2008-05-13T17:03:27-0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
 I'm getting a little tired of Gmail serving me Matlab ads whenever I'm
 browsing the Octave mailing lists. That's quite obnoxious. It looks
 like it's tricky to block Google ads, since it looks like Google can
 detect when you're using Adblock and serves you ads in tables
 instead, making them harder to block.

Adblock Plus
Adblock Plus: Element Hiding Helper

I subscribe to some of the feeds for Adblock Plus to do the heavy 
listing, and I after I removed a couple of elements manually I do not 
see ads in gmail or and rarely anywhere for that matter.


/Allan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 13/05/2008, Allan Wind [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Adblock Plus: Element Hiding Helper

Excellent! I didn't know about this latter one.

Even though I think I still want to move away from Gmail, it's nice to
know that there are further tools to help fight the anti-ad battles.

- Jordi G. H.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Dotan Cohen]

2008/5/14 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 I'm getting a little tired of Gmail serving me Matlab ads whenever I'm
 browsing the Octave mailing lists. That's quite obnoxious. It looks
 like it's tricky to block Google ads, since it looks like Google can
 detect when you're using Adblock and serves you ads in tables
 instead, making them harder to block.

 Can anyone suggest a fix? I only use Gmail for mailing lists nowadays,
 and have moved my personal email to a server in an undisclosed
 location in a remote island... ;-)

 I'd be happy with a solution that either blocks all Gmail ads or a
 better method to browse the 14 mailing lists I'm currently subscribed
 to, many of them high-volume. I'm beginning to miss Usenet.


I've started using adblock plus in Firefox as a particular blog that I
enjoy reading has popup ads on almost every word of the articles. I've
found that I now _miss_ the ads in gmail, as they are almost always
relevant to what I'm reading.

Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Celejar]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 17:59:37 -0500
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

...

 Actually I didn't... It looks like an option, but now I'm flirting
 right now with the idea of using Lavabit, which looks like a nice
 alternative, and I'd be quite happy to pay for a quality webmail
 service (or at least pay what they're asking, which seems to be 16 USD
 per annum), except that they have all this intellectual property
 nonsense in their Terms Of Service.

I use several Lavabit free accounts, and I'm quite happy with them.
The intellectual property stuff doesn't really seem so bad:

Quote

Intellectual Property

You acknowledge that Lavabit owns all intellectual property related to
its website and the software used to provide its services. Accordingly
you agree not to copy, reproduce, modify, alter or create derivative
works based on the intellectual property of Lavabit.

/Quote

IANAL, but AFAICT, all they're claiming are the rights to their
software and website.  Is that really so objectionable?

 - Jordi G. H.

Celejar
--
mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email
ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 13/05/2008, Celejar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I use several Lavabit free accounts, and I'm quite happy with them.


So why are you sending from a Gmail account?


   The intellectual property stuff doesn't really seem so bad:
 
   Quote
 
   Intellectual Property
 
   You acknowledge that Lavabit owns all intellectual property related to
   its website and the software used to provide its services. Accordingly
   you agree not to copy, reproduce, modify, alter or create derivative
   works based on the intellectual property of Lavabit.
 
   /Quote
 
   IANAL, but AFAICT, all they're claiming are the rights to their
   software and website.  Is that really so objectionable?
 


Well, the problem with software-as-service is that more and more
 software is moving in that direction. Google, to mention the villain
 du jour, has been exploiting the ASP loophole to take free software
 without giving back. There are rumours of that fabled Ubunut
 derivative that Google uses internally, and who knows, maybe it powers
 some of their web servers, but Google hasn't released a single line of
 code of that derivative, yet they're still profitting off it.

 It's understandable that this is why Google doesn't condone the
 AGPL[1] which is designed exactly to close this loophole that Google
 and presumably Lavabit are exploiting. You take our free code, you
 have to give back free code. It seems fair to me, but not to Google.

 They keep saying that code is all going to move to the web browser. If
 we tolerate non-free code on our browsers for much longer, then all
 the work that has been done towards giving us all this free code could
 be endangered. The AGPL is a necessity, and I think it's also
 important that we insist upon its principles even if it still has a
 very small level of adoption.

 Well, so it seems to me. I'm open to hearing opposing viewpoints.

 - Jordi G. H.
 [1] http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2008/04/11/google_bans_aero/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Celejar]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 17:59:37 -0500
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

...

 Any recommendation for a quality webmail service that uses free
 software? I don't mind paying for the service, but I feel rather more
 comfortable if I know that they use free software, maybe even Debian.
 :-) If not, I think I may try out Lavabit.

Look at Mailvault:

http://mailvault.com/

They run Apache / PHP / OpenSSL on Linux (Debian since 2005):

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.mailvault.com

Their specialty is web based OpenPGP, but the service works fine for
ordinary email..  I've dabbled with their free service for a few years,
but I haven't used them for serious work.  The website is infrequently
updated, and consequently may be out of date.  I'm not completely clear
what their business model is.  They don't seem to offer a paid account
type, and they only run one ad, the same one all the time, for some
privacy services, but I've never investigated them.  I like Mailvault;
they have a clean, simple website; they don't push ads in your face,
they seem to be concerned about privacy, they run Linux, and their
stuff works.

 - Jordi G. H.

Celejar
--
mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email
ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Steve Lamb]

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
 
 Well, the problem with software-as-service is that more and more
  software is moving in that direction. Google, to mention the villain
  du jour,

Cute.

 You take our free code, you have to give back free code. It seems 
 fair to me, but not to Google.

Uhm, that is a gross oversimplification.  You use software you have the
right to the source.  If you *choose* to release software *to others* they
have right to the source.

Hate to break it to you but I use FOSS all the time for my private and
personal use as well as my professional use.  There is code I have that will
not ever be redistributed and as such you, nor anyone else, has right to that
source because you will never, EVER use it.  That is my choice.  On the other
hand if I did release it for others to use I would obligated to release the
source along with it.  An obligation I have fulfilled on all the software I
have chosen to release for others to use.

They haven't released it for others to use.  They're under no obligation
to share the source.  That's not a loophole.  That's freedom.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 1FC01004   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/13/08 21:01, Steve Lamb wrote:
[snip]
 
 They haven't released it for others to use.  They're under no obligation
 to share the source.  That's not a loophole.  That's freedom.

If you don't think like I think people should think, you're Evil and
your rights should be restricted.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

We want... a Shrubbery!!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIKk40S9HxQb37XmcRAp67AKCf1LtjdzvA3BzsVX4o2+mRzs6iZACfXMW3
8YrEjtjVB0X0aVyHGpE47fo=
=1z3X
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking Gmail ads

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 13/05/2008, Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Hate to break it to you but I use FOSS all the time for my private and
   personal use as well as my professional use.  There is code I have that will
   not ever be redistributed and as such you, nor anyone else, has
right to that
   source because you will never, EVER use it.


Difference being that we do use Google's software but we aren't seeing
 its source. It is the ASP loophole which the AGPL closes, and the more
 we see software being distributed as service via our web browsers, the
 more it's going to be like this.

 - Jordi G. H.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]