Re: Kernel Panic - Unix socket communication in kernel module
On Monday, July 29, 2013 3:31:49 am varanasi sainath wrote: Hello, I am writing a kernel module in which I am trying to connect to a UNIX socket (UNIX domain sockets use the file system as their address name space). Kernel module (loadable) acts as a client and User mode program acts as server, I have loaded the module using kldload and communication between user and kernel module works fine, when I try to load the kernel module from loader.conf - auto load the kernel module at boot up leads to kernel panic as the file system is not ready and kern_connect fails. How to notify kernel module that File system is ready? (any specific event flags) Is there any specific location for Unix domain socket files? (currently created it under /root/soc/socket ) Using MODULE_DEPEND Can I make the module dependent of file system? You can register a hook for the 'mountroot' EVENTHANDLER event which will fire after / is mounted. (You could compare rootvnode against NULL during module startup to determine if you should defer your work to the EVENTHANDLER vs doing it right away.) If you need to wait for all local filesystems to be mounted, then you will need to have some userland utility poke your module via a sysctl/ioctl/etc. after the filesystems are mounted (you could use a custom rc.d script for this). -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Kernel Panic - Unix socket communication in kernel module
Hello, I am writing a kernel module in which I am trying to connect to a UNIX socket (UNIX domain sockets use the file system as their address name space). Kernel module (loadable) acts as a client and User mode program acts as server, I have loaded the module using kldload and communication between user and kernel module works fine, when I try to load the kernel module from loader.conf - auto load the kernel module at boot up leads to kernel panic as the file system is not ready and kern_connect fails. How to notify kernel module that File system is ready? (any specific event flags) Is there any specific location for Unix domain socket files? (currently created it under /root/soc/socket ) Using MODULE_DEPEND Can I make the module dependent of file system? Thanks. * * ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Kernel Panic - Unix socket communication in kernel module
On 29/07/2013 08:31, varanasi sainath wrote: Hello, I am writing a kernel module in which I am trying to connect to a UNIX socket (UNIX domain sockets use the file system as their address name space). Kernel module (loadable) acts as a client and User mode program acts as server, I have loaded the module using kldload and communication between user and kernel module works fine, when I try to load the kernel module from loader.conf - auto load the kernel module at boot up leads to kernel panic as the file system is not ready and kern_connect fails. How to notify kernel module that File system is ready? (any specific event flags) Is there any specific location for Unix domain socket files? (currently created it under /root/soc/socket ) Using MODULE_DEPEND Can I make the module dependent of file system? I shall resist the obvious why question. I'm assuming you're talking about a fifo here (aka named pipe, and occasionally called UNIX socket) rather than the BSD network socket interface. IIRC since 4.3BSD fifos have been implemented using sockets internally anyway. Where to put it? I tend to go for /tmp but somewhere in /var might make more sense for something that's always supposed to be there. I don't know how to tell when the FS is ready but it will be when init runs, so you might like to try the sysctl variables. Knowing that init is always PID 1, the value of kern.lastpid should give a hint. There may be an official way of doing this properly. You could always load the module from rc.local instead. Regards, Frank. P.S. You do know that an fd only relates to the kernel thread it's currently running in? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
re: advanced programming unix environment (pracct.c:31: error: storage size of 'acdata' isn't known)
I think I found the reason for the reported error. In the file 'pracct.c' variable 'acdata' is declared as 'struct acct'. This structure must be in header 'acct.h', in sub-directory '/usr/include/sys'. But it is not. In that header there are two similar structures instead: 'struct acctv2' and 'struct acctv1'. Thus, 'pracct.c' is outdated. The question is which of the two structures replaces the 'struct acct' above. Forgive for my English. I am using google translator. My native language is Portuguese. :-) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: PAM configuration to allow passwords from both Unix and Kerberos
12.12.2011 20:35, Matt Mullins wrote: On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Volodymyr Kostyrkoc.kw...@gmail.com wrote: 10.12.2011 04:22, Matt Mullins wrote: auth optional pam_deny.so auth sufficient pam_unix.so no_warn try_first_pass auth sufficient pam_krb5.so no_warn try_first_pass Why you just haven't changed the last line to `required`? I did try that, but I omitted it due to completely failing behavior. pam_krb5.so returns failure during pam_setcred() if the user did not log in with Kerberos credentials, whereas pam_unix.so succeeds as long as the uid exists (I'm using nss_ldap for that part, so all the uids do indeed exist). Thus, pam_unix.so will work with required, but pam_krb5.so won't. Why just don't get stock `/usr/src/etc/pam.d/sshd` and uncomment anything related to kerberos? That's quite simple unlike managing `su`. That's pretty much what I did. I'm a little unhappy since pam_krb5.so is before pam_unix.so in the list, so if the KDC goes down I have to wait for a time-out to log in to my system... but that's always better than letting anyone in :) So how about: auth sufficient pam_unix.so no_warn try_first_pass auth sufficient pam_krb5.so no_warn try_first_pass auth required pam_unix.so no_warn try_first_pass -- Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
What unix program for a check the kernel file?
Hi to users of UNIX! What unix program is available for a check of a configuration file of the kernel? I`ve got some trouble with configuration of my new kernel but i`d like to find my mistakes myself But if those mistakes will't be eliminated independently, i will write to you again. Yours Oleg ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What unix program for a check the kernel file?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Oleg simonoff wrote: | |Hi to users of UNIX! | |What unix program is available for a check of a configuration file of the |kernel? | |I`ve got some trouble with configuration of my new kernel but i`d like to |find my mistakes myself |But if those mistakes will't be eliminated independently, i will write to you |again. | Please read the handbook - great thing to become FreeBSD guru: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/index.html 9-th section: Configuring the FreeBSD Kernel +---+ ! CANMOS ISP Network! +---+ ! Best regards ! ! Igor V. Ruzanov, network operational staff! ! e-Mail: ig...@canmos.ru ! +---+ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/ iD8DBQFO6FdRbt6QiUlK9twRApn6AJwNwevR7J1uASBVf0/5C8EWwNls5QCgr0nU xn6FF1QHSBWYDwbC1/s+a/g= =HvC4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: PAM configuration to allow passwords from both Unix and Kerberos
10.12.2011 04:22, Matt Mullins wrote: For my systems, the canonical source of authentication information is a Kerberos server, but I also want to support old-fashioned Unix passwords for a handful of users (including myself) just in case the Kerberos system is unreachable. I'm having a bit of trouble adjusting to the semantics of FreeBSD's PAM configuration, it seems. The following is what I have tried in /etc/pam.d/sshd: auth optional pam_deny.so auth sufficient pam_unix.so no_warn try_first_pass auth sufficient pam_krb5.so no_warn try_first_pass Why you just haven't changed the last line to `required`? This does what I want: tries Unix authentication, and for most users, then goes and tries Kerberos authentication. However, it also seems to allow access if the module does something other than success or failure: I hit ^D at the SSH password prompt and it grants me access! Adding debug to these lines doesn't seem to get anything additional logged, so I'm actually not sure why PAM ends up with a success code somewhere. I flipped this logic around and did: auth sufficient pam_unix.so no_warn auth sufficient pam_krb5.so no_warn try_first_pass auth required pam_deny.so That's not what you want. Read pam_deny(8). It has no use for real world scenarios except when something goes weird. This does exactly what I want for services like sudo, that just use pam_authenticate(), but since sufficient is equivalent to optional in pam_setcred(), sshd fails all authentications with: Dec 9 15:05:18 boron-shell sshd[66617]: fatal: PAM: pam_setcred(): failed to retrieve user credentials I am completely stumped how to get this behavior working for both pam_authenticate and pam_setcred calls. Can someone enlighten me what a more normal way to do this would be? Why just don't get stock `/usr/src/etc/pam.d/sshd` and uncomment anything related to kerberos? That's quite simple unlike managing `su`. -- Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: PAM configuration to allow passwords from both Unix and Kerberos
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Volodymyr Kostyrko c.kw...@gmail.com wrote: 10.12.2011 04:22, Matt Mullins wrote: auth optional pam_deny.so auth sufficient pam_unix.so no_warn try_first_pass auth sufficient pam_krb5.so no_warn try_first_pass Why you just haven't changed the last line to `required`? I did try that, but I omitted it due to completely failing behavior. pam_krb5.so returns failure during pam_setcred() if the user did not log in with Kerberos credentials, whereas pam_unix.so succeeds as long as the uid exists (I'm using nss_ldap for that part, so all the uids do indeed exist). Thus, pam_unix.so will work with required, but pam_krb5.so won't. Why just don't get stock `/usr/src/etc/pam.d/sshd` and uncomment anything related to kerberos? That's quite simple unlike managing `su`. That's pretty much what I did. I'm a little unhappy since pam_krb5.so is before pam_unix.so in the list, so if the KDC goes down I have to wait for a time-out to log in to my system... but that's always better than letting anyone in :) Thanks for your help, Matt Mullins ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
PAM configuration to allow passwords from both Unix and Kerberos
For my systems, the canonical source of authentication information is a Kerberos server, but I also want to support old-fashioned Unix passwords for a handful of users (including myself) just in case the Kerberos system is unreachable. I'm having a bit of trouble adjusting to the semantics of FreeBSD's PAM configuration, it seems. The following is what I have tried in /etc/pam.d/sshd: auth optional pam_deny.so auth sufficient pam_unix.so no_warn try_first_pass auth sufficient pam_krb5.so no_warn try_first_pass This does what I want: tries Unix authentication, and for most users, then goes and tries Kerberos authentication. However, it also seems to allow access if the module does something other than success or failure: I hit ^D at the SSH password prompt and it grants me access! Adding debug to these lines doesn't seem to get anything additional logged, so I'm actually not sure why PAM ends up with a success code somewhere. I flipped this logic around and did: auth sufficient pam_unix.so no_warn auth sufficient pam_krb5.so no_warn try_first_pass auth required pam_deny.so This does exactly what I want for services like sudo, that just use pam_authenticate(), but since sufficient is equivalent to optional in pam_setcred(), sshd fails all authentications with: Dec 9 15:05:18 boron-shell sshd[66617]: fatal: PAM: pam_setcred(): failed to retrieve user credentials I am completely stumped how to get this behavior working for both pam_authenticate and pam_setcred calls. Can someone enlighten me what a more normal way to do this would be? -- Matt Mullins ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [0.5 OT] Looking for recommendation on Unix shell account
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 22:04:17 -0500 Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: I looked briefly one night at SDF.org. http://sdf.org/?join For a contribution of, like, $1.00, you get full access, and I suspect that they're running FreeBSD (I haven't actually paid to see, but among the list of commands that *would* be available as a full member, I noticed pkg_info). It's NetBSD ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [0.5 OT] Looking for recommendation on Unix shell account
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:29:26 -0300 Carlos A. M. dos Santos unixma...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, For reasons hard to explain I need to set-up a Unix (preferably FreeBSD) shell account that I can access from anywhere. Arbornet and PBS were the first names that came to my mind, but I'm open to other options. I don't mind paying a regular fee for it. Privacy and security are my main concerns. Thanks in advance for your recommendations. I looked briefly one night at SDF.org. http://sdf.org/?join For a contribution of, like, $1.00, you get full access, and I suspect that they're running FreeBSD (I haven't actually paid to see, but among the list of commands that *would* be available as a full member, I noticed pkg_info). -- Conrad J. Sabatier conr...@cox.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [0.5 OT] Looking for recommendation on Unix shell account
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Carlos A. M. dos Santos unixma...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, For reasons hard to explain I need to set-up a Unix (preferably FreeBSD) shell account that I can access from anywhere. Arbornet and PBS were the first names that came to my mind, but I'm open to other options. I don't mind paying a regular fee for it. Privacy and security are my main concerns. RootBSD.net will rent you your own FreeBSD virtual machine with a static IP, but if you only need a shell that's probably overkill. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
[0.5 OT] Looking for recommendation on Unix shell account
Hi, For reasons hard to explain I need to set-up a Unix (preferably FreeBSD) shell account that I can access from anywhere. Arbornet and PBS were the first names that came to my mind, but I'm open to other options. I don't mind paying a regular fee for it. Privacy and security are my main concerns. Thanks in advance for your recommendations. -- The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [0.5 OT] Looking for recommendation on Unix shell account
Hi, On 27.09.2011 14:29, Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote: Hi, For reasons hard to explain I need to set-up a Unix (preferably FreeBSD) shell account that I can access from anywhere. Arbornet and PBS were the first names that came to my mind, but I'm open to other options. I don't mind paying a regular fee for it. Privacy and security are my main concerns. Hmm, that really depends on the reasons you can't explain. For example - if your internet service provider could give you a fixed IP Address you could just log into your own FreeBSD machine via ssh - very secure I believe. Or you could puchase one of these (virtual) root servers and there are dynamic ip services ... As I said: it depends. Greetings Peter. Thanks in advance for your recommendations. -- Peter Ulrich Kruppa Wuppertal Germany ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [0.5 OT] Looking for recommendation on Unix shell account
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Kruppa, Peter Ulrich ulr...@pukruppa.dewrote: Hi, On 27.09.2011 14:29, Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote: Hi, For reasons hard to explain I need to set-up a Unix (preferably FreeBSD) shell account that I can access from anywhere. Arbornet and PBS were the first names that came to my mind, but I'm open to other options. I don't mind paying a regular fee for it. Privacy and security are my main concerns. Hmm, that really depends on the reasons you can't explain. For example - if your internet service provider could give you a fixed IP Address you could just log into your own FreeBSD machine via ssh - very secure I believe. Or you could puchase one of these (virtual) root servers and there are dynamic ip services ... As I said: it depends. Greetings Peter. Thanks in advance for your recommendations. -- Peter Ulrich Kruppa Wuppertal Germany To obtain a fixed IP address , it is very likely that the ISP will provide one based on a separate subscription to static IP address , because these IP addresses are provided uniquely all over the world . Cost of static IP address subscription is not very high , it is very likely that it is around a few dollars per month . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [0.5 OT] Looking for recommendation on Unix shell account
On 9/27/11 8:29 PM, Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote: For reasons hard to explain I need to set-up a Unix (preferably FreeBSD) shell account that I can access from anywhere. I've tried Devio.us and it is great as a generic shell ... It even allow you to setup a personal webpage on it :) http://devio.us/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
I've set freebsd-chat as follow-up Me too. Postings about copyright etc too numerous/ boring/ ignorant/ irrelevant, Too much focus on American law that does not apply to many of us on this international list, eg Bernt H's Sweden, my bases of Britain Germany, 190+ other non USA countries. Diversion to next gab about international Bern Convention would be equally bad. People should write less read more, Try here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works Posting should comply with list remits, else we can report senders for removal from lists. http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions freebsd-questions -- User questions http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat freebsd-chat -- Non technical items related to the community Please subscribe use chat@ Thanks Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Reply below, not above; Indent with ; Cumulative like a play script. Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 02:25:52AM +0200, Bernt Hansson wrote: 2011-06-17 18:28, Chad Perrin skrev: The fact this is not applicable everywhere is the reason for things like the CC0 waiver, however. What is CC0? http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpoB76cBRkv1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: free sco unix
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote: I'ts _MUCH_ simpler, to just sign and date a copy of the work, and have a notary public 'witness' the signature. True. Without the service of a public registry of copyrighted works that (I think) only the US offers, and when you need a legally binding official stamp of some sort, you can go to a registered public notary. They're mildly expensive though; certainly a lot more expensive than the US Copyright Office fees. But if your work doesn't consist of too many pages, you can also get a dated and signed stamp on each one at your local city hall / administration. They call that kind of service a certified copy or copy certification. Bear in mind though, that each page of your work has to be stamped, and the fee paid for extra. For small page counts, that's okay, but try this with a 1,000 pages work, and you'll quickly find out that it's less expensive to use a public notary, even though they charge more. Actually, it's a shame that other countries DON'T offer the ease of official copyright registration (for a comparatively low fee) like the US does with the Copyright Office. That's one of the things the US did right (irrespective of what we think of the benefits and evils of Copyright law in general and their endless extensions towards perpetual copyright in particular). -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
From cpgh...@cordula.ws Sat Jun 18 08:28:25 2011 Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 15:28:24 +0200 Subject: Re: free sco unix From: C. P. Ghost cpgh...@cordula.ws To: Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote: I'ts _MUCH_ simpler, to just sign and date a copy of the work, and have a notary public 'witness' the signature. True. Without the service of a public registry of copyrighted works that (I think) only the US offers, and when you need a legally binding official stamp of some sort, you can go to a registered public notary. They're mildly expensive though; certainly a lot more expensive than the US Copyright Office fees. 'Male bovine excrement' applies. U.S. Copyright Office registration is an absolute minimum of $25-30, and can run over $100. Typical fee, in the U.S., for a notary public witnessing a signature is $1. And many facilities, such as banks, will perform the service for _NO_COST_ for their customers. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote: From cpgh...@cordula.ws Sat Jun 18 08:28:25 2011 Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 15:28:24 +0200 Subject: Re: free sco unix From: C. P. Ghost cpgh...@cordula.ws To: Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote: I'ts _MUCH_ simpler, to just sign and date a copy of the work, and have a notary public 'witness' the signature. True. Without the service of a public registry of copyrighted works that (I think) only the US offers, and when you need a legally binding official stamp of some sort, you can go to a registered public notary. They're mildly expensive though; certainly a lot more expensive than the US Copyright Office fees. 'Male bovine excrement' applies. U.S. Copyright Office registration is an absolute minimum of $25-30, and can run over $100. Typical fee, in the U.S., for a notary public witnessing a signature is $1. And many facilities, such as banks, will perform the service for _NO_COST_ for their customers. Outside the US, it's quite different. A public notary's fees run in the hundreds of dollars, but it's usually a flat fee... while public copy certifications are around $1-$2 per page, unless when required by law and statues. Banks are private institutions there, and they are not entitled to legally certify non-banking stuff. In some countries, you could go to the post office though, but here too, the fee usually applies per page. The problem with per-page fees is when you have many pages (like a book, or say, a printout of your code) that you want to certify. Unless you go to a notary and pay the according fee for them to KEEP (a copy of) the book in their office and/or certify EVERY page or be prepared to witness for each and every page (!), all you get is the certification of a couple of pages, and that could be insufficiant in some cases (e.g. in the case of program source code). That's why IMHO, the fees of the US Copyright Office are STILL way lower than what you'd have to pay elsewhere to get a similar certification. -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 03:28:24PM +0200, C. P. Ghost wrote: On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote: I'ts _MUCH_ simpler, to just sign and date a copy of the work, and have a notary public 'witness' the signature. True. Without the service of a public registry of copyrighted works that (I think) only the US offers, and when you need a legally binding official stamp of some sort, you can go to a registered public notary. They're mildly expensive though; certainly a lot more expensive than the US Copyright Office fees. Have you ever had something notarized? I have had many things. It is not generally expensive. They ask $5 - $20 and many banks will have someone who will do it for for free if you have an account in the bank. That is much cheaper than doing an officialy USA registration. What the Notary notarizes is your signature being done at that place and on that date. jerry -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On 6/18/11 10:36 AM, Jerry McAllister wrote: On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 03:28:24PM +0200, C. P. Ghost wrote: On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote: I'ts _MUCH_ simpler, to just sign and date a copy of the work, and have a notary public 'witness' the signature. True. Without the service of a public registry of copyrighted works that (I think) only the US offers, and when you need a legally binding official stamp of some sort, you can go to a registered public notary. They're mildly expensive though; certainly a lot more expensive than the US Copyright Office fees. Have you ever had something notarized? I have had many things. It is not generally expensive. They ask $5 - $20 and many banks will have someone who will do it for for free if you have an account in the bank. That is much cheaper than doing an officialy USA registration. What the Notary notarizes is your signature being done at that place and on that date. jerry This stream of comments from people who, for reasons I can't quite fathom, but I like to give them the benefit of the doubt and figure that they really don't know how provincial they're being, figure that everything is *just*like*it*is*in*their*country*of*residence* is really becoming quite tedious. Could we please stop it? Face it folks, despite global commerce and a heap of treaties, the low-level mechanics of how banking, the courts, notarizing documents, applying for patents, registering copyrights, etc., etc., etc. work vary from country to country, sometimes rather wildly. --Jon Radel j...@radel.com Adding terribly to the noise, once and only once ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 06:14:03AM +0200, Polytropon wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:35:54 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: I've noticed that your mail user agent is including quoted parties' email addresses in the quote notification. In the text immediately following this brief paragraph, for instance, my email address was included after my name. I would appreciate it if you would configure your mail user agent to no longer do this, for not only my sake but that of others who would probably like to see archives that strip such information from headers before publicly posting them actually do some good. When the email address also appears in the text of the email because your mail user agent is adding it in, you are creating a crop of victims for spam email list spiders to reap. Thanks for the advice, I've just made the setting (I'm using the Sylpheed MUA). I didn't pay much attention to that (although I'm aware of the topic) as mailing list publishing systems put in the From: datafield (directed at the list) automatically, so all the names and addresses are already in there. I will keep that setting as it sounds the right thing to do. Other possibly needed information (like addresses) are in the mail header anyway. Thank you. I appreciate it. Unlike choices in software (a matter purely of preference), I find too many choices of licensing problematic. Just one reason among several for my perspective is that of hindering further advancement of the state of the art, as explained here: Code Reuse and Technological Advancement http://blogstrapping.com/?page=2011.060.00.28.21 Interesting article, and helpful for further argumentation. Thank you! Exactly my point of view. Bookmarked. I'm glad you found it worthwhile. The part LA in EULA means license agreement, so I assume this indicates that I have to agree to something, and an agreement between two parties is a... contract. The vendor allows me to do certain things with the software _if_ I agree to the terms. If I do _not_, I am not legally allowed to use the software, will loose warranty or am even forced to return the whole computer system. The term Agreement in End User License Agreement does not actually imply that you have explicitly agreed to anything. It merely implies that the guy who invented the term is conversant in the ways of inventing terms of newspeak (q.v. 1984, by George Orwell). It's a term of propaganda, rather than of meaningful definition. There's a dish that many restaurants serve involving a tortilla wrapped around some set of common ingredients -- often involving beans, cheese, and possibly rice and/or meat, among other things. In the United States, we call it a burrito. The fact we call it that, however, does *not* mean it is in fact a small donkey (burro is donkey in Spanish, and burrito would mean small burro). By the same token, tax cuts are not subsidies, now matter how often Democrats in the US call them subsidies, and full disclosure IT security research is not cybertarrorism, no matter how much Republicans in the US call it cyberterrorism. Keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer and may therefore cultivate just one opinion about one topic (instead of two opinions). :-) Same here, of course. I'm not a lawyer, but I pay attention to the law. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgp7agN2gsyVl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: free sco unix
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 06:59:57AM +0200, Bernt Hansson wrote: 2011-06-17 00:20, Daniel Staal skrev: --As of June 16, 2011 11:21:34 PM +0400, Peter Vereshagin is alleged to have said: (And note that a pure list of facts can't be copyrighted: The phone book is often an example. It's just a list of names and numbers.) Which is copyrighted, all databases are copyrighted where i live. Even the .se whois database. # The information obtained through searches, or otherwise, is protected # by the Swedish Copyright Act (1960:729) and international conventions. # It is also subject to database protection according to the Swedish # Copyright Act. Holy crap. That's awful. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpRfgEDeXQEd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: free sco unix
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 07:22:31AM +0200, Bernt Hansson wrote: 2011-06-17 06:53, Adam Vande More skrev: On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Bernt Hansson wrote: Copyright you get without registration and without payment, and one can't give it up. Again, registration is pretty important if you want to an expanded ability to legally enforce it. Where i live no need to register, you get copyright if the stuff fulfills certain criteria, originality is one. Registration aids enforcement. Of course, there's always the poor man's copyright registration approach, where the moment you have something you would like to protect by copyright, you can seal it up in an envelope and mail it to yourself. Keep it sealed. If you ever need proof of copyright, including date of copyright, you can then take the sealed envelope with you to court to show the postmark date, unseal the envelope, and show the full text of the document inside. Of course, it's not *perfect*. It may be that postmarks stop being regarded as suitable proof of date at some point, thanks to increasing ability to fake a postmark. Your sealed envelope trick only works once. You need to protect that sealed envelope against loss and damage. You would need to do this for *everything* for which you want to have some kind of proof of date of copyright, which can fill up file cabinets in a hurry. This is why copyright registration is still useful. And you can assign your copyright away. Only the monetary. The creator can sell the right to make copys of the work but the creator still retains the copyright. That depends on jurisdiction. In the US, you can negate copyright entirely by assigning something you have created to the public domain. The fact this is not applicable everywhere is the reason for things like the CC0 waiver, however. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpFK5VBXJ2eR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: free sco unix
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:28:51AM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: Registration aids enforcement. Of course, there's always the poor man's copyright registration approach, where the moment you have something you would like to protect by copyright, you can seal it up in an envelope and mail it to yourself. Keep it sealed. If you ever need proof of copyright, including date of copyright, you can then take the sealed envelope with you to court to show the postmark date, unseal the envelope, and show the full text of the document inside. Of course, it's not *perfect*. It may be that postmarks stop being regarded as suitable proof of date at some point, thanks to increasing ability to fake a postmark. Your sealed envelope trick only works once. You need to protect that sealed envelope against loss and damage. You would need to do this for *everything* for which you want to have some kind of proof of date of copyright, which can fill up file cabinets in a hurry. This is why copyright registration is still useful. Sorry to contribute to this long thread that is only peripherally related to FreeBSD, but I have to ask -- does this trick really work? You can send yourself unsealed (or just very lightly sealed, or with manilla envelopes, just use the clasp, not the gum) envelopes whenever you like, and then insert contents seal at some later date. It seems a flimsy proof that the contents actually were in the envelope as of the postmark date. I'd be curious to find out whether courts have really accepted this, or whether it's more of an urban legend. Alex ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On Jun 17, 2011, at 9:28 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: Where i live no need to register, you get copyright if the stuff fulfills certain criteria, originality is one. Registration aids enforcement. Of course, there's always the poor man's copyright registration approach, where the moment you have something you would like to protect by copyright, you can seal it up in an envelope and mail it to yourself. Keep it sealed. If you ever need proof of copyright, including date of copyright, you can then take the sealed envelope with you to court to show the postmark date, unseal the envelope, and show the full text of the document inside. Sigh. If you'd ever actually filed a copyright registration or transfer form, you would discover that one needs to get them notarized. (Documenting that a certain document was available and signed at a specific date is what a notary public is for.) There is no case law in the US to support this poor man's copyright. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what [ ... ] Only the monetary. The creator can sell the right to make copys of the work but the creator still retains the copyright. That depends on jurisdiction. In the US, you can negate copyright entirely by assigning something you have created to the public domain. You assert this claim as well, but it's not at all clear whether anything but works created by government employees can be placed in the public domain. http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/no-rights-reserved.html There is no specific provision in the copyright law for disclaiming rights in copyrighted works, and of course, no obligation to do so. However, the Copyright Office will record a statement of your intention to relinquish rights in our official records because the document pertains to a copyright within the meaning of the statute. A statement of abandonment should identify the works involved by title and/or registration number. The office does not provide forms for this purpose. The legal effect of recording a statement of abandonment is not clear. Moreover, its acceptance for recordation in this office should not be construed as approval of the legal sufficiency of its content or its effect on the status or ownership of any copyright. Let me repeat: unless you are a lawyer, you are not qualified to provide legal advice. Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:57:20AM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote: On Jun 17, 2011, at 9:28 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: Where i live no need to register, you get copyright if the stuff fulfills certain criteria, originality is one. Registration aids enforcement. Of course, there's always the poor man's copyright registration approach, where the moment you have something you would like to protect by copyright, you can seal it up in an envelope and mail it to yourself. Keep it sealed. If you ever need proof of copyright, including date of copyright, you can then take the sealed envelope with you to court to show the postmark date, unseal the envelope, and show the full text of the document inside. Sigh. If you'd ever actually filed a copyright registration or transfer form, you would discover that one needs to get them notarized. (Documenting that a certain document was available and signed at a specific date is what a notary public is for.) There is no case law in the US to support this poor man's copyright. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what That page does not say anything about case law. It refers to copyright law, which is law on the books -- not case law. The poor man's copyright approach is, I believe, less certain and effective than registration, but if there is a dispute over proper claim of copyright, anything you can do to add evidenciary support for your claim will help. In my previous explanation, of course, I neglected to mention that the way to ensure some kind of strength of evidence is to use metered mail, specifically so that nobody will be able to (as) convincingly claim you just mailed yourself an empty envelope and stuffed it later. Only the monetary. The creator can sell the right to make copys of the work but the creator still retains the copyright. That depends on jurisdiction. In the US, you can negate copyright entirely by assigning something you have created to the public domain. You assert this claim as well, but it's not at all clear whether anything but works created by government employees can be placed in the public domain. http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/no-rights-reserved.html There is no specific provision in the copyright law for disclaiming rights in copyrighted works, and of course, no obligation to do so. However, the Copyright Office will record a statement of your intention to relinquish rights in our official records because the document pertains to a copyright within the meaning of the statute. A statement of abandonment should identify the works involved by title and/or registration number. The office does not provide forms for this purpose. The legal effect of recording a statement of abandonment is not clear. Moreover, its acceptance for recordation in this office should not be construed as approval of the legal sufficiency of its content or its effect on the status or ownership of any copyright. The effect has been, in any cases I have noticed, that waiving copyright makes it essentially impossible to assert copyright. Keep in mind that, if nothing else, such a waiver serves to demonstrate to the receiver an intent to let the receiver of the waiver to do whatever he or she likes with a copyrighted work similarly to an explicit license enumerating all the specific effects of such a waiver, and (unlike as in jurisdictions such as France) there does not appear to be any provision in law that disallows it. While it is always possible that someone with a better lawyer than you can turn these circumstances on their collective head in court, the implications are obvious, even to a lawyer. Don't take my word for it, though. My policy is to never just make bare public domain dedications. I much prefer detailed waiver licenses such as the CC0 waiver rather than dedication to the public domain, not only for local jurisdictions but for worldwide applicability as well. Let me repeat: unless you are a lawyer, you are not qualified to provide legal advice. Let me be clear: I didn't give legal advice. I didn't say You should do this. I said, in effect, This is what I have observed. In fact, nothing I said is any more advisory than what you said. For someone intent on giving the impression of precision, your precision sucks. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpog99SK2ABw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: free sco unix
On Jun 17, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: Sigh. If you'd ever actually filed a copyright registration or transfer form, you would discover that one needs to get them notarized. (Documenting that a certain document was available and signed at a specific date is what a notary public is for.) There is no case law in the US to support this poor man's copyright. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what That page does not say anything about case law. It refers to copyright law, which is law on the books -- not case law. Yes, I know the difference. You're welcome to cite a court case in the US where a judge decided that this poor man's copyright constituted valid evidence of copyright ownership. The poor man's copyright approach is, I believe, less certain and effective than registration, but if there is a dispute over proper claim of copyright, anything you can do to add evidenciary support for your claim will help. Many people seem to believe their opinions matter more than facts which contradict such beliefs. Snopes is knocking, and they'd like this misinformation retracted: http://www.snopes.com/legal/postmark.asp In my previous explanation, of course, I neglected to mention that the way to ensure some kind of strength of evidence is to use metered mail, specifically so that nobody will be able to (as) convincingly claim you just mailed yourself an empty envelope and stuffed it later. Is there some part of you're repeating an urban legend which has been discredited which you find hard to understand? [ ... ] Let me repeat: unless you are a lawyer, you are not qualified to provide legal advice. Let me be clear: I didn't give legal advice. I didn't say You should do this. I said, in effect, This is what I have observed. In fact, nothing I said is any more advisory than what you said. For someone intent on giving the impression of precision, your precision sucks. Are you willing to acknowledge that your claims about poor man's copyright in the US are invalid? If you can't be honest enough to do so, frankly, your opinions about my precision-- or anything else-- aren't a matter of concern. Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:48:25AM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote: On Jun 17, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: The poor man's copyright approach is, I believe, less certain and effective than registration, but if there is a dispute over proper claim of copyright, anything you can do to add evidenciary support for your claim will help. Many people seem to believe their opinions matter more than facts which contradict such beliefs. Snopes is knocking, and they'd like this misinformation retracted: Are you seriously trying to argue that evidence of copyright date necessarily won't constitute evidence of copyright date in court? Seriously? In my previous explanation, of course, I neglected to mention that the way to ensure some kind of strength of evidence is to use metered mail, specifically so that nobody will be able to (as) convincingly claim you just mailed yourself an empty envelope and stuffed it later. Is there some part of you're repeating an urban legend which has been discredited which you find hard to understand? Is there some part of the fact it isn't established case law does not change the fact it offers some proof of possession, and this not only has not been discredited by snopes but was actually pointed out by the UK IPO and is not specifically contradicted by what the USPTO has to say about it? You're generalizing from there's no case law that snopes has found, and the USPTO says it's not the same as registering copyright to there's no way to establish any date of copyright other than registering it, which is kind of ludicrous. Are you willing to acknowledge that your claims about poor man's copyright in the US are invalid? If you can't be honest enough to do so, frankly, your opinions about my precision-- or anything else-- aren't a matter of concern. Are you willing to stop using straw men in place of my actual statements? I didn't think so. I'm not interested in perpetuating this ridiculous nascent flame war of yours. Please have your argument without me from this point forward, preferably off-list. You can email yourself if you like. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgptQ4Rz6AqEl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: free sco unix
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Fri Jun 17 12:22:42 2011 Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:03:47 -0500 From: Alex Stangl a...@stangl.us To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: free sco unix On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:28:51AM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: Registration aids enforcement. Of course, there's always the poor man's copyright registration approach, where the moment you have something you would like to protect by copyright, you can seal it up in an envelope and mail it to yourself. Keep it sealed. If you ever need proof of copyright, including date of copyright, you can then take the sealed envelope with you to court to show the postmark date, unseal the envelope, and show the full text of the document inside. Of course, it's not *perfect*. It may be that postmarks stop being regarded as suitable proof of date at some point, thanks to increasing ability to fake a postmark. Your sealed envelope trick only works once. You need to protect that sealed envelope against loss and damage. You would need to do this for *everything* for which you want to have some kind of proof of date of copyright, which can fill up file cabinets in a hurry. This is why copyright registration is still useful. Sorry to contribute to this long thread that is only peripherally related to FreeBSD, but I have to ask -- does this trick really work? You can send yourself unsealed (or just very lightly sealed, or with manilla envelopes, just use the clasp, not the gum) envelopes whenever you like, and then insert contents seal at some later date. It seems a flimsy proof that the contents actually were in the envelope as of the postmark date. I'd be curious to find out whether courts have really accepted this, or whether it's more of an urban legend. OK, time for somebody who really knows about this stuff to wade in. Under 'modern' copyright law -- i.e. in any country that has adopted the 'Berne Convention treaty on copyright law: 1) Copyright protection attaches _automatically_ when an 'original work of authorship' is first 'fixed in a tangible medium of expression'. 2) The copyright belongs to the person who created the 'original work' in question, *unless* it is a 'work done for hire', which covers almost all work done by an employee, _and_ *some* work done by a contractor. In general, if using a contractor, the contract should specify that copyright is assigned to the person paying for the work. 3) In the U.S. 'registering' the copyright with the copyright officE (a part of the Library of Congress) gives you certain legal rights that are *NOT* available if you have not registered the copyright. T includes 'statutory' and 'punitive' damages, instead of just 'actual' damagers. Registration also 'conclusively establishes' the date of authorship as 'not after' the date of registraton. 4) In the U.S., one can officially register copyright on something up to SIX MONTHS _after_ first 'publication'. 5) To establish copyright infringement, there are several things you have to 'prove' (by a prepondernace of the evidence) in court: 1) that you authored the work in question. 2) that you authored it _before_ the infringer produced their 'copy'. 3) that the 'infringer' _had_access_ to your work. The 'mail it to yourself' approach does *not* give you the same legal protections as actual 'registration' does. The 'mail it to yourself' approach _may_ be used as evidence in an attempt to 'persuade' the court with regard to the date of authorship. It _is_ subject to challenge for the reasons cited above. In fact the 'old' wisdom was to have someone 'trustworthy', like your lawyer, mail it 'registered mail, return receipt', because the receipt was produced by the Post Office, and _not_ subject to manipulation by the putative 'author', and that reputable 'third party' can testify as to what they put in the envelope that was mailed. Of course, in _todays_ world, just sending registered mail is -more- expensive than a Copyright Office filing. Without even considering what you'd have to pay your lawyer. wry grin The 'mail it to yourself' approach is _not_ a slam-dunk for establishing authorship, *or* date of authorship. Nor is it automatically superior to other recordskeeping methods. I'ts _MUCH_ simpler, to just sign and date a copy of the work, and have a notary public 'witness' the signature. One final poinnt -- copyright law _does_ recognize that parallel *independant* development _can_ occur. Two people *can* write works that are virtually identical, *without* either having any knowledge of the other persons work. In this situation, they _both_ own the copyright on their own work, but -neither- can prevent the other from publishing that other, virtually identical, work. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http
Re: free sco unix
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 05:02:09PM -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote: OK, time for somebody who really knows about this stuff to wade in. [snip] Thanks for much more clearly stating, in much greater detail, exactly what I was trying to say -- and for adding a bunch of additional detail. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpV9iKvE5EVU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: free sco unix
--As of June 17, 2011 5:02:09 PM -0500, Robert Bonomi is alleged to have said: 4) In the U.S., one can officially register copyright on something up to SIX MONTHS _after_ first 'publication'. --As for the rest, it is mine. Actually, you can register it at any time after it has been created, until the copyright period ends. (Even before it's been published.) Though you get certain benefits if you register within five years of it's creation. Also note that to file a _copyright suit_ your work has to be registered. But this registration can occur _after_ the infringement. (Although if it's done beforehand you'll have an easier time with your case, and some extra legal options.) Bare details available here: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf Daniel T. Staal --- This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years, whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of local copyright law. --- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On 6/16/2011 6:47 PM, Polytropon wrote: There is another important term, but I'm not sure how to translate it properly. In German, it's Schaffenshoehe, refering to the level of work you put into creating it. This finalizes in patent law. To make sure nobody can make money out of trivial patents, such as patenting the word or and forcing everybody to pay a license fee for using it, there is a certain barrier that prohibits copyright claims on too simple things. When a lot of people think of Unix as an OS these days they probably think of SCO; And another German word comes to mind when I think of SCO; Schadenfreude ;) -gore ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On 6/17/2011 1:57 PM, Chuck Swiger wrote: On Jun 17, 2011, at 9:28 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: You assert this claim as well, but it's not at all clear whether anything but works created by government employees can be placed in the public domain. http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/no-rights-reserved.html Night of the Living Dead comes to mind. -gore ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On 6/17/2011 2:48 PM, Chuck Swiger wrote: On Jun 17, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: Sigh. If you'd ever actually filed a copyright registration or transfer form, you would discover that one needs to get them notarized. (Documenting that a certain document was available and signed at a specific date is what a notary public is for.) There is no case law in the US to support this poor man's copyright. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what That page does not say anything about case law. It refers to copyright law, which is law on the books -- not case law. Yes, I know the difference. You're welcome to cite a court case in the US where a judge decided that this poor man's copyright constituted valid evidence of copyright ownership. The poor man's copyright approach is, I believe, less certain and effective than registration, but if there is a dispute over proper claim of copyright, anything you can do to add evidenciary support for your claim will help. Many people seem to believe their opinions matter more than facts which contradict such beliefs. Snopes is knocking, and they'd like this misinformation retracted: http://www.snopes.com/legal/postmark.asp In my previous explanation, of course, I neglected to mention that the way to ensure some kind of strength of evidence is to use metered mail, specifically so that nobody will be able to (as) convincingly claim you just mailed yourself an empty envelope and stuffed it later. Is there some part of you're repeating an urban legend which has been discredited which you find hard to understand? [ ... ] Let me repeat: unless you are a lawyer, you are not qualified to provide legal advice. Let me be clear: I didn't give legal advice. I didn't say You should do this. I said, in effect, This is what I have observed. In fact, nothing I said is any more advisory than what you said. For someone intent on giving the impression of precision, your precision sucks. Are you willing to acknowledge that your claims about poor man's copyright in the US are invalid? If you can't be honest enough to do so, frankly, your opinions about my precision-- or anything else-- aren't a matter of concern. Regards, I think the problem with you two is that it's really hard to get a real Lawyer to respond to any of this considering how hard it is to type on a keyboard with your hands in someone Else's pockets. -gore ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
Le 15/06/2011 à 22:34:23+0200, Thomas Hansen a écrit one of my mates teacher says that unix is free and your system running like UnixWare / SCO UNIX and and that unix is free Do your BSD kernel run the same unix kernel as unixware Take a look : http://www.levenez.com/unix/ Regards. JAS -- Albert SHIH DIO batiment 15 Observatoire de Paris Meudon 5 Place Jules Janssen 92195 Meudon Cedex Téléphone : 01 45 07 76 26/06 86 69 95 71 Heure local/Local time: jeu 16 jui 2011 11:19:21 CEST ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
You can't take no for an answer, freebsd-questions! 2011/06/15 17:08:31 -0400 Chris Brennan xa...@xaerolimit.net = To Thomas Hansen : CB FreeBSD is a UNIX-like clone, which is indeed free, whereas UNIX is CB still the proprietary property of ATT/Bell Labs. unix is a trademark of novell.com. 73! Peter pgp: A0E26627 (4A42 6841 2871 5EA7 52AB 12F8 0CE1 4AAC A0E2 6627) -- http://vereshagin.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On 16/06/2011 13:52, Peter Vereshagin wrote: You can't take no for an answer, freebsd-questions! 2011/06/15 17:08:31 -0400 Chris Brennan xa...@xaerolimit.net = To Thomas Hansen : CB FreeBSD is a UNIX-like clone, which is indeed free, whereas UNIX is CB still the proprietary property of ATT/Bell Labs. unix is a trademark of novell.com. Unix (note capitalization) is actually a trademark of the Open Group: http://www.unix.org/ It's been owned by them for more than ten years, but it was passed around between various owners quite a bit before that. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: free sco unix
On Thursday, June 16, 2011 09:22:43 AM Matthew Seaman wrote: On 16/06/2011 13:52, Peter Vereshagin wrote: You can't take no for an answer, freebsd-questions! 2011/06/15 17:08:31 -0400 Chris Brennan xa...@xaerolimit.net = To Thomas Hansen : CB FreeBSD is a UNIX-like clone, which is indeed free, whereas UNIX is CB still the proprietary property of ATT/Bell Labs. unix is a trademark of novell.com. Unix (note capitalization) is actually a trademark of the Open Group: http://www.unix.org/ It's been owned by them for more than ten years, but it was passed around between various owners quite a bit before that. I think the confusion that you all are having is between the idea of copyright and trademark. They are different. Copyright applies to the code base, and trademark applies to the usage of the word UNIX and its associated symbols along with the right to use said symbols once your product complies with a set of specified standards. The copyright for UNIX is owned by Attachmate, which bought Novell recently (which has scared the pants off the OpenSUSE community, but that's a different tale). This has been proven in court. You can see the verdict on groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Novell-846.pdf Open Group, however, is a completely different animal. They are a trademark certification organization. They do not own the UNIX copyright, they own the trademark and the specification. According to their website, The Open Group has separated the UNIX trademark from any actual code stream itself, thus allowing multiple implementations. So, if you wanted to call your software UNIX you would need to contact Open Group and make sure that your software licences the trademark, and complies with the standard. If you want to use the source code of UNIX itself, you would license that from Attachmate. Groklaw is a good place to start if you want to read about the whole debacle: http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20040319041857760 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
You can't take no for an answer, freebsd-questions! 2011/06/16 14:22:43 +0100 Matthew Seaman m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk = To freebsd-questions@freebsd.org : MS CB FreeBSD is a UNIX-like clone, which is indeed free, whereas UNIX is MS CB still the proprietary property of ATT/Bell Labs. MS MS unix is a trademark of novell.com. MS MS Unix (note capitalization) is actually a trademark of the Open Group: MS http://www.unix.org/ But not of ATT/Bell Labs. MS It's been owned by them for more than ten years, but it was passed MS around between various owners quite a bit before that. There should be a difference recognized between own a Unix trademark by http://www.unix.org/trademark.html and ownership of the Unix copyrights by http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100330152829622 where I'm pass. Lawyers are so lawyers ;-) 73! Peter pgp: A0E26627 (4A42 6841 2871 5EA7 52AB 12F8 0CE1 4AAC A0E2 6627) -- http://vereshagin.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
You can't take no for an answer, freebsd-questions! 2011/06/16 10:06:42 -0400 Robert Simmons rsimmo...@gmail.com = To freebsd-questions@freebsd.org : RS I think the confusion that you all are having is between the idea of RS copyright and trademark. They are different. Copyright applies to the As I suspected ;-) RS So, if you wanted to call your software UNIX you would need to contact Open RS Group and make sure that your software licences the trademark, and complies This will require some efforts from Open Group. Does FreeBSD Foundation pay for that? RS with the standard. If you want to use the source code of UNIX itself, you RS would license that from Attachmate. So nobody knows if Lunus will once upon a time split Linux code from himself de jure as he did de facto nowadays and just have an income from such a regular trademark sales from, say, Linux Foundation, Attachmate, etc.? 73! Peter pgp: A0E26627 (4A42 6841 2871 5EA7 52AB 12F8 0CE1 4AAC A0E2 6627) -- http://vereshagin.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:29:42 AM Peter Vereshagin wrote: There should be a difference recognized between own a Unix trademark by http://www.unix.org/trademark.html and ownership of the Unix copyrights by http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100330152829622 where I'm pass. There is a difference (see my post earlier), or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark Copyright pertains to the source code. Trademark pertains to the use of signs, symbols, names, logos, etc. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:47:32 AM Peter Vereshagin wrote: This will require some efforts from Open Group. Does FreeBSD Foundation pay for that? Not necessary. FreeBSD does not use (want to use/need to use) the UNIX trademark and according to the USL vs. BSDi court case, FreeBSD does not have to worry about copyright either. So nobody knows if Lunus will once upon a time split Linux code from himself de jure as he did de facto nowadays and just have an income from such a regular trademark sales from, say, Linux Foundation, Attachmate, etc.? No. The linux trademark in the US is held by Linus. The Linux Trademark Institute licenses the trademark to organizations under a free, perpetual, worldwide sublicense. So, even if Linus were to change his mind and try to start suing everyone using the trademark, (pigs fly first) it would all be thrown out of court. Additionally, the source code is GPL, so even if in the fictional world of Linus taking the trademark elsewhere, you can fork the code and call it Morphtkdlfgjfjdsksjfnmvmdkedkfjgjg, and you would be fine. http://www.linuxfoundation.org/programs/legal/trademark ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
You can't take no for an answer, freebsd-questions! 2011/06/16 11:54:05 -0400 Robert Simmons rsimmo...@gmail.com = To freebsd-questions@freebsd.org : RS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright RS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark I'll surely will when I'll have some to trade ;-) RS Copyright pertains to the source code. Trademark pertains to the use of RS signs, symbols, names, logos, etc. Source code itself can have 'signs, symbols, names, logos, etc.' and consist in terms of its usability of them, doesn't it just use to? 'signs, symbols, names, logos, etc.' same way can have their source code and consist in terms of their usability of it, doesn't they just use to? Such a relationships system will just ruin into ashes droven by such a kinds of the internal controversions. Murphy's rule for that case is: all of that will happen just in time I'll be ready to use it. Don't just make this moment come sooner with my understanding. ;-) 73! Peter pgp: A0E26627 (4A42 6841 2871 5EA7 52AB 12F8 0CE1 4AAC A0E2 6627) -- http://vereshagin.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
-- From: Robert Simmons rsimmo...@gmail.com thrown out of court. Additionally, the source code is GPL, so even if in the fictional world of Linus taking the trademark elsewhere, you can fork the code and call it Morphtkdlfgjfjdsksjfnmvmdkedkfjgjg, and you would be fine. In that fictional world MySQL needed a fork and some GPL'd programs have been retroactively made completely closed source, forking denied after taking the issue into court... -Reko ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On Thursday, June 16, 2011 12:31:19 PM Reko Turja wrote: In that fictional world MySQL needed a fork and some GPL'd programs have been retroactively made completely closed source, forking denied after taking the issue into court... I thought that Sun reversed that decision in 2008. Can you give some examples? There are two major GPL forks of MySQL right now: http://drizzle.org/ and http://mariadb.org/about/ MariaDB is the drop-in replacement for MySQL for people who want to get away from Oracle/MySQL AB. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On 16 June 2011 17:47, Robert Simmons rsimmo...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, June 16, 2011 12:31:19 PM Reko Turja wrote: In that fictional world MySQL needed a fork and some GPL'd programs have been retroactively made completely closed source, forking denied after taking the issue into court... I thought that Sun reversed that decision in 2008. Can you give some examples? There are two major GPL forks of MySQL right now: http://drizzle.org/ and http://mariadb.org/about/ MariaDB is the drop-in replacement for MySQL for people who want to get away from Oracle/MySQL AB. This thread appears to have drifted off topic. Perhaps move to chat? Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On Thu, June 16, 2011 12:20 pm, Peter Vereshagin wrote: You can't take no for an answer, freebsd-questions! 2011/06/16 11:54:05 -0400 Robert Simmons rsimmo...@gmail.com = To freebsd-questions@freebsd.org : RS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright RS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark I'll surely will when I'll have some to trade ;-) RS Copyright pertains to the source code. Trademark pertains to the use of RS signs, symbols, names, logos, etc. Source code itself can have 'signs, symbols, names, logos, etc.' and consist in terms of its usability of them, doesn't it just use to? 'signs, symbols, names, logos, etc.' same way can have their source code and consist in terms of their usability of it, doesn't they just use to? Trademark is for 'this is made by me. I put my name on it.' Copyright is for the content of a book/speech/whatever. 'Trademark' is a _maker's mark._ The point is not encouraging the creation of works (like copyright): The point is so that a maker/seller can build a reputation with their customers. They are very different in terms, uses, and requirements. In theory it is possible to hold both a trademark and a copyright on the same thing, but it is hard. (You will likely fail applicability tests for one or the other.) It is of course possible to put a trademark on something you've copyrighted, so people know who created it. Daniel T. Staal --- This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years, whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of local copyright law. --- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
You can't take no for an answer, freebsd-questions! 2011/06/16 13:36:32 -0400 Daniel Staal dst...@usa.net = To freebsd-questions@freebsd.org : DS RS Copyright pertains to the source code. Trademark pertains to the use DS of DS RS signs, symbols, names, logos, etc. DS DS Source code itself can have 'signs, symbols, names, logos, etc.' and DS consist in terms of its usability of them, doesn't it just use to? DS 'signs, symbols, names, logos, etc.' same way can have their source code DS and consist in terms of their usability of it, doesn't they just use to? DS DS Trademark is for 'this is made by me. I put my name on it.' Copyright is DS for the content of a book/speech/whatever. But both are just words/phrases, right? How one can be sure the trademark is allowed to copy? It is a thing to be created. How one can be sure the copyrighted work itself is not a trademark? It can be that strange word the one suggested to rebrand Linux in this thread. Of course it doesn't sound to be a trademark yet so right now I can restrict its copyright. But years later it may happen to be a recognized brand and to be a trademark, right? ;-) There should be a threshold of up to N bytes/characters it is a trademark, but more than it it is a work to be copyrighted', right? DS 'Trademark' is a _maker's mark._ The point is not encouraging the DS creation of works (like copyright): The point is so that a maker/seller so 'Trademark' is ought to be nothing creative? But companies use to spend a lots to invent them... DS can build a reputation with their customers. DS DS They are very different in terms, uses, and requirements. In theory it is DS possible to hold both a trademark and a copyright on the same thing, but DS it is hard. (You will likely fail applicability tests for one or the DS other.) It is of course possible to put a trademark on something you've DS copyrighted, so people know who created it. DS DS Daniel T. Staal DS DS --- DS This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you DS are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use DS the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will DS expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years, DS whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of DS local copyright law. DS --- DS DS ___ DS freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list DS http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions DS To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org 73! Peter pgp: A0E26627 (4A42 6841 2871 5EA7 52AB 12F8 0CE1 4AAC A0E2 6627) -- http://vereshagin.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 02:22:43PM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 16/06/2011 13:52, Peter Vereshagin wrote: unix is a trademark of novell.com. Unix (note capitalization) is actually a trademark of the Open Group: http://www.unix.org/ In case it was lost in the informative explanations of others, here's the short version: * UNIX is a trademark of the Open Group. Unix is not. * The UNIX source code's copyright is held by . . . damn. It keeps changing. I remember that it was once owned by Novell, but I think they might have sold it after the whole SCO fiasco. FreeBSD uses BSD Unix source, not SysV Unix source, both of which are descended from original ATT UNIX source -- but the BSD Unix source is distributed under the BSD License, while the SysV Unix source copyright is tightly controlled under proprietary terms. For any of the above to be called UNIX, it must meet the Open Group's certification standards and (more importantly) have some certification fee paid, as I understand it. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpzHDlCJHbDX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: free sco unix
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:20:11PM +0400, Peter Vereshagin wrote: But both are just words/phrases, right? Here's an example of the difference: UNIX, the name, is a trademark. We can use it all we like here, speaking about the UNIX trademark, its applicability, who owns the trademark, and so on. We just can't claim *we* own it, misapply it to things to which it does not legally apply, and so on (subject to some fair use exceptions, such as parodies). The source code of a closed source UNIX operating system such as HP-UX is not trademarked, because it is not an identifying mark. Because it is subject to copyright, if one of us has legally gained access to it, we cannot just post it all in its entirety to the mailing list (assuming that posting that much source to the list wasn't a problem in and of itself) without violating copyright laws of most industrialized countries -- regardless of what we said about it. The difference is that trademarks are used to identify some entity and its creations, while copyrights are used to censor the redistribution of creations themselves. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpypo8icowY9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: free sco unix
You can't take no for an answer, freebsd-questions! 2011/06/16 12:46:20 -0600 Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com = To freebsd-questions@freebsd.org : CP But both are just words/phrases, right? CP CP Here's an example of the difference: Good example, it's on-topic ;-) CP UNIX, the name, is a trademark. We can use it all we like here, speaking Do we need a license to use it? ;-) CP about the UNIX trademark, its applicability, who owns the trademark, and CP so on. We just can't claim *we* own it, misapply it to things to which So it's just enough to reserve a copyright on this word usage and we will have just another reason why we can't claim we own it ;-) Sorry my confusion, it's just a new thing to me and it seems as absurd as those ideas. CP it does not legally apply, and so on (subject to some fair use CP exceptions, such as parodies). CP CP The source code of a closed source UNIX operating system such as HP-UX is CP not trademarked, because it is not an identifying mark. Because it is CP subject to copyright, if one of us has legally gained access to it, we CP cannot just post it all in its entirety to the mailing list (assuming CP that posting that much source to the list wasn't a problem in and of CP itself) without violating copyright laws of most industrialized CP countries -- regardless of what we said about it. CP CP The difference is that trademarks are used to identify some entity and CP its creations, while copyrights are used to censor the redistribution of CP creations themselves. CP CP -- CP Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] 73! Peter pgp: A0E26627 (4A42 6841 2871 5EA7 52AB 12F8 0CE1 4AAC A0E2 6627) -- http://vereshagin.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
You can't take no for an answer, freebsd-questions! 2011/06/16 12:30:07 -0600 Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com = To freebsd-questions@freebsd.org : CP * The UNIX source code's copyright is held by . . . damn. It keeps I always told this name is a kind of Black Label. Companies to hold it use to meet fatal troubles, even if it's not a trademark ownership, e. g., in the case of Sun. CP For any of the above to be called UNIX, it must meet the Open Group's CP certification standards and (more importantly) have some certification CP fee paid, as I understand it. I believe Linus, on some stage, wouldn't refuse to certify his 'minix clone' in the case it was for free. In his 'Just for fun' he tells he was following by Solaris specs, so the well-known truth he started it from scratch may appear to be not the all the truth in terms of legacy? Anyway the price of 'unix certification' service from the open group seem to be deeper than I can challenge, is it normal? Meanwhile, the same thing from LMI, the 'sublicensing' of the trademarks, even up to internet domains required in certain cases, seem to be paid in certain cases but there is no price I can find. What a dark forest is all that legal thing... 73! Peter pgp: A0E26627 (4A42 6841 2871 5EA7 52AB 12F8 0CE1 4AAC A0E2 6627) -- http://vereshagin.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:29:42 +0400, Peter Vereshagin pe...@vereshagin.org wrote: Lawyers are so lawyers ;-) Two lawyers, three opinions. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
--As of June 16, 2011 11:21:34 PM +0400, Peter Vereshagin is alleged to have said: CP UNIX, the name, is a trademark. We can use it all we like here, speaking Do we need a license to use it? ;-) According to what I recall of my 'business law for managers' classes: As long as we don't claim we own it, and only *referring* to the company who does or it's products, no. It's an identifying mark: You can use it to identify. I don't need a license to talk about Peter Vershagain, as long as I don't claim that *I* am Peter Vershagain. ;) If I wanted to say that something I was selling was something you had made or endorsed, I'd want to pay you for a licence to use your name in that context. Your name isn't copyrighted: Anyone can copy it. But we can't *claim* it. CP about the UNIX trademark, its applicability, who owns the trademark, and CP so on. We just can't claim *we* own it, misapply it to things to which So it's just enough to reserve a copyright on this word usage and we will have just another reason why we can't claim we own it ;-) Sorry my confusion, it's just a new thing to me and it seems as absurd as those ideas. It's extremely hard to claim a copyright on a single word: You have to meet an orgininality requirement that a single word is going to have trouble meeting. A longer work, a story or a section of code, is much more original, so you can take out a copyright on it. This means you have the right to say who can and cannot make copies. (Mostly cannot...) But if you give someone the right to make a copy, they still can't say that *you* made that copy. (But they must say that the words are yours, unless you've given them the right to do otherwise.) (And note that a pure list of facts can't be copyrighted: The phone book is often an example. It's just a list of names and numbers.) A trademark is a mark: It marks a product as having come from a person or company. A copyright is a license/right: It allows you to control what other people do with your work. (Or some of it.) They are two very different, if somewhat confusing, things. Another example: If you wrote a program, you'd probably want to say who can sell it (or give it away) and under what conditions. That's copyright. (Even if your conditions are just 'don't take off my trademark'.) You'd probably also want people to know who wrote it, so you'd put your name on it. That's a trademark. Daniel T. Staal CP Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] --- This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years, whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of local copyright law. --- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:20:43 -0400, Daniel Staal dst...@usa.net wrote: According to what I recall of my 'business law for managers' classes: As long as we don't claim we own it, and only *referring* to the company who does or it's products, no. It's an identifying mark: You can use it to identify. That's correct, and you can see an evidence directly on the FreeBSD main web page: Based on BSD UNIX(R) This indicates that the name UNIX is a registered trademark (which is registered to its owner). It's extremely hard to claim a copyright on a single word: You have to meet an orgininality requirement that a single word is going to have trouble meeting. There is another important term, but I'm not sure how to translate it properly. In German, it's Schaffenshoehe, refering to the level of work you put into creating it. This finalizes in patent law. To make sure nobody can make money out of trivial patents, such as patenting the word or and forcing everybody to pay a license fee for using it, there is a certain barrier that prohibits copyright claims on too simple things. A longer work, a story or a section of code, is much more original, so you can take out a copyright on it. This means you have the right to say who can and cannot make copies. (Mostly cannot...) Correct, those are the licensing terms common to software licenses, but they basically apply everywhere where permissions to do something are granted, or vice versa. But if you give someone the right to make a copy, they still can't say that *you* made that copy. (But they must say that the words are yours, unless you've given them the right to do otherwise.) This topic is currently in the news in Germany: Intellectual theft - where you claim other's persons words (and work) to be your own, i. e. quoting without indicating so. (And note that a pure list of facts can't be copyrighted: The phone book is often an example. It's just a list of names and numbers.) Interesting, never tought of that, but sounds obvious. A trademark is a mark: It marks a product as having come from a person or company. A copyright is a license/right: It allows you to control what other people do with your work. (Or some of it.) They are two very different, if somewhat confusing, things. Another example: If you wrote a program, you'd probably want to say who can sell it (or give it away) and under what conditions. That's copyright. (Even if your conditions are just 'don't take off my trademark'.) You'd probably also want people to know who wrote it, so you'd put your name on it. That's a trademark. Thanks for making this important difference clear. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Auto Reply: Re: free sco unix
I am out of the office until June 20th. I will only have intermittent access to email. I will read and reply to your message when I get back to the office. If you need assistance with a Berkeley DB or Product Management issue while I am away, please contact ashok.jo...@oracle.com. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
--As of June 17, 2011 12:47:45 AM +0200, Polytropon is alleged to have said: (And note that a pure list of facts can't be copyrighted: The phone book is often an example. It's just a list of names and numbers.) Interesting, never tought of that, but sounds obvious. --As for the rest, it is mine. I should be careful with that one actually; It's fairly recent case law in the US that set that particular barrier. I can't guarantee that it's the case elsewhere in the world. In the USA, you have to do something more than just compile the data and present it in a simplistic fashion to gain a copyright. If you have an *interesting* sorting scheme that could do it, or if you add value some other way, but if all you've done are presented the basic facts, you haven't advanced the state of the art. (The other common case in the USA is road maps. A simple 'lines following their geographic contours, labeled' is a set of facts. One result of this is that most road maps in the US either are missing some minor roads, or have minor roads on them that don't exist. It makes them copyrightable.) Daniel T. Staal --- This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years, whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of local copyright law. --- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
You can't take no for an answer, freebsd-questions! 2011/06/16 18:20:43 -0400 Daniel Staal dst...@usa.net = To Peter Vereshagin : DS CP UNIX, the name, is a trademark. We can use it all we like here, DS speaking DS DS Do we need a license to use it? ;-) DS DS According to what I recall of my 'business law for managers' classes: As DS long as we don't claim we own it, And does FreeBSD Foundation own its FreeBSD UNIX then? If it does, did it pay for it? Does it certify its FreeBSD as a UNIX and how much does it pay? and only *referring* to the company who DS does or it's products, no. It's an identifying mark: You can use it to DS identify. No, I can't. I use 2 things: paper ID and a face. The difference is those are not the set of the bytes. But both the trademark and a copyrighted mnaterial are. Well, use to be. Is there a way to define what set of bytes can (or not) be the identification and/or copyrighted material? I supposed the length can be such a criteria, no? DS I don't need a license to talk about Peter Vershagain, as long as I don't DS claim that *I* am Peter Vershagain. ;) But who knows if you really are. I'm not, for example. ;) If you claim that you are, and I claim that I am not, which of us is presumed to prove the own point? DS If I wanted to say that something I was selling was something you had made DS or endorsed, I'd want to pay you for a licence to use your name in that DS context. How is it possible to sell the what you do not have? And if you have it that means you hold it and it means you own it. For example, you can pass that as an inheritance and change that something according to your needs. Isn't it what the ownership is, by definition? DS Your name isn't copyrighted: Anyone can copy it. But we can't *claim* it. Or what? Is my name that bad that we can't claim it? Is your name that same bad? what's the matter about my name, anyway? DS CP about the UNIX trademark, its applicability, who owns the trademark, DS and CP so on. We just can't claim *we* own it, misapply it to things to DS which DS DS So it's just enough to reserve a copyright on this word usage and we will DS have just another reason why we can't claim we own it ;-) DS DS Sorry my confusion, it's just a new thing to me and it seems as absurd as DS those ideas. DS DS It's extremely hard to claim a copyright on a single word: You have to meet DS an orgininality requirement that a single word is going to have trouble DS meeting. I believe Unix was such a word in 19[67]0s? How about that same 'Morphtkdlfgjfjdsksjfnmvmdkedkfjgjg' from this thread? is it? How much the trouble must it be? What units it can be measured? For example, no any monkey of those performing typewriters theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem no any single monkey of them I believe shall not have any trouble at all with a task? DS A longer work, a story or a section of code, is much more original, so you DS can take out a copyright on it. But in scientific world, the cases are known when the whole theorems are being invented simultaneously. 'story or a section of code' is a somewhat less original. How much longer such a work must be? For example redskin Indians may had the one word or at least very few of them to mean the whole speech. There are many modern languages I believe with a very long words. German probably isn't the best instance to showcast but is a good hint. Why me again? I know I can not take out any right like this because it's never implemented in terms of reality for any single regular someone, although it's not a fiction for the big organizations but a nice tool to point and shoot. This means you have the right to say who DS can and cannot make copies. (Mostly cannot...) It's just a matter of a freedom to speech to me. And to everyone else I believe. But if you give someone DS the right to make a copy, they still can't say that *you* made that copy. Do you mean anyone cares about who exactly handmade everyday cosumerics? I mean why anyone should just care about who made the copy of the bytes from one place to another? This can be a machine, or a network of them, without any human intervention, by themselves. And they even can belong to absolutely nobody. Why not? DS (But they must say that the words are yours, unless you've given them the DS right to do otherwise.) Words themselves --- aren't they a national property? Those are my in the exact moment I use them, but it's only the right to use them, not the ownership, right? DS (And note that a pure list of facts can't be copyrighted: The phone book is DS often an example. It's just a list of names and numbers.) So if 'roses are roses are roses' were written nowadays they could not been sold and thus become famous and thus to be a culture contribution? Is it of any good to be so restricted and morally poor like that? DS A trademark is a mark: It marks a product as having come from a person or DS
Re: free sco unix
On Jun 16, 2011, at 5:07 PM, Peter Vereshagin wrote: And does FreeBSD Foundation own its FreeBSD UNIX then? If it does, did it pay for it? Does it certify its FreeBSD as a UNIX and how much does it pay? The FreeBSD Foundation is a non-profit organization which supports and represents the FreeBSD project. FreeBSD is a BSD Unix operating system; but it isn't Open Group certified UNIX(tm) primarily because people don't feel it's worth paying for such certification. [1] As for the rest of the commentary, it's drifting wildly off-topic. If you want legal advice, you need to talk to your lawyer, not to random folks on a mailing list who aren't qualified to practice law. Regards, -- -Chuck [1]: AIX, HP/UX, Mac OS X, and Solaris are the only certified UNIX(tm) 2003 platforms. None of the freely available BSDs (ie, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and so forth) are certified UNIX. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 04:07:08 +0400, Peter Vereshagin pe...@vereshagin.org wrote: And does FreeBSD Foundation own its FreeBSD UNIX then? If it does, did it pay for it? Does it certify its FreeBSD as a UNIX and how much does it pay? Basically, the main page says based on, this states a fact and does not say anything about ownership or a certificate (is a certified UNIX). Is there a way to define what set of bytes can (or not) be the identification and/or copyrighted material? I supposed the length can be such a criteria, no? I think basically you own the copyright about ANYTHING you create. In how far this is to be considered a creational act at a certain level is still debatable. How is it possible to sell the what you do not have? In a licensing context, you don't sell something material. You give permission to do something, usually for a certain fee. So you could say you sell the right to do something. Selling things you don't own... big business in banking and stock trade. :-) And if you have it that means you hold it and it means you own it. Not neccessarily. Even if you have power over something, it doesn't imply that you own it (like a rental car), as just by having power over it it doesn't become one's property. For example, you can pass that as an inheritance and change that something according to your needs. Isn't it what the ownership is, by definition? Ownership focused on the creational act maybe (the changing). Wow, it gets complicated... :-) I believe Unix was such a word in 19[67]0s? How about that same 'Morphtkdlfgjfjdsksjfnmvmdkedkfjgjg' from this thread? is it? How much the trouble must it be? What units it can be measured? For example, no any monkey of those performing typewriters theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem no any single monkey of them I believe shall not have any trouble at all with a task? As soon as commercial interests enter the field, money talks. When you can use a name, even as simple as UNIX, has the power to make the big bucks, control over it is important. DS A longer work, a story or a section of code, is much more original, so you DS can take out a copyright on it. But in scientific world, the cases are known when the whole theorems are being invented simultaneously. In this world, the winner writes history, so inventions get attributed to the person who first made it public. 'story or a section of code' is a somewhat less original. Depends on the story and the code. Of course, implementing a bubblesort algorithm in Java isn't any original, but still the coder owns the copyright for this portion of code. It's debatable in how far this code can be distinguished from example code, e. g. if he uses the same style and identifiers as in a public example. There are many modern languages I believe with a very long words. German probably isn't the best instance to showcast but is a good hint. It is. Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitaensmuetzenhalter. And you can construct even longer ones. In Russian, there's the most famous gOCTOnPNME4ATEJIbHOCTb (dostoprimetshatyelnost). It's just a matter of a freedom to speech to me. And to everyone else I believe. Copyright and ownership of creation just makes sure that someone can't express OTHER's work as his own, as it is currently in the media in Germany - honorable academics (now politicians) got convicted having copied massive amounts (50%) in their thesis, without STATING that they copied them (proper quoting with identification of the source). I mean why anyone should just care about who made the copy of the bytes from one place to another? The media industry cares a lot. As soon as they can profit from every byte copied, still stating that those are their bytes... Words themselves --- aren't they a national property? Those are my in the exact moment I use them, but it's only the right to use them, not the ownership, right? I would say that as soon as you use words (that live in public domain) to form your thoughts (which _you_ own) into sentences, you will be attributed the creation of those sentences, so yes, I would even guess that this can be seen as an immaterial ownership. DS A trademark is a mark: It marks a product as having come from a person or DS company. Fiction. If product is unique then people use to mark it with different name(s) Not neccessarily. If products are similar, people will use one stereotypic product name to address all products of that kind, just thing about the Walkman (which is a product by Sony), which got the default name for any portable cassette player. Fioction too. Nothing allows me to control what other people do. And it's not only me to be able to allow. Rich and armored people are allowed, of course. But this is not because of the law. They can make the law to allow them do what they just use to do without it. But this is not because of the law
Re: free sco unix
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:43:59PM -0400, Daniel Staal wrote: (The other common case in the USA is road maps. A simple 'lines following their geographic contours, labeled' is a set of facts. One result of this is that most road maps in the US either are missing some minor roads, or have minor roads on them that don't exist. It makes them copyrightable.) This tactic has been used by dictionary publishers as well. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpNBp89puxR8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: free sco unix
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 02:50:40AM +0200, Polytropon wrote: On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 04:07:08 +0400, Peter Vereshagin wrote: It's just a matter of a freedom to speech to me. And to everyone else I believe. Copyright and ownership of creation just makes sure that someone can't express OTHER's work as his own, as it is currently in the media in Germany - honorable academics (now politicians) got convicted having copied massive amounts (50%) in their thesis, without STATING that they copied them (proper quoting with identification of the source). This is not really true. Plagiarism is not the focus of copyright; copying is. That's why it's called copyright (at least in English), and not attributionright. There is, in fact, no law that specifically relates to attribution per se, at least in most countries. To deal with plagiarism, one must look at the specific case of plagiarism and see where the act requires running afoul of some other law as well. Fraud would be the most obvious case, except for the fact that in most jurisdictions one can generally only effectively pursue a fraud case if there is money involved in the act of fraud. Copyright itself is, absent any associated side-effects, reducible to one of two things (depending on perspective): monopoly or censorship. It is sometimes used to punish people who plagiarize, but only because it is often difficult to plagiarize something without copying and distributing it somehow. Software publishing and licensing terms are very different, considering today's software. On one hand, there is code without mentioning of author, copyright or ownership. Then there is the rape me BSD-style licenses, the contribute back GPL licenses, and proprietary EULAs that traditionally do not take code into mind, but restrict the users in what they are allowed to do with programs. I find this a particularly biased description. Would you like to rethink the phrasing rape me as a description of copyfree licensing terms as embodied in a BSD License? Keep in mind that _those_ are not licenses as the previous ones - they are a _contract_ that you implicitely sign (by using, by opening the package, by buying the software or the like). They're not really contracts unless you explicitly agree to them. Implicit agreement is a matter of licensing, because it depends on copyright law. Contracts only depend on other laws not prohibiting them. Organizations such as Microsoft, however, certainly do work hard to get the courts to accord the same enforceability as contracts to EULAs, but that does not mean they *are* contracts. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpTtZQtTQu0S.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: free sco unix
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:03:16 -0600, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 02:50:40AM +0200, Polytropon wrote: On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 04:07:08 +0400, Peter Vereshagin wrote: It's just a matter of a freedom to speech to me. And to everyone else I believe. Copyright and ownership of creation just makes sure that someone can't express OTHER's work as his own, as it is currently in the media in Germany - honorable academics (now politicians) got convicted having copied massive amounts (50%) in their thesis, without STATING that they copied them (proper quoting with identification of the source). This is not really true. Plagiarism is not the focus of copyright; copying is. That's why it's called copyright (at least in English), and not attributionright. There is, in fact, no law that specifically relates to attribution per se, at least in most countries. To deal with plagiarism, one must look at the specific case of plagiarism and see where the act requires running afoul of some other law as well. Fraud would be the most obvious case, except for the fact that in most jurisdictions one can generally only effectively pursue a fraud case if there is money involved in the act of fraud. Copyright itself is, absent any associated side-effects, reducible to one of two things (depending on perspective): monopoly or censorship. It is sometimes used to punish people who plagiarize, but only because it is often difficult to plagiarize something without copying and distributing it somehow. Yes - fraud is exactly the word I was searching for. Sorry if I was cmp(apples, oranges); :-) Software publishing and licensing terms are very different, considering today's software. On one hand, there is code without mentioning of author, copyright or ownership. Then there is the rape me BSD-style licenses, the contribute back GPL licenses, and proprietary EULAs that traditionally do not take code into mind, but restrict the users in what they are allowed to do with programs. I find this a particularly biased description. Would you like to rethink the phrasing rape me as a description of copyfree licensing terms as embodied in a BSD License? It's not _my_ interpretation of the license. The term originates from the repeated discussion of the BSD license being not free with the counterposition that the BSD license is even _so_ free that it allows the post-usage of the material - i. e. take it for free, change it, give it another name, sell it for money. If a developer is FINE with this kind of post-usage, he can use the BSD license. Luckily, developers can choose from many licenses, or write their own ones, so everyone will be satisfied according to his individual requirements. Keep in mind that _those_ are not licenses as the previous ones - they are a _contract_ that you implicitely sign (by using, by opening the package, by buying the software or the like). They're not really contracts unless you explicitly agree to them. Implicit agreement is a matter of licensing, because it depends on copyright law. As I said, it's _highly_ debatable if the EULAs as we know them do have _any_ value. How can you make an opinion about IF to sign a contract when you've signed it the moment you opened the box (in order to GET the contract)? Contracts only depend on other laws not prohibiting them. Correct. That's why a contract cannot make the parties signing it do unlawful things. But if no explicit laws exist... well, you can almost write _anything_ in the EULA, and if people do accept it, gotcha! Organizations such as Microsoft, however, certainly do work hard to get the courts to accord the same enforceability as contracts to EULAs, but that does not mean they *are* contracts. Finally, court decisions (at least in Germany) are _individual_ decisions. Different judge, different statement. EULAs go hand in hand with mass licensing and support contracts, traditionally targeted at governments and big business that run legal departments where the lawyers express what they are told. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
I've noticed that your mail user agent is including quoted parties' email addresses in the quote notification. In the text immediately following this brief paragraph, for instance, my email address was included after my name. I would appreciate it if you would configure your mail user agent to no longer do this, for not only my sake but that of others who would probably like to see archives that strip such information from headers before publicly posting them actually do some good. When the email address also appears in the text of the email because your mail user agent is adding it in, you are creating a crop of victims for spam email list spiders to reap. On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 05:38:42AM +0200, Polytropon wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:03:16 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 02:50:40AM +0200, Polytropon wrote: Copyright and ownership of creation just makes sure that someone can't express OTHER's work as his own, as it is currently in the media in Germany - honorable academics (now politicians) got convicted having copied massive amounts (50%) in their thesis, without STATING that they copied them (proper quoting with identification of the source). This is not really true. Plagiarism is not the focus of copyright; copying is. That's why it's called copyright (at least in English), and not attributionright. There is, in fact, no law that specifically relates to attribution per se, at least in most countries. To deal with plagiarism, one must look at the specific case of plagiarism and see where the act requires running afoul of some other law as well. Fraud would be the most obvious case, except for the fact that in most jurisdictions one can generally only effectively pursue a fraud case if there is money involved in the act of fraud. Copyright itself is, absent any associated side-effects, reducible to one of two things (depending on perspective): monopoly or censorship. It is sometimes used to punish people who plagiarize, but only because it is often difficult to plagiarize something without copying and distributing it somehow. Yes - fraud is exactly the word I was searching for. Sorry if I was cmp(apples, oranges); :-) Glad we cleared that up, then. Software publishing and licensing terms are very different, considering today's software. On one hand, there is code without mentioning of author, copyright or ownership. Then there is the rape me BSD-style licenses, the contribute back GPL licenses, and proprietary EULAs that traditionally do not take code into mind, but restrict the users in what they are allowed to do with programs. I find this a particularly biased description. Would you like to rethink the phrasing rape me as a description of copyfree licensing terms as embodied in a BSD License? It's not _my_ interpretation of the license. The term originates from the repeated discussion of the BSD license being not free with the counterposition that the BSD license is even _so_ free that it allows the post-usage of the material - i. e. take it for free, change it, give it another name, sell it for money. If a developer is FINE with this kind of post-usage, he can use the BSD license. Luckily, developers can choose from many licenses, or write their own ones, so everyone will be satisfied according to his individual requirements. Unlike choices in software (a matter purely of preference), I find too many choices of licensing problematic. Just one reason among several for my perspective is that of hindering further advancement of the state of the art, as explained here: Code Reuse and Technological Advancement http://blogstrapping.com/?page=2011.060.00.28.21 They're not really contracts unless you explicitly agree to them. Implicit agreement is a matter of licensing, because it depends on copyright law. As I said, it's _highly_ debatable if the EULAs as we know them do have _any_ value. How can you make an opinion about IF to sign a contract when you've signed it the moment you opened the box (in order to GET the contract)? They have plenty of value to those who wish to have the power to force others to agree to terms to which they would never, if they were aware of them, agree. Contracts only depend on other laws not prohibiting them. Correct. That's why a contract cannot make the parties signing it do unlawful things. But if no explicit laws exist... well, you can almost write _anything_ in the EULA, and if people do accept it, gotcha! Now you're mixing up EULAs and contracts again. EULAs are licenses. They are not contracts, specifically because there is no explicit agreement prior to they (presumably) apply. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpWB1iR6Xl9J.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: free sco unix
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:35:54 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: I've noticed that your mail user agent is including quoted parties' email addresses in the quote notification. In the text immediately following this brief paragraph, for instance, my email address was included after my name. I would appreciate it if you would configure your mail user agent to no longer do this, for not only my sake but that of others who would probably like to see archives that strip such information from headers before publicly posting them actually do some good. When the email address also appears in the text of the email because your mail user agent is adding it in, you are creating a crop of victims for spam email list spiders to reap. Thanks for the advice, I've just made the setting (I'm using the Sylpheed MUA). I didn't pay much attention to that (although I'm aware of the topic) as mailing list publishing systems put in the From: datafield (directed at the list) automatically, so all the names and addresses are already in there. I will keep that setting as it sounds the right thing to do. Other possibly needed information (like addresses) are in the mail header anyway. On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 05:38:42AM +0200, Polytropon wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:03:16 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 02:50:40AM +0200, Polytropon wrote: Software publishing and licensing terms are very different, considering today's software. On one hand, there is code without mentioning of author, copyright or ownership. Then there is the rape me BSD-style licenses, the contribute back GPL licenses, and proprietary EULAs that traditionally do not take code into mind, but restrict the users in what they are allowed to do with programs. I find this a particularly biased description. Would you like to rethink the phrasing rape me as a description of copyfree licensing terms as embodied in a BSD License? It's not _my_ interpretation of the license. The term originates from the repeated discussion of the BSD license being not free with the counterposition that the BSD license is even _so_ free that it allows the post-usage of the material - i. e. take it for free, change it, give it another name, sell it for money. If a developer is FINE with this kind of post-usage, he can use the BSD license. Luckily, developers can choose from many licenses, or write their own ones, so everyone will be satisfied according to his individual requirements. Unlike choices in software (a matter purely of preference), I find too many choices of licensing problematic. Just one reason among several for my perspective is that of hindering further advancement of the state of the art, as explained here: Code Reuse and Technological Advancement http://blogstrapping.com/?page=2011.060.00.28.21 Interesting article, and helpful for further argumentation. Thank you! Exactly my point of view. Bookmarked. Contracts only depend on other laws not prohibiting them. Correct. That's why a contract cannot make the parties signing it do unlawful things. But if no explicit laws exist... well, you can almost write _anything_ in the EULA, and if people do accept it, gotcha! Now you're mixing up EULAs and contracts again. EULAs are licenses. The part LA in EULA means license agreement, so I assume this indicates that I have to agree to something, and an agreement between two parties is a... contract. The vendor allows me to do certain things with the software _if_ I agree to the terms. If I do _not_, I am not legally allowed to use the software, will loose warranty or am even forced to return the whole computer system. Keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer and may therefore cultivate just one opinion about one topic (instead of two opinions). :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
2011-06-16 19:36, Daniel Staal skrev: On Thu, June 16, 2011 12:20 pm, Peter Vereshagin wrote: You can't take no for an answer, freebsd-questions! 2011/06/16 11:54:05 -0400 Robert Simmonsrsimmo...@gmail.com = To freebsd-questions@freebsd.org : RS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright RS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark I'll surely will when I'll have some to trade ;-) RS Copyright pertains to the source code. Trademark pertains to the use of RS signs, symbols, names, logos, etc. Source code itself can have 'signs, symbols, names, logos, etc.' and consist in terms of its usability of them, doesn't it just use to? 'signs, symbols, names, logos, etc.' same way can have their source code and consist in terms of their usability of it, doesn't they just use to? Trademark is for 'this is made by me. I put my name on it.' Copyright is for the content of a book/speech/whatever. 'Trademark' is a _maker's mark._ The point is not encouraging the creation of works (like copyright): The point is so that a maker/seller can build a reputation with their customers. They are very different in terms, uses, and requirements. In theory it is possible to hold both a trademark and a copyright on the same thing, but it is hard. (You will likely fail applicability tests for one or the other.) It is of course possible to put a trademark on something you've copyrighted, so people know who created it. Daniel T. Staal Unless you work the trademark in you have to pay to register the name. Copyright you get without registration and without payment, and one can't give it up. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Bernt Hansson be...@bah.homeip.netwrote: Unless you work the trademark in you have to pay to register the name. I'm not sure by what mean by work the trademark in but every business is entitled to use tm or sm identification without registration. However by officially registering it, the business is afforded additional legal rights and is in a much more defensible position. Also as most IP lawyers would say, trademark law is the law of the jungle. That is to say the biggest gorilla wins. Copyright you get without registration and without payment, and one can't give it up. Again, registration is pretty important if you want to an expanded ability to legally enforce it. And you can assign your copyright away. In fact, I would recommend to anyone seeking a 3rd party to create content for them to have copyright assignment to them for basically any project. You don't want your web design company to come after you when there's been a falling out and you're with a different company. A company owns the copyright when an employee creates the work, however by default a contracted 3rd party retains it for any works they created under the contract. And while we're on the topic of clearing up IP laws, there are two basic types of patents and they are good for a maxium of 14 or 20 years. There is no renewal of patents, when they expire they expire. Additionally, the creator(s) of the patent is entitled to the right to patent it regardless of their employment status. This means in theory it's possible for your employer to own the copyright to some code you have created, yet you retain the patent rights. This is not official legal advice and you should consult a legal expert who assumes liability for advice, as I do not. -- Adam Vande More ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
2011-06-17 00:20, Daniel Staal skrev: --As of June 16, 2011 11:21:34 PM +0400, Peter Vereshagin is alleged to have said: (And note that a pure list of facts can't be copyrighted: The phone book is often an example. It's just a list of names and numbers.) Which is copyrighted, all databases are copyrighted where i live. Even the .se whois database. # The information obtained through searches, or otherwise, is protected # by the Swedish Copyright Act (1960:729) and international conventions. # It is also subject to database protection according to the Swedish # Copyright Act. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
2011-06-17 06:53, Adam Vande More skrev: On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Bernt Hanssonbe...@bah.homeip.netwrote: Unless you work the trademark in you have to pay to register the name. I'm not sure by what mean by work the trademark in but every business is entitled to use tm or sm identification without registration. Not where i live, if you whant a TM or registrerat varumärke then you have to pay up. Copyright you get without registration and without payment, and one can't give it up. Again, registration is pretty important if you want to an expanded ability to legally enforce it. Where i live no need to register, you get copyright if the stuff fulfills certain criteria, originality is one. And you can assign your copyright away. Only the monetary. The creator can sell the right to make copys of the work but the creator still retains the copyright. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
2011-06-16 20:30, Chad Perrin skrev: On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 02:22:43PM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 16/06/2011 13:52, Peter Vereshagin wrote: unix is a trademark of novell.com. Unix (note capitalization) is actually a trademark of the Open Group: http://www.unix.org/ In EU there are 12 registred trademarks of unix. http://wwwm.prv.se/ Sökresultat Lydelse: unix Sortering på: Ingivningsdatum Antal träffar 12 IR-varumärken markerade med är inte giltiga i Sverige Lydelse Innehavare Ombud Ans.nr. Klasser Ingivningsdatum Figur Typ UnixApama Medical, Inc. GASTÃO DA CUNHA FERREIRA, LDA. 009039091 10 2010-04-20 UNIXSunrise Medical Limited JONES DAY 008712391 12, 16, 37 2009-11-25 UNIX BENDRA LIETUVOS-DANIJOS ÁMONË UAB DANBALT INTERNATIONAL METIDA LAW FIRM OF REDA ?ABOLIENÉ 005399332 25 Wienklasser: 270501 2006-10-19 X UNIXWielobran¿owe Przedsiêbiorstwo Ogólnokrajowe UNIX Sp. z.o.o. 005419874 33 2006-09-25 UNIXX/Open Company Limited MARKS CLERK LLP 000431569 9, 16, 35, 37, 41, 42 1996-12-23 UNIXX/Open Company Limited MARKS CLERK LLP 000227991 9, 16, 38, 42 1996-04-01 UNIXSYNGENTA PARTICIPATIONS AG Hofmann 000120931 5 1996-04-01 UNIXHANS DAHLQVIST Groth Co Kommanditbolag 1994/07260 1, 3, 40 1994-07-13 UNIXSyngenta Participations AG Groth Co Kommanditbolag 1994/03152 5 1994-03-22 UNIX X/Open Company Limited Nihlmark Zacharoff Advokatbyrå AB (Transpf. V-2051/02 T) 1993/02071 9 Wienklasser: 011524 261325 1993-03-08 X UNIX X/Open Company Limited Nihlmark Zacharoff Advokatbyrå AB (Transpf. V-2051/02 T) 1983/06916 9, 16 1983-10-24 UNIX X/Open Company Limited Nihlmark Zacharoff Advokatbyrå AB (Transpf. V-2051/02 T) 1984/02169 9, 38 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
free sco unix
one of my mates teacher says that unix is free and your system running like UnixWare / SCO UNIX and and that unix is free Do your BSD kernel run the same unix kernel as unixware ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
* Thomas Hansen t...@danskdatacenter.dk [2011-06-15 22:34:23 +0200]: one of my mates teacher says that unix is free and your system running like UnixWare / SCO UNIX and and that unix is free Do your BSD kernel run the same unix kernel as unixware FreeBSD is a UNIX-like clone, which is indeed free, whereas UNIX is still the proprietary property of ATT/Bell Labs. To read more on freebsd, you can go to http://www.freebsd.org as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD, that should give you sufficient information to move further. You might want to at least go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_OpenServer to figure out where SCO UNIT stands which is not ATT/Bell Labs UNIX nor is it FreeBSD. -- A: Yes. Q: Are you sure? A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? http://xkcd.com/84/ | http://xkcd.com/149/ GPG: D5B20C0C (6741 8EE4 6C7D 11FB 8DA8 9E4A EECD 9A84 D5B2 0C0C) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: free sco unix
On 15/06/2011 21:34, Thomas Hansen wrote: one of my mates teacher says that unix is free and your system running like UnixWare / SCO UNIX and and that unix is free Some Unix is free (the best sorts), others are most certainly not free at all. FreeBSD is pretty much the opposite end of the Unix spectrum to UnixWare / SCO -- so, yes there is plenty in common like the flat namespace, the concept of 'everything is a stream of bytes', many of the standard applications. Many things are completely different -- ps(1) and df(1) for example are quite different between pure-bred *BSD (like FreeBSD) and pedigree SysV (like SCO). Aside: Linux is not unix (the clue is in the name) -- except by the duck test. It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... but it's a whole different breed of waterfowl entirely, and has origins independent of the primordial Unix systems. Even so, it does provide a pretty complete emulation of a fairly middle of the road BSD--SysV hybrid. Do your BSD kernel run the same unix kernel as unixware No. Absolutely not. Way back in the 1980's there were some common ancestral systems from which each has inherited bits of code[*], but development has been quite separate for the last 30 years or so. Cheers, Matthew [*] Well, there has always been some cross fertilization, even after the development tracks split apart. Lookup the history of the ATT vs. Regents of the University of California lawsuit and how that all came to an end. -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Fwd: free sco unix
-- Forwarded message -- From: Chris Brennan xa...@xaerolimit.net Date: Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:06 PM Subject: Re: free sco unix To: Thomas Hansen t...@danskdatacenter.dk 'y' and 't' are too close in mutt :( * Thomas Hansen t...@danskdatacenter.dk [2011-06-16 00:07:11 +0200]: This was off-list, redirecting back. but does freeBSD and unixware use the same core/kernel 1) Don't top post. Bad form and not list policy. See signature for why. 2) No, The UNIX Core/Kernel is propritary, see my last e-mail 3) Obey Reply-to: headers. Adjust your headers to properly reply to the list and not individually. -- A: Yes. Q: Are you sure? A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? http://xkcd.com/84/ | http://xkcd.com/149/ GPG: D5B20C0C (6741 8EE4 6C7D 11FB 8DA8 9E4A EECD 9A84 D5B2 0C0C) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Unix basics (was Re: For My Edification)
On 2 May 2011 19:37, Chris Hill ch...@monochrome.org wrote: On Mon, 2 May 2011, Louis Marrero wrote: Being familiar only with general knowledge on the Windows XP that I use daily, I've gone on the web to find out more information on some of the terms used by this programmer, such as BSD, shell terminal, nc -u, etc. Since my friend knows that my computer is strictly MS Windows, when my friend writes down something like In a shell terminal type nc -u 10.101.97.200 . it makes me wonder what I'm missing. When he says shell terminal, think command prompt. nc is netcat, but I didn't know Windows had that. In your friend's defense, I use Windows every day (at work) and I can't always remember what things are called. Especially since MS changes terminology every now and then, evidently just for the hell of it. 1. I know that Windows is an OS, and Linux/Unix as well as FreeBSD are other Operating System. My very basic question is this: Is it even possible to install a second OS, like FreeBSD on an existing Windows-based computer? Yes. You can either set it up for dual boot - either by adding a second hard drive, or by partitioning your existing drive if there's space - or you can run another OS within a virtual machine of some sort. The latter would need a pretty fast machine if the guest OS is to have decent performance. Having said that, I found it easier to get started using an old PC that was too slow to run a modern Windows, but perfectly fine for a GUI-free BSD. I'm typing this on an old Dell that I bought on ebay. Another possibility is to install cygwin ( http://www.cygwin.com/ ) which will give you a rather goodly number of unix/gnu programs, though they have the unfortunate habit of defaulting to bash, and if you install a compiler and some basic build tools a nigh-unto infinite number of programs become available. That said, buying an older, cheap machine to install FreeBSD on is probably the easiest. And who doesn't enjoy buying more stuff? 2. Is it possible to link my Windows laptop to a web server with Unix or FreeBSD and exercise Unix/Linux commands. If so, how is that done? The server's admin would have to give you a shell account. Most commercial ISPs won't do that, but maybe your friend will. With PuTTY, you can connect to any unix/linux/bsd machine with sshd enabled (though you need an account on that machine to actually log in). ( http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/ ) X forwarding onto a windows machine ( http://www.math.umn.edu/systems_guide/putty_xwin32.html ) may be best reserved for the 201 course. -- -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Unix basics (was Re: For My Edification)
On Mon, 2 May 2011, Louis Marrero wrote: I have a number of really dumb questions that I hope you might be able to shed some light on. I shall endeavor to provide dumb answers in return :^) For *good* answers, a great place to start is the Handbook, http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/index.html. In addition, I'm sure some of the many smart people on this list will speak up. Also, notice that I've changed the subject line to reflect a hint of the message's content. This list is archived, and anyone searching later migh not know to use 'edification' as a search term. Although I am familiar with basic computer operation, I've been trying to understand a very experienced programmer friend that mixes Linux/Unix terminology in his vocabulary under the assumption that everyone knows the language. Being familiar only with general knowledge on the Windows XP that I use daily, I've gone on the web to find out more information on some of the terms used by this programmer, such as BSD, shell terminal, nc -u, etc. Since my friend knows that my computer is strictly MS Windows, when my friend writes down something like In a shell terminal type nc -u 10.101.97.200 . it makes me wonder what I'm missing. When he says shell terminal, think command prompt. nc is netcat, but I didn't know Windows had that. In your friend's defense, I use Windows every day (at work) and I can't always remember what things are called. Especially since MS changes terminology every now and then, evidently just for the hell of it. 1. I know that Windows is an OS, and Linux/Unix as well as FreeBSD are other Operating System. My very basic question is this: Is it even possible to install a second OS, like FreeBSD on an existing Windows-based computer? Yes. You can either set it up for dual boot - either by adding a second hard drive, or by partitioning your existing drive if there's space - or you can run another OS within a virtual machine of some sort. The latter would need a pretty fast machine if the guest OS is to have decent performance. Having said that, I found it easier to get started using an old PC that was too slow to run a modern Windows, but perfectly fine for a GUI-free BSD. I'm typing this on an old Dell that I bought on ebay. 2. Is it possible to link my Windows laptop to a web server with Unix or FreeBSD and exercise Unix/Linux commands. If so, how is that done? The server's admin would have to give you a shell account. Most commercial ISPs won't do that, but maybe your friend will. I'd be grateful for any information. Hope this helps, and welcome. -- Chris Hill ch...@monochrome.org ** [ Busy Expunging / ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
How to count number of connections from nginx workers to php-cgi unix socket?
I need to count number of connections to php's cgi unix socket (created with spawn-fci). When nginx initiates a connection to cgi socket one of spawned php processes accepts this connection, processes input and outputs data. But number of processes is limited and i want to be able to monitor amount of free processes. I tried all available tools (netstat, sockstat even lsof) but it seems there is no way to determine how many active connections from nginx to unix socket. Please advise. -- Best regards, Igor Prokopenkov Zend Certificied Engineer http://zend.com/zce.php?c=ZEND010909 http://linkedin.com/in/igorprokopenkov ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
unix permissions questions
I found several directories whose permissions where set to dr-s--S--T 2 user group 512 Feb 22 2010 .procmail/ All were .procmail which is what we set for procmail logging and supporting recipes. In reading 'man ls' it seems (to me) this might result from losing the execute bit on the directory. Is this correct? Been BSDing since 1995 and have not seen this set of permissions. Thanks for any insights. _ Douglas Denault http://www.safeport.com d...@safeport.com Voice: 301-217-9220 Fax: 301-217-9277 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: unix permissions questions
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:32:40 -0400 (EDT), d...@safeport.com wrote: I found several directories whose permissions where set to dr-s--S--T 2 user group 512 Feb 22 2010 .procmail/ All were .procmail which is what we set for procmail logging and supporting recipes. In reading 'man ls' it seems (to me) this might result from losing the execute bit on the directory. Is this correct? Been BSDing since 1995 and have not seen this set of permissions. Thanks for any insights. After a short read of man ls: s in the owner permissions = file is executable and set-user-ID mode is set S in the group permissions = file is not executable and set-group-ID mode is set T in the other permission = sticky bit is set, but not execute or search permission. Result: User can execute SUID, group cannot execute, others cannot search or execute; sticky bit is set. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: unix permissions questions
On Sep 14, 2010, at 11:01 AM, Polytropon wrote: On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:32:40 -0400 (EDT), d...@safeport.com wrote: I found several directories whose permissions where set to dr-s--S--T 2 user group 512 Feb 22 2010 .procmail/ All were .procmail which is what we set for procmail logging and supporting recipes. In reading 'man ls' it seems (to me) this might result from losing the execute bit on the directory. Is this correct? Been BSDing since 1995 and have not seen this set of permissions. Thanks for any insights. After a short read of man ls: [ ... ] Result: User can execute SUID, group cannot execute, others cannot search or execute; sticky bit is set. Except that this is a directory, not a file :-) A bit of experimentation suggests that chmod 7500 .procmail are the permissions involved, which are silly. No group permissions enabled means setgid is meaningless, and I don't see any value for using the sticky bit here, either. Try using 0500, 0700, or maybe 4500/4700 instead. Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: unix permissions questions
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Polytropon wrote: On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:32:40 -0400 (EDT), d...@safeport.com wrote: I found several directories whose permissions where set to dr-s--S--T 2 user group 512 Feb 22 2010 .procmail/ All were .procmail which is what we set for procmail logging and supporting recipes. In reading 'man ls' it seems (to me) this might result from losing the execute bit on the directory. Is this correct? Been BSDing since 1995 and have not seen this set of permissions. Thanks for any insights. After a short read of man ls: s in the owner permissions = file is executable and set-user-ID mode is set S in the group permissions = file is not executable and set-group-ID mode is set T in the other permission = sticky bit is set, but not execute or search permission. Result: User can execute SUID, group cannot execute, others cannot search or execute; sticky bit is set. Thanks, I got that from the man page. My question, not stated very well, was can a non-root user set those permissions. If so, I obviously do not know how. _ Douglas Denault http://www.safeport.com d...@safeport.com Voice: 301-217-9220 Fax: 301-217-9277 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: unix permissions questions
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Chuck Swiger wrote: On Sep 14, 2010, at 11:01 AM, Polytropon wrote: On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:32:40 -0400 (EDT), d...@safeport.com wrote: I found several directories whose permissions where set to dr-s--S--T 2 user group 512 Feb 22 2010 .procmail/ All were .procmail which is what we set for procmail logging and supporting recipes. In reading 'man ls' it seems (to me) this might result from losing the execute bit on the directory. Is this correct? Been BSDing since 1995 and have not seen this set of permissions. Thanks for any insights. After a short read of man ls: [ ... ] Result: User can execute SUID, group cannot execute, others cannot search or execute; sticky bit is set. Except that this is a directory, not a file :-) A bit of experimentation suggests that chmod 7500 .procmail are the permissions involved, which are silly. No group permissions enabled means setgid is meaningless, and I don't see any value for using the sticky bit here, either. Try using 0500, 0700, or maybe 4500/4700 instead. thanks all - the context of this: the users involved do not know what the chmod command is much less its syntax and I did not do this. What I was going for was could this be a procmail bug or perhaps something more alarming (to me as a sysadmin). _ Douglas Denault http://www.safeport.com d...@safeport.com Voice: 301-217-9220 Fax: 301-217-9277 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: unix permissions questions
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:04:58 -0700, Chuck Swiger cswi...@mac.com wrote: On Sep 14, 2010, at 11:01 AM, Polytropon wrote: On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:32:40 -0400 (EDT), d...@safeport.com wrote: I found several directories whose permissions where set to dr-s--S--T 2 user group 512 Feb 22 2010 .procmail/ All were .procmail which is what we set for procmail logging and supporting recipes. In reading 'man ls' it seems (to me) this might result from losing the execute bit on the directory. Is this correct? Been BSDing since 1995 and have not seen this set of permissions. Thanks for any insights. After a short read of man ls: [ ... ] Result: User can execute SUID, group cannot execute, others cannot search or execute; sticky bit is set. Except that this is a directory, not a file :-) Thanks, I forgot to include that in my summary. :-) In this case, I wanted to say that the user can chdir / search that directory. A bit of experimentation suggests that chmod 7500 .procmail are the permissions involved, which are silly. No group permissions enabled means setgid is meaningless, and I don't see any value for using the sticky bit here, either. Try using 0500, 0700, or maybe 4500/4700 instead. I would think that's what the permissions should be - it roughly is equivalent to what a file with a similar purpose would look like for a (user's) private .procmail/ directory. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: unix permissions questions
On Sep 14, 2010, at 11:16 AM, d...@safeport.com wrote: A bit of experimentation suggests that chmod 7500 .procmail are the permissions involved, which are silly. No group permissions enabled means setgid is meaningless, and I don't see any value for using the sticky bit here, either. Try using 0500, 0700, or maybe 4500/4700 instead. thanks all - the context of this: the users involved do not know what the chmod command is much less its syntax and I did not do this. What I was going for was could this be a procmail bug or perhaps something more alarming (to me as a sysadmin). The permissions here are unexpected. procmail cares about clearing group and other permissions-- unless GROUP_PER_USER is set (cf http://partmaps.org/era/procmail/mini-faq.html#group-writable), which usually would be appropriate for FreeBSD since it encourages all userids to also have a corresponding groupid. Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Windows XP Backup resetting unix perms.
Today I decided to make a backup of some of my unix data to an XP machine in preparation for a migration. I set windows XP backup running and when it started backing up files in my home directory I noticed that it set u-x permissions on all of the files. Directories are unaffected. If I use XP's security dialog to set the permissions back, they are applied OK. Has anyone seen this behaviour before? -D ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Windows XP Backup resetting unix perms.
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 11:39:19AM +1000, Danny Carroll wrote: Today I decided to make a backup of some of my unix data to an XP machine in preparation for a migration. I set windows XP backup running and when it started backing up files in my home directory I noticed that it set u-x permissions on all of the files. Directories are unaffected. If I use XP's security dialog to set the permissions back, they are applied OK. Has anyone seen this behaviour before? Yeah, it does that because it doesn't understand unix permissions. Proper way to back up to XP is to make a tarball of your $HOME first then copy it to XP, that way the permissions are preserved. Regards, -- Frank Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Windows XP Backup resetting unix perms.
On 7/09/2010 12:00 PM, Frank Shute wrote: On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 11:39:19AM +1000, Danny Carroll wrote: Today I decided to make a backup of some of my unix data to an XP machine in preparation for a migration. I set windows XP backup running and when it started backing up files in my home directory I noticed that it set u-x permissions on all of the files. Directories are unaffected. If I use XP's security dialog to set the permissions back, they are applied OK. Has anyone seen this behaviour before? Yeah, it does that because it doesn't understand unix permissions. Proper way to back up to XP is to make a tarball of your $HOME first then copy it to XP, that way the permissions are preserved. Hmmm. Apart from creating a readonly share, is there a way to tell samba to disallow this? Perhaps there is an option to disallow permissions updates altogether. -D ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Lighttpd: (mod_fastcgi.c.1742) connect failed: Connection refused on unix:/tmp/lighttpd-fastcgi-php.socket
I deleted accidentally /usr/local/lib on a server but I was able to reinstall most of the software we need manually. After installing php5, several php5-XXX add ons and lighttpd, I get the appended error. The configuration for lighttpd is stuck with the same as before the accident. spawn_fastcgi ist installed as well as other php5 stuff. I'm helpless, Does anyone have any idea what's going wrong? Box is running FreeBSD 8.0-BETA3/AMD64 with compiled world of today. Software has been taken from ports within the past two days, so it should be up to date. Regards, Oliver P.S. Please respond also to my eMail address, thank you very much. 2009-09-03 19:47:49: (mod_access.c.135) -- mod_access_uri_handler called 2009-09-03 19:47:49: (mod_fastcgi.c.3644) handling it in mod_fastcgi 2009-09-03 19:47:49: (mod_fastcgi.c.1742) connect failed: Connection refused on unix:/tmp/lighttpd-fastcgi-php.socket-7 2009-09-03 19:47:49: (mod_fastcgi.c.2943) backend died; we'll disable it for 5 seconds and send the request to another backend instead: reconnects: 0 load: 1 2009-09-03 19:47:49: (mod_fastcgi.c.2481) unexpected end-of-file (perhaps the fastcgi process died): pid: 20516 socket: unix:/tmp/lighttpd-fastcgi-php.socket-7 2009-09-03 19:47:49: (mod_fastcgi.c.3299) response not received, request sent: 1010 on socket: unix:/tmp/lighttpd-fastcgi-php.socket-7 for /refdb/index.php , closing connection 2009-09-03 19:47:49: (response.c.126) Response-Header: HTTP/1.1 500 Internal Server Error Content-Type: text/html Content-Length: 369 Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:47:49 GMT Server: Lighttpd ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backing up FreeBSD and other Unix systems securely
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Karl Vogel vogelke+u...@pobox.comvogelke%2bu...@pobox.com wrote: On Sun, 17 May 2009 09:12:57 -0700, Kelly Jones kelly.terry.jo...@gmail.com said: K I like this plan because it does versioned backups, and doesn't backup K identical files twice. I dislike it because I lose Mozy's unlimited disk K space. K % Is there software that already does this? I have a 3-Tbyte server running FreeBSD-6.1 that does something very similar. I don't bother with encrypting the filenames or hashes because we control the box, and if I'm not at work, other admins might need to restore something quickly. We have around 3.7 million files from 5 other servers backed up under two 1.5-Tbyte filesystems, /mir01 and /mir02. My setup looks like this: +-mir01 | +-HASH | | +-00 | | | +-00 | | | +-01 ... | | +-01 ... | | +-fe | | +-ff | +-server1 | +-server2 +-mir02 | +-HASH | +-server3 | +-server4 | +-server5 The HASH directories have two levels of subdirectories 00-ff. That's been more than sufficient to keep directories from getting too big; I average around 25 files per directory. I do hourly backups on the other fileservers using something like the find and timestamp method you mentioned, but I ignore 0-length files because they always hash to the same value. The backup directories for the second fileserver look like this for 5 May 2009: +-mir01 | +-server2 | | +-2009 | | | +-0505 | | | | +-070700 | | | | | +-doc (filesystem) | | | | | +-home | | | | +-080700 | | | | | +-doc | | | | | +-home ... | | | | +-190700 | | | | | +-home After the backups are rsynced to the backup server, I find any regular files with only one link, compute the RMD160 hash of the contents, and make a hardlink to the appropriate filename under the HASH directory. People love to make copies of copies of files, so this really cuts down on the disk space used. The hardlinks make it easy to avoid restoring things that aren't what the user had in mind; if a file's been corrupted, I can tell when it happened just by looking at the inode, so I don't restore an earlier version that's also junk. I can also tell if there were duplicates anywhere on the fileserver at the time the user lost the good version; it's a lot faster for them to get a known good copy from somewhere else on the fileserver than it is to restore over the network. The software is just a few scripts to do things like find files with just one link, compute hashes, do hardlinks, etc. I can put up a tarball if anyone's interested. Hello Kelly, I am doing something similar at a company i work for. I would be interested to see your scripts to make a comparison. thanks, v -- Karl Vogel I don't speak for the USAF or my company The best way for the Government to maintain its credit is to pay as it goes-not by resorting to loans, but by keeping out of debt-through an adequate income secured by a system of taxation, external or internal, or both. --Pres. William McKinley's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1897 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org -- network warrior since 2005 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backing up FreeBSD and other Unix systems securely
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 09:12:57AM -0700, Kelly Jones wrote:
I tried using Mozy for backups because they offer unlimited space, but
1) they don't support FreeBSD, 2) they encrypt file contents, but NOT
file names, and 3) they don't do true versioned backups. Easy
workaround for 1): rsync to a Mac/Windows and backup from there, but
2) and 3) are more difficult.
Is there any possibility of using your own media locally - such as
tape or a large USB attached disk?If security is such a primary
concern, I can't see sending the data to that type of offsite thing.
Get a couple of large USB SATAs and use dump(8) to back the stuff up
on them.Write them encrypted if you need.
jerry
My plan:
% Use dd if=/dev/random of=mykey to create a random blowfish key
% Blowfish encrypt mykey with a passphrase only I know. Backup the
encrypted blowfish key to a remote host.
% Keep track of when I last ran the backup program (touch
/some/path/timestamp at start of run) and only backup files that've
been modified more recently (find / -newer /some/path/timestamp).
% To backup foo.txt, first bzip2 it and encrypt w/ my blowfish key.
% Then, take the sha1 hash of the bzip'd/encrypted file, and backup
foo.txt to remotehost:/some/path/{sha1 hash}.
% To avoid too many files in one dir, I may backup
b0d0a7da15d5eb94ac76ac4fd81fe6d4fa8e4593 to
remotehost:/some/path/b0/d0/a7/b0d0a7da15d5eb94ac76ac4fd81fe6d4fa8e4593
for example.
% In an SQLite3 db, record the filename I'm backing up, its
timestamp, and its bzip'd/encrypted hash. Store an encrypted copy of
the db on the remote server.
I like this plan because it does versioned backups, and doesn't backup
identical files twice. I dislike it because I lose Mozy's unlimited
disk space.
Questions:
% Does this plan seem secure and reasonable?
% Will backing up the 0-byte file this way make it easy to guess my
blowfish key?
% Is there software that already does this?
% Can this plan be improved?
% Does anyone offer unlimited space for Unix backups?
(safesnaps.com)
% Any general thoughts/comments on this plan?
--
We're just a Bunch Of Regular Guys, a collective group that's trying
to understand and assimilate technology. We feel that resistance to
new ideas and technology is unwise and ultimately futile.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backing up FreeBSD and other Unix systems securely
Is there any possibility of using your own media locally - such as tape or a large USB attached disk?If security is such a primary concern, I can't see sending the data to that type of offsite thing. Get a couple of large USB SATAs and use dump(8) to back the stuff up on them.Write them encrypted if you need. I'd have to agree with this... After looking at a lot of options, I ended up building a simple freebsd server and connected it to my main server on a separate ethernet port via a twisted ethernet cable. Thus, the server and backup server had a 'private', high speed connection and I can pump tons of data through that connection without paying my colo provider for that bandwidth. A whole server, rather than a USB drive might be overkill, but its a little more flexible, and I can use the backup server for a DNS server, and a few other things, as well. -- John ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backing up FreeBSD and other Unix systems securely
On Sun, 17 May 2009 09:12:57 -0700, Kelly Jones kelly.terry.jo...@gmail.com said: K I like this plan because it does versioned backups, and doesn't backup K identical files twice. I dislike it because I lose Mozy's unlimited disk K space. K % Is there software that already does this? I have a 3-Tbyte server running FreeBSD-6.1 that does something very similar. I don't bother with encrypting the filenames or hashes because we control the box, and if I'm not at work, other admins might need to restore something quickly. We have around 3.7 million files from 5 other servers backed up under two 1.5-Tbyte filesystems, /mir01 and /mir02. My setup looks like this: +-mir01 | +-HASH | | +-00 | | | +-00 | | | +-01 ... | | +-01 ... | | +-fe | | +-ff | +-server1 | +-server2 +-mir02 | +-HASH | +-server3 | +-server4 | +-server5 The HASH directories have two levels of subdirectories 00-ff. That's been more than sufficient to keep directories from getting too big; I average around 25 files per directory. I do hourly backups on the other fileservers using something like the find and timestamp method you mentioned, but I ignore 0-length files because they always hash to the same value. The backup directories for the second fileserver look like this for 5 May 2009: +-mir01 | +-server2 | | +-2009 | | | +-0505 | | | | +-070700 | | | | | +-doc (filesystem) | | | | | +-home | | | | +-080700 | | | | | +-doc | | | | | +-home ... | | | | +-190700 | | | | | +-home After the backups are rsynced to the backup server, I find any regular files with only one link, compute the RMD160 hash of the contents, and make a hardlink to the appropriate filename under the HASH directory. People love to make copies of copies of files, so this really cuts down on the disk space used. The hardlinks make it easy to avoid restoring things that aren't what the user had in mind; if a file's been corrupted, I can tell when it happened just by looking at the inode, so I don't restore an earlier version that's also junk. I can also tell if there were duplicates anywhere on the fileserver at the time the user lost the good version; it's a lot faster for them to get a known good copy from somewhere else on the fileserver than it is to restore over the network. The software is just a few scripts to do things like find files with just one link, compute hashes, do hardlinks, etc. I can put up a tarball if anyone's interested. -- Karl Vogel I don't speak for the USAF or my company The best way for the Government to maintain its credit is to pay as it goes-not by resorting to loans, but by keeping out of debt-through an adequate income secured by a system of taxation, external or internal, or both. --Pres. William McKinley's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1897 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Backing up FreeBSD and other Unix systems securely
I tried using Mozy for backups because they offer unlimited space, but
1) they don't support FreeBSD, 2) they encrypt file contents, but NOT
file names, and 3) they don't do true versioned backups. Easy
workaround for 1): rsync to a Mac/Windows and backup from there, but
2) and 3) are more difficult.
My plan:
% Use dd if=/dev/random of=mykey to create a random blowfish key
% Blowfish encrypt mykey with a passphrase only I know. Backup the
encrypted blowfish key to a remote host.
% Keep track of when I last ran the backup program (touch
/some/path/timestamp at start of run) and only backup files that've
been modified more recently (find / -newer /some/path/timestamp).
% To backup foo.txt, first bzip2 it and encrypt w/ my blowfish key.
% Then, take the sha1 hash of the bzip'd/encrypted file, and backup
foo.txt to remotehost:/some/path/{sha1 hash}.
% To avoid too many files in one dir, I may backup
b0d0a7da15d5eb94ac76ac4fd81fe6d4fa8e4593 to
remotehost:/some/path/b0/d0/a7/b0d0a7da15d5eb94ac76ac4fd81fe6d4fa8e4593
for example.
% In an SQLite3 db, record the filename I'm backing up, its
timestamp, and its bzip'd/encrypted hash. Store an encrypted copy of
the db on the remote server.
I like this plan because it does versioned backups, and doesn't backup
identical files twice. I dislike it because I lose Mozy's unlimited
disk space.
Questions:
% Does this plan seem secure and reasonable?
% Will backing up the 0-byte file this way make it easy to guess my
blowfish key?
% Is there software that already does this?
% Can this plan be improved?
% Does anyone offer unlimited space for Unix backups?
(safesnaps.com)
% Any general thoughts/comments on this plan?
--
We're just a Bunch Of Regular Guys, a collective group that's trying
to understand and assimilate technology. We feel that resistance to
new ideas and technology is unwise and ultimately futile.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Backing up FreeBSD and other Unix systems securely
Kelly Jones wrote: I tried using Mozy for backups because they offer unlimited space, but 1) they don't support FreeBSD, 2) they encrypt file contents, but NOT file names, and 3) they don't do true versioned backups. Easy workaround for 1): rsync to a Mac/Windows and backup from there, but 2) and 3) are more difficult. % Is there software that already does this? Take a look at tarsnap. http://www.tarsnap.com/ -- Christian Laursen ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Installing Unix
Hi I am a newbie to Unix with no experience in installing unix operating system. Have been through Download Freebsd but not quite sure what I should download. What is ISO and Distribution not quite sure which I should download. Can anyone help me with this. Regards Ese ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Installing Unix
Ese Oronsaye escribió: Hi I am a newbie to Unix with no experience in installing unix operating system. Have been through Download Freebsd but not quite sure what I should download. What is ISO and Distribution not quite sure which I should download. Can anyone help me with this. Regards Ese ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org Hi Oronsaye, Welcome to the FreeBSD mailing list. You can start by downloading a ISO from here: http://www.freebsd.org/where.html The one you must download depends on the hardware you are going to install on. A standard desktop PC normally is an i386, so you should download in this case this file: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/i386/ISO-IMAGES/7.2/7.2-RELEASE-i386-disc1.iso If you browse the FTP folder ( ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/i386/ISO-IMAGES/7.2/ ) you will see that there are another two disc images (ISOs whose name ends in disc2 and disc3). You will require them also depending on the packages you select to install, but with the first one you should have enought for a minimum installation. Once downloaded the ISO, burn it to a CD and boot you computer from this CD, remember that all the data on that PC will be lost. Another option, is to boot the iso from any virtualization software such as vmware or VirtualBox. Remember that you can follow the details of the installation procedure and several administrative tasks on the very useful FreeBSD handbook: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ Matias. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
