They also got a tweet by the EFF with a link to the torrentfreak article about the take down taken down. Never a good idea.
88 posts • joined 4 Mar 2008
I recently had a phone die; I had a spare phone but needed a different size sim card for it.
I've read about people with two-factor authentication losing bitcoins via clever social engineering of their phone provider, so I was completely unprepared for what happened when I went to the AT&T store to get it.
I gave them the phone number, they gave me an activated sim card. No ID needed, no questions asked, not even my name.
As a comment to https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/open_letter_to_the_open almost four years ago said:
"You can put a fork in it. It was done when Oracle killed it. Putting it under the "less restrictive" Apache license encourages developers to work on LibreOffice, which they've done. LibreOffice has accomplished more positive change since the fork than OpenOffice has done in the two years since... or after. Sorry, Apache. You were handed a steaming carcass. Sure, it was warm. But it's not good to eat. Time to stop the suckup status reports and face the reality. OpenOffice is done. Put a fork in it."
No. Just no.
Twitter isn't a publisher, it is a communication tool. Users can use it to direct others to content published elsewhere. Its self-imposed length restriction makes it pretty useless for actually publishing anything (and I believe the guy testing the waters by trying to register copyright on a tweet has had no luck to date).
Google Search isn't a publisher, it's...a search engine. (I'm not sure how to highlight the difference if it isn't obvious to you.)
The common point between them is that Twitter and Google themselves aren't determining the content you see - you, the user of their services, are.
So you think he is lying when he says he has nothing?
I loved the "it is generally held" bit; how about citing your sources? Who are these people generally holding this, and how do *they* say they know?
My source? The NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/world/snowden-says-he-took-no-secret-files-to-russia.html
The end of the article seems very flawed (and the title very carefully worded). Nothing RSA says contradicts the allegations; of course they deny actual knowledge of a backdoor or weakened encryption. If anything you can take the RSA blog post as a confirmation that they did take the NSA money to put in the NSA-selected algorithm.
You are making the same error that the article made. Copyleft is not the opposite of copyright, it is copyright used for a particular kind of purpose.
And I get the feeling there is general ignorance of RMS's positions on *non*-software IP - something I'd like to see change.
I also would question the truth of that - though I would say the dividing line is that free/libre software will fix the first part; just open source may not.
SaaS too certainly doesn't have to - by day I'm a closed-source SaaS developer, and almost all customer data is exportable; where it's not, it's because I'm so busy :)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019