Posted in Apple, FSF at 5:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Should Free software supporters just let Apple be? Should Apple be defended?
I HAVE just been involved in a discussion about Apple’s nature in Groklaw.net. For many months I have abstained from bringing up the subject as I foresaw it leading to unnecessary friction. The straw that broke this camel’s back is Groklaw’s suggestion that hypePhone 4 has no exceptional antenna issues and that claims about those antenna issues originate in (or got exaggerated by) Microsoft. So anyway, I raised the subject politely and received polite answers from regulars of Groklaw, as in those who regularly participate in the discussions.
It has taken up a lot of time this morning and it’s basically about whether we — Free software or GNU/Linux supporters — should defend Apple or not. Apple is no "David" (as in David versus Goliath), but that’s not the point. The point is that Apple does a lot to harm software freedom and the Free Software Foundation definitely agrees about that. Over at Slashdot there is currently a discussion about the arrogant nature of Apple and some of its customers. To quote just the opening:
It’s not exactly official, but should also surprise no one: According to a new study the psychological profile of iPad owners can be summed up as “selfish elites” while have-not critics are “independent geeks.”
Over the years I have sent about 1,000 E-mails to Groklaw (probably more than that), but Apple is the only issue where I disagree with Groklaw. So my question is, am I misled in my criticism of Apple? Is the truth perhaps somewhere in between (between the stance of Techrights and the stance of Groklaw)? Thoughts welcome… █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Intellectual Monopoly, Patents, SCO at 5:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Another fine example from the news which helps show why the term “IP” is poisonous; Google wins a monopoly on mouse-tracking for personalisation/search results refinement
A SHORT WHILE ago we wrote about the deliberate confusion between counterfeiting and copyright infringement. The importance of this is very high because the mixture of totally separate notions (such as “IP” as umbrella term for copyrights, trademarks, and patents) is the source of much abuse. It enables an exploitative party to use particular laws that apply to one area of law in another area where such laws do not exist. According to an article we saw yesterday in TechDirt (put in daily links already), some companies are trying to extend the scope of copyright to mean “works like another thing” rather than be an exact copy of one specific rendition. This ‘artistic’ extension of copyrights is perhaps the sort of thing SCO, for example, would crave. We are glad to see that Glyn Moody has just addressed this subject, which he introduced as follows:
One of the many arguments against allowing patents for software (alongside the principle argument that software is made up of algorithms, which are essentially mathematics, which is pure knowledge and hence is not patentable) is the fact that software is anyway covered by copyright law. This means that others cannot simply copy your code, just as a novelist cannot simply copy large chunks of someone else’s writing. But whether copyright law prevents others from copying the underlying ideas of that code by re-implementing them independently is another matter.
On-the-fly changes to the law are never acceptable as laws define boundaries that preserve rationale.
In other disturbing news, Google carries on patenting software, even software which violates a user’s privacy. [via]
Google has been awarded a patent for displaying search results based on how you move your mouse cursor on the screen.
While it sounds initially bizarre, Google’s plans are to monitor the movements of the cursor, such as when a user hovers over a certain ad or link to read a tooltip, and then provide relevant search results, and ads, based on that behaviour. It means that it does not require users to actually click a link to know that they were interested in it, opening a world of opportunity for even more focused ads, which are Google’s main source of income.
The fine balance between features and privacy is a controversial subject beyond the scope of this site. But in any case, for Google to claim a monopoly on it — that’s where the problem lies. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Site News at 1:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Translation of last week’s talk about threats to software freedom
I
was delighted to see that some people found the 2-hour talk, which I prepared in the train on my Palm PDA (with external keyboard), valuable enough to translate it.
One reader of Techrights has kindly produced an ODP version and PDF version of the talk, as some people had requested it. He also produced a Spanish translation of it (contents as plain text below).
- Present and future threats to software freedom [ODP, PDF]
- Presente y futuras amenazas a la libertad del software [ODP, PDF]
Feel free to reuse these and teach others to keep software free (libre). █
Manchester Software Libre
Presente y futuras amenazas a la libertad del software
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Universidad de Manchester
La libertad del software que usamos constantemente se enfrenta a retos que hay que reconocer con el fin de hacerles frente. En esta presentación, varios de ellos se destacan y son unos pocos ejemplos proporcionados.
Son diapositivas minimalistas para no distraer y animar a más interacciones Por favor, no interrumpir al orador, pero hagan preguntas
Hoy estamos sacando las consideraciones técnicas fuera del tema.
En su lugar …
No nos sorprende saber que los meritos tecnicos de por sí solas no garantizan la victoria
Temas de desafíos (con las intersecciones entre ellas):
1. Marco legal
2. Software filosofía
3. Competencia
Información general
Marco legal
* La legislación del gobierno
* Las patentes de software
* Contratación
normas *
Visión de conjunto – CTD.
Software filosofía
* Paradigmas de negocios (como la adquisición en comparación con el apoyo y mantenimiento)
* Escasez artificial frente a la abundancia
* Conceptos erróneos acerca de la transparencia
* Exclusiones (por motivos ético-político)
Visión de conjunto – CTD.
Competencia
* Publicidad
* Agrupación
* Sistemas heredados / lock-in
conflictos de intereses *
Gobierno legislación
* Distribución del presupuesto y asignación (más sobre esto más adelante)
* Criptografía de exportación
* DMCA contra el descifrado
* ACTA
* Grupos de presión
tratados Transnacional
DMCA – sofoca la ingeniería inversa, el acceso a los medios de comunicación, copia de seguridad, el intercambio, la piratería
ACTA – derechos de autor, patentes, y potencialmente usuarios de Internet en seguimiento (agrupados con la lucha de la medicina falsa)
Las patentes de software
* Las patentes de software sólo es válido en algunos países, pero existen lagunas (ambigüedad “como tal”)
* En Europa, la legalización formal de la reforma solicitada por los nombres diferentes (unificación / armonización / UPLS / Patente Comunitaria)
Sistemas piramidales
* Acaparadores de patentes (por ejemplo, Intellectual Ventures)
* Cruce de licencias (vendedores), las piscinas (por ejemplo, RPX)
Las patentes de software – CTD.
Patentes ofertas
* Secreto, se trata de excluir la competencia
* No revele información sobre patentes reales (el método OCS)
* Los beneficios económicos a los titulares de patentes no importa la elección de los productos comprados (monopolio frente a la ejecución)
Ejemplos de casos de patentes contra Linux
* Apple vs Android / HTC
* Apple amenaza a Palm patente (ahora HP)
* El caso de Apple, Nokia puede incluir Maemo / Meego
* Acacia contra Red Hat, Novell
* Microsoft contra Linux distribuidores (por ejemplo, TomTom)
* OIN defiende “buenas” las patentes de software, sofoca abolishers de las patentes del software
Papel de Novell
* Génesis de las denuncias de patentes contra Linux – mayo-noviembre de 2006 (Novell se acercó a Microsoft)
* Reacción en “Boicot a Novell” campaña (ahora parte de Techrights)
* Novell cuenta con gran cartera de patentes de software (el más alto por empleado), en su mayoría vende software propietario
* Habilitar el dominio de APIs de Microsoft (por ejemplo, Mono, Moonlight)
Papel de Novell – CTD.
* La oferta de “paz IP mental” como propuesta de valor añadido
* FUD (miedo, incertidumbre y duda) – componente visible y oculto / componente implícito
* Solución: recompensa para un comportamiento razonable, denunciar la conducta contraproducente
Obtención
* Tradición versus la novedad
* Proveedores y “puertas giratorias”
* La falta de licitación
* Dependencias dentro del sistema existente
* La asignación presupuestaria depende de las expectativas
Normas
* De hecho, en comparación real
* Organismos de coacción de las normas
* Documentación
* Unilaterales mejoras
Negocios paradigmas
* La distribución gratuita
* Igual que el propietario (gratis / dumping)
* Permite el intercambio de apoyo y mantenimiento (servicios) con base en la habilidad, la escasez
* Barrera: analogías que implica “comunismo”, “virus”, “no fiable”, etc
Conceptos erróneos de código fuente
* Una mayor transparencia mejora el control, la calidad del código
* Posibilidad de copiar (Plurk)
* Código compartido de responsabilidad (no hay más seguro que muchos EULAs)
* Ejecución de los pedidos educados para el cumplimiento, los asentamientos
Publicidad / Fútbol Base / AstroTurf
* Sobre todo amoral o inmoral por naturaleza
* OEM recomendaciones son anuncios
* El valor percibido
* PR organismos manipular periodistas (regalos, las burlas, el acoso a través de editores)
* Monitoreo de la reputación, por ejemplo, en la Wikipedia
* Agentes contratados (a través de agencias periféricas) para burlarse de la competencia
Bundling
* Supresión de la elección
* Percepción de la integración del mercado (monocultivo)
* La insistencia de que los clientes exigen lo que están obligados a recibir
* Aumento de la dependencia del mercado a través de ISV
* Navegador / system/x86 operativo …
Los sistemas legados / lock-in
* Con la ayuda de agrupación
* Sistema interconectado con otros sistemas
* Diseñado para elevar las barreras de salida
* Diferentes bloqueo en capas: Hardware / arquitectura, base de datos, formatos de archivo, los procesos de negocio …
Los conflictos de intereses
* Recursos Humanos (HR) expedirá
* Empresa que compra contrata de la compañía que vende
* Empresa que asesora a contrata de la compañía que compra / vende
* Relaciones interpersonales Popular / preferencias / hábitos / dogma no cambian durante la noche
* La cultura corporativa depende de la dirección y los accionistas
* El proteccionismo, los planes para un futuro después de salir / retirarse
Barrera Ejemplo # 1
Suscripción como parte obligatoria del modelo de negocio – “empresa” y “comunidad” Edición
Propietario requisitos previos
Barrera Ejemplo # 2
* Adquisición de la investigación sesgada
“Mentiras, malditas mentiras y estadísticas”
* Publicidad / contratos en parte diseñados para los conflictos de intereses
* Colocación de las figuras y los métodos de resultados que exige
* Hay que pagar el impuesto “analista” – altos presupuestos necesarios para influir en el consenso
Barrera Ejemplo # 3
Soborno, Memorando de Entendimiento (“Proyecto Mariscal “)
Barrera Ejemplo # 4
* Falsificación spin
* EDGI (detalles en Comes vs Microsoft)
“Ellos se van a volver adictos, y entonces vamos a encontrar la manera de que pagen en la próxima década.”
-Bill Gates
“Es más fácil para nuestro software para competir con Linux cuando hay piratería que cuando no hay.”
-Bill Gates
Lobo con piel de oveja
* KHTML frente WebKit
* Las empresas creado / dirigido por el ex ejecutivos de Microsoft generar dinero de GPL FUD, y añadió la dependencia de software propietario
* Licencias de software que Microsoft controla
* Juntas y conferencias apiladas por las compañías de software propietario en “Open Source” banner
Mensajes para llevar a casa
* Los obstáculos técnicos se imponen a servir como defensores de los puntos fuertes de software propietario
* Despiadado, el comportamiento abrasivo recompensado
* La riqueza otorga facultades a las decisiones de impacto, la percepción, la ley
* Educación para destacar estas cuestiones
* Pruebas que deben aportarse para una respuesta eficaz (por ejemplo, exhibe verificable tribunal, exponiendo citas inadecuado, el amiguismo)
Techrights.org acumula y organiza la información, las iniciativas de campañas de sensibilización
Discusión
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Microsoft, Security, Windows at 5:03 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Shoddy Microsoft software continues to provide opportunities for disgruntled people to attack and take down servers they dislike
ANY Windows botnet which is enabled by “Zeus” (Zeus is known to be a cause of DDOS attacks) is already taking advantage of Microsoft’s latest severe flaw which affects even fully patched Windows:
Miscreants behind the Zeus cybercrime toolkit and other strains of malware have begun taking advantage of an unpatched shortcut handling flaws in Windows. It was first used by a sophisticated worm to target SCADA-based industrial control and power plant systems.
No patch is available yet:
Security researchers have found more malware exploiting an unpatched Windows vulnerability via .LNK shortcut files.
According to Sophos blog July 23, two other pieces of malware have been observed targeting the bug. One is a keylogging Trojan the company is calling Chymin-A that is “designed to steal information from infected computers.” The other is Dulkis-A, a “worm written in obfuscated Visual Basic” that contains several subcomponents.
More here:
Slovakian security firm Eset reports the appearance of two malware strains that exploit security vulnerabilities in the way Windows handles .lnk (shortcut) files, first used by Stuxnet to swipe information from Windows-based SCADA systems from Siemens.
We covered those SCADA incidents earlier today. This has a serious impact on the world’s energy, not to mention those BP BSODs which we’ve already covered in [1, 2, 3].
The damage costs a lot of money and time (which can be equated to money) and the security world is “ill-equipped to solve digital whodunnits,” reports The Register.
“A lot of those efforts are very unqualified and pedestrian,” said Parker, who is director of security consulting services at Washington, DC-based Securicon. “There’s really not any science behind the efforts that many people have been making recently that have resulted in stories like China is attacking us, Russia is attacking us, Korea is attacking us.”
It is really hard to know where DDOS attacks come from these days. People don’t control their Windows PCs, which can be hijacked and chained back to some botmasters whose interests are not known.
Georgia has an unfortunate DDOS story to tell about its national infrastructure; after years of investigation it is still not perfectly clear if the Russian government had something to do with it or not. One youngster claims responsibility, but can he be believed? It can be hard to verify. And if one youngster can paralyse an entire nation, what does that teach us about those Windows zombies he used? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend