SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
This kernel is simply huge: there is so many new and improved features with this particular release that it's mind-boggling. I'm having difficulty remembering such a time a kernel release was so large.
The quick summary of Linux 5.6 changes include: WireGuard, USB4, open-source NVIDIA RTX 2000 series support, AMD Pollock enablement, lots of new hardware support, a lot of file-system / storage work, multi-path TCP bits are finally going mainline, Year 2038 work beginning to wrap-up for 32-bit systems, the new AMD TEE driver for tapping the Secure Processor, the first signs of AMD Zen 3, better AMD Zen/Zen2 thermal and power reporting under Linux, at long last having an in-kernel SATA drive temperature for HWMON, and a lot of other kernel infrastructure improvements.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday February 12 2020, @12:43AM (1 child)
Say a software publisher offers a non-free application for license and discloses source code of its application under non-disclosure agreement to all paying licensees. I'm interested in how you suggest to deter licensees from violating their license by redistributing the source code to third parties. On the other hand:
Did you further intend to require license terms that allow free redistribution? If so, I'm interested in how you suggest to feed and house professional developers of a video game, a streaming player for rented motion pictures, or an income tax return preparation tool.
On that note: Have you tried the GNU LibreJS extension [gnu.org] for the IceCat and Firefox web browsers? Its functionality aligns somewhat with your views.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday February 13 2020, @09:53PM
I don't suggest any forms of determent beyond the legal ones, and all of those are in court using FULL due process. The DMCA needs to be destroyed, and in fact, I would make a Constitutional Amendment to the United States making it a full right that we get to inspect all source code in our homes and property, and that all forms of determent are 100% illegal. Meaning, that it's not legal to be running code in somebody else's property that infringes upon their privacy or their rights of peaceful enjoyment of property.
The NDA is a perfectly acceptable way to keep code private, while at the same time allowing inspection of the code to verify security issues. However, I don't believe that would stand a chance in a FOSS market because of the number of eyes on the code. A corporation of 500 software engineers is still less than an entire world of software engineers.
So this would highly depend on the code. I would never, ever, purchase any security code such as encryption under these circumstances. It's just as bad as homegrown crypto. Anything related to security must contain code developed from open reference implementations of open and free security code.
I don't think it's required that I allow free redistribution at all. I'm not entirely sure how to house and feed developers. As I said, I'm very interested in doing so, and not just for developers of video games.
You're missing the primary, and most fundamental point here. It has nothing to do with licensing, or compensating developers, but everything to do with security. Whether you like it or not, security is impossible to create in the shadows. Period. Full Stop.
The future is 100% open code, or no code. It can't be hidden anymore. Anything hidden, is something that cannot be vetted. It cannot be peer reviewed. It cannot be tested beyond tests for proper function, which doesn't allow for an analysis of bugs or implementation issues in encryption algorithms. Proprietary code is a logical fail at this point, and you cannot claim levels of security and be taken seriously. If you're a sysadmin or developer worth your salt, you know this is actually true. How many severe issues have arisen in the blobs and binaries in our hardware?
Heck, guess what the CIA front was offering all those nation states? Proprietary code that couldn't be reviewed.
I'm very interested in systems of compensation and incentivization, but I believe in the concept of the Public Domain more than anything else. Copyrights and patents (not trademarks) are temporary rights that have been heavily abused, and by those that don't believe the Public Domain should exist at all.
We cannot allow systems of compensation, existing or proposed, to abridge our rights of privacy, peaceful enjoyment of property, or act oppressively against expression and innovation. By all means, share some ideas. In the meantime however, practical and fundamental security considerations preclude all proprietary and/or obfuscated code.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.