kitche

Members
  • Content count

    544
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kitche

  1. Even small amount of school whether college or VoTech school helps if you get a certain track going.
  2. I know this thread is old but wanted to say something about pulse audio it's not ready for everyday use not sure why Ubuntu and Fedora actually use it .
  3. umm last time I checked first android phone is coming out Oct. 2nd. oh also Android has known flaws in it's java.
  4. Since when is FreeBSD a linux
  5. umm all tftp servers are open since they don't have any security
  6. maybe San Fran can use this to find that "mystery" router
  7. not sure if you guys have seen this yet though but Mark Shuttleworth is hiring a team to work on some open source projects http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/162#
  8. the GDI+ fix was released yesterday
  9. For those that actually follow Mcgrew's blog you already know about this but it's always a good laugh when more of his(Yousif) buddies come out of the woodwork. http://www.mcgrewsecurity.com/2008/09/07/y...ives-me-a-call/
  10. well what your talking about has actually been fixed but there is still some files you can find that still have that vulnerability out there just floating in the net waiting for a unpatched machine to find it
  11. Read the Google Chrome EULA: That ain't no BSD 2-clause. This is the BSD 2-clause license: Quite different, isn't it? umm if you look at Chromium it's a 2-clause BSD style license and the Google EULA that you posted is for the binary not the source code so have a good day and learn products better
  12. yeah phlak hasn't been updated since like 2001 or so
  13. Chrome uses BSD 2-clause license, I mainly just checked out Chrome to see if it sent information back to google besides the standard beta information which I signed up for.
  14. pfsense documentation is pretty up to date since it's uses FreeBSD as a base which uses pf from openBSD 3.5 or something like that
  15. umm yeah DOS is suppiled with systems longer the Windows 98 anything above Windows ME doesn't have True DOS
  16. Just like their other products it does tracking and sends to google so they know what people look at. I don't mind the whole bot thing that they are using but I don't want to be part of it. I'll post some shots of the sniffing that I did
  17. You have to pay the hefty vmware price, unless you are willing to pirate. Why don't you try out virtualbox. huh vmware is free the workstation is not but the server and the player are free so you don't have to pay anything
  18. yep we got stiffed and I believe Zach ran with the money that we payed for so yea it was a great mag too
  19. companies actually use these exchanges I used to get called by one company that used one of the exchanges all the time never said anything though it's mostly a fake product or something they try to sell one of the 212 numbers actually goes to these people http://www.econometricsociety.org
  20. yep since apache is not much different in Windows then Unix really
  21. As far as I've always known, if you own the *copyright* (say, if you wrote it, basically) to a GPL program, you can change the license to anything at any time. I guess the legality of it is, as copyright holder, one of the rights granted to you by that status is the ability to change licensing. I'm pretty sure you can, at least, apply this to any future revisions. One of the stickier points of this is patches. If I have a bunch of people who contribute patches to my software as GPL (yes, you can license patches), then I can't change the license of the software with patches, unless I have consent from the copyright holders of said patches. With past revisions: say you make v1.1 of your software and put a proprietary license on it, but I've previously downloaded v1.0, which was GPL'd. I have ownership of a piece of software that was licensed to me as GPL (the v1.0 of your code). So basically I can do anything to it within terms of the GPL (including redistribute, or fork it to another project). Now, if I somehow happened to get a copy of full source to your v1.1, and it were closed source, I can't do either of those because it's not licensed as such. Also, in the case of v1.0, I can't change the license in any future revisions/forks I make of the software, because the code I "own" wasn't licensed to me with the right to do that - nor am I the copyright holder, obviously. EDIT: And also note, under this logic... you could replace GPL with BSD in the above paragraph and it's still true. If I download a version of your code that is BSD, I gain ownership of a copy of software under that license, and can do anything with it I see fit - so long as it adheres to the BSD license, of course. My point being, with the code you distribute (whether it be via GPL or BSD license), you can't retroactively "close source" previous versions of your code... at least, not the copies someone else already obtained. This is where my legalese gets muddy. You *might* be able to change licensing on past versions, though I'm not sure. I am sure, though, of the fact that any copies of said software already obtained were obtained via the original license, and can't have their licensing altered after the fact. With GPL software the code must always be open if I want to add a feature to a program that is already GPL'd, since the new code must be under GPL. With BSD all I need to do really is keep the copyright in tact in the source files. If you want to know more about the GPL vs BSD thing just look up the issue with the ath5k in the linux kernel. explains it a lot really
  22. you have it correct mirrorshades I tend to use this one though GPL communism, BSD capitalism kinda the same thing as you said I just like BSD sicne I can close it at any time and such along with the GPL users really is just what ticks me off they don't understand what GPL is
  23. SourceMage developer for a while then I decided that GPL is a piece of junk and moved on to one of the BSD's
  24. there is no way to actually turn it off but there is tricks to make it act like 2.0
  25. irc.binrev.net does not exist anymore well soon to not exit it's irc.cryptirc.net