David has written an excellent article, which I hope people can take time to read and digest.

First we have to resolve which BSD and GPL licenses you refer to.
The original BSD license is an all permissive (non-copyleft protected) license that is incompatible with all versions of the GPL. The revised (1999 onwards) BSD license is an all permissive license that is compatible with all versions of the GPL.

Therefore the FSF recommends calling simple all-permissive licenses compatible with the GPL “X11” licenses instead of “BSD” ones. (OSI says “MIT” licenses, but MIT has released under lots of licenses so its not ideal.)

Which is more free, X11 or GPL? They are equally free. X11 style licenses are free software licenses. The GPL licenses are free software licenses. Being a free software license is a binary value. At the important level, it is nonsense to say one is more or less restrictive than any other.

In the details, there are differences though.

Revised BSD is “more free” than original BSD because it is GPL compatible; you are free to distribute combined versions of such with all the GPL software out there, and that is very useful. Its a very secondary kind of freedom though, compared to the kind of freedom that defines free software.

The GPL has clauses to ensure the software remains free for all users of the software. Copyleft is the main example of this as it was in GPLv1; GPLv3 has other clauses like those about Tivoisation. To me these are protections, but proprietary software developers call these clauses “restrictions” because they restrict them from restricting everyone.

There is tonnes of bullshit around the web that says stuff like “From the perspective of the user, the BSD license is actually more “free” than the GPL: you can do whatever you want with the code, including wrap it up and make it proprietary.” But by “more” they mean “less,” by “users” they mean “developers” and by “including” they mean “especially.”

It is less freedom from the perspective of users because X11 licenses allow middlemen developers to make proprietary versions, so not all users will have freedom. With GPL, all users will have freedom. What you can do is freedom; when what you do effects others, it is not really freedom by power. The GPL restricts the amount of power you have over other people, it does not restrict your freedom. [0] So if you are making your software free, the GPL does not restrict you at all.

Since GPL software cannot become proprietary, the GPL makes for more freedom, overall.

However, there are exceptions to that. For example:

• The Xiph media formats are non-copyleft, to promote wide adoption of the format.
• A non-copyleft TCP/IP implementation was neccessary to build the Internet. [1]
• Font software is different to regular programs, and so the Open Font License is more suitable than the GPL for most fonts.

The FSF publishes the LGPL, a weak copyleft. A weak copyleft means that someone can link their proprietary software to your free software, but must keep your parts free. Sometimes – rarely, today – it can be strategic to release software that permits this, but it is not generally recommend. So it could be said that all-permissive non-copyleft free software licenses are more restrictive than the GPL, from the perspective of users, because some versions of the software will be proprietary.

However, I think its better to reformulate the question: Which license will result in the most freedom for all users? Usually this is the GPL, but it depends on the situation.

[0] Bradley Kuhn – CTO of softwarefreedom.org and previously Executive Director of FSF and a very cool guy who I met last time I was in New York – wrote about this in “Freedom or Power?”

[1] Programming languages are typically non-copyleft, although I think thats a shame – Perl was originally GPL, and if it remained GPL, all perl software would be GPL. I don’t know the exact circumstances why it switched, although I’d like to.

• Tele-Traffic (UK) LtdThe LTI 20.20. TS/M
• The Kustom ProLaser II
• The LTI 20.20. TS/M “Speedscope”
• Riegl LR90-235/P
• Cleartone Stealth Speedlaser
• Unipar Urban Speed ace
• LTI 20.20 UltraLyte 100 November 1993
• Jenoptik LaserPatrol
• Riegl FG21-P
• Leica XV2 SpeedLaser

Here’s a copy of the memo:

Personally, I very much doubt this case concerns the use of laser enforcement devices – but rather whether the device used was correctly calibrated and/or certified to ACPO Guidelines. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out this case has simply discovered that the device being used had not been calibrated within its approved time, hence the temporary cessation of enforcement using speed-guns, allowing the police force to have the devices re-calibrated and certified for speed-enforcement.

Also: MCN, please put a little more effort into the running of their (outsourced) website. Every other page 404’s or gives an internal IIS error that the link clicked is wrong. Surely they are aware of these problems? Why are they not fixing them?

EDITORS NOTE: The authenticity of the ‘leaked memo’ can, at this time, not be guaranteed.
UPDATE: The authenticity of the e-mail has been confirmed by Inspector Geoff Wood, Kent Police. As blogged yesterday, the ‘technical’ issue resolves around the calibration of a device used in speed-enforcement. The next step is to find the serial number of the device(s) in question and for all motorists who have either accepted a FPN been convicted of speeding by way of this device, to appeal their conviction.

SkyNews, is today reporting another case where the LTI 20:20 has been demonstrated to be at fault.

Note: the heading of the source article is completely incorrect. The case did not concern a standard Gatso, which incidentally are extremely accurate when used with the secondary marking check (the white lines on the ground). The secondary mark check -must- be in place to secure a conviction when employing a Gatso in the UK.

A scientist says he has done what millions of motorists have dreamed of doing – beating a speed camera – by using a device he made himself that everyone could soon get their hands on.

Dr Phillip Tann was driving through Sunderland when he was caught by a police radar trap, which clocked him doing 42mph in a 30mph zone.

But at the time he happened to be trialling his new invention – a super-accurate speed and distance recorder comparable to an aircraft’s “black box” in-flight recorder.

It told him he was in fact doing 29.177196mph at the time.

He was hauled before magistrates charged with speeding.

However, he said that when he showed them his system and the records from it they were so impressed he was allowed to walk free from court.

Police and the Crown Prosecution Service disputed his version of events, saying that in fact the only reason he was let off was that the prosecuting officer had left the force and could not come to court.

Northumbria police insisted they were satisfied the camera reading was accurate and maintained the case was discontinued for “administrative reasons”.

Chief Inspector Kevin Wellden said: “We are fully satisfied this camera was properly calibrated and gave a correct and accurate reading when the motorist passed it.”

“The 29mph refers to an average speed over a certain distance.
Advertisement

But the 45-year-old technology firm boss said it was his device that had prompted the ruling – and that it could open the floodgates for other innocent motorists accused of speeding.

His invention, called the Autopoietic System, can measure data over distances of less than half a metre compared with traditional GPS devices which work on distances of around five metres.

The design has already received Government funding, with an NStar proof of concept award.

Dr Tann, whose business Autopoietic Systems (Tann Ltd) is based in Birtley, Gateshead, said: “The Crown Prosecution Service requested to view the system and has now agreed that the Autopoietic System was more accurate than the police laser gun.

“I knew when I received the fine I couldn’t have been exceeding the limit because I’d seen the van with the camera.

“So I was surprised to receive a fine.

“The cameras used are not 100% accurate, but my system is.

“In the past people have had to rely on the accuracy of the police cameras and they can be subject to error but this information can be downloaded and used as proof.”

He added: “With this accuracy we can provide many new services, including sending an alarm if a phone travels outside an area or at a speed greater than 15mph.”

The article doesn’t state whether or not the Crown disclosed a copy of the original video tape – a feat which borders on hard to impossible at present. I would very much hope the defendant obtained a copy of the video tape, which he can share with us.

My personal opinion of this case is one of surprise. I am, honestly, inclined to believe the CPS’ version of events. The Home Office has not approved the Autopoietic System, and if the CPS has stated that this device is more accurate than their 20:20’s (the article unfortunately makes no reference to this device, which is unfortunate), then i look forward to reading their formal papers on the case. I do very much doubt the CPS ever said anything along those lines. The device may full well be more accurate, but before the courts, unless its approved by the Home Office it really doesn’t matter.

Judges acknowledged that both men had faced compulsion to provide information, but threw out their claim that the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself are “absolute rights”.

Their judgement noted that people “who choose to keep and drive cars” have implicitly “accepted certain responsibilities” under UK law.

This includes an obligation to name the driver of a vehicle after a road traffic offence has been committed.

The judges also pointed out that UK law made it clear that no offence has been committed if a car owner can prove that he or she did not know, and could not be expected to know, who was driving the vehicle.

Mr Francis said after the verdict: “The fight for freedom goes on. We can’t allow the tyrants, who are taking away our rights, to succeed. They have to be stopped.”

You can read the full legal judgement here

This passage by Judge Pavlovschi is of notable interest.

If the public interest in catching minor offenders (persons committing speeding or parking offences) is so great as to justify limitations on the privilege against self-incrimination, what would be the position when the issue concerned serious offences? Is the public interest in catching those who commit crimes which cost people’s lives less great than in catching those who slightly exceed the speed limit?

In my view it is illogical for persons who have committed minor offences to find themselves in a less favourable situation than those who have committed acts which are truly dangerous to society.

Here’s an excellent video detailing the different options open to you in claiming your money back:

 
As a personal aside, i think i’m one of the very few people who has no complaints regarding the bank service I receive. I find my bank both efficient and courteous. I think, like many recovering students, we couldn’t actually have gotten through university without the quite generous over-draft facilities available to under-graduates. However, unauthorised bank charges are unfair and need to be stamped out.

The 40 days for my bank to respond starts now…

…actually editing of the BIOS on the motherboard is done to make the motherboard appear to be from an OEM. It is a pretty labor-intensive process and quite risky. If you mess up editing the BIOS of any motherboard, you can quite easily render it permanently useless. So while this method works today, it’s potentially hazardous and really doesn’t scale well to large numbers of systems, which makes it less of a threat.

Alex then details the ’software emulation’ activation crack (this is the utility now widely circulating, involving one-click activation):

The second variant does not change anything in the BIOS itself, but uses a software-based approach to fool the OS into thinking it’s running on OA 2.0-enabled hardware. And while this method is easier to implement for the end user, it’s also easier to detect and respond to than a method that involves directly modifying the BIOS of the motherboard.

What is rather interesting is Microsoft then proceed to state that…

we focus on hacks that pose threats to our customers, partners and products. It’s worth noting we also prioritize our responses, because not every attempt deserves the same level of response. Our goal isn’t to stop every “mad scientist” that’s on a mission to hack Windows. Our first goal is to disrupt the business model of organized counterfeiters and protect users from becoming unknowing victims. This means focusing on responding to hacks that are scalable and can easily be commercialized, thereby making victims out of well-intentioned customers.

Well, this is confusing; it implies that Microsoft isn’t going to address this activation crack. Am I reading this wrongly? I don’t think so: other websites are reporting the same interpretation as well.

I simply do not understand Microsoft’s take on this. There are two implementations of the software hack:

• A grub-like boot-loader that loads the crack before the OS starts. This utility has become a one-click process.
• Software emulation of an OEM enabled BIOS. This crack is the most widely distributed and used. It, like the boot-loader process, is a one-click activation process. Microsoft assert this will be easier to defeat.

 

Both implementations of this activation crack are absolutely ’scalable and can be easily commercialized’. Am I the only one to suspect that the real reason Microsoft have taken this stance is because they are acutely aware that these cracks are not going to be at all easy to defeat. They would have to revoke Asus’ OEM Vista key for starters. This decision could not be taken lightly, and i’m sure ASUS and their customers’ would have something to say.

…did someone say ‘Genuine Advantage’? I think not. WGA is a menace, and a disadvantage to every legitimate user. Microsoft is reaping what it has sowed. The real loser in every instance is the genuine consumer.

I will resist the urge to write about free-software and the GPL in this blog post. GPLv3 cannot come soon enough.

I wonder when the people responsible for controlling the A14 will finally realise the crashes have nothing to do with speed, but everything to do with lorries using the road day and night, driving in both lanes, getting every-one annoyed and causing accidents due to frustration. Indeed, the A14 is always too busy to ever get above 56 mph during the day!

Instead of widening the road and completing upgrades, our representatives (unelected mostly I might add) have rail-roaded SPECS on us all. Josef Stalin would be salivating if he could see the gantries of spy cameras across Britain right now – all in the name of ’safety’. The UK is currently not a very comfortable place to live if you remotely value your right to privacy and presumption of innocence.

UPDATE: Here below you can see the new cameras in operation.

I’m going to get a few pictures tonight and will post! It’s all quite exciting! :)

When the jury was sent for a recess after the prosecutions opening address, the judge failed to advise them to not discuss the case either between themselves or any outside parties under any circumstances. Discussing a case with fellow jurors until instructed to by the presiding Judge is a serious issue, and one which can cause a mis-trial to be (rightfully) ordered.

Blonde air-head Jennifer Ellison has already been captured flippantly stating, ‘I believe they’re guilty’.. Even more troubling, Jeffrey Archer who, for those unaware, holds a conviction for perjury and perverting the course of justice, is seen pontificating about the victims ‘claims’. You’d have thought someone with his legal ‘experience’ would know better. Already, the (now retired) judge has failed in his duties towards both the defendants and the prosecution. Further still, the BBC commentator has disclosed that there is no one to ‘represent’ the victim in this case. That is simply not-true. The police are able to provide liaison officers to support victims, and there is no instruction that prohibits a solicitor being able to represent the victim(s) interests. BBC, you should and must do better!

The first ten minutes, only strongly re-enforces my belief that there is very good cause for a juries’ deliberations to be disclosed. One wishes that (the fictional) Justice John Deed was over-seeing this trial, though as both a High and Appeal Court judge, it would be unusual for him to become involved in such a case.

UPDATE: The jury reached Not Guilty verdicts on all counts. Based upon the evidence presented, I feel this was the right judgement. What niggles me is that the victim clearly suffered, but is now accused of being a liar. No winners really :(

The Supreme court has decided that T-Online, one of the largest ISPs in Germany has to delete all IP logs to guarantee the privacy of their customers. This ruling makes it impossible for anti-piracy organizations to trace an infringing IP-address back to a customer of T-Online, once their dynamic IP address has changed.

The decision does not mean that T-Online is now obliged to delete all their IP-logs, the customers first need to complain. But, if they ask T-Online to delete their IP-logs, the ISP has no other choice than to comply. A lawyer from Frankfurt already sketched a sample letter to make this process easier.

The court ruling is the result of a case that was initiated by Holger Voss, a 33 year old man from Münster. Voss was sued for making a sarcastic comment in an Internet forum back in 2002.

After the district court and the regional court, now the Supreme court decided that T-Online has no right to store the IP-logs without a legal reason. This ruling can be considered as a huge breakthrough, and it is good to see that at least some countries still value privacy.

Source: torrentfreak