Christopher J. Buckley

This is a fantastic piece of filming - talk about being in the right place at the right time! You can find the complete footage here. The pilot and ground control were the epitome of calm and professional.

NB: Notice Concorde in the background 2 minutes in!

Yesterday, a discussion came up regarding which software license is more or less restrictive. We were agreed upon ‘public domain’ and ‘proprietary’ licenses, however, the issue of BSD vs GPL came up. I turned to my friend, software license expert, and GNU member David Crossland for help on this issue.

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.

My ISP, entanet, has yesterday taken the bold, and equally brave, move of publishing the ADSL BRAS profiles of their customer base as an MRTG style graph. The move is brave because ISPs are coming under strong pressure from the regulator OFCOM to explain why customers are not getting the speeds advertised. IT new-site, The Register, has covered this story with an equal blaze of publicity.

Here’s a recent image of the graph [it updates every hour].

 
Three things strike me first off about this graph:

• The lack of a bell curve. Though, I would explain this by noting that given the percentage of people able to obtain very close to the 8128 maximum sync rate is 37.8% - not the fairest, or most even, distribution of spread. Remember, Enta is a professional ISP attracting net-savvy users; I would hazard a fair guess that a lot of people specifically move to a location that is in good reach of their local exchange - I know i did. When BT releases 21cn i would expect a bell curve to exist around the 6000-10000 mark. Only time will tell, mind.
• As referred to above, Which? magazines continued insistence that broadband provider’s are setting too high a customers’ expectation as to speed’s possible on their ADSL line appear to be inaccurate. Setting aside the reasoning for the graph’s data in point 1, there is a significant proportion of customers on a very acceptable BRAS profile.

  My personal opinion is that Which? magazine is making an issue where there is none. I have never experienced an ISP stating that they will provide 8mbit services, but rather can provide, if your line is suitable. If I was a cynic I would state that Which? are creating publicity for themselves by writing these reports. Unfortunately, I am only adding to their publicity.

• Not directly related to the graph, but to the ISP publishing it: Enta have taken an exceptionally positive step in publishing this data. At a time when ISPs are under-fire (see above), they have chose to make their data public for the world to inspect. Well done, Enta!
   
  NB: I fully recommend Entanet reseller, UK Free Software Network.

Not a great surprise this one. . . AppleInsider brings confirmation from Steve Jobs, the ever charismatic Apple CEO, that Apple OSX ‘Leopard’ will ship worldwide on October 26. Whilst i am looking forward to Leopard, I must admit to not being that excited by this news. Tiger already fulfils nearly all of my requirements in a desktop OS, though the use of ports and fink are essential. That said, there are some very smart new features we can look forward to according to AppleInsider:

Leopard’s new desktop includes the redesigned 3D Dock with Stacks, a new way to organize files for quick and easy access with just one click. Leopard automatically places web, email and other downloads in a Downloads stack to maintain a clutter-free desktop, and users can instantly fan the contents of this and other Stacks into an elegant arc right from the Dock. Users can also create their own Stacks for quick access to folders, documents or applications. Leopard’s new look extends to all applications, with every window on the desktop offering a consistent design theme and active windows outlined by deeper shadows that make them stand out.

Meanwhile, Apple bills Quick Look as the fastest and easiest way for users to look inside files without launching them or even having the application that created them. With Quick Look, users can instantly view full-screen, high-resolution files of virtually anything, even media files, from any view in the Finder.

Another new feature, Spaces, gives users a powerful new way to organize their work by creating customized desktops which can contain only those applications or documents needed for each project, with the ability to quickly switch between Spaces with the mouse or keyboard.

On a personal note, hopefully by next friday I will be moved in to my new flat in the south-east, with a weekend free to install and experience the next Mac OS. One thing is certain to be sure: leopard leaves Microsoft’s much rushed, widely acknowledged as buggy, Vista operating system further behind in the next-gen OS wars.

With Compiz now making good head-way on X, and Ubuntu now deciding to enable Compiz by default in “Gutsy” 7.10 Microsoft looks increasingly left behind, ironic of course as Microsoft has essentially already won the desktop wars; software-as-a-service has been the battlefield for well over a year now… but I digress.

Steve Farrell of EMAP’s motorcyclenews leads with a story concerning the use of speed-enforcement equipment; equipment that I have blogged about as recently as yesterday, concerning issues associated with a popular laser enforcement device: the LTI 20:20. MCN notes that they are unaware whether or not the 20:20 is affected, but just in case, here is a list of all approved Home Office devices that South-Kent will now no doubt be investigating.

• 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.

The LTI 20:20 is a speed camera device deployed across numerous enforcement zones to check the speed of a moving vehicle. There has been much press on this device, leading to accusations that the device is fundamentally flawed; suffering from not only beam boundary clashing, the slip effect, but also incompetent operatives of the devices.

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.

So, today I managed to finally setup an openldap server using the excellent instructions at debuntu.org. I then installed the latest release of phpldapadmin, however, the latest (admittedly, alpha) release has a pretty big bug in my opinion: you cannot create any classes of user or group. So, a bit of research and a quick fix presented itself:

---  phpldapadmin/lib/Attribute.php
+++ phpldapadmin/lib/Attribute.php, 1 October 2007 

-if (isset($this->values[$i])) return $this->values[$i];
+if (isset($this->values[$i])) return ''.$this->values[$i];

Until the next release of phpldapadmin, that should do the trick! Guessing a typo made it through quality control.. :)

Having returned this evening from Paris, I’ve been busy uploading to flickr the pictures I took of my trip abroad. Some obervations from my few days in France:

• Paris is both culturally and historically one of the most impressive cities on earth. I was swept away with the sheer brilliance of the city. The people were both kind and friendly and always willing to assist us with directions
• Visually: stunning. I can only sum it up in such a way. Even our great capital, London. doesn’t have monuments to compare to either the Eiffel Tower or the Arc de Triomphe.
• The police force appears quite ‘out-dated’. Their cars have a singe blue light or simple roll-bar, and their siren is monotone. It’s really disconcerting seeing this when in the UK we come to expect a whole variety of emergency vehicles all lit up by their livering and flashing assortment of lights. France simply does not have this - i am sure it is through choice
• There is no surveillance. Seriously. Even the Eiffel Tower only has a few CCTV cameras. The roads were completely free of cash-cameras and speed limits in no way appear to be enforced. Cameras were hardly present, even at Paris’ most famous and prestigious locations. The ‘lack’ of cameras just highlighted further to me how deeply the UK has sunk into a surveillance society, bordering on police state. Did I feel any less safe? No.
• The French are excellent drivers. Always using the over-taking lane only when over-taking. Their roads are both well maintained and quite plentiful. Though, the presence of toll-roads is an unwelcome sight.

In short - Paris is one of the most beautiful and historic places I have ever visited. I was truly impressed.