wang_li

On Github. Doesn't give them a license to fork it to their workstation.

This is wrong:

>While the license included in the original doesn't bind the recipients to v2, recipients can't restrict successive recipients to a later version only. They have the option of v2.

The program was licensed under GPL version 2.0 only. So no choice to use later versions.

In the README.txt distributed with the release it says:

> Licensed under the GNU General Public License 2.0.

Which is the only text that puts it under the GPL at all. There is no later version mentioned.

https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM/blob/master/README.TXT

Regardless, you can't change the license on code you don't own, even if the code is distributed under a flexible license.

> I dont see why people would have any GPLv2 rights for this version.

Because the code is licensed under GPL v2. Not or any later versions. In the original distribution there was a filed called LICENSE.txt which is just the literal GPL v2.0 text, which includes the text of the license as well as the explanatory text and instructions on how to apply it. There is a README.txt which includes the line "Licensed under the GNU General Public License 2.0." And then every source code file says:

     // This source is available for distribution and/or modification
     // only under the terms of the DOOM Source Code License as
     // published by id Software. All rights reserved.

So you would have the choice of GPLv2 or possibly this: https://doomwiki.org/wiki/Doom_Source_License

The license says you, as a redistributor, can follow the terms of GPLv2, GPLv3, GPLv(n+1). That is not the same as saying you can relicense it to any future version of the GPL. Every recipient will always have the choice of GPLv2.

Change the license terms on someone else's copyrighted IP.

The license was changed. You can't do that to other people's code. It was originally released under GPLv2 and he's changed all the copyright notices to say GPLv3. While the license included in the original doesn't bind the recipients to v2, recipients can't restrict successive recipients to a later version only. They have the option of v2.

It seems to me like taking chess, same pieces, same game board, same movement, same rules except you can't en passant in the A or H file. Then patenting it. It doesn't seem novel enough qualify for a patent when there is something so similar 20 years prior.

>Does that describe Laser Chess?

Yes. Very much it does. It's been 35 years since I played Laser Chess, so perhaps there are some minor differences in the rules. But it describes a game so close to Laser Chess that it immediately brought the game to mind.

The light reflecting boardgame patent is surprising. It is literally laser chess which is a computer game that came out in 1987.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Chess

In most of the variants of exec*() there are separate arguments for the thing to be executed and the *argv[] list. Argv[0] being the executable is just a convention. In perl $ARGV[0] is the first positional parameter. In

    $ perl myscript.pl a b c

$ARGV[0] is "a".

>The problem is if the box has run untrusted code prior to that you can't trust it anymore.

If that's your threat model you shouldn't trust your computers anyway. You don't know what things have been inserted into the chips on the motherboard. You don't know what code is in your operating system and applications. You don't know what code the controllers on your storage devices are running. You don't know if there is a cellular chip on your motherboard or a chip that is waiting for a certain frequency radio wave to leak all your shit. You don't know that all the code on your system is RCE free or LPE free. You don't know that there aren't any insiders at your software vendors signing bad code to send to you. You haven't personally audited the binaries on your system or even their source code.

You can develop apps for apple devices on a device that is cheaper than most apple devices.

This isn't an English language question. The technology in question doesn't guarantee a singular route or a path to a destination. Subsequent packets from an originating host to a destination host can follow different paths. Even during an activity such as a traceroute. A packet that reached its TTL at what is presented as hop 12 didn't necessarily traverse previous hops displayed by traceroute.

Traceroute doesn't even show you a path. It shows you a bunch of devices that happened to have a packet when its TTL expired. Every item listed in traceroute's output is a different packet and can take a different path towards the destination.

On a different subject, why are people writing blogs about topics that are in the "literature" already?

Beyond the most trivial of microcontrollers and experimental designs there are no RISC chips under the original understanding of RISC. The justification for RISC evaporated when we became able to put 1 million, 100 million, and so on, transistors on a chip. Now all the chips called "RISC" include vector, media, encryption, network, FPUs, and etc. instructions. Someone might want to argue that some elements of RISC designs (orthogonal instruction encoding, numerous registers, etc.) make a particular chip a RISC chip. But they really aren't instances of the literal concept of RISC.

To me, the whole RISC-V interest is all just marketing. As an end user I don't make my own chips and I can't think of any particular reason I should care whether a machine has RISC-V, ARM, x86, SPARC, or POWER. In the end my cost will be based on market scale and performance. The licensing cost of the design will not be passed on to me as a customer.

A couple tons spread across 400 million people with a per capita emission of 5 tons per year is in the noise. If we're at the point of trying to hyper optimize there are far more meaningful targets than pipe throughput.

It's a meaningless thing if it's 1 million resources divided into 1 million actors who have no ability to leverage a short term gain of 1 resource. It's short term because the number of computers that are 100% busy 100% of the time is zero. A pipe throughput improvement means nothing if the computer isn't waiting on pipes a lot.

Whew! As long as it prints the url on my screen we’ll all be safe.

I may be getting old but it may be that the enjoyment dad is going to get from this is less than if he'd spent this amount of time with dad instead of making a doodad for dad to futz with.

The entire 8 bit era was full of games of this size. The game code and sprite data for Lode Runner is less than 16 KB. Machines with 48 or 64 KB of RAM don’t give mic( to work with but we still got Rescue Raiders, Bolo, Bilestoad, and so on.

Me reading in the news that for the eighth year in a row the city has come in on budget, crime is low, and school achievement is up is great and I enjoy it. Because it affects my life directly. The value of news, repetitious or otherwise, is that it's part of the feedback loop of governance.

A Retargetable C Compiler is another book that implements a C compiler in C.

https://www.amazon.com/Retargetable-Compiler-Design-Implemen...

It’s more interesting that, I’m assuming, they categorize mistakes by the nature of the error and not the results of the error. Not checking your blind spot on an empty road is a tiny mistake. Not checking your blind spot causing a bus driver to swerve to avoid a collision, but the swerve resulted in the bus crashing into a petrol truck leading to a massive fire and dozens of dead school children is not a tiny mistake.

Contracts require an exchange of value. If I got a free trial I would argue they got nothing and so there is no agreement.

Why do you think they don't have a license from Entropic in the contract they both agreed to? Unless they are utterly incompetent, their contract with Entropic covered this and if Enrtopic delivered firmware that they don't have rights to, that's on them, not on Def Con. Anything that comes to Def Con just results in a lawsuit against Entropic. Additionally, he apparently wrote the code on the plane prior to his arrival and then worked to get it on all the badges. That's going to make it pretty hard to argue that they don't have permission to distribute the badges with this code on them.

I don't consider you trespassing and the people who have the authority to remove you removing you as danger. Additionally, it's arguable he gave permission when they told him to leave or they'd remove him and he told them to remove him.

In Entropic's statement they say:

>and, especially, keeping a community eye on law enforcement and conference security to help ensure our friend Dmitry’s safety in the last 48 hours.

Has there been anything in all this that would suggest anyone was in danger at the conference?

This kind of comment about safety is pretty standard among very progressive communities anytime anyone disagrees with them.

The game looks neat and I would have been entranced by it back in the day, but I don’t think the writer knows the meaning of “flight simulator”, “first person shooter”, or “open world.”

And STMF.