Blackmoor Vituperative

I have changed my mind on GPL v3. After doing more research and reading more about it at Opinions for the second discussion draft of GPLv3, I think the new terms are a good idea, and address real concerns.

A former UBS PaineWebber employee was sentenced to eight years in prison on Wednesday for planting a computer “logic bomb” on company networks and betting its stock would go down.

The investment scheme backfired when UBS stock remained stable after the computer attack and Roger Duronio lost more than $23,000.

(from ZDNet, ‘Logic bomb’ backfires on insider hacker)

Dumbass hackers.

When Massachusetts’ government decided to use Open Document Format (ODF) as the default document file format throughout its agencies, a key concern was that ODF would not allow the visually impaired to use assistive computer technologies.

On Wednesday, IBM Corp. said it has helped solve that problem by developing technology that will allow applications based on ODF to better communicate with products used by the blind to access visual information on computer screens.

Through Project Missouri, IBM developed application programming interfaces, (APIs) collectively called iAccessible2. These APIs will make it easy for visuals in applications based on ODF and other Web technologies to be interpreted by screen readers that reproduce that information verbally, IBM said.

[…]

iAccessible2 not only will help ODF communicate better with screen readers that assist blind computer users, but it will also allow charts, pictures and other visuals based on AJAX and DHTML to be discerned by the visually impaired through those readers. “It’s like a universal decoder ring,” he said of iAccessible2. The technology is based on interfaces IBM originally developed with Sun Microsystems Inc. to make programs on Java and Linux platforms accessible to the blind. […] Mozilla Corp. also intends to integrate iAccessible2 into its open-source Firefox Web browser, Fishkind added.

(from InfoWorld, IBM project aims to help blind use ODF applications)

You’ve heard the Ivory soap slogan, “99 44/100 percent pure“. Until today you could say much the same about the Google Web Toolkit (GWT). While most of GWT was open source, a few important pieces were binary-only. Today that all changed as Google made the entire GWT 1.3 Release Candidate available, with source, under the Apache 2.0 license.

GWT was introduced 7 months ago as a radical new way to develop Ajax applications using an old familiar language – Java. It enables developers to use all their great Java tools and expertise to create “no-compromise” web applications.

(from ZDNet, Google Web Toolkit goes 100% open source)

Last week saw the end of most of The SCO Group’s claims that IBM contributed Unix code to Linux.

Now, Novell has filed a motion that undercuts all of SCO’s contract claims against IBM, based on a “silver bullet” clause in the original sale of Unix to SCO.

In its latest legal move against SCO, Novell on Dec. 1 filed for partial summary judgment against SCO in its own case. In this motion, Novell is asking the U.S. District Court to rule that the Unix APA (Asset Purchase Agreement), which sold Unix from Novell to SCO, gave Novell the right to waive SCO’s contract claims.

(from eWeek, Another Day, Another Knockout Punch Aimed at SCO)

Let’s hope this is the stake in the heart for SCO.

In the first 10 years of professional web development, back in the early 1990s, browser support was binary: Do you — or don’t you — support a given browser? When the answer was “No”, user access to the site was often actively prevented. In the years following IE5’s release in 1998, professional web designers and developers have become accustomed to asking at the outset of any new undertaking, “Do I have to support Netscape 4.x browsers for this project?”

By contrast, in modern web development we must support all browsers. Choosing to exclude a segment of users is inappropriate, and, with a “Graded Browser Support” strategy, unnecessary.

Graded Browser Support offers two fundamental ideas:

* A broader and more reasonable definition of “support.”
* The notion of “grades” of support.

What Does “Support” Mean?

Support does not mean that everybody gets the same thing. Expecting two users using different browser software to have an identical experience fails to embrace or acknowledge the heterogeneous essence of the Web. In fact, requiring the same experience for all users creates a barrier to participation. Availability and accessibility of content should be our key priority.

(from Yahoo! UI Library: Graded Browser Support)

I particularly like this line:

“Support does not mean that everybody gets the same thing. Expecting two users using different browser software to have an identical experience fails to embrace or acknowledge the heterogeneous essence of the Web.”

I have tried repeatedly to hammer that into the heads of various clients who Just Don’t Get It. It’s about the content.

Here’s a really funny vendor rant from TechRepublic.

A vote to make Microsoft Office document formats an international standard was approved on Thursday, according to a Microsoft representative.

At the general assembly of Ecma International in Zurich, Switzerland, Microsoft’s Office Open XML–a set of specifications detailing the document formats in Microsoft’s office — was certified as a standard.

In addition, the membership-based standards organization voted to propose Office Open XML to the larger International Organization for Standardization (known as ISO) for standards approval through its fast-track process, a Microsoft representative confirmed.

The vote to accept Microsoft’s submission as a standard was expected. The ISO standardization process typically takes about nine months, according to experts.

(from ZDNet, Microsoft sails through document standard vote)

The Ecma vote was a rubber stamp. The real hurdle will be ISO. For the sake our digital future, I hope that they vote against recognizing Microsoft’s proprietary format as a standard.

Microsoft on Dec. 5 warned that an unpatched vulnerability in its Word software program is being used in targeted, zero-day attacks.

A security advisory from the Redmond, Wash., company said the flaw can be exploited if a user simply opens a rigged Word document.

[…]

There are no pre-patch workarounds available. Microsoft suggests that users “not open or save Word files,” even from trusted sources.

(from eWeek, Microsoft Issues Word Zero-Day Attack Alert)

Why are you still using MS Office? Does a house have to fall on you? Uninstall it and switch to OpenOffice, you knuckleheads.

U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared to take issue with the current legal standard for granting patents, which many high-tech firms claim is ineffective at weeding out inventions that should be obvious.

During hour-long oral arguments in a case that’s closely watched by the business community, Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that an existing federal court test for determining patent obviousness relied too little on common sense. Justice Antonin Scalia went so far as to call the test “gobbledygook” and “meaningless.”

“It’s worse than meaningless because it complicates the question rather than focusing on the statute,” Roberts went on to say of the test, which requires evidence of a past “teaching, suggestion or motivation” that would lead to a particular invention in order for it to be declared “obvious.”

The case, rooted in an obscure patent spat about gas pedal designs between the Canadian firm KSR International and Pennsylvania-based Teleflex, has attracted the attention of high-tech, pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other patent-dependent firms because because it addresses one of the fundamental questions in patent law: What makes an invention, particularly a combination of existing parts, too “obvious” to warrant protection?

If the high court decides to rewrite the legal standard of patent “obviousness” to make it more restrictive, it could have wide-ranging effects by reshaping U.S. intellectual property law and reducing the number of marginal patents. Tuesday’s arguments are the only ones that will be heard in the case. A decision is expected by July 2007.

(from ZDNet, Supreme Court weighs ‘obviousness’ of patents)

I have to admit, I am completely surprised that the Court is even hearing these arguments. But this is actually the third major patent case the Court has heard this year. It’s almost enough to put a dent in my knee-jerk cynicism.