Re: Boycott O'Reillyby antirice (Priest)
|on Jan 22, 2004 at 15:07 UTC||Need Help??|
Wassercrats, wtf? Did you actually read the entire text of the copyright basics page when you first complained about O'Reilly? Copyright notices are optional. They may appear at the discretion of the copyright holder. Furthermore, the copyright is usually held for the duration of the author's life plus an additional 70 years unless the work was done for hire which would make the copyright good for 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter. Also, there was a sentence right before the text that you cut and pasted that was very important. It said:
The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all the following three elements: (Emphasis mine)
Do you understand the difference between using the word should and using the word must? Where's the problem? What are you bitching about? That you won't be able to distribute copies of the book without someone suing you for 95 years instead of 94 years? Write a note for your grandchildren.
And now on to this business about the hacking book. Have you ever heard the saying "Don't judge a book by its cover"?
they are selling a hacking book that sounds like it's geared to the scumbag variety of hackers
This rant about the hacking book is hilarious. You see the words "hacking", "exploit", and "vulnerabilities" and you start running around with your tinfoil hat suitably adjusted and start warning all the locals that a great evil is contained in a book you've never read. Software vulnerabilities are very real. Knowing how to find vulnerabilities and testing their severity is a very valuable skill to possess. This book seems to cover some of these topics. I believe I may have to check it out.