Expertiza_Wiki - User contributions [en]

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 1

2007-08-06T10:01:40Z

Jjhernan: Improve on the study guide some more.

=Airbus 380 Software Flaw=
'''Provide an overview of this ethical controversy and links to information relevant for each set of ethical concerns cited.'''

'''Cover information contained in both articles:'''
* [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2002534201_airbuswhistleblower02.html Seattle Times]
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/10/15/ccairb15.xml Telegraph.co.uk]

'''''Included below are two excerpts that give an overview of the content of this topic:'''''

"Mr Mangan claims a defect in the outflow valve control system could lead to an abrupt loss of cabin pressure, leaving passengers unconscious in as little as 20 seconds. "Normal oxygen masks don't work properly above 33,000 feet. Anybody over forty or over-weight is at a high risk of embolisms," he said."

"Airbus dismissed fears about the A380 as baseless. "We have examined this internally and found absolutely no reason to be concerned. The scenario made up by Mr Mangan does not exist," said spokesman David Voskuhl."

"TTTech falsely classified its micro-chip as a simple "off-the-shelf" product already used in car valves in order to except it from elaborate testing rules, he claimed. This would breach both EU and US law on aircraft regulation. "I refused to sign off on the test results, but TTTech went ahead anyway," he claimed."

"TTTech denies the allegations, calling him a disgruntled ex-employee who never fitted into the team, and is now bent on revenge."

Source: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/10/15/ccairb15.xml Telegraph.co.uk]

"Most passenger jets have two cabin-pressure valves, with separate motors operating each. But because aircraft makers want redundancy on safety systems the planes have three motors for each valve, with different chips controlling each motor. [...] Most jetliners also have a manual override so that the pilot can take control in an emergency. [...] The company elected to go with four outflow valves on the A380, with only one motor on each valve, which are slightly larger than a cabin window. Each motor uses a TTTech controller chip, and there is no backup manual-override system."

"Mangan says the European aerospace establishment is whitewashing his claims because of enormous cost savings that will be realized if TTTech's chips are approved for the A380.
TTTech's chip originally was designed for use in autos and the company is trying to get it certified as an existing, "commercial off-the-shelf" product that is acceptable for the A380, according to court records.
Mangan, however, alleges that the chip is being customized for aviation purposes, and thus must undergo stringent testing before being approved by regulators.
If regulators decide that TTTech's chip is a simple commercial device and can be used in the A380, it would then be available for other new aircraft without having to pass costly safety reviews."

Source: [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2002534201_airbuswhistleblower02.html Seattle Times]

==Overview==
====History====
Joseph Mangan, a former employee of TTTech Computertechnik, blew the whistle on Airbus and TTTech regarding the safety of the cabin pressure system on the Airbus A380 aircraft in September 2004 by contacting the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). TTTech supplies some components to Airbus for the A380, and has been accused by Mangan of "intentional non-compliance" with aviation safety rules, at least partially because they were under great pressure from Airbus to meet deadlines.

Mangan claimed that a flaw existed in the outflow valve control system, which uses TTTech controllers, that could result in a sudden loss of air pressure in the cabin. Such a loss of air pressure would result in passengers quickly losing consciousness, with other possible health consequences. One of the primary concerns generated by this claim was the lack of different backup systems to prevent the same problem from affecting all the valves at the same time.

====Results of the Whistleblowing====
Airbus and TTTech both denied there was a problem - TTTech went further by accusing Mangan of being a disgruntled ex-employee trying to get revenge. The EASA found that TTTech was not in compliance with safety rules and was not conducting appropriate tests, and the microchip at the heart of the controversy was deemed unacceptable: in the end EASA told Airbus to resolve the problem before the A380's final certification.

Within a few days of reporting the suspected violations at TTTech, Mangan was fired and sued for defamation. TTTech also obtained a gag order, which Mangan then violated. Many of Mangan's difficulties stem from the lack of Austrian laws protecting whistle-blowers from retribution by their employers. Mangan has tried to get a new job, but has not been able to get a response from companies in the aerospace industry.

==Table of Contents==
<h3>General</h3>
<ul>
<li>[http://www.csl.sri.com/users/neumann/air.html Computer Security in Aviation: Vulnerabilities, Threats, and Risks]
Peter G. Neumann <em>SRI Computer Science Laboratory</em> </li>
<li>[http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/smcit.doc Fault Protection in a Component-Based Spacecraft Architecture]

Elwin C. Ong and Nancy G. Leveson <em>MIT</em> <img src="new.gif"></li>

</ul>

<h3>Conflicting Views</h3>
<ul>
<li>[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731ta_talk_surowiecki The Fatal-Flaw Myth]
The Financial Page by James Surowiecki, The New Yorker</li>
<li>[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/business/worldbusiness/13airbus.html?ei=5088&en=9c624e9920538fcd&ex=1318392000&partner=rssnyt&pagewanted=print Airbus Moves to Rewire Its Management First]
By MARK LANDLER, The New York Times</li>
</ul>

<h3>New uses of software</h3>
<ul>
<li>[http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0711/p03s04-usgn.html On space station, droids get a workout]
Peter N. Spotts <em>Christian Science Monitor</em> <img src="new.gif"></li>

<li>[http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/103/C8827/ Anti-hijack software controls planes from the ground]
T.O. Whenham <em>Mobile Magazine</em> <img src="Aviation%20safety.php_files/new.gif"></li>
</ul>

<h3>Software Malfunctions</h3>
<ul>
<li>[http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/465-full.html#190603 Pilots Battle Computer For Control Of 777]

The AVweb Editorial Staff <em>AVweb</em> <img src="Aviation%20safety.php_files/new.gif"></li>
<li>[http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.12.html#subj2.1 B747-400 Electronic flight displays rendered inoperative]
Peter B. Ladkin <em>The RISKS Digest</em> <img src="Aviation%20safety.php_files/new.gif"></li>
<li>[http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/24.03.html#subj3.1 Flight Control System Software Anomalies]

Peter B. Ladkin <em>The RISKS Digest</em> <img src="Aviation%20safety.php_files/new.gif"></li>
</ul>

<h3>Effects of portable electronic devices</h3>
<ul>
<li>[http://www.cmu.edu/PR/releases06/060228_cellphone.html Carnegie Mellon Researchers Find Cell Phones Pose Greater Risk to Airplane Navigation Than Previously Believed]
<em>Carnegie Mellon University</em> <img src="Aviation%20safety.php_files/new.gif"></li>

<li>[http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/3069 Unsafe At Any Airspeed?]
<em>IEEE</em> <img src="Aviation%20safety.php_files/new.gif"></li>
<li>[http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.54.html#subj2.1 Tests show cell phones don't disrupt navigation systems]
NewsScan <em>The RISKS Digest</em> <img src="Aviation%20safety.php_files/new.gif"></li>
</ul>

<h3>Aviation standards</h3>
<ul>
<li>[http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/94171A756992D0408625708300551865?OpenDocument&Highlight=software Airworthiness Directive]

<em>FAA</em> <img src="Aviation_safety_files/new.gif"></li>
<li>[http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/9.01.html#subj2.1 UK Defense software standard]
Sean Matthews <em>The RISKS Digest</em> </li>
<li>[http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/16.16.html#subj3 Summary of safety-critical computers in transport aircraft]

Peter B. Lankin <em>The RISKS Digest</em> </li>
<li>[http://satc.gsfc.nasa.gov/assure/nss8719_13.html SOFTWARE SAFETY NASA TECHNICAL STANDARD]
<em>NASA</em> </li>
</ul>

==Study Guide==

===Code requirements/standards===

To what kinds of requirements should aviation software be held? The United Kingdom Department of Defense has a set of requirements for software used in military aircraft. The Federal Aviation Administration has many guidelines for writing and reviewing code, while NASA has recommended metrics to ensure adherence to specifications.

* There are controversial code requirements from various government agencies, such as this standard from the UK Department of Defense.
* The FAA has quite a few documents with suggested practices on writing and reviewing code for airborne systems.
* NASA recommends using metrics during software development, but especially during the requirements phase. The report claims that the cost benefits of finding and correcting problems in the requirements phase is 14 times better than not doing so.
* The adoption of accepted software development standards like [http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmm/ CMM] and [http://www.managementhelp.org/quality/iso9000/iso9000.htm ISO9000] could help the aviation companies achieve better quality procedures and checkpoints.
* Training could help developers to analyze and research quality issues with a plane early in the development phase.
* Regular 3rd party audits on the products, maintenance, and operations can be conducted in a regular basis to assure the customers that the company and management are doing all they can to maintain the best level of quality as efficient as possible.

===Analyzing/Testing Code===

What kinds of analyzing and testing should be done on aviation software? The United Kingdom military believes that static code analysis is the answer. There are groups that are trying to standardize the software safety procedures.

* A study of static code analysis to evaluate UK military avionics software. This involves studying the source code in the editor, which will hold true under all conditions.
* The Certification Authorities Software Team (CAST) is an international group promoting standardization of certification and regulatory positions on software and complex electronic hardware aspects of safety.
* A study and analysis of currently used software industry quality practices should be periodically conducted and improved upon by the individuals and the company.

===Organizations and Standards===

What kinds of laws and enforcement should be available to the company, employee, industry, and government to assure that the safety of the passengers is always first? It is important that secondary oversight is present to maintain a certain level of quality and safety within the industry. What other types of oversights would help maintain quality and safety standards?

* An Industry standard and committee should be formed consisting of different companies and individuals to organize and study audits, incidents, and new safety operating procedures.
* Election of outside professionals and involved company representatives work together to improve safety in the industry.
* Laws to police and enforce safety of products should be developed and suggested to the government to protect the unfair treatment of individuals when communicating quality issues are ignored by the company, and most importantly management.

===Portable electronic devices===

Are passengers' electronic devices dangerous on planes? The prevailing studies show that the amount of radiation from these devices is potentially, and many incidents of aviation software malfunction demonstrate this. No plane crashes have been attributed to onboard electronic devices yet.

* This report by the House shows incidents of interference and details some restrictions put in place.
* A study shows that portable electronic devices can disrupt normal operation of key cockpit instruments, especially Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers. Private studies show that people are illicitly using cellphones on planes and that current levels of in-flight radio frequency emissions can be dangerous. On the other hand, this post cites a study claiming cell phones don't disrupt flight systems.

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 1

2007-08-03T00:11:22Z

Jjhernan:

CSC 379:Week 5, Group 1

2007-08-02T23:56:53Z

Jjhernan:

CSC 379:Week 4, Group 5

2007-07-30T13:37:48Z

Jjhernan:

=Mapping / Google Street View=
Many are concerned about the invasiveness of satellite/aerospace imaging. Governments have complained of risks related to the availability of images of sensitive military or strategic sites, sometimes requesting obfuscation or blackouts of the compromising images. With the expansion of mapping technologies to the street level (see links below), more people have become concerned about how invasive to their privacy public photography can be. Amongst many lawful and beneficial uses, mapping technologies have also made it easier for planning crimes.

==Google Mapping Technology==

On the surface the Google Mapping Technology seems like a useful service, but at what cost? Just recently the White House requested that parts of the Washington D.C. area be censored for security and privacy issues. This could be said for other institutions and individuals concerned with their privacy.

===Ethical implications of mapping technologies===

====Privacy====
The houses of celebrities, government officials, and co-workers will be compromised by anyone wanting to spy or monitor for some personal gain or benefit. On the other hand, I could search and see a map of the neighborhood I used to live in when I was a kid or what route to take when traveling to another state.

====Security====
This is related to privacy and could be targeted to delinquent planning to steal house or business valuables. At the same time a snapshot can be used as evidence that a certain individual was trespassing or spying on someone.

====Legal====
Some countries, states, national parks/monuments, or key locations may have laws against taking photographs. On the other hand it would be neat to see how the NC zoo is organized and how crowded it is at times from a Google snapshot.

====Aproved/Unaproved Use====
Unapproved use of Google map resources and features will require and cost Google resources to submit a cease and desist request. Approved use of Google services and features will bring new sources of revenue and business opportunities.

====Insecure Technology====
Security exploits to the new technologies used by Google will or may negatively affect the company and any of its users. If the technologies prove useful, other companies will evaluate and adopt similar technology and development practice.

====Emerging Google Map Features====
The click-to-call feature can be useful at times if I forget my dentist's phone number. I can "Google Map" to it and click the building to auto dial the Dentist's phone number. The issues with these new add-on features to the Google Map services is that they will append to the already mounting ethical issues of privacy and security of a company or individual.
*[http://www.google.com/help/faq_clicktocall.html Click-to-call Feature]

===Should mapping technologies comply with the laws of every country that has access their services even if they are not located there?===

This is a nice Google service feature if used with the right intent, to look up directions and routes to a company (for example). For the moment this feature has proved beneficial to the company and its users. The problem is that they did not take into consideration security and privacy issues from the beginning to assure that the rights of people or countries are supported as specified by their laws. From the point of view of competition asking for permission for every map location would have proven too costly to release. From this point of view it is understandable why the service was released this way. If anyone has a problem or conflict with the provided maps they should request they are removed from the Service like the White House did.

===Are requests for censorship of public photography ethical?===

Requests from censorship of public photography has the same issues (or even more) of Photojournalism. Publishing these public photos for some journalistic intent has produced some controversy. Good journalist organizations have had the time to develop some ethical standards. Other issues have not been resolved, like the abuse of celebrity privacy from the paparazzi.

===As mapping imagery increases in coverage and resolution over time, should there be limits set or censorship mandated to protect the public from lawful but invasive and sometimes unwanted photography?===

We would all like to thing that there would be some limits set by our respected officials and public representatives. The problem is that we have not done this censorship in similar situations as described in the previous question. Unfortunately these limits may vary from different countries and organizations that will not be effective.

==Google Street View==

===Overview===

Google recently launched a new tool called "Street View", which allowed users to view street-level images of selected major cities in the US. Although such images are legal, many claim that posting them on the internet without consent or any apparent censorship violates their privacy.

===Concerns about Lack of Censorship===

One of the largest concerns among critics of Street View is that Google made no effort to censor peoples' faces or license plate numbers, so individuals and their vehicles are easily identifiable to whoever views the images. Also, these photographs were taken without first making people aware that they were about the be photographed. Many say this is unethical because it takes away a person's choice to be viewable by millions and also has the potential to catch some people in embarrassing or unfavorable situations. For example, photographs have been found of individuals whose faces are easily visible getting arrested, sunbathing nude and urinating on the side of a road.

Critics argue against this point, stating that all of these things could be seen by people simply driving down the street in their normal lives. Public photography is neither new nor illegal in the US. Also, Google has stated that there's a system in place that allows users to flag inappropriate or sensitive imagery for review to be removed. Critics point out that someone should not be engaging in embarrassing activity in public unless they're prepared to have the public see them doing it. Also, Google has said that they understand peoples' privacy concerns in some areas, such as photographing peoples' children, and say that they are putting loose restrictions on what may be flagged for review to help accommodate for those concerns. Google stated that it avoided photographing anonymous organizations such as women's refuge and drug rehabilitation centers.

===Concerns about Stalking===

Some argue that this technology can be used to stalk individuals, however this argument most often stems from the erroneous assumption that the photos are updated in real-time, which they're not. They're simply snapshots of a moment in time weeks or months prior and can't be used to ascertain a person's location at any particular moment.

==Resources==
===Relevant External Links:===
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/technology/01private.html Google Zooms In Too Close for Some (New York Times)]
* [http://www.boingboing.net/2007/06/05/google_street_view_a.html Public Opinion on Google Street View (Boing Boing)]
* [http://www.mcwetboy.net/maproom/2007/06/google_street_v.php Privacy Concerns Raised about Google Street View (Maproom)]
* [http://mashable.com/2007/05/31/top-15-google-street-view-sightings/ A Collection of Notable Sightings found with Google Street View (Mashable)]

CSC 379:Week 4, Group 5

2007-07-26T22:50:25Z

Jjhernan:

CSC 379:Week 4, Group 5

2007-07-26T22:38:06Z

Jjhernan:

CSC 379:Week 2, Group 5

2007-07-18T11:06:13Z

Jjhernan:

=GNU General Public License=

==Overview==

The General Public License (GPL) was created in 1989 by Richard Stallman as originally a way of allowing many projects to share source code under a unifying license. In simple terms, a project licensed with the GPL can be freely distributed and charged for, but any and all distribution must provide the source code to the consumer as well. Also, according to the GPL, any work which uses code licensed by the GPL must license itself with the GPL. It ensures that any software that was derived from open source remains available to the general public and freely distributable.

* GPL - Version 1.0, February 1989
** To guarantee the freedoms to share and change free software.
** To make sure the software is free for all its users.
* GPL - Version 2.0, June 1991
** Further restricted rights from Version 1.0
** Updated to cover distribution of the program or programs as a whole.
** Linux kernel released under this license version
* GPL - Version 3.0, January 2006
** Further restricted rights from Version 2.0
** Updated to the cohort the ability to make changes to software and to compel for changes to be distributed so everyone benefits from the intellectual energy used to make changes.
** Main purpose, the abolition of DRM as a social practice.

==Discussion Questions==

'''What is the impact of GPL use?'''

In general GPL software will impact certain groups, companies, or organizations differently and others in the same manner.

{| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" align="center"
! Impact On:
! Positive:
! Negative:
|-
| Personal Software Users
| The reduced monetary cost to acquire and use of software to achieve a personal task or action. No need to hack a commercial licensed product if a free version is available and easy to use.
| The learning curve and time to evaluate the software and its stability. In most cases GPL software lack proper documentation or specific key features. Although we can look at the code, we may be ignorant to the intentions of the programs and the community that created it.
|-
| Developers - Open Source
| To encourage evolution of software without having to re-invent the wheel. To continue and encourage the open source movement.
| An unwelcome change of a supporting program feature will generate chatter and distractions and delays from the ultimate goals of the developed system. A breach of commercial copyright laws by the application or supporting programs.
|-
| Developers – Commercial
| Developer can investigate and analyze already used and solved approaches to a problem and their core issues. Temptations caused by cost and times lines constraints may lead to illegal use of GPL code in commercial systems.
| Alternative free version of application is already available and free to users meaning that creating similar commercial version of the program will have to achieve higher appeal to justify its cost.
|-
| Commercial Software Companies
| Companies may be able to replace commercial software with open source counterparts to save money and increase profits. A good example of this is replacing their internal bug tracking system from a costly commercial one to bugzilla.
| Replacing a commercial program may require the company to incur extra maintenance cost and need to hire an experienced administrator.
|-
| Non-profit organizations
| A community may be experienced and willing to provide a good solution or product to keep the operating cost down.
| Replacing a commercial program may require the company to incur extra maintenance cost and need to hire an experienced administrator.
|-
| Government
| The Government may be able to replace commercial software with open source counterparts to save money. Encourage others to use GLP software.
| Replacing a commercial program may require the company to incur extra maintenance cost and need to hire an experienced administrator.
|-
| Education and Research
| A community may be experienced and willing to provide guidance for students and researchers to analyze and learn how to solve certain types of problems or tasks.
| The student or researcher will have to spend extra time learning and understanding a developed strategy of the program or source code is poorly written and no documentation is available for it.
|-
|}

'''What are the ethical considerations for licenses like GPL that require their adoption if work licensed under it is incorporated into a parent work, with additional stipulations that include the acceptance of the most current version of the GPL license?'''

The main ethical issue with a license requiring the acceptance of the most recent version is that it forces the user to sign a contract which has not been written yet. While the user could agree with the current version, a future version may change in such a fashion as to restrict the liberties of the user beyond what they would agree to. This setup provides a large amount of leverage and power to the writers of the new versions of the license because they can force a huge tree of people into new agreements. If a small, but widely used section of code was licensed under the GPL and the new version required additional profit restrictions, it would affect every project which used that code, as well as the projects which used those projects ect. At the same time, if the license is changed in such a way that it benefits the users then that too can affect a large group. The main ethical issue is the amount of power given to the writers of the license and how it is used.

'''What ethical considerations are highlighted by the patent sharing/protection agreement between Microsoft and Novell?'''

According to the patent sharing/protection agreement, Microsoft will collaborate Novell to support SuSe Linux as an alternative deployment platform to Windows. The partnership is said to make it easier for users to run both Windows and Linux-based systems and according to Microsoft CEO, Steve Ballmer, is said to "bridge the divide between open-source and proprietary source software" [http://news.com.com/Microsoft+makes+Linux+pact+with+Novell/2100-1016_3-6132119.html Microsoft make Linux pact with Novell.]

Although the agreement is beneficial to both companies and its customers, it does raise some ethical concerns. Novell's open source software is under the GPL license which requires software to be distributed and modified freely but under the Microsoft/Novell agreement a royalty is being paid.
In another sense it almost seems like Microsoft has bought out Novell. Although sources say the agreement won't affect [http://news.com.com/Novell+sues+Microsoft+for+sinking+WordPerfect/2100-1012_3-5450285.html Novell's antitrust suit against Microsoft], it is somewhat hard to believe that two companies collaborating together would be suing one another. Infact, under the agreement Microsoft promised not to file patent suits against developers creating code for SuSe. Perhaps Microsoft hopes this will encourage Novell to drop their suit.

Another ethical issues arising out of the agreement is that of loyalty, or for that matter, lack there of. The open source community has never been fond of Microsoft and Novell is build on software developed by the open source community. This has angered a large part of the open source community and [http://techp.org/petition/show/1 "in short, now that Novell has chosen not to hang together with the Free Software community, they've chosen not to do so with them."]

''' Main Links '''
* [http://www.gnu.org gnu.org]
* [http://www.opensource.org opensource.org]
* [http://www.fsf.org/ FreeSoftwareFoundation.org]

CSC 379:Week 2, Group 5

2007-07-16T12:08:19Z

Jjhernan:

=GNU General Public License=

==Overview==

The General Public License (GPL) was created in 1989 by Richard Stallman as originally a way of allowing many projects to share source code under a unifying license. In simple terms, a project licensed with the GPL can be freely distributed and charged for, but any and all distribution must provide the source code to the consumer as well. Also, according to the GPL, any work which uses code licensed by the GPL must license itself with the GPL. It ensures that any software that was derived from open source remains available to the general public and freely distributable.

* GPL - Version 1.0, February 1989
** To guarantee the freedoms to share and change free software.
** To make sure the software is free for all its users.
* GPL - Version 2.0, June 1991
** Further restricted rights from Version 1.0
** Updated to cover distribution of the program or programs as a whole.
** Linux kernel released under this license version
* GPL - Version 3.0, January 2006
** Further restricted rights from Version 2.0
** Updated to the cohort the ability to make changes to software and to compel for changes to be distributed so everyone benefits from the intellectual energy used to make changes.
** Main purpose, the abolition of DRM as a social practice.

==Discussion Questions==

'''What is the impact of GPL use?'''

In general GPL software will impact certain groups, companies, or organizations differently and others in the same manner.

{| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" align="center"
! Impact On:
! Positive:
! Negative:
|-
| Personal Software Users
| The reduced monetary cost to acquire and use of software to achieve a personal task or action. No need to hack a commercial licensed product if a free version is available and easy to use.
| The learning curve and time to evaluate the software and its stability. In most cases GPL software lack proper documentation or specific key features. Although we can look at the code, we may be ignorant to the intentions of the programs and the community that created it.
|-
| Developers - Open Source
| To encourage evolution of software without having to re-invent the wheel. To continue and encourage the open source movement.
| An unwelcome change of a supporting program feature will generate chatter and distractions and delays from the ultimate goals of the developed system. A breach of commercial copyright laws by the application or supporting programs.
|-
| Developers – Commercial
| Developer can investigate and analyze already used and solved approaches to a problem and their core issues. Temptations caused by cost and times lines constraints may lead to illegal use of GPL code in commercial systems.
| Alternative free version of application is already available and free to users meaning that creating similar commercial version of the program will have to achieve higher appeal to justify its cost.
|-
| Commercial Software Companies
| Companies may be able to replace commercial software with open source counterparts to save money and increase profits. A good example of this is replacing their internal bug tracking system from a costly commercial one to bugzilla.
| Replacing a commercial program may require the company to incur extra maintenance cost and need to hire an experienced administrator.
|-
| Non-profit organizations
| A community may be experienced and willing to provide a good solution or product to keep the operating cost down.
| Replacing a commercial program may require the company to incur extra maintenance cost and need to hire an experienced administrator.
|-
| Government
| The Government may be able to replace commercial software with open source counterparts to save money. Encourage others to use GLP software.
| Replacing a commercial program may require the company to incur extra maintenance cost and need to hire an experienced administrator.
|-
| Education and Research
| A community may be experienced and willing to provide guidance for students and researchers to analyze and learn how to solve certain types of problems or tasks.
| Negative impact: The student or researcher will have to spend extra time learning and understanding a developed strategy of the program or source code is poorly written and no documentation is available for it.
|-
|}

'''What are the ethical considerations for licenses like GPL that require their adoption if work licensed under it is incorporated into a parent work, with additional stipulations that include the acceptance of the most current version of the GPL license?'''

The main ethical issue with a license requiring the acceptance of the most recent version is that it forces the user to sign a contract which has not been written yet. While the user could agree with the current version, a future version may change in such a fashion as to restrict the liberties of the user beyond what they would agree to. This setup provides a large amount of leverage and power to the writers of the new versions of the license because they can force a huge tree of people into new agreements. If a small, but widely used section of code was licensed under the GPL and the new version required additional profit restrictions, it would affect every project which used that code, as well as the projects which used those projects ect. At the same time, if the license is changed in such a way that it benefits the users then that too can affect a large group. The main ethical issue is the amount of power given to the writers of the license and how it is used.

'''What ethical considerations are highlighted by the patent sharing/protection agreement between Microsoft and Novell?'''

''' Main Links '''
* [http://www.gnu.org gnu.org]
* [http://www.opensource.org opensource.org]
* [http://www.fsf.org/ FreeSoftwareFoundation.org]

CSC 379:Week 2, Group 5

2007-07-16T09:52:57Z

Jjhernan:

=GNU General Public License=

==Overview==

The General Public License (GPL) was created in 1989 by Richard Stallman as originally a way of allowing many projects to share source code under a unifying license. In simple terms, a project licensed with the GPL can be freely distributed and charged for, but any and all distribution must provide the source code to the consumer as well. Also, according to the GPL, any work which uses code licensed by the GPL must license itself with the GPL. It ensures that any software that was derived from open source remains available to the general public and freely distributable.

* GPL - Version 1.0, February 1989
** To guarantee the freedoms to share and change free software.
** To make sure the software is free for all its users.
* GPL - Version 2.0, June 1991
** Further restricted rights from Version 1.0
** Updated to cover distribution of the program or programs as a whole.
** Linux kernel released under this license version
* GPL - Version 3.0, January 2006
** Further restricted rights from Version 2.0
** Updated to the cohort the ability to make changes to software and to compel for changes to be distributed so everyone benefits from the intellectual energy used to make changes.
** Main purpose, the abolition of DRM as a social practice.

==Discussion Questions==

'''What is the impact of GPL use?'''

In general GLP software will impact certain groups, companies, or organizations differently and others in the same manner.

The following sections will present different positive and negative impacts in support of GPL software:
* Personal Software Users
** Positive impact: The reduced monetary cost to acquire and use of software to achieve a personal task or action. No need to hack a commercial licensed product if a free version is available and easy to use.
** Negative impact: The learning curve and time to evaluate the software and its stability. In most cases GPL software lack proper documentation or specific key features. Although we can look at the code, we may be ignorant to the intentions of the programs and the community that created it.
* Developers - Open Source
** Positive impact: To encourage evolution of software without having to re-invent the wheel. To continue and encourage the open source movement.
** Negative impact: An unwelcome change of a supporting program feature will generate chatter and distractions and delays from the ultimate goals of the developed system. A breach of commercial copyright laws by the application or supporting programs.
* Developers – Commercial
** Positive impact: Developer can investigate and analyze already used and solved approaches to a problem and their core issues. Temptations caused by cost and times lines constraints may lead to illegal use of GPL code in commercial systems.
** Negative impact: Alternative free version of application is already available and free to users meaning that creating similar commercial version of the program will have to achieve higher appeal to justify its cost.
* Commercial Software Companies
** Positive impact: Companies may be able to replace commercial software with open source counterparts to save money and increase profits. A good example of this is replacing their internal bug tracking system from a costly commercial one to bugzilla.
** Negative impact: Replacing a commercial program may require the company to incur extra maintenance cost and need to hire an experienced administrator.
* Non-profit organizations
** Positive impact: A community may be experienced and willing to provide a good solution or product to keep the operating cost down.
** Negative impact: Replacing a commercial program may require the company to incur extra maintenance cost and need to hire an experienced administrator.
* Government
** Positive impact: The Government may be able to replace commercial software with open source counterparts to save money. Encourage others to use GLP software.
** Negative impact: Replacing a commercial program may require the company to incur extra maintenance cost and need to hire an experienced administrator.
* Education and Research
** Positive impact: A community may be experienced and willing to provide guidance for students and researchers to analyze and learn how to solve certain types of problems or tasks.
** Negative impact: The student or researcher will have to spend extra time learning and understanding a developed strategy of the program or source code is poorly written and no documentation is available for it.

'''What are the ethical considerations for licenses like GPL that require their adoption if work licensed under it is incorporated into a parent work, with additional stipulations that include the acceptance of the most current version of the GPL license?'''

The main ethical issue with a license requiring the acceptance of the most recent version is that it forces the user to sign a contract which has not been written yet. While the user could agree with the current version, a future version may change in such a fashion as to restrict the liberties of the user beyond what they would agree to. This setup provides a large amount of leverage and power to the writers of the new versions of the license because they can force a huge tree of people into new agreements. If a small, but widely used section of code was licensed under the GPL and the new version required additional profit restrictions, it would affect every project which used that code, as well as the projects which used those projects ect. At the same time, if the license is changed in such a way that it benefits the users then that too can affect a large group. The main ethical issue is the amount of power given to the writers of the license and how it is used.

'''What ethical considerations are highlighted by the patent sharing/protection agreement between Microsoft and Novell?'''

''' Main Links '''
* [http://www.gnu.org gnu.org]
* [http://www.opensource.org opensource.org]
* [http://www.fsf.org/ FreeSoftwareFoundation.org]

CSC 379:Week 2, Group 5

2007-07-16T09:29:37Z

Jjhernan:

=GNU General Public License=

==Overview==

The General Public License (GPL) was created in 1989 by Richard Stallman as originally a way of allowing many projects to share source code under a unifying license. In simple terms, a project licensed with the GPL can be freely distributed and charged for, but any and all distribution must provide the source code to the consumer as well. Also, according to the GPL, any work which uses code licensed by the GPL must license itself with the GPL. It ensures that any software that was derived from open source remains available to the general public and freely distributable.

* GPL - Version 1.0, February 1989
** To guarantee the freedoms to share and change free software.
** To make sure the software is free for all its users.
* GPL - Version 2.0, June 1991
** Further restricted rights from Version 1.0
** Updated to cover distribution of the program or programs as a whole.
** Linux kernel released under this license version
* GPL - Version 3.0, January 2006
** Further restricted rights from Version 2.0
** Updated to the cohort the ability to make changes to software and to compel for changes to be distributed so everyone benefits from the intellectual energy used to make changes.
** Main purpose, the abolition of DRM as a social practice.

==Discussion Questions==

'''What is the impact of GPL use?'''

In general GLP software will impact certain groups, companies, or organizations differently and others in the same manner. The following sections will present different views of the impact
* Personal Software Users
** Positive impact: The reduced monetary cost to acquire and use of software to achieve a personal task or action.
** Negative impact: The learning curve and time to evaluate the software and its stability. In most cases GPL software lack proper documentation or specific key features.
* Developers - Open Source
** Positive impact: To encourage evolution of software without having to re-invent the wheel. To continue and encourage the open source movement.
** Negative impact: An unwelcome change of a supporting program feature will generate chatter and distractions and delays from the ultimate goals of the developed system. A breach of commercial copyright laws by the application or supporting programs.
* Developers – Commercial
** Positive impact: Developer can investigate and analyze already used and solved approaches to a problem and their core issues.
** Negative impact: Alternative free version of application is already available and free to users meaning that creating similar commercial version of the program will have to achieve higher appeal to justify its cost.
* Commercial Software Companies
** Positive impact: Companies may be able to replace commercial software with open source counterparts to save money and increase profits. A good example of this is replacing their internal bug tracking system from a costly commercial one to bugzilla.
** Negative impact: Replacing a commercial program may require the company to incur extra maintenance cost and need to hire an experienced administrator.
* Non-profit organizations
** Positive impact: A community may be experienced and willing to provide a good solution or product to keep the operating cost down.
** Negative impact: Replacing a commercial program may require the company to incur extra maintenance cost and need to hire an experienced administrator.
* Government
** Positive impact: The Government may be able to replace commercial software with open source counterparts to save money and increase profits.
** Negative impact: Replacing a commercial program may require the company to incur extra maintenance cost and need to hire an experienced administrator.
* Education and Research
** Positive impact: A community may be experienced and willing to provide guidance for students and researchers to analyze and learn how to solve certain types of problems or tasks.
** Negative impact: The student or researcher will have to spend extra time learning and understanding a developed strategy of the program or source code is poorly written and no documentation is available for it.

'''What are the ethical considerations for licenses like GPL that require their adoption if work licensed under it is incorporated into a parent work, with additional stipulations that include the acceptance of the most current version of the GPL license?'''

The main ethical issue with a license requiring the acceptance of the most recent version is that it forces the user to sign a contract which has not been written yet. While the user could agree with the current version, a future version may change in such a fashion as to restrict the liberties of the user beyond what they would agree to. This setup provides a large amount of leverage and power to the writers of the new versions of the license because they can force a huge tree of people into new agreements. If a small, but widely used section of code was licensed under the GPL and the new version required additional profit restrictions, it would affect every project which used that code, as well as the projects which used those projects ect. At the same time, if the license is changed in such a way that it benefits the users then that too can affect a large group. The main ethical issue is the amount of power given to the writers of the license and how it is used.

'''What ethical considerations are highlighted by the patent sharing/protection agreement between Microsoft and Novell?'''

''' Main Links '''
* [http://www.gnu.org gnu.org]
* [http://www.opensource.org opensource.org]
* [http://www.fsf.org/ FreeSoftwareFoundation.org]

CSC 379:Week 2, Group 5

2007-07-16T09:24:47Z

Jjhernan:

=GNU General Public License=

==Overview==

The General Public License (GPL) was created in 1989 by Richard Stallman as originally a way of allowing many projects to share source code under a unifying license. In simple terms, a project licensed with the GPL can be freely distributed and charged for, but any and all distribution must provide the source code to the consumer as well. Also, according to the GPL, any work which uses code licensed by the GPL must license itself with the GPL. It ensures that any software that was derived from open source remains available to the general public and freely distributable.

* GPL - Version 1.0, February 1989
** To guarantee the freedoms to share and change free software.
** To make sure the software is free for all its users.
* GPL - Version 2.0, June 1991
** Further restricted rights from Version 1.0
** Updated to cover distribution of the program or programs as a whole.
** Linux kernel released under this license version
* GPL - Version 3.0, January 2006
** Further restricted rights from Version 2.0
** Updated to the cohort the ability to make changes to software and to compel for changes to be distributed so everyone benefits from the intellectual energy used to make changes.
** Main purpose, the abolition of DRM as a social practice.

==Discussion Questions==

'''What is the impact of GPL use?'''

In general GLP software will impact certain groups, companies, or organizations differently and others in the same manner. The following sections will present different views of the impact
* Personal Software Users
** Positive impact: The reduced monetary cost to acquire and use of software to achieve a personal task or action.
** Negative impact: The learning curve and time to evaluate the software and its stability. In most cases GPL software lack proper documentation or specific key features.
* Developers - Open Source
** Positive impact: To encourage evolution of software without having to re-invent the wheel. To continue and encourage the open source movement.
** Negative impact: An unwelcome change of a supporting program feature will generate chatter and distractions and delays from the ultimate goals of the developed system. A breach of commercial copyright laws by the application or supporting programs.
* Developers – Commercial
** Positive impact: Developer can investigate and analyze already used and solved approaches to a problem and their core issues.
** Negative impact: Alternative free version of application is already available and free to users meaning that creating similar commercial version of the program will have to achieve higher appeal to justify its cost.
* Commercial Software Companies
** Positive impact: Companies may be able to replace commercial software with open source counterparts to save money and increase profits. A good example of this is replacing their internal bug tracking system from a costly commercial one to bugzilla.
** Negative impact: Replacing a commercial program may require the company to incur extra maintenance cost and need to hire an experienced administrator.
* Non-profit organizations
** Positive impact: A community may be experienced and willing to provide a good solution or product to keep the operating cost down.
** Negative impact: Replacing a commercial program may require the company to incur extra maintenance cost and need to hire an experienced administrator.
* Government
** Positive impact: The Government may be able to replace commercial software with open source counterparts to save money and increase profits.
** Negative impact: Replacing a commercial program may require the company to incur extra maintenance cost and need to hire an experienced administrator.
* Education and Research
** Positive impact: A community may be experienced and willing to provide guidance for students and researchers to analyze and learn how to solve certain types of problems or tasks.
** Negative impact: The student or researcher will have to spend extra time learning and understanding a developed strategy of the program or source code is poorly written and no documentation is available for it.

'''What are the ethical considerations for licenses like GPL that require their adoption if work licensed under it is incorporated into a parent work, with additional stipulations that include the acceptance of the most current version of the GPL license?'''

The main ethical issue with a license requiring the acceptance of the most recent version is that it forces the user to sign a contract which has not been written yet. While the user could agree with the current version, a future version may change in such a fashion as to restrict the liberties of the user beyond what they would agree to. This setup provides a large amount of leverage and power to the writers of the new versions of the license because they can force a huge tree of people into new agreements. If a small, but widely used section of code was licensed under the GPL and the new version required additional profit restrictions, it would affect every project which used that code, as well as the projects which used those projects ect. At the same time, if the license is changed in such a way that it benefits the users then that too can affect a large group. The main ethical issue is the amount of power given to the writers of the license and how it is used.

'''What ethical considerations are highlighted by the patent sharing/protection agreement between Microsoft and Novell?'''

CSC 379:Week 2, Group 5

2007-07-14T21:29:37Z

Jjhernan:

=GNU General Public License=

==Overview==

The General Public License (GPL) was created in 1989 by Richard Stallman as originally a way of allowing many projects to share source code under a unifying license. It ensures that any software that was derived from open source remains available to the general public and freely distributable.

* GPLV1

* GPLV2

* GPLV3

==Discussion Questions==

'''What is the impact of GPL use?'''

* Personal Software Users

* Developers - Open Source, Commercial

* Software Companies

* Industry and Business

* Non-profit organizations

* Government

* Education and Research

* Foreign Countries

'''What are the ethical considerations for licenses like GPL that require their adoption if work licensed under it is incorporated into a parent work, with additional stipulations that include the acceptance of the most current version of the GPL license?'''

'''What ethical considerations are highlighted by the patent sharing/protection agreement between Microsoft and Novell?'''

CSC 379:Weed 1, Group 2

2007-07-06T12:34:43Z

Jjhernan:

== Anti-Spam Techniques ==

=== Blocking Domains ===
Domain blocking is not always effective. Since spammers are often spoofing domains, this results in the [http://www.mywire.com/pubs/PCMagazine/2004/03/16/418338?extID=10051 unintended blocking of non-spammers.]
The Earthlink Spam Blocker

Charging for Sent Emails

===Opt-In===
Opt-In is a term used when someone is given the option of receiving bulk e-mail when they are registering to some sort of database system. This technique implies a number of practices that will ensure correct ways of managing e-mail marketing campaigns.

[http://www.opt-in-email-marketing.org/ Opt-In E-mail Marketing] is a great resource for obtaining tips on e-mail marketing and reviewing other campaigns.

=== Domain Authentication ===
Weaknesses in the SMTP protocol have allowed spammers to remain anonymous by allowing them to "spoof" sender addresses. [http://www.buit.org/2007/05/25/get-rid-of-spam-with-smtp-authentication/ Domain authentication technologies] would correct this and allow spammers to be identified.
=== Bounties ===
Spam bounties, or rewards leading to the arrest of spammers, have been [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/17/tech/main644056.shtml considered by the US government]. In 2004, Congress requested a report by The Federal Trade Commission which concluded that rewards between $100,000 and $250,000 would be necessary to make the program work.

=== The Goodmail approach: ===

Described as a guaranteed delivery of email for a price. Email will be guaranteed not to be spam-blocked by the Goodmail providers to its customers.

Although this will limit certain types of spam, like money cons from Nigeria, it does not prevent other types of corporate spam. This is more of a attempt to legalized marketing technique to spam.
There are also many individual and different interpretations of what spam is to an email user that we do not want the company deciding what is spam for all of its email clients.

=== Bonds with escrow agencies: ===

One of the archaic initiatives (as of 1994) to curve spam that was originated by on of our industry leaders "Bill Gates". Although this technique creates some virtual money trail, it may produce corrupted escrow agents that can manage the results to hide certain individuals or companies from the blacklist. This technique could also limit the accessibility of email to non-profit organizations and/or poor individuals.

It is hard to keep up and enforce correctly across different countries that may have laws to allow or disallow certain types of email. By providing this type of block the abusing individuals or institutions will change the medium on how email messages are delivered. From text to sound or movie files instead making it harder to detect and interpret by a program or filter.

=== Links: ===
*[http://www.networkcomputing.com/showitem.jhtml?docid=1509f1 Anti-Spam]
*[http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2737 Goodmail Approach]
*[http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/spam/2004072502.php Bonds with escrow approach]
*[http://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/4020610.search?query=spam+bonds+with+escrow+agencies Bonds with escrow approach - Spam Filter]

CSC 379:Weed 1, Group 2

2007-07-06T00:27:24Z

Jjhernan:

== Anti-Spam Techniques ==

=== Blocking Domains ===
Domain blocking is not always effective. Since spammers are often spoofing domains, this results in the [http://www.mywire.com/pubs/PCMagazine/2004/03/16/418338?extID=10051 unintended blocking of non-spammers.]
The Earthlink Spam Blocker

Charging for Sent Emails

===Opt-In===
Opt-In is a term used when someone is given the option of receiving bulk e-mail when they are registering to some sort of database system. This technique implies a number of practices that will ensure correct ways of managing e-mail marketing campaigns.

[http://www.opt-in-email-marketing.org/ Opt-In E-mail Marketing] is a great resource for obtaining tips on e-mail marketing and reviewing other campaigns.

=== Domain Authentication ===
Weaknesses in the SMTP protocol have allowed spammers to remain anonymous by allowing them to "spoof" sender addresses. [http://www.buit.org/2007/05/25/get-rid-of-spam-with-smtp-authentication/ Domain authentication technologies] would correct this and allow spammers to be identified.
=== Bounties ===
Spam bounties, or rewards leading to the arrest of spammers, have been [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/17/tech/main644056.shtml considered by the US government]. In 2004, Congress requested a report by The Federal Trade Commission which concluded that rewards between $100,000 and $250,000 would be necessary to make the program work.

=== The Goodmail approach: ===

This is more or a guaranteed delivery of email for a price. Email will be guaranteed not to be spam-blocked by the Goodmail provider and its customers.

Although this will limmit certain types of spam, like money cons from nigeria, it does not prevent other types of coorporate spam. This is more of a attempt to legalized marketing technique to spam.
There are also many individual and different interpretations of what spam is to an email user that we do not want the company deciding what is spam for all of its email clients.

[http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2737 Goodmail approach link01]

=== Bonds with escrow agencies: ===

This was one of the archaic initiatives (as of 1994) to curve spam that was originated by on of our industry leaders "Bill Gates".

Although this technique creates some virtual money trail, it may produce corrupted escrow agents that can manage the results to hide certain individuals or companies from the blacklist.
This technique could also limmit the accessability of email to non-profit organiations and/or poor individuals.

Other problems with this approach include:
It is hard to keep up and enforce correctly accross different contries that may have laws to allow or disallow certain types of email
By providing this type of block the abusing individuals or institutions will change the meduim on how email messages are delivered. From text to sound or movie files instead making it harder to detect and interpret by a program or filter.

[http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/spam/2004072502.php Bonds with escrow approach link01]
[http://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/4020610.search?query=spam+bonds+with+escrow+agencies Bonds with escrow approach link02 - Spam Filter Section]

Links
*[http://www.networkcomputing.com/showitem.jhtml?docid=1509f1 Anti-Spam]

Group Members:
*[http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jjhernan Jorge J Hernandez]

CSC 379:Weed 1, Group 2

2007-07-05T22:47:06Z

Jjhernan:

Group Members:
*[http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jjhernan Jorge J Hernandez]