K12 Open Source

Die Sonntagszeitung malt heute schwarz: Schweizer Strafermittler und das Departement für Umwelt, Verkehr und Kommunikation (Uvek) prüfen den Einsatz von Spionagesoftware zum Abhören von Internettelefonaten. Telecomfirmen und Internetanbieter sollen die als Trojaner bezeichneten Programme auf die PCs von Verdächtigen transportieren, um bei VoIP-Gesprächen mitlauschen zu können.

Liebe Mitbürgerinnen, liebe Mitbürger SONDERAKTION - SCHON WIEDER UND ERNEUT VERLÄNGERT! Installieren Sie den Bundestrojaner jetzt und erhalten Sie nun auch im Vorteils Pack Bürgercontrol 2.0 inkl. Telefonüberwachung gratis dazu - Jetzt bis Weihnachten Aktionsvorteil sichern !

So hereby I want to announce that the code which was/is known as Swiss Bundestrojan/Superintendent trojan variant will be free, open, available and accessible to anyone who respects the GPL, and who is interested in the structure and construction of trojan horses and who is also curious what the root of all the rumours was.

Whilst listening in on normal telephone calls over landlines or mobile phone networks has become a routine procedure, Voice over IP connections frequently present a problem for investigators, especially when the persons being monitored use Skype via foreign servers or call direct from PC to PC and encrypt their data. The Swiss Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (UVEK) is therefore examining the use of spy software to allow it to listen in on conversations on PCs.

I have the court documents for you in the i4i v. Microsoft case, the judgment, the permanent injunction, and the memorandum and order, which explains the legal reasoning in support of the order. I also got for you the original complaint by i4i, Microsoft's answer with counterclaim, and i4i's reply to the counterclaim, so you can understand what it was all about. The law firm that won has put out a press release. Microsoft, of course, will appeal. It has 60 days to do so. You probably think I am delighted. I am not. I hate software patents. And this is precisely why. It is karmic that this happened to Microsoft, who bullies Linux with patent threats and just got an XML patent of its own on August 4th that could, presumably, be used against the entire market. How stupid do we have to be to grant patents on software? On software *standards*? This is what happens. Now do you see it?

Few things must be more emotionally paradoxical for the anti-patentistas of the world than to see Microsoft get clobbered on a patent infringement action. Do you rejoice because one of the great advocates, and enforcers, of software patents has gotten a strong dose of their own medicine? Or do you fret at yet another example of a patent system gone mad?

Utimaco LIMS distinguishes itself among competitive solutions by its comprehensive multivendor support. It integrates seamlessly with more than 200 different network nodes (switches, routers, gateways, application servers) by all leading infrastructure vendors. Utimaco LIMS enables realtime monitoring of telephony, fax, SMS, MMS, e-mail, VoIP, Push-to-Talk and other IP-based communication services. The modular architecture of LIMS facilitates cost-efficient LI solutions for small operators and is scalable for surveillance networks with several thousand concurrent intercepts. Utimaco LIMS mediates and delivers data in accordance with international LI standards by ETSI, 3GPP, ANSI/ATIS and Cablelabs. The highest security requirements are implemented in LIMS to protect all private data from eavesdropping and manipulation.

Structure Guidelines for DAISY 3, officially, the ANSI/NISO Z39.86 Specifications for the Digital Talking Book

Obi, an open source audio recording tool released by the DAISY Consortium, enables a broader audience to produce accessible, navigable information for people with print disabilities. DAISY audio books created with Obi can be produced with chapters, sections, sub-sections and pages, providing navigation to the content. Obi is fully accessible through assistive technologies such as screen readers. In addition, Obi reduces the time required to work with sophisticated production tools and significantly reduces tool costs that may create barriers for some.

I'm working on a story to actually assess the state of development among big-name textbook publishers and will have more soon on that. For right now, though, it's quite clear that we have a very long ways to go. While a lack of content is a major issue, perhaps a bigger issue is the lack of standards via which the content can be disseminated. Obviously, DRM is a serious problem for textbooks. Copyright aside, though, there are currently around 30 formats in which e-books are published. If you're Pearson, into which basket will you be throwing all of your eggs? Frankly, there is only one that I see that makes a lot of sense right now. EPUB, developed by the International Digital Publishing Forum, is open, XML-based, and can grow as our needs increase. Even this format, though, needs traction with major publishers.

Alex explains that the goal of Google Books was to make books easier to find. He references an article in the New York Times in which librarians lamented that people were only searching online materials, not printed books. He references a story in which a research assistant was asked by Larry Lessig to come back with "everything Senator X said about topic Y" and returned only with results after 1996… which is to say, only results from the web.

This is the home of the CC-Monitor online platform, which contains automatically collected data, graphs, research and collectively written commentary on the global adoption of Creative Commons licenses.

The proposed Google Book Search settlement creates the opportunity for unprecedented access by the public, scholars, libraries and others to a digital library containing millions of books assembled by major research libraries. But the settlement is controversial, in large part because this access is limited in major ways: instead of being truly open, this new digital library will be controlled by a single company, Google, and a newly created Book Rights Registry consisting of representatives of authors and publishers; it will include millions of so-called "orphan works" that cannot legally be included in any competing digitization and access effort, and it will be available to readers only in the United States. It need not have been this way.

The proposed Google Book Search settlement creates the opportunity for unprecedented access by the public, scholars, libraries and others to a digital library containing millions of books assembled by major research libraries. But the settlement is controversial, in large part because this access is limited in major ways: instead of being truly open, this new digital library will be controlled by a single company, Google, and a newly created Book Rights Registry consisting of representatives of authors and publishers; it will include millions of so-called "orphan works" that cannot legally be included in any competing digitization and access effort, and it will be available to readers only in the United States. It need not have been this way.

Welcome to the Public Index, a site to study and discuss the proposed Google Book Search settlement. Here, you can browse and annotate the proposed settlement, section-by-section. Just use the table of contents or the search box at the right to get started. In addition, you can: * Study our reading room of lawsuit documents * Join the conversation in our forums * Draft an amicus brief to the court on the wiki

MediaMosa is a Full Featured, Webservice Oriented Media Management and Distribution platform. MediaMosa and VP-Core model MediaMosa is a state-of-the-art, scalable Middleware Media Distribution Platform and facilitates access to, and usage of (shared) storage capacity, metadata databases, transcoding- and streaming servers.

In 2005, the Authors Guild filed a lawsuit against Google arising from the Google Books project. In October 2008, the parties announced a proposed settlement. Academics and rightsholders have criticized the Settlement terms on grounds ranging from antitrust to privacy. The Settlement sets forth non-privacy terms, including provisions regarding royalties and book advertising, in great detail. However, it does not contain meaningful privacy protections for readers or authors. Various entities and individuals have filed comments, objections, and amicus curiae briefs concerning the proposed settlement.

I am putting my letter of objections to the Google Book Search Settlement on SCRIBD as an encouragement to the many authors who are directly hit by this Settlement and don't like it, to also object formally - even though the Settlement is very complex and if they possibly have scarce familiarity with law - like me. Because this is precisely one of the many problems of this Settlement. For explanations on how to object, see FAQ "24. How can I object to the Settlement?" on www.googlebooksettlement.com , the site of the Settlement.

So I buy a Kindle book for my Kindle 2. It downloads to my machine. I open up the book -- it has no relation (except the relation of "not") to the book I ordered. Three emails, 4 days later, Amazon has still not responded to the problem. I wonder how they begin to discover/fix such a problem.