Yeah fair point that this exploit gives privs @ the level of the browser's current user. In that parenthetical, I was basically trying to explain what "session" means in Metasploit parlance in general.
Ignoring that most users run their main windows login as administrator, if we pretend it's just a guest account, how much of an impediment would that to them disrupting any anti-virus and installing a some malware?
Their twitter says it was on auto-renew, and their domain is through the same company as their hosting. If their autorenew didn't go through, their hosting probably wouldn't either, so it's hard to believe that their host would have let them skate by for five months without payment.
You could also align the pointer over the button, shine a laser pointer on your mouse button, and have your cat click it for you. Since you didn't click the button, you didn't accept the license. Arguably.
Instead of this, I believe we need a kosher computer mouse (like the light switch here: http://www.kosherswitch.com/live/). You click the button. In some random amount of time the mice might or might not produce a click event. So you hit the button on the mouse and walk away for a cup of tea :-)
I wonder about the religious ramifications of the fact that this is patented. Is it allowed by doctrine to attempt to hold a monopoly for profit over items that are designed for religious observance?
I believe they patented the specific way that they remove causality and interaction with electronic circuits, not the idea itself. I'm reasonably certain one could come up with a few different/non-infringing designs that accomplish the same goal.
> You could also align the pointer over the button, shine a laser pointer on your mouse button, and have your cat click it for you. Since you didn't click the button, you didn't accept the license. Arguably.
Nice try, but no. Courts are run by human beings, who apply their own judgement to the case at hand and take things like that into account. Intent is definitely part of what's considered for most crimes.
The legal system is weird, political, too-insular at times, and funny-looking from the outside and the inside, but it's a system that's evolved, in the case of Common Law, in parts from pre-Roman Germanic tribal customs. The system has been dealing with smartasses like you since before your ancestors had been deloused.
Term 5? All that says is if you don't accept the terms, you don't get to use the software. There's no irrevocable termination of rights.
At worst, all they have to do is download a new copy of mount and presto, they have a new license.
[err, that's for gpl2. gpl3 has a more complicated termination procedure.]
ok, so in light of gpl3, they just need to go back and get a gpl2 copy of mount. It's not like mount has changed all that much, I'm sure the 2007 version will suffice. Or they could just write their own. How many lines of code are we talking about here?
Read right over that. But I suspect they can still just download another copy, as the second download would be a new offer, and they can then agree and comply with that one.
"Each kernel release is a different work; the chances that any given piece of code has been modified in a new release are pretty high. One could argue that each kernel release comes with its own license; the termination of one does not necessarily affect rights to other releases."
One of the causes of the Revolution was lack of representation and a means to change the law. Now that we have a representative government as a result of that war, one might hope we would use it.
