Le 13 mars 10 à 03:45, Kragen Javier Sitaker a écrit :
> In order for this to work, though, there needs to be a record of these
> things having been published at a particular time; things published
> after a patent application has been filed are not "prior art" and  
> do not
> invalidate patent claims.

A long time ago there was someone (ex-Bell?) who was offering a  
timestamping service; IIRC documents and metadata were securely  
hashed, and these hashes then hashed, until finally the daily root  
hash was published as a classified ad in the New York Times (yes,  
back when newspapers existed and still printed classified ads :-)

-Dave

On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 01:17:44PM +0100, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen at canonical.org> [2010-03-13 03:50]:
> > Is there some feature of Git or the court system I'm not
> > familiar with that makes this scenario implausible?
> 
> There is a Git feature you *are* already familiar with. I suppose
> you’d have to convince people to keep their reflogs forever (and
> maybe sign them) – since that records which head was set to which
> commit at which point in time.

Yeah, it's too bad gc.reflogExpire isn't replicated upon git-clone, or
that would be simple!

> (I wish there was a one-stop configuration setting to tell Git to
> never expire any data of its data *ever*.)

That would be ideal for this, but only if you could get it to be turned
on by default for clones of a given repo.

* Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen at canonical.org> [2010-03-13 03:50]:
> Is there some feature of Git or the court system I'm not
> familiar with that makes this scenario implausible?

There is a Git feature you *are* already familiar with. I suppose
you’d have to convince people to keep their reflogs forever (and
maybe sign them) – since that records which head was set to which
commit at which point in time.

(I wish there was a one-stop configuration setting to tell Git to
never expire any data of its data *ever*.)

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>

The message was not delivered due to the following reason(s):

Your message was not delivered because the destination server was
unreachable within the allowed queue period. The amount of time
a message is queued before it is returned depends on local configura-
tion parameters.

Most likely there is a network problem that prevented delivery, but
it is also possible that the computer is turned off, or does not
have a mail system running right now.

Your message could not be delivered within 1 days:
Host 202.122.96.137 is not responding.

The following recipients could not receive this message:
<kragen-discuss at canonical.org>

Please reply to postmaster at canonical.org
if you feel this message to be in error.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attachment.zip
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 29358 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-discuss/attachments/20100130/cfd2a5ad/attachment-0001.obj

* Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen at canonical.org> [2009-01-23 01:15]:
> Some bastard pretended to be me in order to get the message
> through to the mailing list.

I’ve seen this mail in several places now. It always spoofs
a real From. So it’s quite possible that it was not targetted
specifically at your mailing list but just happened to have a
matching From and To by freak accident.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>