- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Neubot 0.4.10 released
by Simone Basso March 21, 2012

March 21, 2012

Version 0.4.10 is the latest generally-available stable release of Neubot, distributed for Ubuntu >= 10.04, MacOSX >= 10.6, Windows >= XP SP3 and FreeBSD, as well as in source format. Here's what changed in 140 characters: better M-Lab redirection, preparatory work for Win32 auto updates, cleanups, docs and fixes. Install, upgrade instructions at http://www.neubot.org/download, read on for more details. This release contains 110 commits. The diffstat says: 65 changed files with 1,683 additions and 586 deletions. Here is the list of what changed and why: - M-Lab: use airport names to compile redirection table I noticed that it's possible to prepare a much better redirection table for M-Lab, using airport names, embedded in the name of each server, instead of trying to guess where the server is by means of geolocation. It turns out that the old method of generating the redirection table was not bad, and only a few servers were misplaced. This is another step towards even better and more robust redirection to M-Lab servers using DONAR, which is a distributed DNS integrated with M-Lab. I am working to adapt Neubot to it, but the work is not ready yet, so, in the meantime, I decided to deploy the airport fix to improve the redirection table a bit. Link to commit: https://github.com/neubot/neubot/commit/a19f0c3a - rendezvous: stop supporting clients without privacy settings Since version 0.4.4 (released 25 October 2011), Neubot does not run tests unless the user provides the permission to collect her Internet address. Since version 0.4.6 (released 24 January 2012), Neubot needs the permission to publish her IP address too, in order to use Measurement Lab. Still, old clients without any privacy permissions were redirected on the master server. And, similarly, old clients that have not provided the permission to publish were redirected on master as well. I decided to support them, to give users some time to upgrade to newer versions of Neubot. Now, it's time to move forward, and, with this change, I am, de facto, removing support for all Neubot users that have not provided any privacy permissions. Judging from the logs, I estimate that I am removing service for 10-20 users, who have not upgraded their Neubot for a long time. I think this is fair, because, since the release of 0.4.4, four months have passed. Please, note that in a not-too-distant-future I will also remove support for users that have not provided the permission to publish, for many reasons, including that I want to make master more clever and helpful. That will probably happen when version 0.5.0 will ship. I understand that staying up-to-date is annoying, especially for Windows users, and for this reason I am working to finalize the long-awaited auto-updater module for Windows. If everything goes well, experimental support for that should be ready in 0.4.11, stay tuned! :-) Link to commit: https://github.com/neubot/neubot/commit/6b7f8497 - Preparatory work for Win32 auto-updates As mentioned above, one of the things I'm working on is automatic updates under Windows. Part of the work was to enhance the runner module, which is the Neubot module that runs rendezvous and tests and make sure that only one test at once can run. The enhancements provide the infrastructure to be able to download a file using the runner as it were a test. Link to commit: https://github.com/neubot/neubot/commit/53d6b43 - Preparatory work for making rendezvous more smart There are some downsides in current rendezvous implementation and, in particular, it takes work to add new fields and provide backward compatibility. I would like, instead, to make the rendezvous more smart and pass back to the client information such as the ISP prefix and name, to allow to e.g. prevent automatic tests to run when you are in a 3G network. To move in this direction I need to remove the obstacles and one obstacle is the XML-based rendezvous. So, this release is the first one to use JSON for rendezvous and more changes are due in the future to refine that and gradually introduce more goodies in the rendezvous process. Link to commits: https://github.com/neubot/neubot/commit/aa0774fc https://github.com/neubot/neubot/commit/f8e02cc1 - Always use runner_rendezvous for rendezvous In Neubot 0.4.6 I introduced runner_rendezvous, a simplified rendezvous client that is run by the runner (the component that runs tests). That was need to automatically and transparently trigger a rendezvous when a user manually runs a test and there are no information on the right server to use. Albeit based on the original one, the new simplified rendezvous was simpler and better defined, because I had more clear the problem when I wrote it. So the plan had always been to enhance it and use it to replace (part of) the original rendezvous client. With this release that piece of work is finally done and now the old rendezvous client is just a wrapper around the new rendezvous client. This is good news, I have plans to make the rendezvous more smart, as explained above, and having simpler and more rational code helps a lot. Link to commit: https://github.com/neubot/neubot/commit/0965da40 - Better MacOS auto-updater Working on windows updater, I have borrowed from and improved some pieces of MacOS updater. In this release, I include better code that performs more checks when auto-installing the tarball. Link to commit: https://github.com/neubot/neubot/commit/8aaf40a0 - Cleaner bittorrent/peer.py Another thing I'm working on is making sure that Neubot can work in 1 Gbit/s and 10 Gbit/s networks. This boils down to reading the code, testing and removing bottlenecks. As usual, re-reading my old code, I've noticed a number of things to be cleaned up, and the set of changes is mature and safe enough to spill in this version of Neubot. Link to commit: https://github.com/neubot/neubot/commit/3bfdd305 - Bug fixes Since Neubot 0.4.6, I've started collecting know bugs information at: https://github.com/neubot/neubot/wiki/errata Here is the list of bugs that have been fixed since the previous release, along with the link to the relevant commit: - Win32: install in ``%APPDATA%`` not ``%PROFILE%``. The proper place where to install under Windows is the nonroaming appdata folder (``%APPDATA%``), not the user home directory (``%PROFILE%``). Out of the Windows jargon, for me this means that, under Windows 7, Neubot is installed in: C:\\Users\\simone\\AppData\\Local\\Neubot Instead of in: C:\\Users\\simone\\Neubot Fixed by these commits: https://github.com/neubot/neubot/commit/29cfe63f https://github.com/neubot/neubot/commit/5190ae98 - MacOS: update installer to privacy policy 2.0.3. MacOSX installer privacy policy was at version 2.0 whereas the current version was 2.0.3 (nothing significant changed, nonetheless that must be corrected). Fixed by this commit: https://github.com/neubot/neubot/commit/0f0a5902 - MacOS: do not add okfile to generated packages. MacOS auto-updater tarballs contained by mistake the ok-file, which indicates that Neubot has been installed successfully. Instead, they should not contain this file, and the autoupdater must add it when a tarball is unpacked successfully. Fixed by this commit: https://github.com/neubot/neubot/commit/06bba1ac - More code rationalizations, cleanups, documentation improvements and regression tests. Full change log available here: https://raw.github.com/neubot/neubot/0.4.10/ChangeLog Diff since previous version here: https://github.com/neubot/neubot/compare/0.4.9...0.4.10 Commit history here: https://github.com/neubot/neubot/commits/0.4.10 SHA256sums here: https://github.com/neubot/neubot/wiki/sha256 Errata here: https://github.com/neubot/neubot/wiki/errata Data here: http://www.neubot.org/data Short-term roadmap here: https://github.com/neubot/neubot/wiki/todo Long-term roadmap here: https://github.com/neubot/neubot/wiki/roadmap -- Simone <http://www.neubot.org/people#basso>

1 0

APA - CONVEGNO, Milano 30 MARZO 2012: 1^ FORUM MEDIALAWS - "Tutela del copyright e della privacy sul web: quid iuris?
by andrea.mazzaro＠libero.it March 21, 2012

March 21, 2012

Milano, 15 marzo 2012Cari Amici,Vi scriviamo per invitarVi al 1^ FORUM MEDIALAWS organizzato da APA in collaborazione con Medialaws (www.medialaws.eu) dal titolo "Tutela del copyright e della privacy sul web: quid iuris?".Il Convegno avrà luogo venerdì 30 marzo 2012 presso la Fondazione Ambrosianeum in via delle Ore 3 a Milano, dalle 09.00 alle 18.00.Le slides saranno a disposizione di tutti i partecipanti. Gli atti del convegno verranno poi integralmente pubblicati da Aracne Editrice. La partecipazione conferisce il riconoscimento di 6 crediti formativi gli Avvocati e di 9 crediti formativi per i Dottori Commercialisti e gli Esperti Contabili. Vi invitiamo a scaricare la brochure, in due pagine, direttamente dal sito www.assopa.org e a diffonderla a quante più persone riteniate possano essere interessate. Per i Soci in regola con il pagamento della quota associativa per l'anno 2012 (Euro 50,00), gli studenti, i professionisti fino a 30 anni di età, i soci AIGI e AIPPI è previsto un contributo spese di partecipazione ridotto di Euro 50,00. Per tutti gli altri partecipanti il contributo spese di partecipazione è di Euro 100,00.Sarà sufficiente confermare la propria adesione inviando i vostri dati e copia della distinta di versamento all'indirizzo e-mail info(a)assopa.org.I nostri migliori saluti APA - Associazione Professionisti d'Affari. Avv. Andrea Maria MazzaroPresidente

1 0

L'archivio segreto dell'Anvur
by Maria Chiara Pievatolo March 21, 2012

March 21, 2012

Salve. A uso dei cultori degli open data nelle amministrazioni pubbliche, segnalo il regolamento sul copyright dell'autorità incaricata della valutazione della ricerca. Assolutamente notevole la regola che obbliga i referee a distruggere i file dopo averli valutati, come in un brutto film di spionaggio. http://minimacademica.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/solo-per-i-tuoi-occhi/ Se pensavate che fare il professore fosse un lavoro noioso, avrete modo di cambiare idea. Un saluto, MCP -- Maria Chiara Pievatolo Dipartimento di Scienze politiche e sociali Università di Pisa Via Serafini 3 56126 Pisa (Italy) http://www.sp.unipi.it/index.php?page=/hp/pievatolo http://bfp.sp.unipi.it/btfp https://twitter.com/btfp1

1 0

Agcom, comunicato Confindustria Cultura
by Masera Anna March 21, 2012

March 21, 2012

COMUNICATO STAMPA Internet - Confindustria Cultura Italia: "Sconcertati per l'ennesimo temporeggiamento dell'Agcom sulla pirateria digitale. Il problema è politico, non giuridico" Milano, 21 marzo 2012- "Siamo sconcertati per l'ennesimo temporeggiamento dell'Agcom sul tema della pirateria digitale": è amareggiato il commento del Presidente di Confindustria Cultura Italia Marco Polillo, alla luce delle dichiarazioni rese oggi in audizione in Commissione Cultura e Lavori pubblici al Senato dal presidente Corrado Calabrò. "Stiamo attendendo da tempo infinito l'adozione di questo pacchetto regolamentare che ha ricadute importanti, anzi fondamentali, per la cultura e i contenuti culturali italiani in rete - ha proseguito Polillo - e per la sopravvivenza dell'industria culturale del nostro Paese. Il tema è stato sollevato da Agcom e oggi, dopo infiniti lavori, studi, documenti, audizioni e quant'altro, ci troviamo a fare i conti con un presidente che nonostante affermi che "l'argomento incombe" demanda la soluzione al Parlamento, all'Unione Europea, persino all'ONU. Lo poteva dire sin da subito che non voleva occuparsene, evitando così di buttare via due anni di lavoro". "Il quadro normativo nazionale e internazionale è chiarissimo - ha concluso Polillo - e ci stupisce che i senatori Vita e Vimercati, commentando l'audizione, possano parlare di "fragilità delle basi giuridiche su cui poggia il regolamento", in aperto contrasto con il parere ben più autorevole dell'ex presidente della Corte Costituzionale Valerio Onida. Quanto all'auspicata nuova normativa sul diritto d'autore, è davvero curioso che questa esigenza nasca solo oggi, quando dei problemi della pirateria digitale si sta parlando ormai da anni. Che sia l'ennesima dichiarazione d'intenti che cela in realtà la volontà di non occuparsene affatto?". Confindustria Cultura Italia è AESVI AFI AGIS AIE ANES ANICA APT FEM FIMI PMI UNIVIDEO

2 1

Fwd: Audizione del Presidente Agcom, Corrado Calabrò, sul diritto d'autore
by Masera Anna March 21, 2012

March 21, 2012

il testo dell’audizione sul diritto d’autore del Presidente Agcom, Corrado Calabrò, oggi davanti alle Commissioni VII e VIII del Senato.

3 2

Dopo l'audizione di Calabrò al Senato.
by G.Battista Frontera March 21, 2012

March 21, 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdTRhfrUEO8 Ciao. Gb

1 0

Nomine Agcom, editoriale De Martin in prima pagina su La Stampa
by Masera Anna March 21, 2012

March 21, 2012

Nomine AgCom Non lasciamo Internet ai Martusciello di Juan Carlos De Martin http://www.lastampa.it/_web/cmstp/tmplRubriche/editoriali/gEditoriali.asp?I…

4 3

Re: [nexa] Network operators and content providers: who bears the costs?
by ugo.pagallo＠unito.it March 20, 2012

March 20, 2012

Oltre ai costi sociali per la sciagurata crociata del copyright, sarebbe bene capire meglio come si delinea il "fair balance" cui fa riferimento la Corte di Giustizia in relazione all'art. 16 della Carta europea dei diritti e l'art. 3(1) D-2004/48, tanto nella sentenza Scarlett (C-70/10 #48-49), quanto in SABAM (C-360/10). Sin d'ora grazie per gli aggiornamenti, u.p. > > > ------------------ Messaggio originale ------------------- > Oggetto: [nexa] Network operators and content providers: > who bears the costs? > Da: a.dicorinto(a)uniroma1.it > Data: Lun, 19 Marzo 2012, 4:22 pm > A: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > <font face="Sans Serif > predefinito,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" size="2"> > <div>Sono stato invitato ad un seminario che l'Istituto > Bruno Leoni organizza a Roma, presso il Boscolo Palace > (via Vittorio Veneto, 70 - sala Api), il prossimo 20 > marzo a partire dalle ore 10:30. Tema della discussione > (che avrÃ luogo fra interlocutori qualificati e sotto la > regola di Chatham House) Ã¨ un recente studio > del Wissenschaftliches Institut fÃ¼r Infrastruktur > und Kommunikationsdienste su âNetwork operators and > content providers: who bears the costs?".<br><br>Il > delicato bilanciamento fra le esigenze degli operatori > della rete, dei fornitori di servizi della societÃ > dell'informazione e dei produttori di contenuti Ã¨ uno > dei piÃ¹ complessi problemi con cui si fronteggia, oggi, > il mondo della regolamentazione della telefonia e, piÃ¹ > in generale, dell'information and communication > technology.<br>PerciÃ² credo che offrirÃ² un punto di > vista alternativo sostenendo che i costi finora li hanno > pagati gli utenti, in temini di leggi repressive, > inefficienze dei servizi e sfruttamento della lto > proprietÃ intellettuale. Che dite, faccio > bene?<br></div><div><br>[....]<br></div><div>Lo studio > verrÃ presentato dal capo del dipartimento "NGN and > Internet Economics" del WIK, J. Scott Marcus: giÃ Senior > Advisor for Internet Technology della Federal > Communications Commission americana, e prima ancora > attachÃ© alla Commissione Europea (DG INFSO) quale > Transatlantic Fellow del German Marshall Fund of the > United States. Marcus Ã¨ un autore noto e dalle > molteplici pubblicazioni su questi temi. Dopo la > presentazione di Marcus, avremo ampio spazio per > discutere e per esaminare, anche grazie alla Sua > presenza, i diversi punti di vista sul tema. La > discussione sarÃ coordinata da Alberto Mingardi > (Direttore Generale dell'Istituto Bruno > Leoni)</div> <div><br></div><div><br></div><span>**********************<br>âThe > Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around > it.â<br>â John Gilmore</span><div></div></font> > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >

2 1

Fwd: [A2k] Unanimous Supreme Court decision invalidates Prometheus diagnostic test patents and reverses Federal Circuit decision
by J.C. DE MARTIN March 20, 2012

March 20, 2012

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [A2k] Unanimous Supreme Court decision invalidates Prometheus diagnostic test patents and reverses Federal Circuit decision Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:11:02 -0400 From: Krista Cox <krista.cox(a)keionline.org> To: a2k(a)lists.keionline.org This case has likely implications for access to knowledge and information, including in particular the Myriad BRCA1& BRCA2 gene patent case. http://keionline.org/node/1392 In a major patent ruling today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous decision in Mayo v. Prometheus Laboratories. The case, heard twice before the Federal Circuit (once before the Supreme Court's ruling in Bilski and once after), has been closely followed because of its impacts on personalized medicine and potential implications for the Myriad Genetics case on the BRCA genes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and held that Prometheus' patents-at-issue were not eligible for patent protection. The facts of the case are as follows. Prometheus Laboratories was the sole and exclusive licensee of the patents and sold diagnostic tests based upon these patents. The patents concern the use of thiopurine drugs to treat autoimmune diseases, such as Crohn's desease or ulcerative colitis. The body metabolizes thiopurine drugs and causes metabolites to form in a patient's bloodstream. Because metabolization varies from patient to patient, different doses are necessary in order to reduce side effects but still maintain effective treatment levels. The patents at issue emobody findings that certain concentrations indicate the dosage was too high, whereas other concentrations indicated too low of a dosage. After using the Prometheus diagnostic tests, Mayo subsequently announced that it would begin using and selling its own test. Prometheus then brought action against Mayo for patent infringement. The District Court in the case granted summary judgment in Mayo's favor, but the Federal Circuit reversed. Mayo filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court granted, but then vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of Bilski. The Federal Circuit then reaffirmed its earlier decision and Mayo again filed for certiorari which was again accepted. Justice Breyer wrote the opinion which can be found here. In holding that the patents-at-issue were not patentable, the Court found that more than one must do more than a mere application of a law of nature to render such a law patent eligible. It stated that a patent that describes the relation set forth in natural law does does not do enough to permit a patent. Providing instructions on applying natural laws does not transform "unpatentable natural laws into patent eligible applications of that laws." The case focused, in large part, on Section 101 of the Patent Act which the Court noted includes an implicit exception that laws of nature are not patentable subject matter. The Court focused its decision, in part, on the reasoning for the implicit exception and implications patents can have on future innovation. Citing past precedent in Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), the Court noted that phenomena of nature and abstract principles are "basic tools" of science and "monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it." The Court also noted that the claimed processes involved "upholding the patents would risk disproportionately tying up the use of the underlying natural laws, inhibiting their use in the making of further discoveries." Repeatedly, the opinion emphasizes the "concern that patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of laws of nature" and that --- there is a danger that the grant of patents that tie up their use will inhibit future innovation permised upon them, a danger that becomes acute when a patented process amounts to no more than an instruction to 'apply the natural law,' or otherwise forecloses more future invention than the underlying discovery could reasonably justify. --- In addition to its concerns regarding future research and development, the Court also noted that the process claimed by Prometheus involved activity already well-understood and utilized by the scientific community: --- To put the matter more succinctly, the claims inform a relevant audience about certain laws of nature; any additional steps consist of well-understood, routine, conventional activity already engaged in by the scientific community; and those steps, when viewed as a whole, add nothing significant beyond the sum of their parts taken separately. For these reasons we believe that the steps are not sufficient to transform unpatentable natural correlations into patentable applications of those regulations. --- The opinion rejected the US Government's position that "virtually any step beyond a statement of a law of nature" transforms an unpatentable law into an patent-eligible application. In rejecting this position, the Court found that such an approach would make the implicit law of nature exception to Section 101 a "dead letter." Finally, the Court made one important clarification regarding its 2010 decision in In re Bilski. Although the Federal Circuit found that the "machine or transformation" test is an "important and useful clue" to patent eligibility under the guidance of the Bilski decision, the Supreme Court noted here that "we have neither said nor implied that the test trumps the 'law of nature' exclusion." It also cited the differing of opinion, recognizing that patent protection is a "two-edged sword." Although amici on Prometheus' side claimed need for patent protection to encourage discoveries, amici for Mayo, including the American Medical Association, the American College of Medical Genetics, the American Hospital Association, the American Society of Human Genetics, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the Association for Molecular Pathology, among others, argued that --- "claims to exclusive rights over the body's natural responses to illness and medical treatment are permitted to stand, the result will be a vast thicket of exclusive rights over the use of critical scientific data that must remain widely available if physicians are to provide sound medical care." --- The case will likely have implications for American Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics. The arguments against the patent eligibility of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes rest on the same case law and principles cited by the Supreme Court in Prometheus. The issues of application of well-understood research tools, field preemption and implications for further innovation are all major factors in the Myriad case. Additionally, the Court relied on the same precedent cited in favor of AMP, including Gottschalk v. Benson, Diamond v. Diehr, Diamond v. Chakrabarty and Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. I would expect that the Supreme Court will ask the Federal Circuit to re-hear the Myriad case and to decide it in light of the Prometheus ruling (much as the Federal Circuit re-heard Prometheus after the Supreme Court decided Bilski). Based on the guidance of the Supreme Court in Prometheus, the Federal Circuit could reverse its ruling in Myriad. Alternatively, if the Federal Circuit comes down on the same side and upholds Myriad's patents, the case could be appealed again to the Supreme Court. Additional coverage of the case is available via Pharmalot. -- Krista L. Cox Staff Attorney Knowledge Ecology International www.keionline.org (202) 332-2670 -- Krista L. Cox Staff Attorney Knowledge Ecology International www.keionline.org (202) 332-2670 _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k(a)lists.keionline.org http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org

1 0

dall'AGCOM: intervento di Calabrò alla relazione dell'Organo di vigilanza di Open access su Governance della Rete e Agenda Digitale
by Masera Anna March 20, 2012

March 20, 2012

Vi inoltro, in allegato, il testo dell'intervento del Presidente Corrado Calabrò alla relazione dell'organo di vigilanza di Open Access.

1 0