Slashdot Mirror

A copy of the House Bill is available on-line.

Electronic signatures are almost certainly "valid" (that is, legally enforceable as signatures) under the common law of every state (except perhaps, Georgia, which has some renegade case law regarding facsimile transmissions), just as signatures using other non-pen-to-paper technologies have been for centuries. The Statute of Frauds has not, for example, excluded, typewritten or telex printing of names, shaved initials on the hide of a cow, impressions of a footprint cast in sand, and so forth. This legislation is not necessary, but it is helpful for a conservative lawyer to be able to rely on statutory law rather than inviting their client to be the first one to litigate these new fact patterns.

In short, the law does not require more than a physical fixation of an intent to authenticate -- a ceremony if you will. A signature does not need to be non-repudiable to be valid -- I could mark "Micky Mouse" or "X" at the end of a document and be bound, if it can be shown that I intended to authenticate the document when I made the markings.

On the other, hand, good commercial sense ordinarily precludes the use of or the accepting of such "alternative" signatures, even if they are legal, for the simple reasons that they create tremendous difficulties in proving authentication when push comes to shove.

The decision to accept an "X" from a literate contractor when closing a deal involving zillions of dollars would be foolish, and we would ordinarily ask them, politely, to sign the document by writing their name. When a shaved cow is offered, in anticipation of the difficulties of getting the critter into the courthouse -- we smile, thank them, and offer them our pen instead.

Its all about choice. The question is, who shall make the choice whether we use ink, pen-on-paper, crypto or typewritters: the individuals using the signatures, or the government?

Two distinct views are prevalent in state electronic signature legislation: a minimalist statute that simply says that electronic writings are writings and manifestations of authentication of the writings are signed writings, leaving it to the market to decide (such as Florida's Electronic Signature Act); and more protective bills, which only validate signatures using certain technologies, such as assymetric encryption (Utah).

The bill passed by Congress is a minimalist bill, like Florida's (apparently patterned after the present draft of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act). It is neither good nor evil, IMHO, but can be very helfpul for encouraging certain types of transactions.

TRUE, it makes an e-mail of the form:

Bob, I agree to buy 100 widgets at $500/widget, FOB TAMPA -- ship immediately. /S/ Alice

a valid memorandum for statute of frauds purposes (the statute of frauds requires signed writings memorializing certain kinds of contracts as a precondition to their enforceability). But so what? That is almost certainly already the law anyway!

Whether Bob or Alice would agree to do business in that manner should be up to Bob and Alice. Of course Bob should be concerned that Alice might later repudiate the transmission, and must be concerned about how he can "prove up" (should it be necessary) the signature in court. On the other hand, who should make the choice as to what technology, if any, Bob should accept, Bob or the government?

But what would happen to somebody in the similar position in the US, eg as regards either (a) publishing the analysis of CSS, (b) writing the code, (c) hosting the CVS server, (d) co-ordinating the overall effort, or (e) including player in a linux distro ?

The relevant law appears to be 17 USC ch.12 sec.1201, but unfortunately this is not currently up on the Cornell LII site.

Section 1201 is set to be amended by HR 2281, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I'm not sure what the current status of this act is, and whether or not it has or will be signed into law by the president. The key relevant provision under the new law would appear to be (a)(2):

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--

`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

Some questions:

• What does 'provide technology' mean ? Does software code count as technology ? What about technical descriptions of CSS ?

• Do people still have a first amendment right to discuss CSS and write not-for-profit de-CSS code ? According to subsection (c)(4) below:

  `(4) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products.

• Does a commercial ISP who allows such code to be published on their server trafficking in a service ? Or do they count as a free press ?

• Does a linux distro which includes a DVD player allowing a disc to be viewed on screen circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title (ignoring any patent issues) ? Would it make any difference if the code was binary only ?

• And finally, haven't these lawyers ever heard of writing laws for easy maintenance and reliability ?? The control flow in (a)(1) has to be worse than anything I've seen in a Perl program! But I wonder, do you think we could get the Librarian of Congress to declare an exception under (a)(1), regarding the current poor availability for use of copyright works under Linux, to allow the situation to be improved ?

I suspect what Nick has written is exactly what Derek's lawyers told him in the UK -- back down, and quick. But what would happen to somebody in the similar position in the US, eg as regards either (a) publishing the analysis of CSS, (b) writing the code, (c) hosting the CVS server, (d) co-ordinating the overall effort, or (e) including player in a linux distro ? The relevant law appears to be 17 USC ch.12 sec.1201, but unfortunately this is not currently up on the Cornell LII site. Section 1201 is set to be amended by HR 2281, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I'm not sure what the current status of this act is, and whether or not it has or will be signed into law by the president. The key relevant provision under the new law would appear to be (a)(2): (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that-- `(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; `(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or `(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. and section (b)(1), in which 'controls access' is relaced with 'protects a right of a copyright owner' Some questions: What does 'provide technology' mean ? Does software code count as technology ? What about technical descriptions of CSS ? Do people still have a first amendment right to discuss CSS and write not-for-profit de-CSS code ? According to subsection (c)(4) below: `(4) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products. Does a commercial ISP who allows such code to be published on their server trafficking in a service ? Or do they count as a free press ? Does a linux distro which includes a DVD player allowing a disc to be viewed on screen circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title (ignoring any patent issues) ? Would it make any difference if the code was binary only ? And finally, haven't these lawyers ever heard of writing laws for easy maintenance and reliability ?? The control flow in (a)(1) has to be worse than anything I've seen in a Perl program! But I wonder, do you think we could get the Librarian of Congress to declare an exception under (a)(1), regarding the current poor availability for use of copyright works under Linux, to allow the situation to be improved ?

From the posted items, it appears the infringement claims may be based on either copyright or patents or both, and that the jurisdiction may be European. As I'm also not a lawyer, the following information may be highly irrelevant, though I hope it's illuminating.

First, it's not clear that there are legal grounds to pull the plug an an entire website based on alleged but not (at least publicly) specified infringemnt. If nothing else, ISPs may face significant backlash risks for violating common carrier covenants to provide equal service to all without prejudice. My reading of the US DMCA (Millenium Copyright Act) is that protection against copyright infringment on the part of customers is offered in return for a clarification of common-carrier status, and liability limitations. This is US law and doesn't apply in the UK, but a similar legal tradition exists there.

Second, there is precedent under US law of a similar type of reverse engineering in the case of either Sega v. Accolade or Atari v. Nintendo (I don't recall which, and it may have been another, but these are the two major cases in the area, and the subject was gaming). The basic premise was that the defendant's hardware require both reverse engineering of software to allow cartridges to run on it, and a literal copying of some small portion (14 bytes?) of code was required by the security or authentication mechanism of the console, including, IIRC, an encoded trademark. These were held to have functional, not expressive, attributes, and the defendents won in both cases.

I suspect a bit of bluster here, and while I wouldn't run for shelter in the information I've provided, I might look to it for some ideas for defense.

Specifically, the part which makes code-cracking illegal?

There's a lot of language in there about how the bill does NOT reduce fair-use rights, and the penalties section talks only about code-cracking for "commercial advantage or private financial gain"

Has anyone seen good discussions an all of this?

Specifically, the part which makes code-cracking illegal?

There's a lot of language in there about how the bill does NOT reduce fair-use rights, and the penalties section talks only about code-cracking for "commercial advantage or private financial gain"

Has anyone seen good discussions an all of this?

Specifically, the part which makes code-cracking illegal?

There's a lot of language in there about how the bill does NOT reduce fair-use rights, and the penalties section talks only about code-cracking for "commercial advantage or private financial gain"

Has anyone seen good discussions an all of this?

I'm going to look to see if anyone else has done it, and if not, I will post the text of HR 3028 in another post.

First go to Thomas. At the top there is a search for specific bills. You are looking today for either S. 1255 [the Senate version] or H.R. 3028. I found those numbers by going into the Congressional Record, selecting the most recent issue (i.e. yesterday when the deed was done), selecting the Daily Digest hyperlink, zipping down to the House of Representatives, and finding the bill entitled "Preventing the Misappropriation of Marks". Right there is all the information I needed: which bills and what action was taken. In fact, there are hyperlinks to the text of the bills right there. But I was interested in what the representatives actually said about them, so I chose the hyperlink where it says Pages. This led me to the official transcript of the action on the floor. That in itself was very interesting. Those pages also contained the text of the two bills as read by the Clerk.

Again I would like to urge all /.ers to learn how to use this free resource to keep an eye on the Congress. The initiative for Thomas was spearheaded by Newt Gingrich; in my eyes, that almost makes up for his cockamamie Contract On America.

A text file of HR 3028 can be found at ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/cp106/hr4 12.txt

None of the scenarios anyone has presented look (to my untrained eye, at any rate) like they're covered:

1. It only covers trademarks that are distinctive at the time of registration. So somebody can't register a trademark and then go after someone who previously had the domain registered.

2. If it comes to trial, the court is suggested to consider issues such as any (other) trademarks that the person registering the domain may have referring to the domain name, whether the domain name consists of the person's legal name, prior lawful commercial use, lawful noncommercial or fair use, etc.

Read the bill. The last time this came up, a number of people noted that it was actually well written.

This can't be legal. First, you can't possess drugs. Ok, now you can't talk about drugs! While we're at it, you can't talk about anything illegal! That's where they're going with crap like this.

`(2) PROHIBITION- It shall be unlawful for any person--

`(A) to teach or demonstrate the manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of a controlled substance, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime; or

`(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of a controlled substance, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime.

`(b) PENALTY- Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.

No time is better than the present than to drop your elected official a line. Express your views. Make your voice heard.

Write like a suit from marketing.

The address you need can be found here. http://thomas.loc.gov/

I find myself wondering how well a change turning copyright into an in perpetua right would stand up to someone with sufficient funds and the following, taken from Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:

[The Congress shall have the power] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Obviously, those of us with no money have little chance against the content barons. But hey, someone with a lot of money might be influenced to produce and redistribute the original version of a certain squeaky-voiced mouse. It could happen.

Anti-spam legislation sounds great, I mean we all hate spam right? The devil is in the details. The Can Spam Act defines spam so broadly that virtually any commercial e-mail message would fall under it. For example, if a vendor sends you an unsolicited (but desirable) notice about an upgrade to a software product that you previously purchased from them, they could be liable for a penalty of up to $25,000.

The proposed law bans the delivery of all unsolicited commercial e-Mail (UCE) to any sendmail server that contains the string "UCE" in the HELO banner. In other words, your ISP can opt-out for the entire site. (Note the legislation originally had an opt-out for individuals.)

Within months every single ISP will put "UCE" in their banner. Heck, Eric Allman will probably hardcode it into the next Sendmail 9 release. Because the language is so broad, the result will effectively ban from the net all e-mail with even a remotely commercial whiff. Is this what we really want?

Anti-spam legislation sounds great, I mean we all hate spam right? The devil is in the details. The Can Spam Act defines spam so broadly that virtually any commercial e-mail message would fall under it. For example, if a vendor sends you an unsolicited (but desirable) notice about an upgrade to a software product that you previously purchased from them, they could be liable for a penalty of up to $25,000.

The proposed law bans the delivery of all unsolicited commercial e-Mail (UCE) to any sendmail server that contains the string "UCE" in the HELO banner. In other words, your ISP can opt-out for the entire site. (Note the legislation originally had an opt-out for individuals.)

Within months every single ISP will put "UCE" in their banner. Heck, Eric Allman will probably hardcode it into the next Sendmail 9 release. Because the language is so broad, the result will effectively ban from the net all e-mail with even a remotely commercial whiff. Is this what we really want?

So you're talking about an embedded device or otherwise sealed system. While it's technically possible to do what you've done I don't see it getting legal sanction:

• If the box is using GPLd code and the vendor is issuing product under another license or otherwise failing to comply with the terms of the GPL (eg: distributing or pointing to source), then the vendor is committing copyright violation. IIRC, selling more than ten copies with willful infringment may trigger criminal as well as civil penalties under US law.

• The Digital Millenium Copyright Act specifically allows reverse engineering of code for circumventing access control measures for the purpose of reverse engineering a lawfully aquired copy of software. Legal precedent and copyright law hold that copyright cannot be used as a mechanism to protect ideas (Sega v. Accolade, 17 USC 102(b)).

  There's a good analysis of the DMCA here (pdf).

• Federal preemption. Copyright and patent (Federal law based on Constitutional mandate) preempt trade secrets and contract law -- governed by the several states. A "Reverse Engineering" contract clause would likely be struck down by the courts.

Though it may surprise you, copyright protections and limitations (eg: Fair Use allowing reverse engineering) are quite powerful and well established under the law.

I could challenge such a bill on a number of constitutional grounds. I could claim that it violated due process, unreasonable search and ceisure, freedom of speech, and unnenumerated rights such as privacy. It wouldn't last six months

It requires that you must provide keys when demanded by law enforcement, provided they get a search warrant within 90 days (but only if they use it in court), and that you not tell anyone that you have decrypted anything.

Look at the Congressional report on the full House (funny the way it is called the "Committee of the whole"...) session of May 13th (INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 (House of Representatives - May 13, 1999). Sorry, no URL, the Congressional Record is not bookmarkable, but you can search on the title at Thomas.

Dry reading, I know, but the great journalist I. F. Stone uncovered not a few cases of government misdoings that were out there for anyone to see, purloined-letter style, in the Congressional Record.

This really has to be seen to be believed. It starts stolidly enough, and get entertaining as it goes on. Major Owens just barely stops short of calling the CIA the Central Stupidity Agency... There is also an interesting part about the US' involvement in the Pinochet coup in Chile

Here is a scrunchy excerpt of Major Owen's intervention, for your enjoyment. He is protesting the fact that the size of the US intelligence budget is itself classified, and the only way a member of congress can learn the exact figure is to sign an oath, which then gags him/her about speaking about it in specifics.

Mr. Chairman, I think the last speaker was correct when he said we need to revamp the CIA. I think what the Sanders amendment says is that revamping should not involve additional money.

The CIA budget is estimated to be somewhere around $30 billion. We are only spending about $23 billion on elementary and secondary education. It is important that it be revamped. And I am not sure that the intelligence community that exists now is capable of revamping it. We need an independent commission of some kind to revamp the CIA. It needs to be improved. It needs to have accountability. The long history of blunders in the last 10 years are such that it is obviously a defunct, incompetent, decaying agency. Something needs to happen.

I am not sure the President is in charge, either. The President's first choice for CIA Director was not accepted by the intelligence community. The intelligence community protects this incompetence.

Our history with respect to Haiti was that the CIA was determined to get the duly-elected President of Haiti, Jean Bertrand-Aristide. They did everything they could to smear him. All kinds of false things were generated out of the CIA. When they were later proven to be untrue, nobody later apologized, nobody was held accountable.

In one of the major diplomatic moves made by the envoy to Haiti, where we had a delegation going in with Canadian police and a number of other things to start a process of peace in Haiti, there was a big demonstration on the docks in Haiti which turned all that around and threatened the U.S. Embassy personnel with gunshots; and it turned out that that demonstration was financed by the CIA. Emmanuel Constanz, the head of the organization that staged the violent demonstration was on the payroll of the CIA.

We cannot fully get the story of all the things Emmanuel Constanz had going with the CIA because they refuse to give us the records. They will not let the nation of Haiti try Emmanuel Constanz for the crimes that he has committed.

Then there is the Aldrich Ames affair, where the man in charge of the Russian spy operation managing our assets was on the payroll of the Soviet Union. He was on the payroll of the Soviet Union, and he exposed those assets. At least 10 of the people who were working for this nation were executed as a result of Aldrich Ames, the guy who was in charge at the CIA, having sold them out for quite a number of millions of dollars.

And now we have the blunder at the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia. It is not funny at all. It is not humorous at all to me. I heard some Members in the elevator say, `Do you want to establish a special map fund for the CIA?' I do not think this is funny at all. These people have life-and-death power over large numbers of people, and to talk about a mapping error which could have been corrected by a tourist map, a mapping area that was reinforced by somebody on the ground. They said they had assets on the ground. Was the asset on the ground drunk? What kind of operation is this?

And when are we, as American people first of all, going to get to see what the budget is? But more important than that, an independent commission to revamp it? And before that happens, there should not be a single additional penny spent. Throwing money at the CIA is certainly not going to solve the problem. And money is not the problem. They have far more than they need right now.

My colleagues will recall several years ago that the CIA accountants lost $4 billion in their budget. They could not find out where $4 billion had gone. They just could not. We know it was not spent. They lost it and kept applying for, of course, new funds every year . And we never got a full explanation as to what happened to lose $4 billion in the budget of the CIA.

So we very much need to have a better accounting of this life-and-death powerful agency. The incompetence is deadly. The incompetence of the CIA is deadly. The incompetence of the CIA is such that it destroys the foreign policies of the United States.

He goes the other way on that one, go here

He's got some skeletons (IMHO as far as internet privacy and censorship are concerned) in his legislative closet

• S. 909
• Childrens' Internet Protection Act

On the other hand, he apparently does have a good privacy policy on his campaign site:

Presidential Candidates Privacy Policies

If only we could read their minds before deciding who to vote for...

1. I don't know if the US is a Berne convention nation, but it doesn't matter. According to the US Copyright Code, 17 USC S.101-104 (available as Circular 92 from the copyright office), unpublished works in general are protected, and published works such as Murray's are protected, "if, on the date of first publication, one or more of the authors is a national or a domicilary of the United States...." [17 USC S.104(b)(1)].
2. However, there are numerous rules which appear to place a statute of limitations on suits to enforce the copyright. A lawyer could tell you whether the limitations have or have not run.
3. According to Circular 1, "Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin." And, "If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie [on the face of it, sufficient so long as another party doesn't have a good rebuttal] evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate." (US Library of Congress Copyright Office, Circular 1, page 7) (PDF circ01.pdf) It looks to me like if anyone's expecting to have to enforce a copyright gained under 17 USC 104(b)(1), she or he had better register it right away.

And there's a whole heck of a lot more info out there too, and a whole Title of the United States Code (Title 17). Good place to start is that Library of Congress website and/or a lawyer.

I'm not saying that Murray necessarily wants to enforce this or put that kind of effort in, though a bark letter might be a nice idea. Any attorneys out there, especially in Murray's state (wherever that may be) who'd like to do this for free? If it were three years from now, I'd do it.

I think I heard something in the spring and summer about appellate court rulings holding online providers responsible for their material...

Don't quote me on any of this. I am not a lawyer; I have just begun my study of law. I have passed no tests, and the only two licenses I have are an amateur radio license and a driver's licence, which certainly don't allow anyone to practice law. No one who is not a lawyer may give legal advice. This should NOT be construed as legal advice. I am a lay person reporting the information I think I have found in 30 minutes of web research. I COULD BE WRONG.

I think the disclaimers give me away. :)

The curious should grab some of those pdfs from the Library of Congress and/or contact their attorneys.

1. I don't know if the US is a Berne convention nation, but it doesn't matter. According to the US Copyright Code, 17 USC S.101-104 (available as Circular 92 from the copyright office), unpublished works in general are protected, and published works such as Murray's are protected, "if, on the date of first publication, one or more of the authors is a national or a domicilary of the United States...." [17 USC S.104(b)(1)].
2. However, there are numerous rules which appear to place a statute of limitations on suits to enforce the copyright. A lawyer could tell you whether the limitations have or have not run.
3. According to Circular 1, "Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin." And, "If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie [on the face of it, sufficient so long as another party doesn't have a good rebuttal] evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate." (US Library of Congress Copyright Office, Circular 1, page 7) (PDF circ01.pdf) It looks to me like if anyone's expecting to have to enforce a copyright gained under 17 USC 104(b)(1), she or he had better register it right away.

And there's a whole heck of a lot more info out there too, and a whole Title of the United States Code (Title 17). Good place to start is that Library of Congress website and/or a lawyer.

I'm not saying that Murray necessarily wants to enforce this or put that kind of effort in, though a bark letter might be a nice idea. Any attorneys out there, especially in Murray's state (wherever that may be) who'd like to do this for free? If it were three years from now, I'd do it.

I think I heard something in the spring and summer about appellate court rulings holding online providers responsible for their material...

Don't quote me on any of this. I am not a lawyer; I have just begun my study of law. I have passed no tests, and the only two licenses I have are an amateur radio license and a driver's licence, which certainly don't allow anyone to practice law. No one who is not a lawyer may give legal advice. This should NOT be construed as legal advice. I am a lay person reporting the information I think I have found in 30 minutes of web research. I COULD BE WRONG.

I think the disclaimers give me away. :)

The curious should grab some of those pdfs from the Library of Congress and/or contact their attorneys.

The parent posting is absolutely correct, and here's the legal docs from the U.S. Copyright Office.

This should give you plenty of material to include in your nasty and threatening email to the CEO...

"Copyright Begins With the Author at Creation
At the time an original work is created in fixed form, copy-right
is automatically secured. At that moment, all the rights
in that copyright belong to the author of the work. Those
rights remain with the author unless the author specifically
transfers them, in writing, to someone else. Ownership of
the rights can change, but the author of the work remains
the same regardless of who subsequently owns the rights."

Get the entire thing from this PDF.

I think the OpenContent License, mentioned above, is probably the best solution to this guy's problem.

Besides being morally repugnant (the author released the code under that license for a reason), it is illegal for anyone other than the author(s) of a piece of code or binary to alter a license in ANY WAY (including Microsoft, SUN, BSDI, etc.).
The main problem with the arguments of the proponents of GPLing BSDL source is that they assume a license completely ignores any previous rights given by copyright law. They assume that if it isn't explicitly stated in the license, a right is forfeit. It isn't. In fact, the opposite is true. Part (d) of section 201, Title 17 of the United States Code deals with the transfer of copyright rights and reads:

"(d) TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.--
(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
(2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivi-sion of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title."

There is nothing special about a license. It is simply a temporary grant of the rights entitled by a copyright holder. A licensee only gets the rights explicitly specified in the license.
In fact, a license CANNOT give you the right to change the license. That is a right of ownership of the copyright, and as stated in Section 101, Title 17, USC, the definition of a "transfer of copyright ownership" excludes nonexclusive licenses (which software licenses are, by definition). So if a license gave you the right, it wouldn't be legally binding, and any subsequent sub-licensing would likewise be legally invalid. This is an area that I would be interested in seeing how the courts have defined.
Furthermore, a person cannot GPL changes or additions made to BSDL code. Those are considered derivative works, and, as granted in subsection (c) of section 106, Title 17, USC, they are the exclusive right of the copyright owner. So, those would have to be BSDL, as well. The only way someone could GPL any BSDL code is if they created an entirely new work (not derivative) and their use of BSDL'd code passed the fair use test.
As an aside, derivative works aren't well defined in the law (what happens to derivative works not created by the author, for example), so it would be interesting to see how the courts have defined this area. Also, code changes are a special case and could probably be further defined. Based on my interpretation of the law, changes made to either BSDL or GPL code would be copyrighted by the original author of the code, which seems excessive. (Anybody out there know how the courts have ruled?)

Whatever your feelings on GPL and BSDL, I think everyone can agree they represent very different philosophies for "free" software. To try to change the license of an author's code, even if it wasn't illegal, is wrong. The author made a choice, one that should be respected. By trying to change the license, a person is trying to take away an author's right to make that choice. That is why BSD people get so upset when someone tries to GPL BSDL code, for those of you that had to ask.

Responses are welcome. I am certainly not an authority on the subject, I just did a little research. I am especially interested in the case law, which I know absolutely nothing about. If any one is aware of how copyright law has been interpreted by the courts and how that might apply to this situation, I would love to hear from you.
If you are interested in checking my research or just learning more about copyright law (it is very interesting stuff), the official site is at the Library of Congress.

Nathan "n8" Florea
n8_f@uswest.net

Links:
U.S. Copyright Law PDF
Section 201, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 101, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 106, Title 17, USC PDF
U. S. Copyright Office
Library of Congress
The Fair Use Test

Besides being morally repugnant (the author released the code under that license for a reason), it is illegal for anyone other than the author(s) of a piece of code or binary to alter a license in ANY WAY (including Microsoft, SUN, BSDI, etc.).
The main problem with the arguments of the proponents of GPLing BSDL source is that they assume a license completely ignores any previous rights given by copyright law. They assume that if it isn't explicitly stated in the license, a right is forfeit. It isn't. In fact, the opposite is true. Part (d) of section 201, Title 17 of the United States Code deals with the transfer of copyright rights and reads:

"(d) TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.--
(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
(2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivi-sion of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title."

There is nothing special about a license. It is simply a temporary grant of the rights entitled by a copyright holder. A licensee only gets the rights explicitly specified in the license.
In fact, a license CANNOT give you the right to change the license. That is a right of ownership of the copyright, and as stated in Section 101, Title 17, USC, the definition of a "transfer of copyright ownership" excludes nonexclusive licenses (which software licenses are, by definition). So if a license gave you the right, it wouldn't be legally binding, and any subsequent sub-licensing would likewise be legally invalid. This is an area that I would be interested in seeing how the courts have defined.
Furthermore, a person cannot GPL changes or additions made to BSDL code. Those are considered derivative works, and, as granted in subsection (c) of section 106, Title 17, USC, they are the exclusive right of the copyright owner. So, those would have to be BSDL, as well. The only way someone could GPL any BSDL code is if they created an entirely new work (not derivative) and their use of BSDL'd code passed the fair use test.
As an aside, derivative works aren't well defined in the law (what happens to derivative works not created by the author, for example), so it would be interesting to see how the courts have defined this area. Also, code changes are a special case and could probably be further defined. Based on my interpretation of the law, changes made to either BSDL or GPL code would be copyrighted by the original author of the code, which seems excessive. (Anybody out there know how the courts have ruled?)

Whatever your feelings on GPL and BSDL, I think everyone can agree they represent very different philosophies for "free" software. To try to change the license of an author's code, even if it wasn't illegal, is wrong. The author made a choice, one that should be respected. By trying to change the license, a person is trying to take away an author's right to make that choice. That is why BSD people get so upset when someone tries to GPL BSDL code, for those of you that had to ask.

Responses are welcome. I am certainly not an authority on the subject, I just did a little research. I am especially interested in the case law, which I know absolutely nothing about. If any one is aware of how copyright law has been interpreted by the courts and how that might apply to this situation, I would love to hear from you.
If you are interested in checking my research or just learning more about copyright law (it is very interesting stuff), the official site is at the Library of Congress.

Nathan "n8" Florea
n8_f@uswest.net

Links:
U.S. Copyright Law PDF
Section 201, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 101, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 106, Title 17, USC PDF
U. S. Copyright Office
Library of Congress
The Fair Use Test

Besides being morally repugnant (the author released the code under that license for a reason), it is illegal for anyone other than the author(s) of a piece of code or binary to alter a license in ANY WAY (including Microsoft, SUN, BSDI, etc.).
The main problem with the arguments of the proponents of GPLing BSDL source is that they assume a license completely ignores any previous rights given by copyright law. They assume that if it isn't explicitly stated in the license, a right is forfeit. It isn't. In fact, the opposite is true. Part (d) of section 201, Title 17 of the United States Code deals with the transfer of copyright rights and reads:

"(d) TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.--
(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
(2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivi-sion of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title."

There is nothing special about a license. It is simply a temporary grant of the rights entitled by a copyright holder. A licensee only gets the rights explicitly specified in the license.
In fact, a license CANNOT give you the right to change the license. That is a right of ownership of the copyright, and as stated in Section 101, Title 17, USC, the definition of a "transfer of copyright ownership" excludes nonexclusive licenses (which software licenses are, by definition). So if a license gave you the right, it wouldn't be legally binding, and any subsequent sub-licensing would likewise be legally invalid. This is an area that I would be interested in seeing how the courts have defined.
Furthermore, a person cannot GPL changes or additions made to BSDL code. Those are considered derivative works, and, as granted in subsection (c) of section 106, Title 17, USC, they are the exclusive right of the copyright owner. So, those would have to be BSDL, as well. The only way someone could GPL any BSDL code is if they created an entirely new work (not derivative) and their use of BSDL'd code passed the fair use test.
As an aside, derivative works aren't well defined in the law (what happens to derivative works not created by the author, for example), so it would be interesting to see how the courts have defined this area. Also, code changes are a special case and could probably be further defined. Based on my interpretation of the law, changes made to either BSDL or GPL code would be copyrighted by the original author of the code, which seems excessive. (Anybody out there know how the courts have ruled?)

Whatever your feelings on GPL and BSDL, I think everyone can agree they represent very different philosophies for "free" software. To try to change the license of an author's code, even if it wasn't illegal, is wrong. The author made a choice, one that should be respected. By trying to change the license, a person is trying to take away an author's right to make that choice. That is why BSD people get so upset when someone tries to GPL BSDL code, for those of you that had to ask.

Responses are welcome. I am certainly not an authority on the subject, I just did a little research. I am especially interested in the case law, which I know absolutely nothing about. If any one is aware of how copyright law has been interpreted by the courts and how that might apply to this situation, I would love to hear from you.
If you are interested in checking my research or just learning more about copyright law (it is very interesting stuff), the official site is at the Library of Congress.

Nathan "n8" Florea
n8_f@uswest.net

Links:
U.S. Copyright Law PDF
Section 201, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 101, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 106, Title 17, USC PDF
U. S. Copyright Office
Library of Congress
The Fair Use Test

Besides being morally repugnant (the author released the code under that license for a reason), it is illegal for anyone other than the author(s) of a piece of code or binary to alter a license in ANY WAY (including Microsoft, SUN, BSDI, etc.).
The main problem with the arguments of the proponents of GPLing BSDL source is that they assume a license completely ignores any previous rights given by copyright law. They assume that if it isn't explicitly stated in the license, a right is forfeit. It isn't. In fact, the opposite is true. Part (d) of section 201, Title 17 of the United States Code deals with the transfer of copyright rights and reads:

"(d) TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.--
(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
(2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivi-sion of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title."

There is nothing special about a license. It is simply a temporary grant of the rights entitled by a copyright holder. A licensee only gets the rights explicitly specified in the license.
In fact, a license CANNOT give you the right to change the license. That is a right of ownership of the copyright, and as stated in Section 101, Title 17, USC, the definition of a "transfer of copyright ownership" excludes nonexclusive licenses (which software licenses are, by definition). So if a license gave you the right, it wouldn't be legally binding, and any subsequent sub-licensing would likewise be legally invalid. This is an area that I would be interested in seeing how the courts have defined.
Furthermore, a person cannot GPL changes or additions made to BSDL code. Those are considered derivative works, and, as granted in subsection (c) of section 106, Title 17, USC, they are the exclusive right of the copyright owner. So, those would have to be BSDL, as well. The only way someone could GPL any BSDL code is if they created an entirely new work (not derivative) and their use of BSDL'd code passed the fair use test.
As an aside, derivative works aren't well defined in the law (what happens to derivative works not created by the author, for example), so it would be interesting to see how the courts have defined this area. Also, code changes are a special case and could probably be further defined. Based on my interpretation of the law, changes made to either BSDL or GPL code would be copyrighted by the original author of the code, which seems excessive. (Anybody out there know how the courts have ruled?)

Whatever your feelings on GPL and BSDL, I think everyone can agree they represent very different philosophies for "free" software. To try to change the license of an author's code, even if it wasn't illegal, is wrong. The author made a choice, one that should be respected. By trying to change the license, a person is trying to take away an author's right to make that choice. That is why BSD people get so upset when someone tries to GPL BSDL code, for those of you that had to ask.

Responses are welcome. I am certainly not an authority on the subject, I just did a little research. I am especially interested in the case law, which I know absolutely nothing about. If any one is aware of how copyright law has been interpreted by the courts and how that might apply to this situation, I would love to hear from you.
If you are interested in checking my research or just learning more about copyright law (it is very interesting stuff), the official site is at the Library of Congress.

Nathan "n8" Florea
n8_f@uswest.net

Links:
U.S. Copyright Law PDF
Section 201, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 101, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 106, Title 17, USC PDF
U. S. Copyright Office
Library of Congress
The Fair Use Test

Besides being morally repugnant (the author released the code under that license for a reason), it is illegal for anyone other than the author(s) of a piece of code or binary to alter a license in ANY WAY (including Microsoft, SUN, BSDI, etc.).
The main problem with the arguments of the proponents of GPLing BSDL source is that they assume a license completely ignores any previous rights given by copyright law. They assume that if it isn't explicitly stated in the license, a right is forfeit. It isn't. In fact, the opposite is true. Part (d) of section 201, Title 17 of the United States Code deals with the transfer of copyright rights and reads:

"(d) TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.--
(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
(2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivi-sion of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title."

There is nothing special about a license. It is simply a temporary grant of the rights entitled by a copyright holder. A licensee only gets the rights explicitly specified in the license.
In fact, a license CANNOT give you the right to change the license. That is a right of ownership of the copyright, and as stated in Section 101, Title 17, USC, the definition of a "transfer of copyright ownership" excludes nonexclusive licenses (which software licenses are, by definition). So if a license gave you the right, it wouldn't be legally binding, and any subsequent sub-licensing would likewise be legally invalid. This is an area that I would be interested in seeing how the courts have defined.
Furthermore, a person cannot GPL changes or additions made to BSDL code. Those are considered derivative works, and, as granted in subsection (c) of section 106, Title 17, USC, they are the exclusive right of the copyright owner. So, those would have to be BSDL, as well. The only way someone could GPL any BSDL code is if they created an entirely new work (not derivative) and their use of BSDL'd code passed the fair use test.
As an aside, derivative works aren't well defined in the law (what happens to derivative works not created by the author, for example), so it would be interesting to see how the courts have defined this area. Also, code changes are a special case and could probably be further defined. Based on my interpretation of the law, changes made to either BSDL or GPL code would be copyrighted by the original author of the code, which seems excessive. (Anybody out there know how the courts have ruled?)

Whatever your feelings on GPL and BSDL, I think everyone can agree they represent very different philosophies for "free" software. To try to change the license of an author's code, even if it wasn't illegal, is wrong. The author made a choice, one that should be respected. By trying to change the license, a person is trying to take away an author's right to make that choice. That is why BSD people get so upset when someone tries to GPL BSDL code, for those of you that had to ask.

Responses are welcome. I am certainly not an authority on the subject, I just did a little research. I am especially interested in the case law, which I know absolutely nothing about. If any one is aware of how copyright law has been interpreted by the courts and how that might apply to this situation, I would love to hear from you.
If you are interested in checking my research or just learning more about copyright law (it is very interesting stuff), the official site is at the Library of Congress.

Nathan "n8" Florea
n8_f@uswest.net

Links:
U.S. Copyright Law PDF
Section 201, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 101, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 106, Title 17, USC PDF
U. S. Copyright Office
Library of Congress
The Fair Use Test

Besides being morally repugnant (the author released the code under that license for a reason), it is illegal for anyone other than the author(s) of a piece of code or binary to alter a license in ANY WAY (including Microsoft, SUN, BSDI, etc.).
The main problem with the arguments of the proponents of GPLing BSDL source is that they assume a license completely ignores any previous rights given by copyright law. They assume that if it isn't explicitly stated in the license, a right is forfeit. It isn't. In fact, the opposite is true. Part (d) of section 201, Title 17 of the United States Code deals with the transfer of copyright rights and reads:

"(d) TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.--
(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
(2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivi-sion of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title."

There is nothing special about a license. It is simply a temporary grant of the rights entitled by a copyright holder. A licensee only gets the rights explicitly specified in the license.
In fact, a license CANNOT give you the right to change the license. That is a right of ownership of the copyright, and as stated in Section 101, Title 17, USC, the definition of a "transfer of copyright ownership" excludes nonexclusive licenses (which software licenses are, by definition). So if a license gave you the right, it wouldn't be legally binding, and any subsequent sub-licensing would likewise be legally invalid. This is an area that I would be interested in seeing how the courts have defined.
Furthermore, a person cannot GPL changes or additions made to BSDL code. Those are considered derivative works, and, as granted in subsection (c) of section 106, Title 17, USC, they are the exclusive right of the copyright owner. So, those would have to be BSDL, as well. The only way someone could GPL any BSDL code is if they created an entirely new work (not derivative) and their use of BSDL'd code passed the fair use test.
As an aside, derivative works aren't well defined in the law (what happens to derivative works not created by the author, for example), so it would be interesting to see how the courts have defined this area. Also, code changes are a special case and could probably be further defined. Based on my interpretation of the law, changes made to either BSDL or GPL code would be copyrighted by the original author of the code, which seems excessive. (Anybody out there know how the courts have ruled?)

Whatever your feelings on GPL and BSDL, I think everyone can agree they represent very different philosophies for "free" software. To try to change the license of an author's code, even if it wasn't illegal, is wrong. The author made a choice, one that should be respected. By trying to change the license, a person is trying to take away an author's right to make that choice. That is why BSD people get so upset when someone tries to GPL BSDL code, for those of you that had to ask.

Responses are welcome. I am certainly not an authority on the subject, I just did a little research. I am especially interested in the case law, which I know absolutely nothing about. If any one is aware of how copyright law has been interpreted by the courts and how that might apply to this situation, I would love to hear from you.
If you are interested in checking my research or just learning more about copyright law (it is very interesting stuff), the official site is at the Library of Congress.

Nathan "n8" Florea
n8_f@uswest.net

Links:
U.S. Copyright Law PDF
Section 201, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 101, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 106, Title 17, USC PDF
U. S. Copyright Office
Library of Congress
The Fair Use Test

Besides being morally repugnant (the author released the code under that license for a reason), it is illegal for anyone other than the author(s) of a piece of code or binary to alter a license in ANY WAY (including Microsoft, SUN, BSDI, etc.).
The main problem with the arguments of the proponents of GPLing BSDL source is that they assume a license completely ignores any previous rights given by copyright law. They assume that if it isn't explicitly stated in the license, a right is forfeit. It isn't. In fact, the opposite is true. Part (d) of section 201, Title 17 of the United States Code deals with the transfer of copyright rights and reads:

"(d) TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.--
(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
(2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivi-sion of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title."

There is nothing special about a license. It is simply a temporary grant of the rights entitled by a copyright holder. A licensee only gets the rights explicitly specified in the license.
In fact, a license CANNOT give you the right to change the license. That is a right of ownership of the copyright, and as stated in Section 101, Title 17, USC, the definition of a "transfer of copyright ownership" excludes nonexclusive licenses (which software licenses are, by definition). So if a license gave you the right, it wouldn't be legally binding, and any subsequent sub-licensing would likewise be legally invalid. This is an area that I would be interested in seeing how the courts have defined.
Furthermore, a person cannot GPL changes or additions made to BSDL code. Those are considered derivative works, and, as granted in subsection (c) of section 106, Title 17, USC, they are the exclusive right of the copyright owner. So, those would have to be BSDL, as well. The only way someone could GPL any BSDL code is if they created an entirely new work (not derivative) and their use of BSDL'd code passed the fair use test.
As an aside, derivative works aren't well defined in the law (what happens to derivative works not created by the author, for example), so it would be interesting to see how the courts have defined this area. Also, code changes are a special case and could probably be further defined. Based on my interpretation of the law, changes made to either BSDL or GPL code would be copyrighted by the original author of the code, which seems excessive. (Anybody out there know how the courts have ruled?)

Whatever your feelings on GPL and BSDL, I think everyone can agree they represent very different philosophies for "free" software. To try to change the license of an author's code, even if it wasn't illegal, is wrong. The author made a choice, one that should be respected. By trying to change the license, a person is trying to take away an author's right to make that choice. That is why BSD people get so upset when someone tries to GPL BSDL code, for those of you that had to ask.

Responses are welcome. I am certainly not an authority on the subject, I just did a little research. I am especially interested in the case law, which I know absolutely nothing about. If any one is aware of how copyright law has been interpreted by the courts and how that might apply to this situation, I would love to hear from you.
If you are interested in checking my research or just learning more about copyright law (it is very interesting stuff), the official site is at the Library of Congress.

Nathan "n8" Florea
n8_f@uswest.net

Links:
U.S. Copyright Law PDF
Section 201, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 101, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 106, Title 17, USC PDF
U. S. Copyright Office
Library of Congress
The Fair Use Test

Besides being morally repugnant (the author released the code under that license for a reason), it is illegal for anyone other than the author(s) of a piece of code or binary to alter a license in ANY WAY (including Microsoft, SUN, BSDI, etc.).
The main problem with the arguments of the proponents of GPLing BSDL source is that they assume a license completely ignores any previous rights given by copyright law. They assume that if it isn't explicitly stated in the license, a right is forfeit. It isn't. In fact, the opposite is true. Part (d) of section 201, Title 17 of the United States Code deals with the transfer of copyright rights and reads:

"(d) TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.--
(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
(2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivi-sion of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title."

There is nothing special about a license. It is simply a temporary grant of the rights entitled by a copyright holder. A licensee only gets the rights explicitly specified in the license.
In fact, a license CANNOT give you the right to change the license. That is a right of ownership of the copyright, and as stated in Section 101, Title 17, USC, the definition of a "transfer of copyright ownership" excludes nonexclusive licenses (which software licenses are, by definition). So if a license gave you the right, it wouldn't be legally binding, and any subsequent sub-licensing would likewise be legally invalid. This is an area that I would be interested in seeing how the courts have defined.
Furthermore, a person cannot GPL changes or additions made to BSDL code. Those are considered derivative works, and, as granted in subsection (c) of section 106, Title 17, USC, they are the exclusive right of the copyright owner. So, those would have to be BSDL, as well. The only way someone could GPL any BSDL code is if they created an entirely new work (not derivative) and their use of BSDL'd code passed the fair use test.
As an aside, derivative works aren't well defined in the law (what happens to derivative works not created by the author, for example), so it would be interesting to see how the courts have defined this area. Also, code changes are a special case and could probably be further defined. Based on my interpretation of the law, changes made to either BSDL or GPL code would be copyrighted by the original author of the code, which seems excessive. (Anybody out there know how the courts have ruled?)

Whatever your feelings on GPL and BSDL, I think everyone can agree they represent very different philosophies for "free" software. To try to change the license of an author's code, even if it wasn't illegal, is wrong. The author made a choice, one that should be respected. By trying to change the license, a person is trying to take away an author's right to make that choice. That is why BSD people get so upset when someone tries to GPL BSDL code, for those of you that had to ask.

Responses are welcome. I am certainly not an authority on the subject, I just did a little research. I am especially interested in the case law, which I know absolutely nothing about. If any one is aware of how copyright law has been interpreted by the courts and how that might apply to this situation, I would love to hear from you.
If you are interested in checking my research or just learning more about copyright law (it is very interesting stuff), the official site is at the Library of Congress.

Nathan "n8" Florea
n8_f@uswest.net

Links:
U.S. Copyright Law PDF
Section 201, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 101, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 106, Title 17, USC PDF
U. S. Copyright Office
Library of Congress
The Fair Use Test

Find the original ITAR regulations somewhere on Thomas. Recently, the controls were transferred to Commerce by the Export Arms Regulations. String Cryptographic software has been placed on this list of unexportable munitions by the President. In a nutshell, anyone can write any cryptographic software they want. However, if the strength of said software exceeds 56 bits, I believe, it cannot be exported from the US without an export license from the Commerce Department. US citizens may not acquire said software, take it to Canada, and re-export it from there, however, I'm not so sure Canadian citizens are banned from doing any such thing.

As for where the list of munitions is, I'm not sure.

Why can PGPI.com export the code? At the moment, any printed material is considered to be speech, and may be exported under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The current manufacturers of PGP simply printed the source code in an easy-to-OCR format, PGPi bought copies of it, and distributed them to Europeans who proceeded to scan and proofread them.

The 10th Ammendment to the US Constutition states that whatever is not explicitly authorized for the Federal Government is reserved for the People and for the States.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal Government given any authority over education.

If the Federal Gov't passes any law regarding education, then they have violated the 10th Ammendment. If they send any money to the States for education, then they have violated the 10th Ammendment.

It won't be the first time our Constitution was ignored and trampled upon. It won't be the first time it has been violated.

The 10th Ammendment to the US Constutition states that whatever is not explicitly authorized for the Federal Government is reserved for the People and for the States.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal Government given any authority over education.

If the Federal Gov't passes any law regarding education, then they have violated the 10th Ammendment. If they send any money to the States for education, then they have violated the 10th Ammendment.

It won't be the first time our Constitution was ignored and trampled upon. It won't be the first time it has been violated.

Introduced by Sen. Hollings from South Carolina and currently before the Finance Committee:

S.1433 Sales Tax Safety Net and Teacher Funding Act

Note that this is only a bill, and has not passed committee. There is nothing at this point to distinguish this bill from any of the other hundreds of proposals submitted by "our" representatives every year. No need to panic just yet, unless you are from South Carolina. Here is the contact info for Senator Hollings:

Ernest "Fritz" Hollings

And here is the webpage for the Finance Committee so you can see whether your senator might be influential in this process. If so, please contact him or her!

Senate Committee on Finance

But, there is a legitimate possibility of a tax being levied on the Internet and that is a sales tax. Senator Fritz Hollings has introduced legislation that would levy a national sales tax of 5 percent on every interstate sale. While this covers mail-order catalogs and telephone sales, there is no doubt that its main focus is e-commerce.

You can read the text of the bill here.

The bill would take the money generated by the national tax and fund grants to pay teachers' salaries. It flies in the face of Rep. Chris Cox's Internet Tax Freedon Act, which called for a three-year moritorium on taxation of the Internet.

A side note
While nobody likes new taxes, they may eventually be neccessary. The primary beneficiary of sales taxes are state and local governments, not the big, bad feds everyone loves to hate. Sales taxes represent more than 36 percent of the budget of state and local governments.

That pays for things like schools, police and firefighters. We have to have those services. If the economy moves more and more to the e-commerce model, local governments will either tax this new economy or die.

But, that being said, I think we are a while off before taxation becomes neccessary. While e-commerce is growing at an incredible rate, it is still a small part of the total economy, and we don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

We do not have an absolute right to a tax-free Internet. Intellectual freedom? Yes. Academic freedom? Yes. Freedom from taxation? It is up to us to look at the situation and use our heads. No one likes new taxes, but we all like things like roads, schools and the ability to walk on the streets late at night.

HipNerd

The U.S. cybersquatting law recently passed by the Senate requires that the courts prove you registered a domain "in bad faith."

Bad faith is a tough thing to prove in court.

If you knowingly register a domain because it's the name of a company or a trademark, and route traffic to a competing company or to something like a porn site, you've gone a long way towards proving bad faith.

If you register a domain for the purpose of parody and publish a parody site (as in my own Drudge Retort at http://www.drudge.com), you're on strong legal ground in the U.S. The Senate's cybersquatting law even affirms the use of a domain for the purpose of parody or political comment (such as www.pepsibloodbath.com).

Another way to get yourself in trouble is to register a domain that's identical (or similar) to a company's name or trademark, and contact that company to see if they're interested in buying it. That would look terrible in court -- some domain registrants in the UK lost all of their domains by contacting companies like Virgin to sell domain names they had acquired.

Anyone who is concerned about this legislation in the U.S. should visit the Congress Web site at http://thomas.loc.gov and search for bill number S.1255.RS, the "Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999." The bill is fairly limited in the kind of domain use that is being prohibited.

Well, thanks for the answers guys. I didn't see anything earth shattering, or even mango crushing, but that just shows where we are on the path to political influence (as a geek community). Maybe I just had my hopes up that somebody had already taken it upon themselves to provide the tools to be effective "internet lobbyists", but that doesn't seem to be the case.
The tools I am thinking of would have to be up-to-the minute Congress trackers and very simple and organized ways to contact lawmakers (e-mail is great, but how about a form letter that surfers can print, sign, stamp, and put in the mail. E-mail is great, but if you turn off your machine (or if the power goes out *cough*) it simply ceases to exist. It's much more difficult to ignore physical paper. The impact, because of the additional effort, is also much greater. A database of congressmen and how they voted on particular issues would also be useful. Think about it... You (being a busy professional) don't have time to constantly follow how your reps are voting, but come election time you want to make an informed decision. How nice would it be to able to say click *(state), then *(city), then *(Your reps name) and see a complete voting history. If you really want to be nasty, er, honest you could also include major contributors to their campaign and all the other factors in how they vote (i.e. demographic % for their district, who is blackmailing them, etc.)
(BTW I've visited a U.S. Congress legislattion site and quickly ran away screaming after dealing with it's interface, if you know of others please post 'em)

Anyway, I don't think political advocacy has even reached the Internet yet, at least not to the extent of e-commerce (which is still making baby steps IMHO). I think there is a grand opportunity for anyone who would like to start such a site (or give me 2 mil. to do it :-), and it would be welcome by all those people who feel our government doesn't listen to them. 100,000 voices singing in unison WILL be heard.

If you are concerned about your civil liberties being chipped away by the government, who wants to "protect the children" or some such nonsense, and furthermore seems to think that we're ALL children, the least you can do is voice your opinion. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is one of the major proponents of this bill. WRITE or call and let her know what you think about The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act.

(from http://feinstein.senate.gov/cal ifornia_offices.html)
This is her SAN FRANCISCO office, for other offices follow the above link.
Jim Lazarus, State Director
525 Market Street, Suite 3670
San Francisco, CA 94105
415/536-6868

You Utah-ites (Utahns? Utonions? Utizens?) can call up Orrin Hatch and give him a piece of your mind too.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER COMPLIANCE FUND For payments authorized by section 109 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1008), $15,000,000, to remain available until expended.

15 million directly spent to protect our governments ability to tap phones.
It seems like a lot of effort being spent on a task that in the long run is going to fail.

In the long run I don't think that the government can keep everything under wraps, it is as doomed to failure as the efforts in past centuries to keep the reading of the bible the exclusive domain of clergy.

The only argument I have ever read by a non gov official for this sort of thing is in one of the Tom Clancy novels, were he has the terrorists using encryption to prevent their detection. However these same terrorists have the resources of an oil producing nation to back them up, So would pgp being exported really have been needed for them to be protected or would they have just been able to buy what they needed? After all in the book they are able to produce biological weapons to attack the US with, so how hard would it have been for them to operate without coming to the notice of the CIA without public domain strong encyption?

So give me a break. Read my mail if you want to, but have fun I even have trouble keeping up with it.

Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation

Children's Defense Act of 1999 (Introduced in the House)

Well, the part that is most interesting to me in this Bill is the penalties section. If this bill had passed, a person running a ticket booth who sold a ticket to South Park to a 17 year old could get five years in prison. That's right five years in prison The big question is, what do you think of a country that would do that? Does that sound like America?
For those of you who go "Right on, we need this law," might I suggest moving to sunny Iran? It will require a conversion to Islam, but you aren't really a Christian if you want to expose someone to the horrors of the US prison system for selling a South Park ticket to a 17 year old, are you? I certainly know my New Testament, and violence and imprisonment were always opposed by Jesus, even when Peter picked up a sword to save Him from the cross. There's also that whole "Let he who is without sin among you, cast the first stone bit," that a lot of people who call themselves Christians seem to want to either edit out of the Bible or just doublethink their way around.
Remember, Iran has a dry climate which is good for the sinuses and a violent, oppressive government that always claims to be acting for God and against Satan, and you won't have to deal with any of that new agey stuff that Jesus was talking about, like non-violence and tolerance that must be really awkward to reconcile with your pro-political oppression views.

After the 1996 Telecommunications Act was passed into law, the media focused mainly on cable TV and cell phones with no coverage of the potential impact on radio. According to ARD by the end of 1997 over 4000 of the nation's 11,000 radio stations had been sold and in the 50 largest markets three firms controlled over 50% of the ad revenue (in 23 of those markets 3 firms controlled over 80% of revenues.)

This buying frenzy sent the cost of radio skyrocketing. The Rev, a radio station with a weak signal and less than a 2% market share, sold for over $17 million! More than ever, when you travel around the country, you hear the same songs, the same voices, the same commercials -- no matter what station you listen to.

While MP3 streaming radio has helped to fill the gap for me, it's only a moderately reasonable alternative because of my DSL connection.

To me, this falls in line with some of the same goals of the Open Source movement. More and better access for everyone, and less of an opportunity for special interest control. Control of the airwaves by media conglomerates means less artistic freedom and more packaged and processed drivel.

-djH

It did follow normal procedure:

It was introduced to the House on 25 February 1999, and reported to a total of four committees: Commerce, Judiciary, International Relations, and Armed Services. Those four committees each considered the bill, held hearings, and listened to both Industry and Law Enforcement opinion of the bill.

Before -any- amendments, it garnered 257 cosponsors -- 257 Representatives who say it's a good bill they support. Remember: 218 have to vote Yea for it to pass, and it has 257 behind it.

On April 27th, the Judiciary committee reported it to the House, saying "Good bill, as is"

The Commerce committee also liked it, and suggested a couple of small amendments -- still a very pro-encryption bill

The International Relations committee added a couple of more things to it, but left it mostly intact.

Most interesting is reading the finding of the committees: None of them particularly agreed with Law Enforcement. International Relations even went as far as stating that the Administration policy that Law Enforcement supports doesn't meet Law Enforcement's stated goals -- and no attempt is being made by the Administration to tighten the restrictions currently in place.

The 106th Congress bill query page will allow you to search for h.r.850 and read the reports for yourself (I can't figure out how to link directly, sorry).

Now the fourth committee has marked up the bill -- but not reported it yet -- and has apparently supported Law Enforcement over Industry.

The House as a whole hasn't even officially seen the Armed Services Committee's amendments, although they've seen the other three committees. It's a little early to say the bill is deal.

I will note that the first committee to report (Judiciary) refused to consider one section of the bill because of jurisdictional grounds.

So at this point, assuming the Armed Services Committee reports it as reported, there will be four versions of the bill -- three very similar, and pro-Industry, and one very different, and pro-Law Enforcement. This is what the Rules Committee will have to sort out.

Then, it will go to the full House, then to the Senate, and finally to the President.

I wouldn't say it's dead yet. It might not be mortally wounded. But we should let our congresscritters know that we favor the original version.

Well, isn't this ironic. I think the government is overstepping its bounds just slightly here. If Spencer Abraham's Anticybersquatting Bill passes, this should be the first domain to be sued, because I don't think the government has any plans to use this domain name. And if they do, what are they going to use it for? May I suggest that they use it as a public forum for anti-government expression? (Check out this bill S.1255 at Library of Congress; I think Sec 3(B)(ii)(II) would be the appropriate section under which to sue.)

Federalist No. 29, by Alexander Hamilton, published in the Daily Advertiser 10-Jan-1788.
This specifically cites the militia as one way to prevent a need for a standing army, a tool of despotism.

Federalist No. 28 states that the armed populace has an obligation to resist despotism.

See the Library of Congress and search for 'militia'.

Then realize than an unarmed militia is... stupid, unless it's composed of, say, Haruchai.

So, did you search, or have you just been swallowing anti-gun propaganda?

(1) IN GENERAL- An elementary school, secondary school, or library that fails to provide the certification required by paragraph (2) or (3), respectively, is not eligible to receive or retain universal service assistance provided under subsection (h)(1)(B).

(1) IN GENERAL- An elementary school, secondary school, or library that fails to provide the certification required by paragraph (2) or (3), respectively, is not eligible to receive or retain universal service assistance provided under subsection (h)(1)(B).

(1) IN GENERAL- An elementary school, secondary school, or library that fails to provide the certification required by paragraph (2) or (3), respectively, is not eligible to receive or retain universal service assistance provided under subsection (h)(1)(B).