Slashdot Mirror

Congress had nothing to do with UCITA, it was created by an NCCUSL committee. UCITA is part of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is designed so that all states have the same rules when deciding questions of interstate commerce. It is a sort of compromise between state's rights and imposing Federal control. Every state gets to decide if it accepts the code, most of the time it is non-controversial. UCITA was poorly conceived and so got a lot of flak.

If, like me, you've never heard of UCITA and are looking to form your own opinion, a summary is available here:
summary of UCITA

I have read the articles here and on several other sites, and I've read many Infoworld articles over the past few years on UCITA, and I _still_ don't see how it is damaging to Open Source. As pointed out earlier, this page seeks to address the concerns of Open Source advocates, and does a good job of such. I have understood the dangers of large proprietary corps like M$ being able to turn software off and abuse consumers in other ways, but I have not been able to find a single credible reference to how UCITA will hurt Linux developers or users. Can someone post a rational and clear explanation using traceable references to UCITA language that demonstrates the potential for harm? I'm certain that many others would also appreciate clarification.
Thanks

If, like me, you've never heard of UCITA and are looking to form your own opinion, a summary is available here:

http://www.ucitaonline.com/slhpwiu.html

I gracriously concede the point. FYI, UCITA was orchestrated through the NCCUSL.
They're marketing it to all the states. A number of others are considering it - the big selling points seems to be "attracting software industry to your state."

Well, their lawyers at least.

-Dave

IANAL, but until very recently, your suspicions were basically correct; company lawyers have their field day with shrink-wrap licenses but they're very very careful not to test the more exotic provisions in court.

That is, until they're safely set up inside a UCITA-adopting state.

Why, you ask? What's this UCITA anyway? Not another acronym. I'm too lazy to write another letter. Trying to keep my phone bill down. And I can never keep my boycotts straight once I get to the store.

From the mouth of the beast...

And on a slightly more ethical tip...

The FSF's writeup

And the CPSR's writeup...

Google will give you more.

Think your EULA's not binding? UCITA gives it all that 100%-All-American Bought and Paid For Congressional Stamp of Approval. Some democracy we have, huh?

-David

There are many cases where licenses are non-transferable, particularly in the case of corporate licenses of intellectual property, but I believe (IANAL) most licenses are transferable by default, unless specifically stipulated otherwise. As I recall some states require consumer product licenses to be transferable (stating that non-transfer clauses are not enforcable within that state). I'm just not certain in which states this is true. The UCITA makes ajustments to the transferability rules, but the site I'm referencing here is not an even-handed analysis of that legislation (primarily because I don't have time to look for a better analysis). If you find what's written there to be disturbing, remember that it's decidedly pro-UTICA so an even handed analysys would be even more disturbing.

--CTH

RE: I'm not sure what law prevents you from reverse engineering a file format!

UCITA has another indirect consequence that would hamstring free software development in the long term -- it gives proprietary software developers the power to prohibit reverse engineering. This would make it easy for them to establish secret file formats and protocols, which there would be no lawful way for us to figure out.

UcitaOnline

On a side note, its nice to see the word hacker used correcly:
Maryland legislators recognized quickly why exempting Open Source software from the mandated warranties made sense,
Webbink says. "How do you impose a warranty on some hacker who's in Romania, written a piece of the code, and given it away for free?"

Despite your opinion of the current status of UCITA, I think that it is far from dead. Take a look at this map to see where UCITA lobbying activities are underway. Check out anti-UCITA ucita.com. and pro-UCITA ucitaonline.com. It's still an issue that has to be followed or it'll take us all by surprise one day, by becoming the law of the land.

Ed

Many used book stores sell second-hand software, such as Half-Price Books here in Austin and it is legal, although they, the book store, do not seem to guarantee that the purchaser can get past the technical restrictions.

The DMCA obviously makes it illegal to circumvent technical restrictions to copying or distributing software, but the physical media (CD-ROM) can still be given away, donated, loaned to a friend, or given away, and the software copyright holder will usually have no legal means under copyright to prevent it (although software companies do of course often attempt technical means to prevent it with serial numbers, verification numbers, online registration, requiring the CD-ROM to be in the drive and such).

Another thing. In UCITA jurisdictions, software copyright owners may be able to get restrictive license terms enforced by a court, at least where the purchaser has access to the license terms before purchase. I do wonder though about whether federal preemption issues aren't raised by state court enforcement of UCITA licensing terms that works to restrict rights consumers have under copyright, such as those of first sale and fair use.

Ed

The reason that I ask is that if you read their FAQ, they seem to villify all Linux supporters who oppose UCITA. In particular they have an entire section devoted to "Myths". In this section they claim that slashdotters are worried about things that aren't true in UCITA.

Well, when push comes to shove, who is right? If it turns out that UCITA passes, and the things that they say are false end up being true, are they responsible?

I assume that they're not. (I don't even know what it would mean for them to be responsible.) Which means that anyone can say anything w/out regard to its truthfulness, just so long as it makes their side look good.

So, how should I (someone woefully uniformed about UCITA) determine whether the /. interpretation of UCITA is true or the ucitaonline interpretation is true? Any suggestions? Please keep in mind IANAL, so to read the actual law would not help. I'm not qualified to interpret it.

Try the enemeywww.ucitaonline.com

You can even sign up for e-mail updates!