New Coalition Formed to Fight UCITA

Andy Tai writes "According to this InfoWorld column, a coalition, AFFECT, has been formed to fight UCITA (the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act). UCITA was passed in Virginia and Maryland and is beginning to move through other state legislatures, and oppositions are needed to halt UCITA's passage. AFFECT is composed of a variety of organizations, including, from the ACM, EFF to several big companies outside the computer industry. They are calling for action and support in each state of the US. UCITA's background can be found here and how it can impact Free Software is described here."

Comments

so what does this mean for open source..

[josepha48]

.. developers???

If I develop software does that mean that someone who uses this software can sue me if it does something bad, even though the software already has a warning? This is confusing.

I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!

Interesting to see how this plays out.

[Heidi Wall]

I must confess I am not an expert on these matters, but lots of information about UCITA can be found here, a very interesting FAQ covering the main points of the UCITA legislation. I read in some time ago and found it really quite informative and useful for my research paper.

Also useful is this interesting coverage of the exact aims of AFFECT, and their issues with UCITA, which I also found to be useful, and so I cited it.
--
Clarity does not require the absence of impurities,

Re:Interesting to see how this plays out.

[SurgieGuy]

Wow, slashdotters on the same side of an issue as the MPAA & The attorney general of florida? Is there a comet about to collide with the earth or something that I missed in the science section?

This is where a Bush whitehouse will be helpful

[typical geek]

This organization protesting UCITA will probably be helped by having a Republican in the White House. For those of you who don't know much about American politics, the Republicans are the party that is for States Rights (this States Rights philosophy goes back a hundred years, even to the Civil War).

As long as this organization frame this as a states right issue, they should get help from the Bush administration. While Republicans are known as pro-business, I imagine the smary nerdiness of GAtes will probably annoy good old boy Dubya, and remind him of those geeks that made fun of him in school.

Re:This is where a Bush whitehouse will be helpful

[david614]

For those of you who are ignorant of both politics and history, the states rights argument was also the one used by white segregationists in the south to constrain black voting and civil rights. These arguments were also tolerated by both democrats and republicans for political reasons.

Bottom Line:

Don't depend on republican states rights arguments to defend the free software movement.

Talk about an "unholy alliance"!!!

Re:This is where a Bush whitehouse will be helpful

[david614]

Geeks that made fun of "him" in school? You have it backward. Dubya was a jock/party animal. The geeks would have been his principal targets.

Re:This is where a Bush whitehouse will be helpful

[fhwang]

You're misinterpreting States Rights. It doesn't mean that people get more rights, thanks to the states. It usually means states have the right to take away their citizen's rights to a greater extent than the federal government.

We should probably be wary of this. My guess is that issue will come to a basic conservative-vs-liberal axis. And it's worth noting that centers of anti-corporate leftism tend to be concentrated on the coasts. If they can influence national politics through the federal government, that helps. But if it's left up to the states, things can get much nastier.

There is a lot of precedent for this. The States Rights philosophy was used by the South by over 100 hundred years to justify their shabby treatment of black folks -- from the Civil War (1860s) to the Civil Rights Act (1960s). The federal government had to drag the southern states, kicking and screaming, into recognizing that black people were human beings.

Today, state-level referendums are an often-used weapon in the conservative arsenal, used to push hardline culturally conservative agendas on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, prayer in school, abstinence education, and drug policy. There are a number of well-funded conservative organizations that have national-scale funding and use it to focus on a few states at a time. And since it doesn't happen on the national level, it doesn't receive as much scrutiny in the press.

Re:This is where a Bush whitehouse will be helpful

[BlueGecko]

For those of you who don't know much about American politics, the Republicans are the party that is for States Rights (this States Rights philosophy goes back a hundred years, even to the Civil War).

I am an ardent Republican, and I don't know whether you meant this to be confusing or not, but in the Civil War, the Democrats were for State's Rights (remember Calhoun's Exposition and Protest and Douglas' work to get the Missouri Compromise revoked?) and the Republicans were the ones for increased Federal control. (Otherwise, that whole little Civil War thing wouldn't have happened, because we would have let South Carolina and the Southern states just do their own thing and nullify the laws they didn't like.) During the Progressive Era, that changed, with the Republicans and Democrats both pushing for increased Federal interference. Finally, we arrived at the current situation where Republicans are pro States' Rights and Democrats are for Federal control. That emerged mostly during FDR's administration. Just wanted to clarify, since it sounded like you were saying Republicans were for States' Rights way back in the Civil War.

Re:This is where a Bush whitehouse will be helpful

[L. J. Beauregard]

UCITA is a proposed state law, not a federal law. "States' Rights" would favor Washington doing nothing about this.
--
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delenda est Windoze

Re:This is where a Bush whitehouse will be helpful

[CMcTortoise]

Yes, but there have been several groups of Republicans in the past, including the Democratic-Republicans, which I believe you are referring to. Regardless, today's Republicans fight for state's rights MUCH more than the centralized-government Democrats.

Comments Welcome

------------------------------------------------ --

Re:This is where a Bush whitehouse will be helpful

[anothy]

i hate political discussions, but this is a bit over-the-top to not comment on. you're kidding, right? have you just not been paying atention for the last several months? in our recent election, which party brought things to the federal courts, taking the power away from the states, first? GOP. which was the first to look to have a fedreal court overturn the decisions of a state court? GOP. which advocated having the federal gvt. take over running national elections? GOP. none of this is to say the Dems are huge states right advocates: they're not. but while the GOP was a firm advocate of state's rights 50-100 years ago, in the past 20 or so, this has fallen to the whims of whatever's most politicaly expedient.

what's worse, you seem to be confused about keeping this at a state level being good for UCITA oposition. i'd rather have it national, where the more technologicly aware centers are able to impact the decision for the entire nation.

and what's worse still, as an earlier poster has pointed out, you're mis-representing the effects of "state's rights" on individual rights. there isn't guaranteed to be any corolation there.

Re:This is where a Bush whitehouse will be helpful

[crucini]

That would be true if UCITA were a proposed federal law. But it's not. It's model legislation for state legislatures to adopt (or not adopt) thereby exercising their valued states' rights.

Re:This is where a Bush whitehouse will be helpful

[jeffry_smith]

Actually, the original Democratic-Republicans became today's Democrats. They were the state's rights (Thomas Jefferson) party against the Whiggs & Federalists (John Adams) party. In the 1850's, an upstart party called the Republicans (Federalist in nature) appeared, that eventually managed to get a president elected (Abraham Lincoln). Note that these same Republicans started the national parks/monuments movement to protect the environment (Teddy Roosevelt)

Of course, today, lots of thngs are different.

Only NOW is there a group to fight it?

[sl3xd]

This is more of an observation than anything, but I thought there already was a group fighting UCITA. Espescially with all the 'Slashdot advocates' who are against UCITA.

Is it just me or is this evidence that us xBSD/GNU/Linux advocates need to start doing more real work and having more real involvement in IP laws than we have been?

Of the number of IP laws/issues that have been discussed on /., just how many of us have actually written a well-reasoned letter to our elected official(s)?

Do we write our thoughts and opinions to our government official(s), or do we just complain about it on ./?

There isn't really a difference in the amount of effort it takes to write to the elected officials in your locale, than it does to write to Slashdot.

Writing your representatives will get noticed, and may get results. Writing the entire argument to Slashdot won't do that.

But, on the upside, Slashdot can inspire us to write our officials. Do it!!!

This article may only deal with the United States, but that doesn't mean that there aren't IP issues elsewhere in the world. (Fight software patents in the E.U., etc.)

Re:Only NOW is there a group to fight it?

[llywrch]

> Do we write our thoughts and opinions to our government official(s), or do we just complain about it on ./?
>
> There isn't really a difference in the amount of effort it takes to write to the elected officials in your locale, than it does to write to
> Slashdot.
>
> Writing your representatives will get noticed, and may get results. Writing the entire argument to Slashdot won't do that.

Well, something like this happened in Oregon. Damned if I can figure it out, but my best guess is this:

There is a quasi-governmental group here called the ``Oregon Internet Commission" that, as late as last summer, stated that passing UCITA in Oregon was a major goal. I & a number of members of the Portland Linux/UNIX Group wrote in protest of this stand, & I prepared to start lobbying my legislative folks about what a bad law this was.

And as of this writing, no such bill has been submitted to the Oregon Legislature. I feel that I'm repeating the experience I put a weekend aside to fix a plumbing problem in my house which was fixed in 15 minutes!

A visit to the Oregon Internet Commission's home page turned up the interesting discovery that on 17 October 2000 Vince Chiappetta reported back to the Commission that ``the Commission received feedback opposed to enacting UCITA. The subcommitte recommendation does not recommend adopting UCITA, but rather only suggests it as one vehicle for addressing the goal of more certainty in on-line contracting." Hmmm. I guess all of the cards, letters & email from people on the PLUG list was enough to frighten a former Microsoft executive & several corporate lawyers into backing off from endorsing this proposed legislation.

Yes, I was being sardonic in that last sentence. I can't see how a few dozen cards, letters & emails won the battle. I even sent another email to the commission asking if they have decided not to submit this proposed law to the legislature, but have yet to get an answer.

Then I noticed House Bill 2470, ``sponsored by Representative HILL (at the request of Craig Berkman)". In short, the Oregon Internet Commission is due to be terminated -- or sunsetted -- soon, & need to be recreated. Aha! It is all clear . . .

This Commission knows that there are a lot of folks out here who don't like UCITA. But keeping themselves in business for another few years is far more important than an immediate handout for Microsoft & its ilk.

Now if I could only figure out a way to wrangle a seat on this Commission for myself or some true geeks, we might be able to keep the suits at bay.

Geoff

Fighting globalism with globalism

[CMcTortoise]

Several Linux advocates (like myself) fight UCITA in an effort to hinder mandatory licensing schemes. There is, however, in my opinion, some contradiction here: Why is it that the governments attempts to standardize software licensing are hindered whereas the FSF's efforts are glorified???

I believe that the Linux community has been somewhat "brainwashed" into believing that the GNU GPL is the only license that meets the needs of all individuals. Frankly, it doesn't. Since when does freedom only come in one form??? If the Linux community wants to fight standardized licensing programs, then they must abolish their own. (Do not try to deny that the GPL creates two worlds of software...GPL and non-GPL)

So, what must be done? Abolish the GPL? Kill the FSF? Absolutely not. If individuals REALLY want to use the GPL, go ahead. No one can stop you... But I simply believe that many developers use this licensing without understanding or comprehending its true implications.

Comments Welcome.

------------------------------------------------ --

Re:Fighting globalism with globalism

[Rakarra]

Several Linux advocates (like myself) fight UCITA in an effort to hinder mandatory licensing schemes. There is, however, in my opinion, some contradiction here: Why is it that the governments attempts to standardize software licensing are hindered whereas the FSF's efforts are glorified???

Because the purposes of the two schemes are completely different. The GPL gives software users rights that they normally wouldn't have for copyrighted software - the right to make modifications and distrubute them. This is a granting of additional privilages. The UCITA however has several provisions which remove the rights of the software user. That is why it is not hypocritical to oppose one and not the other.

Don't like the GPL? Don't distribute modifications to GPLed software.
Don't like UCITA? Don't use any software at all.

cool domain...

[Error27]

the fact that the pro-ucita factions didn't swipe it up, is proof once again that they are clueless about the internet.

Dear god!

[7-Vodka]

I had no idea what money could buy! But after the DMCA and now this...

I doubt people will react. Even so, I've emailed everyone on my list about it.

I wish most people gave a fuck.

"just connect this to..."
BZZT.

This isn't right!

[OmegaDan]

Y'all are infringing on large corporations right to lobby to have unconstitutional laws passed on their behalf!

There probably is no such group

[OmegaDan]

There probably is no such group as affect, you sign up and MS shows up at your door to "re-educate" you ...

Not right

[sagacious_gnostic]

This just doesn't seem to be right. If I was a blacksmith, the government would not impose undue restrictions on the horse shoes I make. Like making me liable if the horse becomes lame. The fact that I want to craft software and give it away "No strings attached" should be a good thing (tm). But Nooooooo they have to place all these restrictions on me. Maybe I will write code and distribute it as "(c)2001 Anonymous Coward".

Don't count on Bush to do geeks any favors...

[slothbait]

You are correct that Republicans are, in a very generic sense, "pro-business". Of course, Democrats are as well, these days, so that doesn't say a whole lot. For all the stomping, and hand-waving, I see virtually no difference between the two major American parties.

But this statement:

> I imagine the smary nerdiness of GAtes will probably annoy good old boy Dubya

...is unfounded, and ridiculuous. Bush went on record during the election as siding with the MS in the DOJ case. He stated that if he won the election, he would do whatever was necessary to "protect companies' right to innovate", or whatever the line from Redmond was at the time. I was aghast.

Still, I'm not too worried. Much as I dislike MS, I've never much believed in the court case. MS is guilty as sin, but I don't think a court decision could ever remedy that. Eventually, MS will choke on its own vomit. The day will come when consumers realize how much MS is toying with them, and slowly they'll drift away.

Besides, I think the OS is rapidly losing the limelight as far as computing goes. I agree with Cringely that MS has peaked and that this new decade will be the decade of Cisco. If I had money lieing around, I'd be buying Cisco stock...

--Lenny, musing on a Sunday morning.

Re:Don't count on Bush to do geeks any favors...

[Tassach]

I imagine the smary nerdiness of GAtes will probably annoy good old boy Dubya

...is unfounded, and ridiculuous. Bush went on record during the election as siding with the MS in the DOJ case. He stated that if he won the election, he would do whatever was necessary to "protect companies' right to innovate", or whatever the line from Redmond was at the time. I was aghast.

Shrub and Gates are both the sons of millionaires; and therefore lifetime members of the good-ole-boy's club from birth, which trancends any jock/nerd rivalry. Of course, the fact that Gates donated $MEGABUCKS to Shrub's campaign has nothing whatsoever to do with Shrub's stand on US v. Microsoft. Really. It dosn't matter what Shrub's personal opinion of Gates is, he's going to do whatever it takes to keep those campaing donations rolling in.

99999

[Animats]

I think it's time to lobby for full warranties for software. Now that Microsoft is talking about 99.99% uptime, it's a competitive issue. Companies should be competing on length of warranty, like car manufacturers started doing once Japanese competition got serious.

Re:99999

[oooga]

The reason car manufacturers make warrenties is because cars have moving parts that are apt to fail. If windows 2K server only gave you 95% uptime, you couldn't bring it in to gm goodwrench plus. They'd have to just give you money. I agree, there needs to be accountability, but a warranty is not exactly what's needed.

It wouldn't matter if Linus Torvald were President

[nysus]

For those of you who don't know anything about politics:

FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Is there a translation?

[giberti]

I live in VA, and have been reading the various secions of UCITA on the states website. But speaking only English, I got a little lost in the laywer speak.

RMS, has some interesting points in what UCITA could do... but I would like to see someone translate the document into something readable by a lay person (or computer geek).

Is UCITA really this evil Micro$oft friendly thing, or is it just raising the bar for the Open Source (and free) software community?

Re:Is there a translation?

[HiThere]

One proof that it's bad law:
It's so long that the legislators didn't read it before voting on it.

Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.

Can't UCITA be fought on a federal level?

[defile]

If you could get the Supreme Court to declare UCITA insane, wouldn't it prevent states from adopting it and also invalidate the adoption of it in other states?

It seems like the most efficient way for free software supporters to kill this.

YOU are probably sitting there wondering "What can I do? I'm just one dude" -- Contribute to the EFF! If you can't justify giving to charity to yourself, maybe you can because of the cool shirt they'll send you.

UCITA and GPL are not same type

[Sloppy]

Why is it that the governments attempts to standardize software licensing are hindered whereas the FSF's efforts are glorified???

Because they are two completely different things. UCITA doesn't standardize licenses. It standardizes enforcibility of licenses, and the standard it creates is extremely different that the existing defacto standard. UCITA makes it so that the user always has to agree to the license, even if they don't know what the terms of the license are until after they have purchased a software product and ripped open the box.

Under the current (non-UCITA) situation, the user still gets to choose whether they agree with a license or not, and they can reject the license and still use the software in accordance with copyright law.

The GPL, on the other hand, is just a license. Nothing in the terms of the GPL applies prior to the user agreeing to it, so these are really two completely different things.

---

What their site says

[JCCyC]

From their site: Our goal is to inform legislators and the Governor's office that UCITA is a bad law that is anti-competitive, anti-business and anti-consumer.

Lobbyst says: 'See, Governor/State Legislator, they're a bunch of liars. How can anything that is anti-competitive and anti-consumer be anti-business?'

Governor/State Legislator buys it. Everybody is screwed.

Where are the software companies?

[Zoloft]

I see only one member (see "Who We Are") in the software business - Sun Microsystems

Where are the Linux companies? Where is Red Hat, Caldera, VA Linux, Ximian and Eazel? Where's IBM and Compaq? Where's FSF, for christ's sake?

Help these people out; give this coalition some balls!

I know, I know - IBM and Compaq wish they can help out but they can't. They don't have the balls to ruffle His Billness' feathers. His Billness might get angry and have a temper tantrum.

Software licence agreements on shrinkwrap S/W

[B.D.Mills]

UCITA is the reason why I now take the time to read the licence agreement carefully on all software I buy. The bit that is of particular interest is the section that specifies the jurisdiction that covers the agreement.

My caution was justified when I was reading the licence agreement for the release version of Netscape 6 for Windoze (as opposed to the preview version). The preview version was governed by the laws of California, but one could guess that trouble was brewing when the licence agreement specifically excluded California's consumer protection laws from the agreement. The full version is governed by the laws of Virginia.

Uh oh.

Virginia is a state that has passed the controversial UCITA after intense lobbying and dubious "campaign contributions" to the elected officials. And we all know the dire consequences of UCITA.

I refuse to install ANY software that's governed by the laws of a state that's passed UTICA and why I won't be doing any more business with those companies. The only thing that many of these companies care about is their bottom line. By not buying their software or returning it for a refund, I have a small adverse effect on their bottom line. If enough other people did this, then the effect on the bottom line will be noticeable. A large number of returns for refunds will also make them take notice.

If nothing else works, a bit of civil disobedience may be in order. Buy software that you know is governed by UCITA. Do what is needed to read the agreement, typically this entails opening the box and running the installation software. Don't agree with the EULA. Return the software the next day for a full refund. Go elsewhere and repeat.

Opposition to UCITA starts with YOU. Be aware of which states have UCITA or are likely to pass it soon. Read those agreements carefully, and identify which state's laws govern the agreement. If the jurisdictional state is a UCITA state, do NOT agree with the agreement and return the software promptly for a full refund.

--

Re:Software licence agreements on shrinkwrap S/W

[Garath]

And don't forget to send them a letter telling them why you returned their software. Otherwise it won't do nearly as much good.

Why should GPL software about UCITA?

[turbod]

I don't know about UCITA, but I have read the reactionary comments here on slashdot, and it appears that there will be more stringent controls on software quality and licensing at the developer and user ends. To this effect, why can GPL not route around this? If GPL is a globally acknowledged license, then GPL software should be able to just say somewhere inside it that it is above the laws of all nations states, or whatever.

David

Re:Why should GPL software about UCITA?

[nyet]

Did you even bother to read this before sitting down at your keyboard and wasting all our time?

Aha! MICROS~1 is 666!

[The_Dougster]

So if I write a game demo and post it on my web page, and include a disclaimer, the M$ can D/L my game, claim it crashed their server for an hour, and sue me for millions of bucks. However, if I sell it in a box which has a sticker saying, "This software is worthless," then I am not able to be held liable? This is an "I'm too lazy to RTFM" law. What a piece of crap. Typical...

I contacted my representatives in MD

[anomaly]

And a fat lot of good it did. The folks promoting this bad legislation did a good job of schmoozing the local reps here.

"Do you want lots of great Tech jobs in your state? Vote for UCITA and your constituents will love you."

Bah! - I explained to my reps that the rights granted by UCITA would actually be harmful to businesses that buy software - I don't think they "got it."

Sometimes politics makes me nuts.

Write letters to your reps RIGHT NOW - before the lobbyists make more headway in your state - it's too late for us in MD!

Anomaly
God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more about this, please contact me at Tom_Cooper at bigfoot dot com

Hypothetical scenario: Open Source with Teeth

[Ukab the Great]

A while ago, I thought of an interesting way of open projects fighting UCITA if it is passed by a majority of states. Instead of going after the stupid, unconstitutional law itself, it goes after companies who capitalize on the stupid, unconstitutional law. Of course it does go completely against the philosophy of the GPL (i.e. RMS would have a sh*tfit)

What if all the major open source projects got together and created a new type of license to fight the effects of UCITA on open source. The people involved would be heavy hitters such as the groups developing Apache, PHP, Perl, Sendmail, Zope, all BSD flavors, Beowolf, and everyone working on the Linux kernel (including Linus) Anyone other projects who wanted to join would also be welcome. These groups would create a license very much like the GPL, with almost all the same provisions (free to modify and distribute code, requirement to post modifications, etc). Just picking an arbitrary name out of the license hat, this license could be called the UPL (United Public License). The way that the UPL differs from the GPL is that there is an additional clause that anyone who uses the software for no charge agrees not to engage in an "egregious act", defined as a "most proactive attack" any open source project. "Most proactive" would be something like legal action over reverse engineering (e.g. CueCat) or legal action because some kid in norway does something that someone finds inconveniant. Note that this would not rule out legal action being pursued for something like stolen code or pirated content (i.e. MP3's, movies, etc) used in an open source project.

If the entity using the UPL'ed software complies with these terms, the software is free to use, distribute, modify, etc. For any legal entity who does not comply with these terms, the cost of using the software goes from nothing to $10 million per installation, to be paid retroactively if needed. Unless the entity found guilty of committing an "egregious act" uninstalled all UPL'ed software immediately (i.e. within 24 hours) they will be charged with the full $10 million an installation.

The people who would make this decision about possible violations would be elected by votes taken from user groups devoted to open source software (e.g. LUGS, PerlMongers, BSD user groups, etc). An elected body would be necessary, since this kind of power needs to be contained within a democratic structure. An elected body would also give the coalition of free software projects greater legitimacy in the eyes of any governmental organizations. The democracy of a such a license sends the message that the people behind it are not a bunch of pirate, techno anarchists who love breaking into computers, but a group of people committed to utilizing their lawful right to organize to redress grievances and correct injustices. Any democratic government cannot refuse the legitimacy of such an organization.

How would this all work out in a real-world scenario? Let's say that UCITA is passed and Digital Convergence, the makers of the in(famous) CueCat scanner, decided to legally attack the people reverse engineering the CueCat for Linux. The democratically elected UPL board convenes and decides whether Digital Convergence's lawsuit has merit or whether it constitutes and "egregious act". If the former is true (which it wouldn't be), no action would be taken against DC. If the latter is true (which could easily be proven), the UPL board writes DC a letter notifying them they are committing an egregious act. The letter asks them to stop and notifies them of the consequences if they do not. If they persist with their legal harrasment, they will be given 24 hours notice to uninstall all UPL software. Since they are using Apache (version 1.3.17 to be precise) which would fall under the UPL, to serve web pages, Apache must come down or it's $10 million per web server. They use PHP (version 4.0.4p11, to be precise). It falls under the UPL. Get it off the machine or it's another $10 million for each machine running PHP. To top it all of, any installation of Linux (which again would fall under the UPL) would be yet another $10 million per installation. To ensure compliance with the ruling, any whistleblowers will get half of all back payment and damages. The message sent will be "if you try to eradicate the method by which open source software is created, you have no business using software that is created by the very same method."

I now end my exploration of a Twilight Zone alternate universe where proponents of open source use UCITA against the companies trying to beat it over their heads. But if UCITA is passed by many states and many propriety companies start trying to wipe out open source software, the UPL might eventually come to this dimension.

Re:Hypothetical scenario: Open Source with Teeth

[powerlord]

I realise I'm probably alone, and I believe the idea would need to be fleshed out more, but I wish I had moderator points right now [+1 Interesting/Insightful] (on the parent of course).

I also realise that implimenting a UPL would (in many people's eyes) be comparable to the submarine patents that have popped up recently, however that is not necessarily so. For one thing, any software already out there, is out there. This is the nature of the GPL. You couldn't just turn back the clock on it, so as opposed to submarine patents, you wouldn't be yanking the rug out from under them. You would just be revoking a license for the new and improved version (with the 'new and improved' license). This would also prevent it from having any teeth for a few years (although if it were implimented before the 64bit x86 replacements are, that would be a time of forced upgrade for most servers).

Not sure if it would help in the long run, and I'm sure it would devide the community, but I for one am getting fed up with watching our rights getting trampled one by one, while we keep fighting the system from the inside. At a certain point you need to stop passively resisting, and start actively resisting.

Why not GNU/CITA?

[crucini]

So if the software vendor now gets to turn the consumer into a zombie who must do his bidding, why not take advantage of this in a new GNU license?
"By using this software, you agree that any software you have previously written is released under the GPL or the GNUcita license."

3rd-party installers, anyone?

[Pogue Mahone]

I foresee a market for 3rd-party installation software that will allow you to install the software from ithe original CDs of (e.g.) "Murk-o-soft Off-Fizz 2001" without all that tedious clicking on license agreements first.

Open-source installer, anyone?
--

It really is as easy as he says, heres how...

[skiy]

US, try this:

http://www.davidflanagan.com/FaxSenate/fax.html

to fax your senator (which i assume is the thing to do).

If you live in the UK try the "Fax your MP" page at

http://www.faxyourmp.com/

to find YOUR MP and then type out what you would like and it will be faxed by their text to fax gateway. IT WORKS! I contacted my MP this way regarding that awful awful RIP bill, and got a reply within a few weeks with the guy's handwriting on.

Honestly, if enought people do this a difference will be made, I can feel another letter coming on about Mr. straw's evil DNA plans.

Believe it, it now really is as easy as bitching on slashdot (except maybe you have to be coherent).

Interesting who is OPPOSED to UCITA

[MentalPunisher2001]

http://www.badsoftware.com/oppose.htm
I was a bit surprised that both the MPAA AND RIAA are opposed to UCITA.
Afraid of competition??