Red Hat Asks for UCITA Reversal

OSS advocate writes "According to this NewsForge article, Red Hat has engaged the services of Carol Kunze (ucitaonline.com) to try to convince the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to take UCITA back. There's a list of email addresses in case you want to send the commish a letter yourself." Red Hat's letter is a good start.

Comments

UCITA?

[blincoln]

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

Lobby group needed.

[miffo.swe]

Linux really seams to need a large lobby group that plays golf with the legislators like the comercial software industry has. Linux has a large and vocal group but a group without funds to lobby (put money in politicians pockets). There should be another way to reach to politicians but today money seems to be their primary goal in life tightly followed by power. One possible way would be to try and get the larger companies using linux (AOL, RH, SuSe, IBM etc) together into a group that looks after the interest of open source. I have a strong feeling that all the little companies combined into one entity can make a difference. Other industries have common groups that tends to thier lobbying need so it shouldnt be impossible for open source to have one either. I know there are groups out ther already but im talking about a group of companies, not individuals. Individuals are lucky if they can make even a blipp on the radar whereas if IBM and a group of other companies combined would make the radar look like a christmas tree.

More info on the UCITA

[MiTEG]

For those of you who (like me) have a limited knowledge about the UCITA, Infoworld as an excellent summary of what it is and the problems with it.

What it essentially seems to do is make EULA's legally binding and allows them to be undisclosed until after the sale is made. It doesn't seem so much anti-open source as it pro-commercial software.

Re:More info on the UCITA

[RickHunter]

You weren't around when this first came up a few years back, were you?

Let me summarize why its bad for Open Source, then. It specifies that an EULA can forcibly modify practically any aspect of contract or copyright law, and does not have to be disclosed until some arbitrary point until after the sale.

Okay, you think, all is well and good. Blatant power grab translates to more fear of closed-source software, which means more open source/free software in use. Right?

Well, the problem is that this also modifies the 'defaults' for software and what can modify those. Namely, I seem to remember that it instituted stricter liability for software. Which can only be overrided by a shrink-wrap EULA.

The GPL, BSD license, Apache License, MPL, APL, and X11 license, among numerous others, are not shrink-wrap EULAs. Totally different category of contract, in fact. Thus, there is no way for the developers of gcc to disclaim liability.

As linked by other posters, http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/ucita.html provides a very good explanation of why this law is Bad.

Here are the e-mail address for the commissioners

[Critical_]

Again, no need to mod this up...

NCCUSL Commissioner Email Addresses

Alaska
art@dillonfindley.com
Deborah_Behr@law.state.ak.us
lsjkj@aol.com
wgc@customcpu.com

Alabama
RepGaines@aol.com
rmccurle@law.ua.edu
tjones@law.ua.edu
bruce@hwnn.com

Arkansas
jpender@pmppa.com
larry@arkleg.state.ar.us
david@nixonlaw.com
pcarroll@roselawfirm.com
jdeacon@barrettdeacon.com

Arizona
henderson@nt.law.arizona.edu
l.lemon@azbar.org
tberg@fclaw.com

California
bion.gregory@ccusl.ca.gov
darlinghallrae@compuserve.com
elihu2000@aol.com
wburke@shearman.com
senator.sher@sen.ca.gov
nsterling@clrc.ca.gov
Pamela_Chin@parsons.com
Ronald.phillips@pepperdine.edu
williamsrc@aol.com

Colorado
charley.pike@state.co.us
russgeor@sni.net
lw2demuth@worldnet.att.net
tomg@grimshawharring.com
bkreplep@aol.com

Connecticut
bhawkins@goodwin.com
david.biklen@po.state.ct.us
john.langbein@yale.edu
pavetti@aol.com
lmorgan@rjmlawct.com
WBreetz@law.uconn.edu

District of Columbia
bkass@kass-skalet.com
cbrookinshudson@dccouncil.washington.dc.us
zeldonj@dcsc.gov
efdyke@venable.com
jamescmckay@yahoo.com

Delaware
mhoughton@mnat.com
ann.c.stilson@law.widener.edu
robinsonr@ce.net

Florida
lstagg@akerman.com
ecutl@carltonfields.com
ehrhardt@law.fsu.edu
hkittles@hklaw.com
jessen.linda@leg.state.fl.us
jmorse@law.fsu.edu

Georgia
mwmacy@aol.com
rwellman@arches.uga.edu
rgm@hbss.net

Hawaii
ekent@hawaii.edu
jachanin@hotmail.com
toyofuku@pixi.com
hiaglegis@yahoo.com
lewart@goodsill.com
takayama@capitol.hawaii.gov

Iowa
cdmahon@aol.com
Sheldon-kurtz@uiowa.edu
david.walker@drake.edu

Idaho
dghiger@stoel.com
pckm@marshallbatt.com

Illinois
ctabb@law.uiuc.edu
hjs@arnstein.com
mbgetty@aol.com
r-picker@uchicago.edu
richwards@legis.state.il.us
tryder@gtec.com
tjmccrackenjr@ameritech.net
jeremiah@hopsut.com
harry_leinenweber@ilnd.uscourts.gov
diane_ford@gov.state.il.us

Indiana
GBepko@iupui.edu
S40@ai.org
mts@starkey-law.com
hpatchel@iupui.edu

Kansas
elpom@networksplus.net
mroneal@southwind.net
zzconc@washburn.edu
temert@terraworld.net
hite@hitefanning.com

Kentucky
dcetrulo@email.msn.com
scawood@mmlk.com
johngillig@lrc.state.ky.us
john.spangler@lrc.state.ky.us
wswilborn@aol.com

Louisiana
guillotj@legis.state.la.us
henry.gabriel@sstar.com
wdh3770@aol.com

Massachusetts
smithee@bingham.com
stephen_chow@pscboston.com

Maryland
kingwebnet@aol.com

Maine
Bcoggeshall@PierceAtwood.com
rrobinson@rkmlegal.com
marsulu4@aol.com

Michigan
arichner@house.state.mi.us
ggulliver@lsb.state.mi.us
jjwhite@umich.edu
rwebster@clarkhill.com
sencdingell@senate.state.mi.us

Minnesota
HARRYMW@msn.com
robertstein@staff.abanet.org
mndavies@aol.com
harriet.lansing@courts.state.mn.us
hhaynsworth@wmitchell.edu
michele.timmons@revisor.leg.state.mn.us
Robert.Tennessen@gpmlaw.com

Missouri
jfarnold@lashlybaer.com
englishda@missouri.edu
mferry@gatewaylegal.org
fryp@missouri.edu
heinszt@missouri.edu
henningw@missouri.edu

Mississippi
tbeck@mail.lbo.state.ms.us
ncarlton@ltindall.com
navyjag@aol.com
iq.attys@usa.net
pwatson@mail.house.state.ms.us
hooper@olemiss.edu
smdavis@olemiss.edu

Montana
eck@selway.umt.edu
gpetesch@state.mt.us
Jcnelson@state.mt.us
jmazurek@state.mt.us

North Carolina
mbenfield@compuvision.net
flewis@mail.jus.state.nc.us
rbillings@law.wfu.edu
snichols@mail.jus.state.nc.us
wnj@coa.state.nc.us
russell.walker@ncisd.nc.us

North Dakota
oanderson@ou.edu
dhogue@ndak.net
jburingr@state.nd.us
mike.unhjem@bcbsnd.com
wstenehjem@aol.com
lklemin@state.nd.us

Nebraska
abeam@ce8.uscourts.gov
hsperlman@unl.edu
mgmlawnp@nponline.net
jpepperl@unicam.state.ne.us
ruth@nol.org

New Jersey
jdonegan@prsmo.com


New Mexico
ciscolaw@hotmail.com
desiderior@law.unm.edu
jpburton@rodey.com
pplarragoite@hotmail.com
paula.tackett@state.nm.us
mlo1@7cities.net

Nevada
fdaykin@lcb.state.nv.us
erdoes@lcb.state.nv.us
mjames@sen.state.nv.us
wasserman@lcb.state.nv.us

New York
jvigdor@boylanbrown.com
rlong@cglawllp.com
rsmith@dpw.com
SSternLaw@aol.com
normlg510@aol.com

Ohio
AttyBoris@aol.com
lee_mccorkle@wendys.com
rogers.23@osu.edu
sfisher@arterhadden.com
w-evans@onu.edu

Oklahoma
duchessb@swbell.net
lwhinery@ou.edu

Oregon
Gregory.A.Chaimov@state.or.us
jwillis@schwabe.com
mwalters@wrcdlaw.com

Pennsylvania
creitz@law.upenn.edu
jsheehan@state.pa.us
stuckey@state.pa.us
haf3@psu.edu
poulin@law.villanova.edu

Rhode Island
cmassouda@rilin.state.ri.us
judge_William_Hillman@mab.uscourts.gov

South Dakota
glebrun@lynnjackson.com
Law@DemJen.com
scott@jhmmj.com
dgregers@wfss.com

Tennessee
ctrost@wallerlaw.com
ellen.tewes@legislature.state.tn.us
rclark@armstrongallen.com

Texas
htindall@tindallfoster.com
leonard.reese@tlc.state.tx.us
rsatterwhite@stubbemanlawfirm.com
mmpc@texoma.com
p.guillot@airmail.net
marianne_auld@baylor.edu

Utah
RMartineau@SCMLAW.com

Virginia
emiller@leg.state.va.us
pamela_sargent@vawd.uscourts.gov
ccring@ober.com
jfrench@leg.state.va.us
ktaylor@t-mlaw.com

Virgin Islands
ytharpes@mail.senate.gov.vi
tbolt@vilaw.com

Vermont
cgravel@gravshea.com
clisman@lisman.com
lsmiddy@vermontlaw.edu
rcassidy@hoffcurtis.com
daglaw@sover.net

Washington
J_m.appelwick@courts.wa.gov
raron@u.washington.edu
usmjcimbr@hotmail.com
cooper_de@leg.wa.gov

Wisconsin
bruce.munson@legis.state.wi.us
ljbugge@itis.com
peter.dykman@legis.state.wi.us
Rep.Gundrum@legis.state.wi.us
Sen.George@legis.state.wi.us
Sen.Huelsman@legis.state.wi.us

West Virginia
fordlaw@inetone.net
jmcclaugherty@jacksonkelly.com
stamps4@aol.com

Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely true. I work as an assistant to a senator (hence the anon. post), and stuff like this just gets discarded before any "important" people even read it. Grammar and spelling count almost as much as the ideas presented in the letter.

UCITA

[esap]

See: http://www.nccusl.org/nccusl/UCITA-2001-comm-fin.h tm. It has a report that discusses many aspects of UCITA.

Re:Question about my own code

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, as I see it (and please correct me if i'm wrong) the UCITA would benifit me because my disclaimers would be legally enforcable. If the UCITA went away, then I would be stuck in a rather tricky situation where I could be held liable for all the stuff that my licence disclaims.

Actually, the UCITA contains more stringent laws on when you can disclaim a warranty, and the length to which you can do so. It does enforce EULAs (to an extent), but it also forces particular warranties onto all software, for which the distributor, publisher, and/or developer will be held responsible.

In other words, UCITA states that your disclaimers of warranty may not be legal at all, and that you may still be held responsible. Of course, the letter and most of the comments here haven't really pointed out that which is the most common issue for open source developers (since the GPL and most other open source/free licenses disclaim all warranties).

Unless...

[gillbates]

You include a click-through license that states:

1. That you are in no way liable for any damages the software may cause;
2. That in the event of litigation, you, the end user, agrees to pay all of the defendant's legal fees, transportation costs (if any), costs due to lost time, etc... (Microsoft used a variation of this in their license agreements)
3. That you, the end user, agrees that since the software is provided for free, you have no expectations regarding merchantibily or fitness for a particular purpose.

What the UCITA does is make the click-through and shrinkwrap licensing have the force of law. Though I don't like this prospect, it can be used to keep free software authors out of legal trouble.

Re:But WHY is UCITA contrary to Open Source?

[Junta]

IIRC, it not only strengthens the 'shrink wrap' licenses, but also sets a default liability. So just saying 'this comes with no warranty' in a file somewhere does not free the programmer of responsibilty. Commercial companies don't care as they are explicitly allowed to shirk this liability through their shrink-wrap license, but open source applications can't really have a shrink-wrap license, so no matter how much you deny liability, you are stuck with it..