Since it's quite likely that any attempts to dilute or change this now is likely to fall on deaf ears, we just have to accept it and get on with our own agenda.
I don't know about the rest of you but I'm now going to push for a new clause in the Open Source Definition/GPL to incorporate a WHISTLE BLOWERS' CHARTER
Something like the following:
From now on, in the next linux distro releases, software will only be considered free if it incorporates a clause like:
Licensee is granted the right to full public disclosure of any bugs or features in the software that may compromise the security of local installations or networks with this software installed. Licensor(s) warrant that they will not infringe on the licensee's right to such full disclosure. Further, it is a condition of this license that licensees accept that full disclosure of security issues is a fundamental aspect of maintaining good security practices in relation to the software, and agree not to hold the licensor or other licensees liable for any intrusion that follow from use of the software, in relation to their own installation.
Beyond that, if after software patents, UCITA, if people still want to use non-free software, well, as we say in my corner of the world:
First, understand military strategics. Read up on it in the library/on the web - I don't mean online terrorist sites.
If you have collaborators, maintain a distinction between the political wing and the active wing (remember the IRA/Sinn Fein dichotomy) and the asses the Thatcher govt made of themselves in the 80's when they tried to silence Sinn Fein (the political wing). this might be a good way to set up the forthcoming PATENT INFRINGEMENT UNDERGROUND(...???...)
Put stuff together in general infringemnt libraries to maximise distribution impact
Use public key cryptography to make sure that folks will come to recognise a particular release series - not susceptible to hijacking Take some care over the key
Release public specs, advising open authors how to build interfaces into the software that will streamline integration with the covert code without it being itself illegal careful - contributory infringement This could also advise other shadow coders of how to contribute while minimising direct personal contact.
Actively promote the ideas of software freedom. The right to control your own software environment. It would be good if every free software author, actually everyone who can write code, can make some contribution however small.
I'll be doing all these things (assuming I remain at liberty). As for others, we all have our own martyrdom.
How deep is your fear - and HOW DEEP IS YOUR FAITH?
IANAL && First Posting
It's worth noting that this license is issued in accordance with the laws of the state of Virginia. This means that it is potentially interpreted under the UCITA which in that state comes into affect in June (or is it July?) 2001. Although Virginia seems to have toned down the provisions of the law, the terms and conditions of any EULA intterpreted in terms of the provisions of UCITA are still not acceptable to most people.
Though the license does state that it in no way is to be understood as any sort of association between the licensee and the company, the wording is vague. When it has been discussed before, it has been suggested that licensors should make crystal clear _explicitly_ that the license is not to be interpreted in terms of contract law, but is a copyright license. This is because (AKAIK) assumption that UCITA provisions are enabled in a license is the default (????)
GPL is well known to be explicitly founded on provisions of copyright law, but what about other more vaguely expressed examples? RMS has often cautioned about the risks of UCITA to all of us. I didn't take it too seriously before, but this has got me thinking.
Coming from the EU, it is possible that the European Convention on Human Rights would protect me and other citizens from most onerous attacks by licensors under UCITA (whatever Gatt 7 might say), but still I wouldn't `click through' this license until I was absolutely certain I wasn't signing up to a private contract whose terms and conditions I didn't accept.
Slashdot Mirror
Since it's quite likely that any attempts to dilute or change this now is likely to fall on deaf ears, we just have to accept it and get on with our own agenda.
I don't know about the rest of you but I'm now going to push for a new clause in the Open Source Definition/GPL to incorporate a WHISTLE BLOWERS' CHARTER
Something like the following:
From now on, in the next linux distro releases, software will only be considered free if it incorporates a clause like:
Licensee is granted the right to full public disclosure of any bugs or features in the software that may compromise the security of local installations or networks with this software installed. Licensor(s) warrant that they will not infringe on the licensee's right to such full disclosure. Further, it is a condition of this license that licensees accept that full disclosure of security issues is a fundamental aspect of maintaining good security practices in relation to the software, and agree not to hold the licensor or other licensees liable for any intrusion that follow from use of the software, in relation to their own installation.
Beyond that, if after software patents, UCITA, if people still want to use non-free software, well, as we say in my corner of the world:
Hell slap it intae them
First, understand military strategics. Read up on it in the library/on the web - I don't mean online terrorist sites.
If you have collaborators, maintain a distinction between the political wing and the active wing (remember the IRA/Sinn Fein dichotomy) and the asses the Thatcher govt made of themselves in the 80's when they tried to silence Sinn Fein (the political wing). this might be a good way to set up the forthcoming PATENT INFRINGEMENT UNDERGROUND(...???...)
Put stuff together in general infringemnt libraries to maximise distribution impact
Use public key cryptography to make sure that folks will come to recognise a particular release series - not susceptible to hijacking Take some care over the key
Release public specs, advising open authors how to build interfaces into the software that will streamline integration with the covert code without it being itself illegal careful - contributory infringement This could also advise other shadow coders of how to contribute while minimising direct personal contact.
Actively promote the ideas of software freedom. The right to control your own software environment. It would be good if every free software author, actually everyone who can write code, can make some contribution however small.
I'll be doing all these things (assuming I remain at liberty). As for others, we all have our own martyrdom.
How deep is your fear - and HOW DEEP IS YOUR FAITH?
IANAL && First Posting It's worth noting that this license is issued in accordance with the laws of the state of Virginia. This means that it is potentially interpreted under the UCITA which in that state comes into affect in June (or is it July?) 2001. Although Virginia seems to have toned down the provisions of the law, the terms and conditions of any EULA intterpreted in terms of the provisions of UCITA are still not acceptable to most people. Though the license does state that it in no way is to be understood as any sort of association between the licensee and the company, the wording is vague. When it has been discussed before, it has been suggested that licensors should make crystal clear _explicitly_ that the license is not to be interpreted in terms of contract law, but is a copyright license. This is because (AKAIK) assumption that UCITA provisions are enabled in a license is the default (????) GPL is well known to be explicitly founded on provisions of copyright law, but what about other more vaguely expressed examples? RMS has often cautioned about the risks of UCITA to all of us. I didn't take it too seriously before, but this has got me thinking. Coming from the EU, it is possible that the European Convention on Human Rights would protect me and other citizens from most onerous attacks by licensors under UCITA (whatever Gatt 7 might say), but still I wouldn't `click through' this license until I was absolutely certain I wasn't signing up to a private contract whose terms and conditions I didn't accept.