According to the page announcing the "publication" of the implementation of the specification, Microsoft stated that it was releasing this document in order to have third-party security analysis and validation that it was within the letter and spirit of the Kerberos spec with the IETF.
I see no reason why we here on/. could not help Microsoft with this aim. After all, we recognize that many of our mutual security problems with viruses and so forth have occurred for precisely the reason that in the past Microsoft was not so open about security matters and did not check with the community at large first.
However, Microsoft needs to understand that any discussion of the document needs to refer to it in detail. Therefore Microsoft needs to withdraw its claim to trade secrets and the EULA requirement.
If Slashdot were to withdraw, in turn, its copy of the copyrighted document, and instead link to an open online copy at Microsoft's site, then why wouldn't everybody be happy and we work together to achieve our mutual objectives?
Thanks, MC, for trying to negotiate a settlement--you are wise and I hope Microsoft responds.
will not be copied or posted on any network computer or broadcast in any media
There is no way that such a statement can override my fair use of the quote from the web page (which, by the way, bears a Microsoft copyright notice just as much as the document that describes the Microsoft Kerberos protocol).
Microsoft is setting itself up for disaster here with these pseudo-lawyerly clauses. At the same time it (1) requires the copyright notice and terms of use to accompany the quote; (2) it prohibits posting of the terms of use as well as the quote. Catch-22. Since there is no way that anyone can comply with these terms and use any document, the terms of use are invalid. Otherwise even the Microsoft web page author violated the terms of use by posting it on the web.
So sue me instead of answering my legitimate questions. It appears that Microsoft can be innovative in no other way now.
Andover has at the time of this posting not yet decided whether to claim immunity as a "service provider" under the DMCA, or to claim immunity as a publisher under the First Amendment.
If it claims to be like an ISP, then a court could force removal of ALL the posts that Microsoft has claimed (under penalty of perjury) to infringe its copyright. And if any further such posts are permitted by/. to remain, then the court could rule that/. was in contempt of court and continuing in contributory infringement. This could apply even if the new comments are simply links instead of the full posting. See the Utah Lighthouse Ministry case.
If Andover claims immunity under the First Amendment, then Microsoft will have to pursue the posters directly instead of indirectly through/. The case will be harder to win, but the particular facts in this case are in favor of/. Microsoft has invited comment on the spec and not provided any place on its own site for such comment. Andover could have a good case as a publisher, though it might have some novel aspects. Judges have for too long dismissed First Amendment defenses against copyright infringement cases.
I'd like to see Andover take the First Amendment course. That is the only way I believe/. can maintain its unique policies of Anonymous Coward postings and refusal to remove posts. That independence and freedom is worth fighting for.
I have seen some posts from some who claim to be from Microsoft. I invite comments on the original the "publish" link (I trust I am not violating anyone's copyright by quoting here--see the footnote). I quote:
"Microsoft To Publish Details of Kerberos Authorization Data in Windows 2000
"Rich Authorization Infrastructure To Be Available for Security Review and Analysis
"Following public commitments to industry leadership in security made at the RSA Conference in January of this year by Brian Valentine, senior vice-president, Windows Platform, Microsoft Corp. has published the details of its use of the authorization data field of Kerberos v5 authentication protocol. Kerberos v5 is an industry-standard network authentication protocol, designed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to provide 'proof of identity' on a computer network. Microsoft is publishing this information to enable third party validation of the Windows 2000 security model to benefit enterprise customers, developers and the industry....
"The specification available for download from this web page details the use the [sic] authorization data field. Microsoft invites third party review and validation of this implementation so that Microsoft's customers and development partners can be assured that the implementation of Kerberos in Windows 2000 is within the letter and spirit of the specification."
Mr Valentine, how do you expect "third party review and validation of this implementation" of the "security model" if Samba implementors of Kerberos will be excluded from the review, because if they read it they will not be able to agree to follow the EULA? Do you really consider this to be "publishing" the spec? Why don't you mention the EULA on this page that proclaims the spec is being "published"? And how is it that you are "publishing" this spec, but at the same time you claim to hold it as a trade secret--don't you see any conflict here?
Isn't Microsoft's letter to Slashdot an effort to suppress discussion of this spec, in conflict with the objective you state here?
Mr. Valentine or any Microsoft person who wishes to speak for him, please answer for us concerned citizens. We are confused about what Microsoft is trying to say and do.
Footnote: at the bottom of the page with the above quote is this notice: Copyright 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. And a link to a separate page with Terms of Use, including this information: "NOTICE SPECIFIC TO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THIS WEBSITE Permission to use Documents (such as white papers, press releases, datasheets and FAQs) from this server ("Server") is granted, provided that (1) the below copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear, (2) use of such Documents from this Server is for informational and non-commercial or personal use only and will not be copied or posted on any network computer or broadcast in any media, and (3) no modifications of any Documents are made. Educational institutions ( specifically K-12, universities and state community colleges) may download and reproduce the Documents for distribution in the classroom. Distribution outside the classroom requires express written permission. Use for any other purpose is expressly prohibited by law, and may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. Violators will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible."
There, I have tried to comply with the law in this rather silly posting. Warning: if Google or Alexa caches it, I have no control over that and won't be able to delete it.
Why not write your Congressperson and demand that our government stop spending our tax dollars for lousy Microsoft software now that the company has been convicted of illegal monopoly antitrust activities?
First we spend tax money to develop Kerberos, but we don't get it free, we have to buy Windows 2000 servers now that Microsoft has privatized the standard!
I wrote my congressmen and President Clinton, but for some reason I got no response--Bill Gates was invited to talk privately with Congress and appear at the White House instead.
If/. is forced by a judge's legal order to remove the one posting of the entire document, then there arises the matter of the defense of the poster, who according to/. policy owns the post.
If that poster comes forward and offers to defend the post against Microsoft, no matter what Slashdot does, then I do believe the suggestion of a legal defense fund is a good one.
It's even possible that an Anonymous Coward could sue to keep his or her anonymity, as the ACLU is suing Yahoo.
So, whoever you are, coward or hero, please step forward and post if you need our help!
Recently The New York Times reported that because of the Visio acquisition, Microsoft has been unable to buy up stock in its pyramid-like scheme of leveraging stock options--that practice has led to great gains in the stock, but now that the stock is going down it goes down faster, even without the antitrust suit.
It is quite possible that the poor management of Microsoft by corporate insiders will lead to shareholder rebellions at the shareholder meetings--even if the company is not split.
Gates at Networld touted Microsoft Kerberos and indicated that Microsoft would try to extend its monopoly into servers. Consider what might happen if corporate customers (including the U.S. government!) fully realize that their Unix servers will not be able to interoperate properly with Microsoft Windows machines. It might be a disaster. And in a normal corporate environment somebody has to take the blame for when bad things happen to the stock price.
Actually, one of the posts very blatantly violates Microsoft's copyright.
Actually, it is an interesting legal question as to whether this is true, and I hope it is addressed by a judge. I hope the poster of the entire document steps forward and appeals any decision to remove that post, and fights in court (with our help) this blatant censorship attempt.
It is not illegal to distribute a copy of a copyrighted document if the license that comes with the document specifically allows this (as, for example, the GPL does, and, furthermore, the EULA here does, for purposes of security analysis).
Next, it is not clear whether the alleged copyright is of a PUBLISHED work or an UNPUBLISHED work. The treatment of each is different under the law (the former is allowed more fair use). The letter from Microsoft does not clarify this point, but one might infer from the document itself that it claims to contain trade secrets and thus is UNPUBLISHED, while the fact that it is openly available on the web would indicate that it is a PUBLISHED work. I hope that a judge will find that Microsoft intended this work as unpublished, but because of poor legal advice, posted it as published, and therefore the DMCA does not apply.
Next, it is not clear just what Microsoft claims is covered by its alleged copyright. If it is the Kerberos spec itself, that is copyright MIT, and any later changes to the spec are not necessarily covered by copyright unless they are sufficiently original creative expressions. The document itself only contains arbitrary API data and references to mathematical algorithms--can they truly be protected? Can Microsoft enforce a patent on cascading style sheets if it participates in standards setting with other corporations on this very subject? It is possible that this case might have to be joined with the antitrust case under expedited review so a new remedy is found before appeal of the antitrust case.
Copyright is not an absolute natural right. It has to give way in cases where it is abused by monopolists convicted of antitrust offenses--and guess who that might be here? Kerberos is an open standard that Microsoft appears to be trying to take over for its own monopoly purposes of excluding competition in the network server market. Any attempts to privatize this open standard can been seen as monopolistic and thus not covered by standard intellectual property claims.
If you agree that posters to/. have the right to discuss this whole affair, how is it possible to exclude them from discussing the very document itself and referring to it? And what better way is there, than to post the entire document, or to make a deep link directly to it?
Consider that if Microsoft prevails here,/. will have to monitor all postings and censor them. And/. might have to abolish anonymous postings to comply with Microsoft's demands. Such actions would definitely impede free speech on/. and impose on our First Amendment rights. A judge needs to consider these points under heightened First Amendment scrutiny and not just accept Microsoft's prima facie claim of copyright under the DMCA. (If she does, then the DMCA itself might be overturned.)
Among the news sources refraining so far from comment is The New York Times.
I'm sorry to see The Times and The Washington Post failing to jump to the defense of a news publisher such as/. and informing their readers that this is a First Amendment issue where a large corporation is attempting to use copyright law to protect alleged trade secrets, promote a monopoly in network servers, and suppress free discussion online in/. and other fora of what is happening.
When can we expect to see some front-page news on this First Amendment issue? (I assume it is not because they didn't hear about it or don't know who to ask to learn the facts.)
I think the Linux Journal article was the best, maybe because its readers are assumed to be more technical. But I have no beef with the Wash. Post.
What I would like to see the Post and the other media do is take the story of the First Amendment issue here and make it big. The DMCA should be declared unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment.
The federal courts in the D.C. need to see that copyright is not a natural right, and intstead that laws such as the DMCA and the Bono Act do violate the First Amendment and therefore should be overturned.
It's time our newspapers tell their readers that web publishers deserve the same protection as print publishers. After all, the No Electronic Theft Act provides for up to 3-5 years in prison, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, and confiscation of all computers for five years, in case of a simple violation of one of these copyright laws. When was the last time a print publisher was put in jail and her printing presses seized?
No, I believe it is time somebody stood up to those who are using the DMCA to stifle criticism. This is not the first time. Look at the Church of Scientology using the DMCA to intimidate e-Bay into forcing withdrawal of an e-Meter auction--the Cos doesn't have a valid patent or copyright. Look at the MPAA and RIAA trying to use copyright law to protect their trade secrets.
What really needs to be done is for someone, not an Anonymous Coward, to step forward as a test case and say they are not going to take down their posting of this document, because to be forced to do so would violate their First Amendment rights.
So, any volunteers? Remember, you'll get plenty of support from the rest of us.
But what is there about it that you couldn't do with a regular computer and voice card?
I'd like to use services such as PhoneFree or even NetPhone, but they (like ZeroKnowledge) seem to be available only to Microsoft Windows uses. Why isn't the Linux Telephony group working on such a platform?
I'm not an Objectivist, and I think this view of monopoly is rather trivial, but.....I think ragnar has a point here.
If you read Microsoft's latest pleadings you see that they argue that their intellectual property should not be taken away from them just because they became dominant in their field. True. But being a monopolist is not in itself illegal--it's only illegal when it is used to restrain competition in certain manners, such as preventing a computer manufacturer from substituting their splash screen for Microsoft's.
Judge Jackson and the DOJ have repeatedly noted that claims to copyright are not sacrosanct and do not override the public's rights to protections against monopoly abuses. For example, in the case of Microsoft attempting to prevent Slashdot posters from distributing Microsoft's copyrighted materials, this is another attempt of a monopolist to illegally use alleged ownership of copyright--and a flawed copyright law in DMCA--to prevent others from making Unix servers into Kerberos domain servers and replacing Windows 2000 boxes.
Copyright is not an absolute right and Judge Jackson would have the authority to devise a remedy that prohibited Microsoft from exercising such complete control over ideas as they try to do now. The DOJ is proposing a "clean room" at Redmond where others could examine code for interoperability and open APIs. But other remedies might be suggested if Microsoft keeps up its current practices. Or, the EU could make Microsoft change its intellectual property practices as a condition of its investigation into Microsoft's attempt to monopolize servers as well as desktops.
Notify the posters (if they can be identified) that they must remove the allegedly offending material. Explain to them how--or why it is not possible. Include copies of Microsoft's letters and the appropriate text of the DMCA.
Advise the listed posters that they may submit letters in writing, defending themselves against copyright infringement, and appealing the decision to ask them to remove their posts.
Respond to Microsoft's letter by relaying copies of the response letters and detailing what Slashdot did to comply with the DMCA.
If Microsoft is not satisifed with that response, go to court. Sue Microsoft for perjury under the DMCA. Yes, the document in question does have a copyright notice, BUT the EULA that is included with the document definitely states that the document can be distributed in order to perform a security analysis of the program. Point out that Microsoft does not own the copyright to Kerberos and that others must know of the API for Microsoft's version of Kerberos, in order to attain interoperability with other operating systems--and that this is a specific defense under the DMCA.
In defending Slashdot against Microsoft's attack, point out that Slashdot under the First Amendment must have the same Freedom of Press that any other news organization should have. Making links to a document on the World Wide Web should not be illegal. Discussing a document on Slashdot should not be illegal. To make those practices illegal would be to make an unconstitutional prior restraint of publication on Slashdot--only because it is an electronic news source rather than a printed one. Prohibiting anonymous postings or removing them from Slashdot would be an unconstitional prior restraint on free expression.
Do not settle out of court with Microsoft. The battle will be long and expensive, but it is a crucial one for all of us. If Andover.net backs down, many of us will cease to respect Slashdot, and another such forum will take its place.
Ask for help from the ACLU and EFF, and have Andover.net lawyers seek help from the Department of Justice--this issue is exactly the sort of monopoly power stranglehold that the antitrust suit was designed to correct. If you can't get enough help and support from them, ask us!
English as an international second language seems likely for the next few years to go to the top instead of a made-up language.
In particular, some form of "plain English" (as proposed by Al Gore among others) or restricted vocabulary/simplified grammar/spelling might be a good project.
In our common language we need richness, so we can distinguish, for example, "sensual" from "sensuous." But such richness is bad when we need to prescribe instead of describe--our laws must be understood by all. Note, for example, that international standards now almost always have a glossary with agreed-upon definitions (even the Microsoft anti-trust case has them).
Open access is what Lessig argued in the first American Prospect article: he spoke to congressional staffers to remind them that the telephone network needed to be split up from its monopoly, and that it has done well with limited regulation. If it weren't for federal regulation, do you think that a telephone company would be interested in serving a rural customer at a reasonable price?
The argument about telephone network regulation needs to be made about the Internet as well. One big problem is that the big push by corporations toward e-commerce is changing the Internet as we know it, away from the free, libertarian network we built, toward the commercial highways of consumerism.
What I have argued with Lessig about is that the media companies don't see their business model as did the telephone company. Instead, they see the Internet as just another "broadband" cable TV network they can use to stream consumer infotainment to us. It is extremely important to make sure that the media corps don't buy their way through Congress into control of the Internet and its content (their "intellectual property"). Instead, every citizen should be ensured equal access to the information superhighway, through federal regulation. (Note that @Home currently bars home web servers.)
In this debate, only Lessig is on the ball. Raymond feels the free market can solve the problem--but in spite of his IPO millions he can't buy Congress like the media corporations can.
Hey, guys, this is important! Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on all the CONTENT--but in all of history INFORMATION has never been the property of such a small few as today, with the great concentration of media corporations. We need to pay some heed to this and apply some wise regulation now, before it becomes the next monopoly like Microsoft.
I was going to reply to this topic, but I'm not sure now. I read at the bottom of the page that "Comments are owned by the poster" and I read in the comments by Rob and John that they seem to feel the comments are in the public domain--there seems to be a conflict.
I intend for my comments to be directed to this one public forum, and I have no anticipation that they will be taken out of the forum bodily and placed in a book for sale by somebody else.
I haven't seen any legal opinion here except from non-lawyers, but to me this is a violation of copyright law, and I would suggest that Andover check with their lawyers before publishing such a book.
I would also suggest that Andover immediately revise the warning that "Comments belong to the Poster." Under current copyright law anywhere where the Berne Convention applies (including the U.S.), copyright to any original creative expression, such as posts here, is automatically by the poster. No qualification therefore need be made by Slashdot. If they were to make a qualification, it would have to be something like, "poster automatically agrees that post is in the public domain" or (like AOL or h2g2) "post is copyright 2000 by Andover.net and poster automatically agrees Andover.net can use the post in any subsequent publication". (Whether or not that would hold up in court as an agreement should be determined by lawyers, not us.)
So, Andover.net lawyers, please do your job and make it possible for me to post my reply to this important question!
Josh Lerner at Harvard Business School has studied the economic affects of patents (see http://www.people.hbs.edu/jlerner/P atintro.html and associated links. He concludes that there are many indirect costs of patents and discusses the "concern that the pattern of costly litigation--or payments to forestall litigation--are leading to reductions or distortions in innovative investments, particularly for small firms." In his study of small biotechnology firms, the trend was to protect research by trade secrets instead of patents, mostly because of the costs (it costs more than $1 million to defend a patent). Obviously, the public loses when the research is made a secret instead of openly disclosed. Nobody else can build on the work and improve it, and when the patent period expires the secret is not disclosed. Since much innovation is achieved by the small firms, this trend is disturbing. Remember, the purpose of patents according to Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." It seems to be time to rework the patent system from the ground up, to try to achieve the original objections in a better way.
Re:patent "problem" is part of something much bigg
on
Do Patents Still Work?
·
· Score: 1
Eldred v Reno which challenged the constitutionality of retroactively extending the limited time for copyright protection seems to have been lost. I don't know if it has been appealed. Yes, it is being appealed now in the D.C. circuit. Written briefs on both sides are being filed and oral arguments will be heard in October, then it's on to the Supreme Court. See http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno and add comments to the OpenLaw page. We have a good chance at winning, but we will need help in the form of amicus briefs before the Supreme Court. The core of the issue for all intellectual property protection remains: The creator is granted something "ownership" that they would not otherwise have,.... More or less correct, but the concept of "ownership" is not a good one to emphasize here. Better to say, exclusive rights as the Constitution says. "Ownership" implies too many natural rights, instead of the limited monopoly the Constitution allows. Ken is correct that the patent problem is part of the larger problem of "intellectual property" in the digital age. Some solutions could apply to both. It is also time to experiment with better ways of treating patents and copyrights.
an easy to pirate text version of their works distributed freely over the internet.
I believe "pirate" is not the correct technical term here. It is quite easy to copy a printed book (or even an encrypted book), just by typing it in (and that might be lawful, as part of fair use). It is quite easy to distribute a digital work also, by putting it on the net. But "pirating" implies selling it, not giving it away. And I don't see many books being sold by not their rightful owners on the web today. (There are books being sold on the web, and books given away lawfully, but most authors complain that NOBODY READS the books in the first place.)
I don't advocate anyone's breaking the law. Copyright, for a limited term, can encourage authors to publish freely. But we ought not to abandon copyright and publishing freely, in search of a phoney technological protection such as encryption or the "rights management schemes" used by Microsoft Reader and too many so-called "eBooks" today. Locking up books, whether in the Library of Congress, or on the hard disks at Microsoft Corp., will be a terrible heritage for the next generations.
Yes, there are "intellectual property" issues involved in publishing online books. For example, the Copyright Term Extension Act makes that commendable practice much more difficult. The solution is to have a shorter term, not to lock up books longer or forever. Authors in their right minds will agree, but big publishers want to maintain their government-enforced monopoly on our ideas.
Eldritch Press is one of those sites that voluntarily scans books and publishes them free online. If the LOC won't, we will.
Indeed, the LOC American Memory Project has a fine collection of baseball cards. They were donated by Carl Sandburg, the Chicago poet. (See some in the online edition of Ring Lardner's baseball stories.) But LOC can't put all of Sandburg's POEMS online, because the LOC allowed Congress to lock up their copyrights for another 20 years. So Eldritch Press is suing to overturn the copyright term extension. See http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/ and help out!
This Librarian is the official Congress chose to decide what fair use educators could make of digital products when we embark on online distance education. One can only hope that he reads our online comments and decides this issue fairly.
LOC is also digitizing books in the Making of America Project. My only objection to that is that the books are presented in poor page images, not in digitized text. Thus they cannot be read by a blind reader, nor can computers search for words. Yet the LOC is going to spend more money to record voice digitally for the blind in a separate project.
Today, the LOC every day is presented with much more new digital products such as TV programs than it collects printed books. As far as I know, the LOC has no means of archiving them (much less the entire Internet) and no plans to do so. Consequently, and because the LOC is compliant with Congress, the tool of big business and established publishers, these 'pay-per-view' products will likely evaporate from our culture.
The Librarian is right to say the LOC has a role in providing content over the Internet to schools. If not the LOC, then who? Take one example: students in the U.S. commonly are required to read 'The Scarlet Letter.' What would students find on the Internet if it were not for the Bartleby Project, Eldritch Press, or Project Gutenberg? They would find links to a site put up by a Disney branch that created a film version starring Demi Moore, that included enough nudity that few high school students could see it. But after the film became a commercial failure, the site disappeared from Internet memory. Even if it were still on the web, the film version is far from the book--the plot was completely changed to pander to today's politically correct viewers.
The LOC can play a great role in achieving the grand goal of a global public library that is free to all over the web and that contains the important parts of our culture. But it can't do that unless our national laws permit it, and it can't even begin to do so when media giant corporations assert control over every aspect of our digital culture. So let's change the world ourselves! Fight the copyright term extension, the DMCA, and other such repression! Scan books yourself and help them survive.
One final point: for some reason I couldn't add this comment to/. with Netscape on Linux as long as the ibook.com ad was at the top of the page (so I'm using w3m). I'm sure there is no connection, right!
Supposedly the predictive dialing computer then hangs up the annoying telemarketing call and removes your number from the database. If a human is calling, all you do is explain the strange tones and go back to your regularly scheduled conversation.
Has anyone tried this gadget and if so does it work?
Overhaul copyright--don't ignore it
on
RMS On eBooks
·
· Score: 1
Copyright law in the U.S. does need an overhaul, but we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Much of what RMS argues could be achieved by returning law to what prevailed before 1976, thus revoking DMCA, NET, and the popular concept of "property rights" to creative expressions.
These eBook gadgets (what I called "antibooks" at http://www.eldritchpress.org/battle.html) are indeed bad for everybody, because they deny fair use, the right of first sale, lending by libraries, resale by bookstores, reading by blind readers, and they invade our privacy.
But they should not be confused with the 11,000 FREE electronic books now available on the Internet, that are not so locked up. And many unencrypted books are being sold on the Internet now, although not by the media giants.
Copyright does not imply locking up books, and selling books on the Internet does not imply encrypting them and denying readers' rights. Copyright should imply open publication with fair use by the reader, for a limited time, then it enters the public domain.
Now, what should we do? First, we can join a battle in the courts to change copyright law: see http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno. Second, we can boycott these encrypted "antibooks," just as we did DIVX.
But, most importantly, we need to assemble a POLITICAL coalition of citizens around the "intellectual property" issues of digital media (music, books, video, etc.) including the human genome (now just a database), and issues of globalization and domination of our popular culture by rent-seeking media giants based in the rich countries. We may need to change campaign contribution laws first, as one example.
However, we cannot rely on strictly technological responses any longer, and we cannot rely on a free market to solve problems either--the market has been captured by media monopolists with government backing, and copyright infringement has been criminalized. The public has been taught to call us "pirates" for not being compliant consumers. We need an education campaign comparable to that of Hollywood's. Only if the universities (not the "run-as-a-business" type) and the great institutions of our society charged with preserving science and the humanitites join in this education campaign can freedom truly prevail.
as the originator of the "Open Source (tm) Books" campaign, i must now state that i have retracted my suggestion to use that phrase.
i now propose the simpler, "Support Online Books!" and suggest a link to http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/support.html
at some point, i feel, the "Open Source (tm)" movement that started with software needs to be generalized to books and other digital media. but right now it has not been well thought out, and some small disputes about the term's applicability may detract from discussion of the main points of what counts as "open" in this context.
it is true that most of us might not have joined this discussion if the phrase "Open Source (tm)" had not been attached. but i wish to publicly regret my use of the term and call your attention to the need to apply the trademark symbol to it, and to link to http://www.opensource.org/ or http://www.opencontent.org/ whenever you use it.
I apologize if I misused the term. I have tried to clarify all this at http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/open_source_books.ht ml
some people are confused by the terms. i don't believe our common struggle should be put off track by the vocabulary--we are essentially, i believe, fighting the same fight against the big publishers that Open Source (tm) Software is fighting against Microsoft.
but if you can think of a better term, please let us know. we need some phrases that can teach us about the proper role of the public domain and freely accessible intellectual property.
Eric Eldred EricEldred@usa.net Eldritch Press http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/
Slashdot Mirror
According to the page announcing the "publication" of the implementation of the specification, Microsoft stated that it was releasing this document in order to have third-party security analysis and validation that it was within the letter and spirit of the Kerberos spec with the IETF.
I see no reason why we here on /. could not help Microsoft with this aim. After all, we recognize that many of our mutual security problems with viruses and so forth have occurred for precisely the reason that in the past Microsoft was not so open about security matters and did not check with the community at large first.
However, Microsoft needs to understand that any discussion of the document needs to refer to it in detail. Therefore Microsoft needs to withdraw its claim to trade secrets and the EULA requirement.
If Slashdot were to withdraw, in turn, its copy of the copyrighted document, and instead link to an open online copy at Microsoft's site, then why wouldn't everybody be happy and we work together to achieve our mutual objectives?
Thanks, MC, for trying to negotiate a settlement--you are wise and I hope Microsoft responds.
will not be copied or posted on any network computer or broadcast in any media
There is no way that such a statement can override my fair use of the quote from the web page (which, by the way, bears a Microsoft copyright notice just as much as the document that describes the Microsoft Kerberos protocol).
Microsoft is setting itself up for disaster here with these pseudo-lawyerly clauses. At the same time it (1) requires the copyright notice and terms of use to accompany the quote; (2) it prohibits posting of the terms of use as well as the quote. Catch-22. Since there is no way that anyone can comply with these terms and use any document, the terms of use are invalid. Otherwise even the Microsoft web page author violated the terms of use by posting it on the web.
So sue me instead of answering my legitimate questions. It appears that Microsoft can be innovative in no other way now.
Andover has at the time of this posting not yet decided whether to claim immunity as a "service provider" under the DMCA, or to claim immunity as a publisher under the First Amendment.
If it claims to be like an ISP, then a court could force removal of ALL the posts that Microsoft has claimed (under penalty of perjury) to infringe its copyright. And if any further such posts are permitted by /. to remain, then the court could rule that /. was in contempt of court and continuing in contributory infringement. This could apply even if the new comments are simply links instead of the full posting. See the Utah Lighthouse Ministry case.
If Andover claims immunity under the First Amendment, then Microsoft will have to pursue the posters directly instead of indirectly through /. The case will be harder to win, but the particular facts in this case are in favor of /. Microsoft has invited comment on the spec and not provided any place on its own site for such comment. Andover could have a good case as a publisher, though it might have some novel aspects. Judges have for too long dismissed First Amendment defenses against copyright infringement cases.
I'd like to see Andover take the First Amendment course. That is the only way I believe /. can maintain its unique policies of Anonymous Coward postings and refusal to remove posts. That independence and freedom is worth fighting for.
I have seen some posts from some who claim to be from Microsoft. I invite comments on the original the "publish" link (I trust I am not violating anyone's copyright by quoting here--see the footnote). I quote:
"Microsoft To Publish Details of Kerberos Authorization Data in Windows 2000
"Rich Authorization Infrastructure To Be Available for Security Review and Analysis
"Following public commitments to industry leadership in security made at the RSA Conference in January of this year by Brian Valentine, senior vice-president, Windows Platform, Microsoft Corp. has published the details of its use of the authorization data field of Kerberos v5 authentication protocol. Kerberos v5 is an industry-standard network authentication protocol, designed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to provide 'proof of identity' on a computer network. Microsoft is publishing this information to enable third party validation of the Windows 2000 security model to benefit enterprise customers, developers and the industry. ...
"The specification available for download from this web page details the use the [sic] authorization data field. Microsoft invites third party review and validation of this implementation so that Microsoft's customers and development partners can be assured that the implementation of Kerberos in Windows 2000 is within the letter and spirit of the specification."
Mr Valentine, how do you expect "third party review and validation of this implementation" of the "security model" if Samba implementors of Kerberos will be excluded from the review, because if they read it they will not be able to agree to follow the EULA? Do you really consider this to be "publishing" the spec? Why don't you mention the EULA on this page that proclaims the spec is being "published"? And how is it that you are "publishing" this spec, but at the same time you claim to hold it as a trade secret--don't you see any conflict here?
Isn't Microsoft's letter to Slashdot an effort to suppress discussion of this spec, in conflict with the objective you state here?
Mr. Valentine or any Microsoft person who wishes to speak for him, please answer for us concerned citizens. We are confused about what Microsoft is trying to say and do.
Footnote: at the bottom of the page with the above quote is this notice: Copyright 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. And a link to a separate page with Terms of Use, including this information: "NOTICE SPECIFIC TO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THIS WEBSITE Permission to use Documents (such as white papers, press releases, datasheets and FAQs) from this server ("Server") is granted, provided that (1) the below copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear, (2) use of such Documents from this Server is for informational and non-commercial or personal use only and will not be copied or posted on any network computer or broadcast in any media, and (3) no modifications of any Documents are made. Educational institutions ( specifically K-12, universities and state community colleges) may download and reproduce the Documents for distribution in the classroom. Distribution outside the classroom requires express written permission. Use for any other purpose is expressly prohibited by law, and may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. Violators will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible."
There, I have tried to comply with the law in this rather silly posting. Warning: if Google or Alexa caches it, I have no control over that and won't be able to delete it.
Why not write your Congressperson and demand that our government stop spending our tax dollars for lousy Microsoft software now that the company has been convicted of illegal monopoly antitrust activities?
First we spend tax money to develop Kerberos, but we don't get it free, we have to buy Windows 2000 servers now that Microsoft has privatized the standard!
I wrote my congressmen and President Clinton, but for some reason I got no response--Bill Gates was invited to talk privately with Congress and appear at the White House instead.
If /. is forced by a judge's legal order to remove the one posting of the entire document, then there arises the matter of the defense of the poster, who according to /. policy owns the post.
If that poster comes forward and offers to defend the post against Microsoft, no matter what Slashdot does, then I do believe the suggestion of a legal defense fund is a good one.
It's even possible that an Anonymous Coward could sue to keep his or her anonymity, as the ACLU is suing Yahoo.
So, whoever you are, coward or hero, please step forward and post if you need our help!
Recently The New York Times reported that because of the Visio acquisition, Microsoft has been unable to buy up stock in its pyramid-like scheme of leveraging stock options--that practice has led to great gains in the stock, but now that the stock is going down it goes down faster, even without the antitrust suit.
It is quite possible that the poor management of Microsoft by corporate insiders will lead to shareholder rebellions at the shareholder meetings--even if the company is not split.
Gates at Networld touted Microsoft Kerberos and indicated that Microsoft would try to extend its monopoly into servers. Consider what might happen if corporate customers (including the U.S. government!) fully realize that their Unix servers will not be able to interoperate properly with Microsoft Windows machines. It might be a disaster. And in a normal corporate environment somebody has to take the blame for when bad things happen to the stock price.
Actually, one of the posts very blatantly violates Microsoft's copyright.
Actually, it is an interesting legal question as to whether this is true, and I hope it is addressed by a judge. I hope the poster of the entire document steps forward and appeals any decision to remove that post, and fights in court (with our help) this blatant censorship attempt.
It is not illegal to distribute a copy of a copyrighted document if the license that comes with the document specifically allows this (as, for example, the GPL does, and, furthermore, the EULA here does, for purposes of security analysis).
Next, it is not clear whether the alleged copyright is of a PUBLISHED work or an UNPUBLISHED work. The treatment of each is different under the law (the former is allowed more fair use). The letter from Microsoft does not clarify this point, but one might infer from the document itself that it claims to contain trade secrets and thus is UNPUBLISHED, while the fact that it is openly available on the web would indicate that it is a PUBLISHED work. I hope that a judge will find that Microsoft intended this work as unpublished, but because of poor legal advice, posted it as published, and therefore the DMCA does not apply.
Next, it is not clear just what Microsoft claims is covered by its alleged copyright. If it is the Kerberos spec itself, that is copyright MIT, and any later changes to the spec are not necessarily covered by copyright unless they are sufficiently original creative expressions. The document itself only contains arbitrary API data and references to mathematical algorithms--can they truly be protected? Can Microsoft enforce a patent on cascading style sheets if it participates in standards setting with other corporations on this very subject? It is possible that this case might have to be joined with the antitrust case under expedited review so a new remedy is found before appeal of the antitrust case.
Copyright is not an absolute natural right. It has to give way in cases where it is abused by monopolists convicted of antitrust offenses--and guess who that might be here? Kerberos is an open standard that Microsoft appears to be trying to take over for its own monopoly purposes of excluding competition in the network server market. Any attempts to privatize this open standard can been seen as monopolistic and thus not covered by standard intellectual property claims.
If you agree that posters to /. have the right to discuss this whole affair, how is it possible to exclude them from discussing the very document itself and referring to it? And what better way is there, than to post the entire document, or to make a deep link directly to it?
Consider that if Microsoft prevails here, /. will have to monitor all postings and censor them. And /. might have to abolish anonymous postings to comply with Microsoft's demands. Such actions would definitely impede free speech on /. and impose on our First Amendment rights. A judge needs to consider these points under heightened First Amendment scrutiny and not just accept Microsoft's prima facie claim of copyright under the DMCA. (If she does, then the DMCA itself might be overturned.)
Among the news sources refraining so far from comment is The New York Times.
I'm sorry to see The Times and The Washington Post failing to jump to the defense of a news publisher such as /. and informing their readers that this is a First Amendment issue where a large corporation is attempting to use copyright law to protect alleged trade secrets, promote a monopoly in network servers, and suppress free discussion online in /. and other fora of what is happening.
When can we expect to see some front-page news on this First Amendment issue? (I assume it is not because they didn't hear about it or don't know who to ask to learn the facts.)
I think the Linux Journal article was the best, maybe because its readers are assumed to be more technical. But I have no beef with the Wash. Post.
What I would like to see the Post and the other media do is take the story of the First Amendment issue here and make it big. The DMCA should be declared unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment.
The federal courts in the D.C. need to see that copyright is not a natural right, and intstead that laws such as the DMCA and the Bono Act do violate the First Amendment and therefore should be overturned.
It's time our newspapers tell their readers that web publishers deserve the same protection as print publishers. After all, the No Electronic Theft Act provides for up to 3-5 years in prison, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, and confiscation of all computers for five years, in case of a simple violation of one of these copyright laws. When was the last time a print publisher was put in jail and her printing presses seized?
No, I believe it is time somebody stood up to those who are using the DMCA to stifle criticism. This is not the first time. Look at the Church of Scientology using the DMCA to intimidate e-Bay into forcing withdrawal of an e-Meter auction--the Cos doesn't have a valid patent or copyright. Look at the MPAA and RIAA trying to use copyright law to protect their trade secrets.
What really needs to be done is for someone, not an Anonymous Coward, to step forward as a test case and say they are not going to take down their posting of this document, because to be forced to do so would violate their First Amendment rights.
So, any volunteers? Remember, you'll get plenty of support from the rest of us.
Yes, this VOIP dedicated device looks neat.
But what is there about it that you couldn't do with a regular computer and voice card?
I'd like to use services such as PhoneFree or even NetPhone, but they (like ZeroKnowledge) seem to be available only to Microsoft Windows uses. Why isn't the Linux Telephony group working on such a platform?
I'm not an Objectivist, and I think this view of monopoly is rather trivial, but.....I think ragnar has a point here.
If you read Microsoft's latest pleadings you see that they argue that their intellectual property should not be taken away from them just because they became dominant in their field. True. But being a monopolist is not in itself illegal--it's only illegal when it is used to restrain competition in certain manners, such as preventing a computer manufacturer from substituting their splash screen for Microsoft's.
Judge Jackson and the DOJ have repeatedly noted that claims to copyright are not sacrosanct and do not override the public's rights to protections against monopoly abuses. For example, in the case of Microsoft attempting to prevent Slashdot posters from distributing Microsoft's copyrighted materials, this is another attempt of a monopolist to illegally use alleged ownership of copyright--and a flawed copyright law in DMCA--to prevent others from making Unix servers into Kerberos domain servers and replacing Windows 2000 boxes.
Copyright is not an absolute right and Judge Jackson would have the authority to devise a remedy that prohibited Microsoft from exercising such complete control over ideas as they try to do now. The DOJ is proposing a "clean room" at Redmond where others could examine code for interoperability and open APIs. But other remedies might be suggested if Microsoft keeps up its current practices. Or, the EU could make Microsoft change its intellectual property practices as a condition of its investigation into Microsoft's attempt to monopolize servers as well as desktops.
Advice:
English as an international second language seems likely for the next few years to go to the top instead of a made-up language.
In particular, some form of "plain English" (as proposed by Al Gore among others) or restricted vocabulary/simplified grammar/spelling might be a good project.
In our common language we need richness, so we can distinguish, for example, "sensual" from "sensuous." But such richness is bad when we need to prescribe instead of describe--our laws must be understood by all. Note, for example, that international standards now almost always have a glossary with agreed-upon definitions (even the Microsoft anti-trust case has them).
Many have made a try for a Basic English. See for example the 850-word language by C. K. Ogden (1934) at http://www.marshallnet.com/~m anor/basiceng/beweb.html
It might be interesting to make a Babelfish computer translator to Basic English. Any takers?
Open access is what Lessig argued in the first American Prospect article: he spoke to congressional staffers to remind them that the telephone network needed to be split up from its monopoly, and that it has done well with limited regulation. If it weren't for federal regulation, do you think that a telephone company would be interested in serving a rural customer at a reasonable price?
The argument about telephone network regulation needs to be made about the Internet as well. One big problem is that the big push by corporations toward e-commerce is changing the Internet as we know it, away from the free, libertarian network we built, toward the commercial highways of consumerism.
What I have argued with Lessig about is that the media companies don't see their business model as did the telephone company. Instead, they see the Internet as just another "broadband" cable TV network they can use to stream consumer infotainment to us. It is extremely important to make sure that the media corps don't buy their way through Congress into control of the Internet and its content (their "intellectual property"). Instead, every citizen should be ensured equal access to the information superhighway, through federal regulation. (Note that @Home currently bars home web servers.)
In this debate, only Lessig is on the ball. Raymond feels the free market can solve the problem--but in spite of his IPO millions he can't buy Congress like the media corporations can.
Hey, guys, this is important! Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on all the CONTENT--but in all of history INFORMATION has never been the property of such a small few as today, with the great concentration of media corporations. We need to pay some heed to this and apply some wise regulation now, before it becomes the next monopoly like Microsoft.
I was going to reply to this topic, but I'm not sure now. I read at the bottom of the page that "Comments are owned by the poster" and I read in the comments by Rob and John that they seem to feel the comments are in the public domain--there seems to be a conflict.
I intend for my comments to be directed to this one public forum, and I have no anticipation that they will be taken out of the forum bodily and placed in a book for sale by somebody else.
I haven't seen any legal opinion here except from non-lawyers, but to me this is a violation of copyright law, and I would suggest that Andover check with their lawyers before publishing such a book.
I would also suggest that Andover immediately revise the warning that "Comments belong to the Poster." Under current copyright law anywhere where the Berne Convention applies (including the U.S.), copyright to any original creative expression, such as posts here, is automatically by the poster. No qualification therefore need be made by Slashdot. If they were to make a qualification, it would have to be something like, "poster automatically agrees that post is in the public domain" or (like AOL or h2g2) "post is copyright 2000 by Andover.net and poster automatically agrees Andover.net can use the post in any subsequent publication". (Whether or not that would hold up in court as an agreement should be determined by lawyers, not us.)
So, Andover.net lawyers, please do your job and make it possible for me to post my reply to this important question!
Josh Lerner at Harvard Business School has studied the economic affects of patents (see http://www.people.hbs.edu/jlerner/P atintro.html and associated links. He concludes that there are many indirect costs of patents and discusses the "concern that the pattern of costly litigation--or payments to forestall litigation--are leading to reductions or distortions in innovative investments, particularly for small firms." In his study of small biotechnology firms, the trend was to protect research by trade secrets instead of patents, mostly because of the costs (it costs more than $1 million to defend a patent). Obviously, the public loses when the research is made a secret instead of openly disclosed. Nobody else can build on the work and improve it, and when the patent period expires the secret is not disclosed. Since much innovation is achieved by the small firms, this trend is disturbing. Remember, the purpose of patents according to Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." It seems to be time to rework the patent system from the ground up, to try to achieve the original objections in a better way.
Eldred v Reno which challenged the constitutionality of retroactively extending the limited time for copyright protection seems to have been lost. I don't know if it has been appealed. Yes, it is being appealed now in the D.C. circuit. Written briefs on both sides are being filed and oral arguments will be heard in October, then it's on to the Supreme Court. See http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno and add comments to the OpenLaw page. We have a good chance at winning, but we will need help in the form of amicus briefs before the Supreme Court. The core of the issue for all intellectual property protection remains: The creator is granted something "ownership" that they would not otherwise have,.... More or less correct, but the concept of "ownership" is not a good one to emphasize here. Better to say, exclusive rights as the Constitution says. "Ownership" implies too many natural rights, instead of the limited monopoly the Constitution allows. Ken is correct that the patent problem is part of the larger problem of "intellectual property" in the digital age. Some solutions could apply to both. It is also time to experiment with better ways of treating patents and copyrights.
an easy to pirate text version of their works distributed freely over the internet.
I believe "pirate" is not the correct technical term here. It is quite easy to copy a printed book (or even an encrypted book), just by typing it in (and that might be lawful, as part of fair use). It is quite easy to distribute a digital work also, by putting it on the net. But "pirating" implies selling it, not giving it away. And I don't see many books being sold by not their rightful owners on the web today. (There are books being sold on the web, and books given away lawfully, but most authors complain that NOBODY READS the books in the first place.)
I don't advocate anyone's breaking the law. Copyright, for a limited term, can encourage authors to publish freely. But we ought not to abandon copyright and publishing freely, in search of a phoney technological protection such as encryption or the "rights management schemes" used by Microsoft Reader and too many so-called "eBooks" today. Locking up books, whether in the Library of Congress, or on the hard disks at Microsoft Corp., will be a terrible heritage for the next generations.
Yes, there are "intellectual property" issues involved in publishing online books. For example, the Copyright Term Extension Act makes that commendable practice much more difficult. The solution is to have a shorter term, not to lock up books longer or forever. Authors in their right minds will agree, but big publishers want to maintain their government-enforced monopoly on our ideas.
Eldritch Press is one of those sites that voluntarily scans books and publishes them free online. If the LOC won't, we will.
Indeed, the LOC American Memory Project has a fine collection of baseball cards. They were donated by Carl Sandburg, the Chicago poet. (See some in the online edition of Ring Lardner's baseball stories.) But LOC can't put all of Sandburg's POEMS online, because the LOC allowed Congress to lock up their copyrights for another 20 years. So Eldritch Press is suing to overturn the copyright term extension. See http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/ and help out!
This Librarian is the official Congress chose to decide what fair use educators could make of digital products when we embark on online distance education. One can only hope that he reads our online comments and decides this issue fairly.
LOC is also digitizing books in the Making of America Project. My only objection to that is that the books are presented in poor page images, not in digitized text. Thus they cannot be read by a blind reader, nor can computers search for words. Yet the LOC is going to spend more money to record voice digitally for the blind in a separate project.
Today, the LOC every day is presented with much more new digital products such as TV programs than it collects printed books. As far as I know, the LOC has no means of archiving them (much less the entire Internet) and no plans to do so. Consequently, and because the LOC is compliant with Congress, the tool of big business and established publishers, these 'pay-per-view' products will likely evaporate from our culture.
The Librarian is right to say the LOC has a role in providing content over the Internet to schools. If not the LOC, then who? Take one example: students in the U.S. commonly are required to read 'The Scarlet Letter.' What would students find on the Internet if it were not for the Bartleby Project, Eldritch Press, or Project Gutenberg? They would find links to a site put up by a Disney branch that created a film version starring Demi Moore, that included enough nudity that few high school students could see it. But after the film became a commercial failure, the site disappeared from Internet memory. Even if it were still on the web, the film version is far from the book--the plot was completely changed to pander to today's politically correct viewers.
The LOC can play a great role in achieving the grand goal of a global public library that is free to all over the web and that contains the important parts of our culture. But it can't do that unless our national laws permit it, and it can't even begin to do so when media giant corporations assert control over every aspect of our digital culture. So let's change the world ourselves! Fight the copyright term extension, the DMCA, and other such repression! Scan books yourself and help them survive.
One final point: for some reason I couldn't add this comment to /. with Netscape on Linux as long as the ibook.com ad was at the top of the page (so I'm using w3m). I'm sure there is no connection, right!
Mike Sandman sells at http://www.sandman.com/tmstop.html a cute device that sends a signal that the phone has been disconnected.
Supposedly the predictive dialing computer then hangs up the annoying telemarketing call and removes your number from the database. If a human is calling, all you do is explain the strange tones and go back to your regularly scheduled conversation.
Has anyone tried this gadget and if so does it work?
Copyright law in the U.S. does need an overhaul, but we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Much of what RMS argues could be achieved by returning law to what prevailed before 1976, thus revoking DMCA, NET, and the popular concept of "property rights" to creative expressions.
These eBook gadgets (what I called "antibooks" at http://www.eldritchpress.org/battle.html) are indeed bad for everybody, because they deny fair use, the right of first sale, lending by libraries, resale by bookstores, reading by blind readers, and they invade our privacy.
But they should not be confused with the 11,000 FREE electronic books now available on the Internet, that are not so locked up. And many unencrypted books are being sold on the Internet now, although not by the media giants.
Copyright does not imply locking up books, and selling books on the Internet does not imply encrypting them and denying readers' rights. Copyright should imply open publication with fair use by the reader, for a limited time, then it enters the public domain.
Now, what should we do? First, we can join a battle in the courts to change copyright law: see http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno. Second, we can boycott these encrypted "antibooks," just as we did DIVX.
But, most importantly, we need to assemble a POLITICAL coalition of citizens around the "intellectual property" issues of digital media (music, books, video, etc.) including the human genome (now just a database), and issues of globalization and domination of our popular culture by rent-seeking media giants based in the rich countries. We may need to change campaign contribution laws first, as one example.
However, we cannot rely on strictly technological responses any longer, and we cannot rely on a free market to solve problems either--the market has been captured by media monopolists with government backing, and copyright infringement has been criminalized. The public has been taught to call us "pirates" for not being compliant consumers. We need an education campaign comparable to that of Hollywood's. Only if the universities (not the "run-as-a-business" type) and the great institutions of our society charged with preserving science and the humanitites join in this education campaign can freedom truly prevail.
as the originator of the "Open Source (tm) Books" campaign, i must now state that i have retracted my suggestion to use that phrase.
i now propose the simpler, "Support Online Books!" and suggest a link to http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/support.html
at some point, i feel, the "Open Source (tm)" movement that started with software needs to be generalized to books and other digital media. but right now it has not been well thought out, and some small disputes about the term's applicability may detract from discussion of the main points of what counts as "open" in this context.
it is true that most of us might not have joined this discussion if the phrase "Open Source (tm)" had not been attached. but i wish to publicly regret my use of the term and call your attention to the need to apply the trademark symbol to it, and to link to http://www.opensource.org/ or http://www.opencontent.org/ whenever you use it.
EricEldred
EricEldred@usa.net
http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/
I apologize if I misused the term. I have tried to clarify all this at http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/open_source_books.ht ml
some people are confused by the terms. i don't believe our common struggle should be put off track by the vocabulary--we are essentially, i believe, fighting the same fight against the big publishers that Open Source (tm) Software is fighting against Microsoft.
but if you can think of a better term, please let us know. we need some phrases that can teach us about the proper role of the public domain and freely accessible intellectual property.
Eric Eldred
EricEldred@usa.net
Eldritch Press
http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/