I've just contributed $100 to EFF, I highly recommend others do so also. I'm in the same boat as above - I've been letting others carry the weight for me, too long.
Note:DeCSS source code is NOT at the following location:
It would seem to me that this preliminary injunction has left itself wide open to being overturned. And it has done so explicitly!
First, the judge repeatedly states that this injunction does not prevent anyone from discussing the DeCSS algorithm. OK, that's good to know.
Here comes the kicker... if I recall, in a case directly addressing posting encryption to the Web, the court has ruled that this is covered under the 1st Amendment, our protection of Free Speech.
It would seem to me that if you're allowed to talk about it (free speech) and that if posting something to the web has been ruled an extension of 'free speech', then this injunction can't hold much water.
This letter is an excellent example of what should happen when lawyers attempt to strongarm people into coersion. I've encountered lawyer-like behavior many times in which a strongly worded letter with much mumbo-jumbo (by that I mean: things common people may not be familiar with) is used with the intent to scare into submission.
I thank my parents for insisting that I read, read, and read some more as a youngster. My vocabulary is sufficient to see through many such lawyer-like letters and at times sufficient to respond in much the same fashion.
Its awesome that someone isn't just folding and pulling their site down, instead responding and calling their bluff. Bravo.
I concur with all that's written in the letter and I commend the force with which the language is used. Excellent.
The only potential problem I see with this is the initial cost of the patent as well as the cost of the intellectual property lawyer (patent lawyer) to write up your patent and go through all the gymnastics to get it submitted.
Btw - does the concept of Open Source Software need patenting? Just a thought...
Thank you again, Mr. Young, for this informative article!
First off, thank you so much for this enlightening feature article! I think the author did an excellent job describing patent law in a way that all the IANAL people can understand (like me;-))
Second - holy sh*@! It certainly seems that the way patent law stands at the moment is utterly useless. For all intents and purposes, a corporation could kill OSS simply by applying for and receiving patents for a large majority of software that is in existence. Granted - applying for a patent is expensive (something like $20,000?) - but the way large corporations throw money at Quad Xeon P3 550+MHz servers, a few grand here and there seems rather insignificant.
The only remaining question would be "why would anyone want to kill OSS?" Clearly if we have to stop writing free software, we won't be running to our nearest software store and purchasing a replacement... what could a company hope to gain?
It certainly seems to me that if a lobby doesn't exist to get patent law changed, one should be started (I wish I had that kind of money or influence). I'd definitely throw in what I can to get patent law as it applies to pseudo-random sequences of 1's and 0's (software) nixed.
Something needs to be done - now that we have an idea of what patent law can do to us, what should be/can be done?
With the DHCP updating the DNS entries, it is no easier to spoof than w/ static DNS - the DHCP server that updates the DNS entry must be "allowed" by Bind to do this, and the Bind server must be authoratative for the domain you're wanting to update.
Thankfully, the folks at ISC know what they're doing.
DDNS is indeed implemented in the Unices - w/o a problem. The current version of Bind (8) supports DDNS and the development version of DHCP supports the DDNS updates.
The difference in the two (Dynamic/Static) is that, as everyone knows, static DNS requires you to know the IP address of the domain name you're recording. In DDNS, the client requests an IP address from a DHCP server, then, as long as the DHCP server is configured to 'know' the client, it recognizes which client is requesting the IP (based on MAC addressing) and informs the DNS server that it is giving a certain IP address to a client for a particular domain name, and the DNS server accepts the information and adjusts its lookup tables accordingly.
I've implemented this in Linux w/o a problem whatsoever - and I know of a school that has implemented it in a Solaris environment.
Its been out there for a LONG time, btw - by that I mean at least 3 yrs. It wasn't pretty, at times, 3 yrs ago - but it was there. Now, it is a very well integrated solution.
Its nice to be able to connect w/ a laptop anywhere on a 100+ subnet network and get the same domain name to resolve everytime:).
Slashdot Mirror
I've just contributed $100 to EFF, I highly recommend others do so also. I'm in the same boat as above - I've been letting others carry the weight for me, too long.
Note:DeCSS source code is NOT at the following location:
http://www.penguinboots.com/notCSS/
Regards,
Brice
It would seem to me that this preliminary injunction has left itself wide open to being overturned. And it has done so explicitly!
First, the judge repeatedly states that this injunction does not prevent anyone from discussing the DeCSS algorithm. OK, that's good to know.
Here comes the kicker ... if I recall, in a case directly addressing posting encryption to the Web, the court has ruled that this is covered under the 1st Amendment, our protection of Free Speech.
It would seem to me that if you're allowed to talk about it (free speech) and that if posting something to the web has been ruled an extension of 'free speech', then this injunction can't hold much water.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
Just a thought, as always.
-Brice
This letter is an excellent example of what should happen when lawyers attempt to strongarm people into coersion. I've encountered lawyer-like behavior many times in which a strongly worded letter with much mumbo-jumbo (by that I mean: things common people may not be familiar with) is used with the intent to scare into submission.
I thank my parents for insisting that I read, read, and read some more as a youngster. My vocabulary is sufficient to see through many such lawyer-like letters and at times sufficient to respond in much the same fashion.
Its awesome that someone isn't just folding and pulling their site down, instead responding and calling their bluff. Bravo.
I concur with all that's written in the letter and I commend the force with which the language is used. Excellent.
-Brice
The only potential problem I see with this is the initial cost of the patent as well as the cost of the intellectual property lawyer (patent lawyer) to write up your patent and go through all the gymnastics to get it submitted.
Btw - does the concept of Open Source Software need patenting? Just a thought ...
Thank you again, Mr. Young, for this informative article!
First off, thank you so much for this enlightening feature article! I think the author did an excellent job describing patent law in a way that all the IANAL people can understand (like me ;-))
Second - holy sh*@! It certainly seems that the way patent law stands at the moment is utterly useless. For all intents and purposes, a corporation could kill OSS simply by applying for and receiving patents for a large majority of software that is in existence. Granted - applying for a patent is expensive (something like $20,000?) - but the way large corporations throw money at Quad Xeon P3 550+MHz servers, a few grand here and there seems rather insignificant.
The only remaining question would be "why would anyone want to kill OSS?" Clearly if we have to stop writing free software, we won't be running to our nearest software store and purchasing a replacement ... what could a company hope to gain?
It certainly seems to me that if a lobby doesn't exist to get patent law changed, one should be started (I wish I had that kind of money or influence). I'd definitely throw in what I can to get patent law as it applies to pseudo-random sequences of 1's and 0's (software) nixed.
Something needs to be done - now that we have an idea of what patent law can do to us, what should be/can be done?
With the DHCP updating the DNS entries, it is no easier to spoof than w/ static DNS - the DHCP server that updates the DNS entry must be "allowed" by Bind to do this, and the Bind server must be authoratative for the domain you're wanting to update.
Thankfully, the folks at ISC know what they're doing.
Brice
DDNS is indeed implemented in the Unices - w/o a problem. The current version of Bind (8) supports DDNS and the development version of DHCP supports the DDNS updates.
The difference in the two (Dynamic/Static) is that, as everyone knows, static DNS requires you to know the IP address of the domain name you're recording. In DDNS, the client requests an IP address from a DHCP server, then, as long as the DHCP server is configured to 'know' the client, it recognizes which client is requesting the IP (based on MAC addressing) and informs the DNS server that it is giving a certain IP address to a client for a particular domain name, and the DNS server accepts the information and adjusts its lookup tables accordingly.
I've implemented this in Linux w/o a problem whatsoever - and I know of a school that has implemented it in a Solaris environment.
Its been out there for a LONG time, btw - by that I mean at least 3 yrs. It wasn't pretty, at times, 3 yrs ago - but it was there. Now, it is a very well integrated solution.
Its nice to be able to connect w/ a laptop anywhere on a 100+ subnet network and get the same domain name to resolve everytime :).
Btw - first? :-)
Brice