Bradley Kuhn believes strongly, about what type of license all published software should have, as well as what rights programmers deserve or don't, and the harmful social effects of those rights.
Hmmm.
On reflection, you're absolutely right! We're in a state of total fascism and I'm being actively prevented from releasing software according to my own desires.
Give me a break. The FSF is expressing it's corporate opinion about its beliefs concerning the social implications of software licensing. They clearly hope that someday, all computer & software users will agree with them. Just as clearly, whether you agree with them or not, their opinions don't carry the force of law and you can ignore the FSF, Bradley Kuhn, Richard Stallman as much as you want and no negative consequences will likely accrue to you other than a (probably small, hopefully growing) percentage of users simply won't use software you write.
Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
Since no other part of the law amends this to exclude as infringing parties the owners patents on improvements of the invention, no rights to the original invention accrue to the improving patent holder. Apparently, in an earlier version of the law this distinction was drawn more explicitly </correction_because_you're_wrong>
The fact that companies which produce software are free under current US law to patent their so-called "invention" and block independant creation, distribution and use of a free alternative;
Yep, that's right.... for a limited time, only in return for disclosing how the invention works.... what's that? You have to 'Open Source' your invention in order to get patent power?
Yep, that's right... for a limited period of 20 years... What's that? It's 20 years later and the "invention" is now useless because computer hardware now responds directly to spoken human language and software really is finally just ideas? And they all sit idle anyway because noone was allowed to see the code which controlled the privately-operated, plutonium-feuled asteroid mining vehicle which exploded shortly after takeoff and poisoned the atmosphere beyond its ability to support human life? (All right, that last one's stretching it a bit perhaps, but remember, this whole discussion is about Free Software, and patents only insomuch as they relate to it).
And if you manage to take the GIVEN documentation and improve substantialy on the idea, you can patent over the patent and give it away for free if you wish. Yes that's right...
which, though nice of me, doesn't probably benefit the users since they still can't use a free version of the original invention, with or without my improvements. The ability to patent improvements on other patents is great for inventors, especially ones rich enough to enter cross licensing agreements. It's less great for people who want Free Software...
You'll probably complain until you get your own... I've got one... and I'm proud of it.
Indeed, it looks interesting, but I can't help but notice it's not a software patent...
1) NO ONE IS TELLING ANYONE UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS THEY HAVE TO GIVE ANYTHING AWAY! I'm shouting because almost everyone hear arguing the anti-FSF position seems to believe that ridiculous assertion; FSF is arguing about what terms they feel are right, not what terms are legal. I have never heard of Richard Stallman or any FSF representative propose any legislation which mandates that software released in the USA or anywhere else *must* be GPL'd
2) You have no natural rights whatsoever regarding any of your property *after* you choose to give it to me. Under current law, you have a legal right. If you think that legal rights == natural or "moral" rights, then please don't let me hear you whining about [paying 30+% income tax, or not being able to smoke pot in your house, or the government being able to declare your back yard a federally-protected wetland without compensation, or not being able to have butt-sex in Alabama [rest of the set of all US laws that must bug *someone*]].
So Richard Stallman is Free to use only Free software. Nothing is stopping him from exercising that freedom right here and now.
Actually, lots of things are stopping him. The fact that he doesn't choose what software his cellphone or other embedded processor runs; The fact that his friends and aquaintances (may) use proprietary software which uses proprietary data formats; The fact that companies which produce software are free under current US law to patent their so-called "invention" and block independant creation, distribution and use of a free alternative; the fact that large corporations in capitalist societies have a tendency toward becoming monopolies which use dominance in one market to restrict options in others (i.e. I can't use device A with my OS B because the tiny market share of OS B means that the company A has no real incentive to provide the info neccessary to write a driver)...
I probably could go on, but I hope you get my point.
it specifically allows "noncommercial use... of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings". Not, as specified in the other definition, "digital audio copied recordings". Going by the definitions given, it basically says "you can't be charged for making a recording using a device that is capable of copying" rather than "you can't be charged for copying on a device".
So it could be argued that either a) it doesn't cover copied recordings, or b) whilst you can't be charged for 'using the device', you might be charged for the purposes you put it to
I realize this thread is kind of a dead horse at this point, but again, in the definitions section of the statute, it defines "digital *musical* recording" as a recording in fixed digital form of musical sounds (as distinct from recorded speech or noise). There is nothing in the definition that distiguishes these recordings from copies. So the phrase:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
covers
using a device which by nature makes digital copies (remember this law doesn't cover professional devices used to create the original digital audio media, or the media on which the music is *first* fixed);
to make digital musical recordings which implicitly are copies, due to said nature of the devices & media employed, as defined by the statute (again, even if the user is recording off the radio, they are making a copy, from an analog source -- that the user is making copies is assumed or stated explicitly throughout this statute. Reread the definition of "digital audio recording medium" and "digital audio copied recording" if you don't believe me);
for "private", "noncommercial use."
Again, out of all of that only the possible definitions of "private" and "noncommercial" seem to cast doubt on the legitimacy of trading. "Private" actually seems most relevant to online trading, which one would assume is "public." Unfortunately, the statute, by leaving these last two terms undefined, is ambiguous in this context.
But much of the funding for drug development is actually done with public funds in University settings. Drug company profit margins are enormous, and if they need more money for R&D, they could take a cut in executive salaries and glitzy marketing TV-blitzathons ("side effects include dizziness, nausea, and having to sit through this ad four times an hour on five different stations").
The original poster talked about fair use, but also stated "You can distribute copies to others, under any circumstance" which I took to be a typo for "You cannot distribute copies to others, under any cicurmstance[s]."
I was addressing the latter assertion without regard for whether distributing copies fell under the fair use doctrine.
And my point is, the Audio Home Recording Act addresses (and protects) "the noncommercial use by a consumer" of devices which produce digital copies of digital music recordings. It seems clear to me that "using the device" to make a copy that one gives to one's friend for free falls under that protection. Do you really mean to suggest that the law only covers the actual act of copying? In that case the "noncommercial" qualifier seems to have no meaning, as it's not the copying but the subsequent distribution of the copy which has the potential for commercial exploitation. Am I missing something?
How does copying something you wouldn't buy "hurt everyone"? You are explicitly not shrinking the market for the holder of the monopoly if you consume copyrighted material that you wouldn't buy.
The problem is when you publish copyrighted material for which you don't own the copyrights and which some of the people consuming it would pay.
This is why many people are arguing that it would be much more productive for the recording industry to find a way to take advantage of the market that potentially exists to purchase individual songs online, for all of those people who might be willing to pay a reasonable amount for one good song from a CD that they wouldn't pay for in its entirety. There are arguably a lot of people out there who feel that they aren't stealing because they wouldn't buy the product in the form in which it's currently offered (e.g. only on a CD with 9 crappy songs, priced at US $15). They'd then be expanding the market themselves, instead of spending all of their time trying to keep others from reducing the market (which may be an inherent impossibility due to the combination of technology and human nature anyway).
Part of the complication of the current situation is that the recording industry seems to be uninterested in creating such a market until it has succeeded in creating a regulatory and/or technological environment where they are free (because of the lack of alternatives like free downloads) from any competetive price pressure for the new market.
from the same Chapter (10) of USC Title 17, this time from Subchapter A, Section 1001 (Definitions):
As used in this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) A "digital audio copied recording" is a reproduction in a digital recording format of a digital musical
recording, whether that reproduction is made directly from another digital musical recording or indirectly
from a transmission.
...
(3) A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to
individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or
device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and
that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use, except for--
(A) professional model products, and
(B) dictation machines, answering machines, and other audio recording equipment that is designed and
marketed primarily for the creation of sound recordings resulting from the fixation of nonmusical sounds.
So for the purposes of the law here, making a "digital audio recording" covers using a device which makes "digital audio copied recordings".
Remember, we're talking about Copyright, not the right to make original recordings.
US Code Title 17 Chapter 10 Subchapter D Section 1008 (from Copyright Act as amended by the Audio Home Recording Act):
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium,
or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
So it all depends on the definintion of "noncommercial use." If it means "you get no money in return", then obviously it's OK. If it means "you get nothing of value in return", then it could be argued that trading is illegal since you are receiving something of value (other recordings), thus the use is commercial. The sticky part would be if it means "you don't neccessarily get anything of value in return". That seems intuitively to me to be the correct interpretation, and would also seem to make file sharing in this context legal since I have no assurance that the people who consume the files I publish will in turn publish something I might want.
I guarantee you that the RIAA and MPAA would like to have noncommercial defined as "you receive nothing of value."
Unfortunately, though Chapter 10 defines many of its terms, it doesn't define "noncommercial." If anyone knows of somewhere else withing the Copyright Act or any other portion of the USC, let me know.
I think it's likely that you'll find that doing software development as a profession is different than learning about software development (and even more different than learning about Computer Science -- which is NOT the same as software development).
For me, the joy in software development comes from solving new or interesting problems or problems in a new domain, working on a team w/ other talented, insightful people. It's about having my mind engaged in a way -- or in a variety of ways -- that few other of the professions I'd explored provided.
Now, of course not all jobs in the software industry will always have the right combination of interesting problem, quality people and good management, but the longer you work in the industry (and the more practical problem-solving experience you aquire) the more you'll be able to be picky and choose jobs that have at least some of these things -- and it's often possible to be the spark that brings some of the other qualities oneself (for instance, not many Project Managers *want* to fail; if you find yourself working on an interesting problem in an environment that's poorly managed, suggest ways that you think the process could be made more conducive to producing quality work. You'd be surprised how often people pay attention to good ideas).
There are also no end of open source or Free Software projects to get involved w/, many of which are interesting, fun and useful all at the same time.
In any event, don't assume that your experience now necessarily represents what the experience of actually doing software development as a profession will be like. If it turns out after a couple years of working in the software industry isn't all you hoped, then you will have aquired a useful skill and still be in a position as multiple other posters have mentioned to pursue something else.
works -- slowly. It's no fun. I've done almost all of my development for iPAQ using the cross-compile chain from handhelds.org because kernel compiles shouldn't take a half hour.
If you're asking will it run apps written in C? Of course, as long as they're compiled for ARM.
They are byproducts of different assumptions in the handhelds.org kernel and in QT/Embedded about who is responsible for power management and how to effect it. QT/Embedded seems to be a GUI in the Mac sense, i.e. "what you use to control everything about the machine".
I believe that the latest handhelds.org kernels have addressed the power management issues mostly. However, I use Ion/X on my iPAQ, so I'm not sure.
The Familiar distribution running on Compaq's iPAQ series of handhelds is shaping up to be a very usable distribution. It's X-based and uses Keith Packard's TinyX X server implementation which -- IIRC -- weighs in between 500K - 800K, takes up relatively little memory and runs quite well.
The biggest issue is the window manager, and Carl Worth has done a great job of hacking the Ion window manager to be at least adequate.
Also, Mandrake of Elightenment fame is reportedly working on a new wm specifically for handhelds.
That's interesting. I'm operating on my simplistic, naive notion that a VM is "the hard drive, where you dump pages when you're short on RAM or they get really stale". Thus, in my simple little world, the VM subsystem is affected the most by tweaks to the scheduler that swaps out pages. Is that where the major differences between the two VM schemes lie?
Actually, the VM is "the subsystem which keeps you from getting short on RAM, by dumping pages to the hard drive when they get stale, while not swapping unnecessarily because of the big impact that disk I/O has on system performance."
Actually, the real debate on LKML was not whether something drastic needed to be done about the poor performance of the early 2.4 VMs, but *when* that should occur.
Basically, the people who sided with Linus/Andrea were of the opinion that "things are so bad now [which was between 2.4.5 and 2.4.9] that a complete replacement of the VM even in a 'stable' kernel series is justified", and those who sided with Alan Cox/Ben La Haise/Rik van Riel thought that the existing VM code could be massaged and tweaked enough so that the performance would become acceptable and huge changes could be postponed until 2.5 opened.
This was complicated by the fact that between 2.4.5 and 2.4.9, the -ac series had accepted patches from Rik which weren't applied in the Linus branch and did in fact seem to be fairly successful in increasing performance through much less intrusive code changes. This was one of the main complaints of the Alan/Ben/Rik contingent; that the problems had already been largely resolved in the -ac tree, and that that approach should have been applied in Linus' tree before jumping to a complete rewrite.
At this point, a consensus seems to be forming that the Andrea VM is *much* simpler, the changes haven't had much adverse effect on other subsystems, and the performance is just as good or better than the VM in the -ac series.
The question of whether or not it should have waited until 2.5 is one that will probably never be answered to everyone's satisfaction, but at least will soon be academic.
For me the two most important/controversial answers in the whole set of response were parts b) and c) in the answer to question one:
b) Disallowing technologies which may only be available for a fee (RAND terms) would deny the Web access to the best technology available.
(c) If W3C adopts an RF-only model, then many important Web technology standards may end up being developed at other standards bodies or industry consortia.
It seems clear from part 'c' that a major motivation for what the W3C is doing with its patent policy is to ensure its own continued relevance.
But whether or not the concern is even valid depends on where you stand WRT point 'b', and I don't concur (and I think that the heart of the controversy here and elsewhere is a similar lack of concurrence) with the opinion expressed therein. Do we really need "Standards" like MP3 when we can have Ogg instead? It seems that at this point, as far as standards for audio compression go, Ogg Vorbis is "the best technology available" and it's still improving!
The idea that the best technology won't be available as a Standard-with-a-capital-S under an RF-only policy is that the problem domain the standard refers to has only one acceptably good solution and that necessarily only commercial entities will be able to contribute that solution. I reject both claims.
I think a RF-only standards process is the way to go if the goal of passing standards is at least as important to the W3C as remaining relevant is.
I don't see anything in the release that would prevent Microsoft from doing everything you say, and then still yanking the OS license from any OEM who sold dual-boot systems.
Even in the majority opinions, the court conceded that it was abnormal for them not to defer to the state court in interpreting that state's laws.
The USSC's constitutional arguments were bunk, and it's only on the basis of the constitution that they should have been deciding.
Their one constitutional argument was the due process issue. It was a crock; again the majority opinions recognized how extension of their own logic to the entire voting proccess accross states would be highly problematic (and thereby said "so we won't consider it now, but we will still apply the logic to the county recounts").
I am not saying that Gore should have won the election. I'm saying that the USSC should have interpreted the constitution and stayed the hell out of untangling Florida's ridiculously tangled election laws.
I would have had much less problem with the Florida legislature appointing delegates than the obviously partisan and biased USSC procedings and decision.
In short, reread Justice Stevens' dissent. It says it all. My faith in the electoral process is fine. My faith in our nation's highest court as impartial arbiter of justice and the rule of law is, if not shattered, greatly diminished.
"...why don't you use some type of looping control structure with a initial assignment to some type of counter, a test to be performed prior to each iteration of the loop, and an action to perform after each iteration to repeatedly execute a block of code which -- when executed zero or more times depending on the condition in the test statement -- solves our problem?"
Indeed, this case combined with Bernstein is starting to add up to a nice bit of precedent regarding source code's place vis-a-vis our various constitutional protections. Although the decision in Bersnstein wansn't unanimous, it contains some great stuff also. From the majority opinion:
...we conclude that encryption software, in its source code form... must be viewed as expressive for First Amendment purposes, and thus is entitled to the protections of the prior restraint doctrine.
See also the later section in Bernstein where the opinion speculates as to possible 4th Amendment implications for encryption software in particular as well.
For the first time in a couple years I'm experiencing a glimmer of hope that the checks and balances in our system of governance may actually wind up protecting my rights -- as a programmer, computer & software user, and free citizen of the US -- from the despicable encroachment currently being realized at the hand of law enforcement agencies and especially private corporate interests.
Of course, after Bush v. Gore, y'all forgive me if my cynicism WRT to the Supreme Court keeps this glimmer of hope faint indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
He's talking about curl, not cURL.
Hmmm.
On reflection, you're absolutely right! We're in a state of total fascism and I'm being actively prevented from releasing software according to my own desires.
Give me a break. The FSF is expressing it's corporate opinion about its beliefs concerning the social implications of software licensing. They clearly hope that someday, all computer & software users will agree with them. Just as clearly, whether you agree with them or not, their opinions don't carry the force of law and you can ignore the FSF, Bradley Kuhn, Richard Stallman as much as you want and no negative consequences will likely accrue to you other than a (probably small, hopefully growing) percentage of users simply won't use software you write.
<correction_because_you're_wrong>
Since no other part of the law amends this to exclude as infringing parties the owners patents on improvements of the invention, no rights to the original invention accrue to the improving patent holder. Apparently, in an earlier version of the law this distinction was drawn more explicitlyFrom Title 35, section 271, paragraph a of the US Code (emphasis added):
</correction_because_you're_wrong>
2) You have no natural rights whatsoever regarding any of your property *after* you choose to give it to me. Under current law, you have a legal right. If you think that legal rights == natural or "moral" rights, then please don't let me hear you whining about [paying 30+% income tax, or not being able to smoke pot in your house, or the government being able to declare your back yard a federally-protected wetland without compensation, or not being able to have butt-sex in Alabama [rest of the set of all US laws that must bug *someone*]].
IANALIA
I probably could go on, but I hope you get my point.
But much of the funding for drug development is actually done with public funds in University settings. Drug company profit margins are enormous, and if they need more money for R&D, they could take a cut in executive salaries and glitzy marketing TV-blitzathons ("side effects include dizziness, nausea, and having to sit through this ad four times an hour on five different stations").
I was addressing the latter assertion without regard for whether distributing copies fell under the fair use doctrine.
And my point is, the Audio Home Recording Act addresses (and protects) "the noncommercial use by a consumer" of devices which produce digital copies of digital music recordings. It seems clear to me that "using the device" to make a copy that one gives to one's friend for free falls under that protection. Do you really mean to suggest that the law only covers the actual act of copying? In that case the "noncommercial" qualifier seems to have no meaning, as it's not the copying but the subsequent distribution of the copy which has the potential for commercial exploitation. Am I missing something?
The problem is when you publish copyrighted material for which you don't own the copyrights and which some of the people consuming it would pay.
This is why many people are arguing that it would be much more productive for the recording industry to find a way to take advantage of the market that potentially exists to purchase individual songs online, for all of those people who might be willing to pay a reasonable amount for one good song from a CD that they wouldn't pay for in its entirety. There are arguably a lot of people out there who feel that they aren't stealing because they wouldn't buy the product in the form in which it's currently offered (e.g. only on a CD with 9 crappy songs, priced at US $15). They'd then be expanding the market themselves, instead of spending all of their time trying to keep others from reducing the market (which may be an inherent impossibility due to the combination of technology and human nature anyway).
Part of the complication of the current situation is that the recording industry seems to be uninterested in creating such a market until it has succeeded in creating a regulatory and/or technological environment where they are free (because of the lack of alternatives like free downloads) from any competetive price pressure for the new market.
Remember, we're talking about Copyright, not the right to make original recordings.
I guarantee you that the RIAA and MPAA would like to have noncommercial defined as "you receive nothing of value."
Unfortunately, though Chapter 10 defines many of its terms, it doesn't define "noncommercial." If anyone knows of somewhere else withing the Copyright Act or any other portion of the USC, let me know.
IANAL, but I can read.
For me, the joy in software development comes from solving new or interesting problems or problems in a new domain, working on a team w/ other talented, insightful people. It's about having my mind engaged in a way -- or in a variety of ways -- that few other of the professions I'd explored provided.
Now, of course not all jobs in the software industry will always have the right combination of interesting problem, quality people and good management, but the longer you work in the industry (and the more practical problem-solving experience you aquire) the more you'll be able to be picky and choose jobs that have at least some of these things -- and it's often possible to be the spark that brings some of the other qualities oneself (for instance, not many Project Managers *want* to fail; if you find yourself working on an interesting problem in an environment that's poorly managed, suggest ways that you think the process could be made more conducive to producing quality work. You'd be surprised how often people pay attention to good ideas).
There are also no end of open source or Free Software projects to get involved w/, many of which are interesting, fun and useful all at the same time.
In any event, don't assume that your experience now necessarily represents what the experience of actually doing software development as a profession will be like. If it turns out after a couple years of working in the software industry isn't all you hoped, then you will have aquired a useful skill and still be in a position as multiple other posters have mentioned to pursue something else.
works -- slowly. It's no fun. I've done almost all of my development for iPAQ using the cross-compile chain from handhelds.org because kernel compiles shouldn't take a half hour.
If you're asking will it run apps written in C? Of course, as long as they're compiled for ARM.
I believe that the latest handhelds.org kernels have addressed the power management issues mostly. However, I use Ion/X on my iPAQ, so I'm not sure.
The biggest issue is the window manager, and Carl Worth has done a great job of hacking the Ion window manager to be at least adequate.
Also, Mandrake of Elightenment fame is reportedly working on a new wm specifically for handhelds.
Basically, the people who sided with Linus/Andrea were of the opinion that "things are so bad now [which was between 2.4.5 and 2.4.9] that a complete replacement of the VM even in a 'stable' kernel series is justified", and those who sided with Alan Cox/Ben La Haise/Rik van Riel thought that the existing VM code could be massaged and tweaked enough so that the performance would become acceptable and huge changes could be postponed until 2.5 opened.
This was complicated by the fact that between 2.4.5 and 2.4.9, the -ac series had accepted patches from Rik which weren't applied in the Linus branch and did in fact seem to be fairly successful in increasing performance through much less intrusive code changes. This was one of the main complaints of the Alan/Ben/Rik contingent; that the problems had already been largely resolved in the -ac tree, and that that approach should have been applied in Linus' tree before jumping to a complete rewrite.
At this point, a consensus seems to be forming that the Andrea VM is *much* simpler, the changes haven't had much adverse effect on other subsystems, and the performance is just as good or better than the VM in the -ac series.
The question of whether or not it should have waited until 2.5 is one that will probably never be answered to everyone's satisfaction, but at least will soon be academic.
Amen.
I'd mod you up if I hadn't already shot my wad in this discussion.
But whether or not the concern is even valid depends on where you stand WRT point 'b', and I don't concur (and I think that the heart of the controversy here and elsewhere is a similar lack of concurrence) with the opinion expressed therein. Do we really need "Standards" like MP3 when we can have Ogg instead? It seems that at this point, as far as standards for audio compression go, Ogg Vorbis is "the best technology available" and it's still improving!
The idea that the best technology won't be available as a Standard-with-a-capital-S under an RF-only policy is that the problem domain the standard refers to has only one acceptably good solution and that necessarily only commercial entities will be able to contribute that solution. I reject both claims.
I think a RF-only standards process is the way to go if the goal of passing standards is at least as important to the W3C as remaining relevant is.
I don't see anything in the release that would prevent Microsoft from doing everything you say, and then still yanking the OS license from any OEM who sold dual-boot systems.
The USSC's constitutional arguments were bunk, and it's only on the basis of the constitution that they should have been deciding.
Their one constitutional argument was the due process issue. It was a crock; again the majority opinions recognized how extension of their own logic to the entire voting proccess accross states would be highly problematic (and thereby said "so we won't consider it now, but we will still apply the logic to the county recounts").
I am not saying that Gore should have won the election. I'm saying that the USSC should have interpreted the constitution and stayed the hell out of untangling Florida's ridiculously tangled election laws.
I would have had much less problem with the Florida legislature appointing delegates than the obviously partisan and biased USSC procedings and decision.
In short, reread Justice Stevens' dissent. It says it all. My faith in the electoral process is fine. My faith in our nation's highest court as impartial arbiter of justice and the rule of law is, if not shattered, greatly diminished.
"...why don't you use some type of looping control structure with a initial assignment to some type of counter, a test to be performed prior to each iteration of the loop, and an action to perform after each iteration to repeatedly execute a block of code which -- when executed zero or more times depending on the condition in the test statement -- solves our problem?"
For the first time in a couple years I'm experiencing a glimmer of hope that the checks and balances in our system of governance may actually wind up protecting my rights -- as a programmer, computer & software user, and free citizen of the US -- from the despicable encroachment currently being realized at the hand of law enforcement agencies and especially private corporate interests.
Of course, after Bush v. Gore, y'all forgive me if my cynicism WRT to the Supreme Court keeps this glimmer of hope faint indeed.
Plese someone moderate me down for failing to hit "Preview" before posting. Sigh.
Thanks