Of course, the first time I decide to speak out...
on
Brian West Update
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
After reading about this case for the first time I felt it necessary to write he DOJ lawyer and state my thoughts. It was the first time I ever felt so motivated. It was astounding that he would be arrested for helping a site with poor security, yet absolutely believable given the state of US law concerning computers, the net and IP.
I know someone who showed his employer that the Win95 'login' passwords could be considered security since they could by passed with the cancel button, and they chewed him out for "hacking" their computers. He also had a web page about the place he worked. (Nothing rude. He was actually pretty proud of the place.) It had some pictures from a pamphlet that the company would give to customers to learn about the company and what they did. They fired him claiming he was trying to impersonate the company on the web and also claimed he was violating their copyright by using the pictures from a pamphlet that anyone could pick up for free.
Anyhow, It figures the first time I speak out, the case is a lie at face value. I have to admit I feel used and perhaps even mildly abused. I would write Sheldon Sperling back to apologize but I figure he has gotten enough email about this case. I am glad I had the presence of mind to mention in my message to him that I know the defendant could be lying and in that case my statements might not apply.
I always have to move things around on my home machines and I then have to update links and config to point at new locations. I would like to be able to move volumes around transparently. I also like the filesystem snapshots.
Could I make my desktop machines and other boxes both clients and server? Is the overhead bad?
Why do the schools and universities give away information. Sure, teachers get payed to do it, but after you've been taught how the operator of addition works, you are free to apply it as you see fit. Fortunately for all of use, the people who build bridges, design cars, and build houses have all gotten rather good at applying addition. They use a lot of other technique and methods taught to them by people who could have kept a tight lip and made an extra buck by imposing unneeded scarcity.
Software is not a bridge or a house or a car. To have a house I have to get a group of people, a mess of materials, and take a good amount of time to construct it. To have another house just like the first, I have to get another group of people, another mess of materials, and more time to construct it. It is the only way it can be done, at least until we master some form of science that will allow us to will objects into existence.
If I want to have a program, I have to get a groups of people, a mess of resources (computers, etc.), and take good amount of time to code it. To have a second program just like the first, I have to make a copy of the media containing the original. Any other restriction is artificially imposed.
Suppose we treat software like the information that teachers give students. In order to do that, you have to include the source, since it is the only form of a program that really makes sense to people. Any other format is dependent on the platform where it will run. Teaching the information with student when it is in a binary format would be, at best, liken to teaching a student calculus in a language that is foreign to the student.
Now if we are going to treat the information in software like the information that teachers share with students, what would be possibly get out of it? How would software benefit? How would people benefit? Since it is not the mainstream, it is kind of hard to point at something concrete and say "There! That is the benefit." There are plenty of reason to that people give as to why they believe Open Source is better or why people do it, but nothing that some one else could brush off since the is no hard evidence yet. Instead, let's looks at what we could gain.
How safe would you feel if our architects had to discover addition on their own? No one taught them because the teach would loose an edge over any one he taught. Suppose that the bridge designers were not allowed to look at other bridge to learn how to build one for you. Suppose the person who made your car wasn't allowed to look under the hood of another car before designing a "better" one for you. Suppose your mechanic wasn't allowed to know how your car was designed. Supposed the carpenter who build you house wasn't allow to even touch a hammer due to legal regulations.
This is were the software industry has gotten itself. By share source code to programs, some feed up people have realized that they have more to gain if they share their ideas. This sharing requires that they people whom they share with be allowed to apply those idea in the hopes of producing better ideas that would again be shared with others. These people don't have to build bridges without ever having seen one before.
So why do open source. My wife might have to fly on an airplane some where and the air traffic control system must work. My son might end up on a naval vessel and he could not afford the ship going dead because of divide by zero error. My mother may have to go into the hospital for surgery and she wouldn't want to have the wrong operation performed due to an error in the doctor's calendar system.
If you've every had to drive on a large bridge over a river, consider how you would feel if you were told the bridge made by someone who had never seen one first. Would you enter any skyscraper made by some one who had never so much as walked in one themselves? That's why you do Open Source.
You are bending this one pretty far. These days people get quoted all the time by folks whom they do not wish to associate with. Politicians use one another's words all the time. RMS doesn't seem to like Open Source-er associating him with them. I suspect most Biblical writers would want nothing do to with many of the folks who quote them these days. For that matter, the people who wrote the US Constitution probably wouldn't be too happy with the people who quote them in these types of arguments either.
People should always be allowed to agree with you, even if you don't agree that they agree with you. It would also be difficult for people who's view oppose yours to explain how their view oppose you if the law was opposed to allowing them to present the opposing view.
It's not that I don't agree with you're
sentiment, but I would be opposed to the negative impact any law enforcing this would have.
I don't know if there are any exist scheme, but it seems pretty simple to me. When somebody buys your code, you support 'your code' out of the box. This may be the standard 30/60/90 days of support. I would assume you ship binaries as well as code. Have the user send you an md5 of the binary/binaries in question. You could ship a script to simplify this for the user. This way you can verify it is your code and not waste you customer's time.
You can also provide special coverage plans. Thing that provid ethe same coverage as above (shipped code only) and maybe other plans the allow for various third party or inhouse sources.
Overall, by giving the customer the source, you are giving them a lot of power. You cannot be held responsible if they abuse it.
On a purely functional level you may be right. However, this fellow sounds like he likes having an alternative. Apparently he does not like windows or the MS way of doing things. It's about style, choice and a lack thereof.
Let me create a bogus example. Say I have a skin problem that requires I protect myself from unfiltered sun light. One manufacturer in the world make a car that has (patented) filtered windows. Naturally, this is the only car for me. End of story.
Now if this car also has poor quality, a dinky fuel tank, flat tires that you are by law not allow to replace, 180 degrees of wheel play and an AM radio with no antenna.
Sucks, huh?
Ofcourse, MS does not own the rights to Hebrew on computers (atleast I hope not) but with the lead they have in Israel and their tendancy to try to be incompatible with the rest of the world (it's what the customers want. Right?,) it is unlikely that an alternative will ever be practical.
Just to say it out right, to some of us, Windows, Office, etc. are that car. We hate how bad it is, being forced to use it, and knowing that by submitting and using it we are making it even less likely that there will ever be a better alternative down the road.
This lead that MS has, the natural monopoly you mentioned, irks some of us because there is good reason to believe that it was achieved through the use of unethical practices. Some folks hate rewarding such behavior.
True, you don't want it to be abused, but I also wouldn't want to have to release a crontab and script that sends automated "I Love You" notes to my wife just because it happens to be the same crontab that calls a script (that uses gnu grep) to count page hits and update a web statics page. My wife might not like it either. How would the FSF like that on their collective conscience?!??:-P
Bruce, do you know how much attention has been payed to cron files, boot script, and other configuration type files while patching the ASP loophole? Specifically, since most programs tend to come with default config files that tend to be distributed under the same license as the program itself, would a user be forced to release modifications to such files.
I could see cases were someone would not want to be forced to release their crontab, rc.*, inetd.conf, etc. simply because he edited them and went on the net. It would be near impossible in most case to write your own from scratch without plagiarizing since the samples often times are the only documnentation.
Is this even addressed? I would imagine that most of the config files in a linux system are effectively GPL since people rarely give separate license for the config files in a package.
Assuming he's telling the truth, the FBI's actions are complete BS and they should be held accountable.
Of course, we may not be getting a completely honest story here. When I worked at a university, we had a script kiddie on the system who ran crack, found a password, logged into the account and read the email. (Unfortunately for him, his process was spotted, we monitored the log and the account he cracked was an old test account that we rigged with a trip wire before he logged into.
We had enough logs to hang him and began the procedures to do so. Our little script kiddie went on to usenet to ask advice. He claimed that he had only run crack out for curiosity and said we were crucify him for that. He specifically told them he did not log into the account or use the password at all. He managed to generate a lot of hate for us. Ultimately, we came out looking like fascists, and we were not allowed to rebut because of the university's policy.
I don't know this guy well enough to call him a liar, but I can't just take these things on faith anymore either. If he is telling the truth, I'm sure the FBI won't be held accountable for the damage they do to his life by stealing (and with evidence that weak, it is stealing) his computer and information. That's a shame.
Slashdot Mirror
After reading about this case for the first time I felt it necessary to write he DOJ lawyer and state my thoughts. It was the first time I ever felt so motivated. It was astounding that he would be arrested for helping a site with poor security, yet absolutely believable given the state of US law concerning computers, the net and IP.
I know someone who showed his employer that the Win95 'login' passwords could be considered security since they could by passed with the cancel button, and they chewed him out for "hacking" their computers. He also had a web page about the place he worked. (Nothing rude. He was actually pretty proud of the place.) It had some pictures from a pamphlet that the company would give to customers to learn about the company and what they did. They fired him claiming he was trying to impersonate the company on the web and also claimed he was violating their copyright by using the pictures from a pamphlet that anyone could pick up for free.
Anyhow, It figures the first time I speak out, the case is a lie at face value. I have to admit I feel used and perhaps even mildly abused. I would write Sheldon Sperling back to apologize but I figure he has gotten enough email about this case. I am glad I had the presence of mind to mention in my message to him that I know the defendant could be lying and in that case my statements might not apply.
I always have to move things around on my home machines and I then have to update links and config to point at new locations. I would like to be able to move volumes around transparently. I also like the filesystem snapshots.
Could I make my desktop machines and other boxes both clients and server? Is the overhead bad?
Why do the schools and universities give away information. Sure, teachers get payed to do it, but after you've been taught how the operator of addition works, you are free to apply it as you see fit. Fortunately for all of use, the people who build bridges, design cars, and build houses have all gotten rather good at applying addition. They use a lot of other technique and methods taught to them by people who could have kept a tight lip and made an extra buck by imposing unneeded scarcity.
Software is not a bridge or a house or a car. To have a house I have to get a group of people, a mess of materials, and take a good amount of time to construct it. To have another house just like the first, I have to get another group of people, another mess of materials, and more time to construct it. It is the only way it can be done, at least until we master some form of science that will allow us to will objects into existence.
If I want to have a program, I have to get a groups of people, a mess of resources (computers, etc.), and take good amount of time to code it. To have a second program just like the first, I have to make a copy of the media containing the original. Any other restriction is artificially imposed.
Suppose we treat software like the information that teachers give students. In order to do that, you have to include the source, since it is the only form of a program that really makes sense to people. Any other format is dependent on the platform where it will run. Teaching the information with student when it is in a binary format would be, at best, liken to teaching a student calculus in a language that is foreign to the student.
Now if we are going to treat the information in software like the information that teachers share with students, what would be possibly get out of it? How would software benefit? How would people benefit? Since it is not the mainstream, it is kind of hard to point at something concrete and say "There! That is the benefit." There are plenty of reason to that people give as to why they believe Open Source is better or why people do it, but nothing that some one else could brush off since the is no hard evidence yet. Instead, let's looks at what we could gain.
How safe would you feel if our architects had to discover addition on their own? No one taught them because the teach would loose an edge over any one he taught. Suppose that the bridge designers were not allowed to look at other bridge to learn how to build one for you. Suppose the person who made your car wasn't allowed to look under the hood of another car before designing a "better" one for you. Suppose your mechanic wasn't allowed to know how your car was designed. Supposed the carpenter who build you house wasn't allow to even touch a hammer due to legal regulations.
This is were the software industry has gotten itself. By share source code to programs, some feed up people have realized that they have more to gain if they share their ideas. This sharing requires that they people whom they share with be allowed to apply those idea in the hopes of producing better ideas that would again be shared with others. These people don't have to build bridges without ever having seen one before.
So why do open source. My wife might have to fly on an airplane some where and the air traffic control system must work. My son might end up on a naval vessel and he could not afford the ship going dead because of divide by zero error. My mother may have to go into the hospital for surgery and she wouldn't want to have the wrong operation performed due to an error in the doctor's calendar system.
If you've every had to drive on a large bridge over a river, consider how you would feel if you were told the bridge made by someone who had never seen one first. Would you enter any skyscraper made by some one who had never so much as walked in one themselves? That's why you do Open Source.
Dan
You are bending this one pretty far. These days people get quoted all the time by folks whom they do not wish to associate with. Politicians use one another's words all the time. RMS doesn't seem to like Open Source-er associating him with them. I suspect most Biblical writers would want nothing do to with many of the folks who quote them these days. For that matter, the people who wrote the US Constitution probably wouldn't be too happy with the people who quote them in these types of arguments either.
People should always be allowed to agree with you, even if you don't agree that they agree with you. It would also be difficult for people who's view oppose yours to explain how their view oppose you if the law was opposed to allowing them to present the opposing view.
It's not that I don't agree with you're
sentiment, but I would be opposed to the negative impact any law enforcing this would have.
Dan
Dan
I don't know if there are any exist scheme, but it seems pretty simple to me. When somebody buys your code, you support 'your code' out of the box. This may be the standard 30/60/90 days of support. I would assume you ship binaries as well as code. Have the user send you an md5 of the binary/binaries in question. You could ship a script to simplify this for the user. This way you can verify it is your code and not waste you customer's time.
You can also provide special coverage plans. Thing that provid ethe same coverage as above (shipped code only) and maybe other plans the allow for various third party or inhouse sources.
Overall, by giving the customer the source, you are giving them a lot of power. You cannot be held responsible if they abuse it.
Dan
Let me create a bogus example. Say I have a skin problem that requires I protect myself from unfiltered sun light. One manufacturer in the world make a car that has (patented) filtered windows. Naturally, this is the only car for me. End of story.
Now if this car also has poor quality, a dinky fuel tank, flat tires that you are by law not allow to replace, 180 degrees of wheel play and an AM radio with no antenna.
Sucks, huh?
Ofcourse, MS does not own the rights to Hebrew on computers (atleast I hope not) but with the lead they have in Israel and their tendancy to try to be incompatible with the rest of the world (it's what the customers want. Right?,) it is unlikely that an alternative will ever be practical.
Just to say it out right, to some of us, Windows, Office, etc. are that car. We hate how bad it is, being forced to use it, and knowing that by submitting and using it we are making it even less likely that there will ever be a better alternative down the road.
This lead that MS has, the natural monopoly you mentioned, irks some of us because there is good reason to believe that it was achieved through the use of unethical practices. Some folks hate rewarding such behavior.
Dan
True, you don't want it to be abused, but I also wouldn't want to have to release a crontab and script that sends automated "I Love You" notes to my wife just because it happens to be the same crontab that calls a script (that uses gnu grep) to count page hits and update a web statics page. My wife might not like it either. How would the FSF like that on their collective conscience?!?? :-P
Bruce, do you know how much attention has been payed to cron files, boot script, and other configuration type files while patching the ASP loophole? Specifically, since most programs tend to come with default config files that tend to be distributed under the same license as the program itself, would a user be forced to release modifications to such files.
I could see cases were someone would not want to be forced to release their crontab, rc.*, inetd.conf, etc. simply because he edited them and went on the net. It would be near impossible in most case to write your own from scratch without plagiarizing since the samples often times are the only documnentation.
Is this even addressed? I would imagine that most of the config files in a linux system are effectively GPL since people rarely give separate license for the config files in a package.
Thanks,
Dan
Assuming he's telling the truth, the FBI's actions are complete BS and they should be held accountable.
Of course, we may not be getting a completely honest story here. When I worked at a university, we had a script kiddie on the system who ran crack, found a password, logged into the account and read the email. (Unfortunately for him, his process was spotted, we monitored the log and the account he cracked was an old test account that we rigged with a trip wire before he logged into.
We had enough logs to hang him and began the procedures to do so. Our little script kiddie went on to usenet to ask advice. He claimed that he had only run crack out for curiosity and said we were crucify him for that. He specifically told them he did not log into the account or use the password at all. He managed to generate a lot of hate for us. Ultimately, we came out looking like fascists, and we were not allowed to rebut because of the university's policy.
I don't know this guy well enough to call him a liar, but I can't just take these things on faith anymore either. If he is telling the truth, I'm sure the FBI won't be held accountable for the damage they do to his life by stealing (and with evidence that weak, it is stealing) his computer and information. That's a shame.
Dan
Good drugs. Good sex. etc.
It at least has the promise that it will be in two years.