The whole question of security bugs included
intentionally in software reminds me of the
Inslaw case, in which the federal government took a
piece of software which they pirated from a contractor (who they put out of business), and
hacked it up to include a back door. This software was written to track the complicated web of relationships between the sort of people intelligence agencies work with/against (depending on the phase of the moon and the particular situation). They sold this software to friendly (And probably not so friendly) intelligence agencies world-wide, using the back door to suck out information from their customers databases.
Pretty cool hack. (a technical judgement independent on the morality of the entire affair).
So the government has dealt in intentionally insecure software in the past, and they will
probably do so in the future.
Personally, I think with a real warrant (none of this no-burden-of-proof "judicial certification" which the PATRIOT act institutes") this is a fine tactic. It's essentially the same as a wiretap.
Obviously, mass distribution of weakened software to the public or to anyone whom there is no probable cause to suspect is completely unacceptable.
Funny this should come up. I was just thinking to myself earlier this evening
about rms, the nature of free software, and his "political baggage".
Here's my feelings: rms is a brilliant technologist. His software
(namely emacs and gcc) is used by millions and have become the default
tools of an entire industry. The original emacs (written in TECO for ITS)
was the first editor of it's type- full-screen, modeless, expandable. A
groundbreaking piece of software. Life without gcc is unthinkable.
As a social engineer- a man attempting to create a change in society, he
has been very successful. Certainly on the very short list of computer
programmers seeking and successfully creating social change. He defined
free software. Even if you prefer to call it Open Source (as I very often
do. it's easier to explain, I think). Many if not most people who run
Linux and (free|net|open)BSD agree that making software free can provide
more value to the user, and in the long run, the programming community,
than the type of proprietary software that became prevalent in the
commercial software industry.
As a Man With A Mission, he's brought hundreds of thousands of people
(if not millions) around to his point of view. Whether they know it or
not. Certainly, his aim to re-create the free software-oriented
environment of the AI Lab/ITS community has succeeded beyond all
imagination. He received the McCarther Foundation's Genius award, and
those aren't just bandied about.
Free software (built on Linux and other free OS's) have reinvigorated a
form of hobbyist computing that had almost completely disappeared by the
late 80's, early 90's. For me and millions of others, free software has
made computing a fun hobby again. How can you be a hobbyist with nothing
to tinker with? Proprietary software is boring.
He gave us the GPL. The GPL is a brilliant legal document and a
revolutionary manifesto at the same time. It's simple. It's elegant. Even
a non-lawyer can understand it (something you can't say about the typical
EULA that comes with windows, etc.) And it has provided a firm foundation
for a free software movement. You can tell its working by how much MS
hates it. It "breaks the virtuous cycle" of commercial companies building
proprietary systems out of free developer's effort. Also, the GPL is the
basis for free software companies like Red Hat, Mandrake, et al. Linus'
first release of Linux was "for non-commercial use only". The GPL changed
his mind.
Even if you're a BSD/X11 license enthusiast, you should know that rms was
instrumental in getting the BSD developers to re-implement the
proprietary/AT&T-owned pieces of BSD 4.3. Their efforts became the basis for
all the open source BSD's.
Some of the credit for these breakthroughs and successful developments
goes fairly to rms. If not as the direct player in all of it, then as a
prime mover, inspirer, definer, prophet.
Yes prophet. And like the old testament prophets of old, a "A prophet is
not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives,
and in his own house." No one likes a prophet. Typically, they are
scruffy, ill-kempt, and wild-eyed. They speak harsh truths no one wants to
hear. They shake things up. People hope they'll just go away.
The question of whether a prophet is right- is a different one. But no one
can deny the effect of a prophet on his community. We're rms's community
and the truth is he doesn't get a lot of respect here.
Why? I've heard some say it's because of his "pedantic semantics" and "politcal
baggage". Well, I can't disagree with them. Specifically the issue of his
calling Linux, GNU/Linux (and in the emacs configure script: lignux) lost
rms a lot of political capital. The Linux community didn't want to hear
him tell them that all their wonderful work (and it was wonderful. even
back in '96 or so when this issue first came up) was dependent on the
efforts of him and the FSF. And that they wanted credit.
The disagreement on Open Source and Free Software was similar. Pragmatists
liked open source as it is easier to explain, and not so scarey to the
proprietary companies who they wanted on-board. rms' politics and
insistence on freedom as the essence of free software is scarey. cf. my
bit on prophets.:) But to give him credit, that brand of anarchist
radicalism is important- I don't think Linux would have happened the way
it has if it wasn't rms' inspirational message.
Hmmm. This rant has turned into apoligism for rms. And rms needs no
apologies. He's given us a lot. Probably, more than we'd like, or feel
comfortable with.
Although I personally am a tremendous advocate for free software (and even
open source), I can't endorse rms' beliefs that proprietary software is by
its nature immoral. I think it has a lot of disadvantages. I think free
software is better for user's b/c they have a choice about how it gets
developed. I think its better for developers b/c it gives us a common
store of accumulated wisdom and solutions on which to build new software.
But I won't say that proprietary software is evil and those who write it are
at best dupes. I feel like people pay the rent however they can, and it is
still much easier to do that writing closed source software. Will it be
true in the future? Maybe. I don't know. But I'm not going to make it into
a moral judgement.
I didn't vote on the Gnome Foundation's board. I don't follow gnome's
development really, so I didn't think it was right to involve myself.
Would I have voted for rms? I don't know. As I've probably made clear, I
admire the man and his work. He was an important factor in starting the
Gnome project at its beginning. On the other hand, I think developments
like the (purported) adaption of Gnome by Sun for Solaris could be very
important to its future. rms probably doesn't like it. so, perhaps his
losing is the right thing to have happened for gnome's future.
but I think its not right to celebrate his loss. certainly not to label
him as a fool or a dinosaur as I've seen some linux-ites do. not only is
it ungrateful, but it's foolish to label your fore-fathers as fools. What
does that say about those who've followed in his tracks?
If you're interested in these issues
(and if you're an American or interested
in political liberty, you should be. )
you might check out an essay I recently
wrote on these issues. I cover how the
US has behaved in time of war and what this might mean for you, now.
http://ibiblio.org/jem/rights-rant.html
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty cool hack. (a technical judgement independent on the morality of the entire affair).
So the government has dealt in intentionally insecure software in the past, and they will probably do so in the future.
Personally, I think with a real warrant (none of this no-burden-of-proof "judicial certification" which the PATRIOT act institutes") this is a fine tactic. It's essentially the same as a wiretap.
Obviously, mass distribution of weakened software to the public or to anyone whom there is no probable cause to suspect is completely unacceptable.
Funny this should come up. I was just thinking to myself earlier this evening about rms, the nature of free software, and his "political baggage".
Here's my feelings: rms is a brilliant technologist. His software (namely emacs and gcc) is used by millions and have become the default tools of an entire industry. The original emacs (written in TECO for ITS) was the first editor of it's type- full-screen, modeless, expandable. A groundbreaking piece of software. Life without gcc is unthinkable.
As a social engineer- a man attempting to create a change in society, he has been very successful. Certainly on the very short list of computer programmers seeking and successfully creating social change. He defined free software. Even if you prefer to call it Open Source (as I very often do. it's easier to explain, I think). Many if not most people who run Linux and (free|net|open)BSD agree that making software free can provide more value to the user, and in the long run, the programming community, than the type of proprietary software that became prevalent in the commercial software industry.
As a Man With A Mission, he's brought hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) around to his point of view. Whether they know it or not. Certainly, his aim to re-create the free software-oriented environment of the AI Lab/ITS community has succeeded beyond all imagination. He received the McCarther Foundation's Genius award, and those aren't just bandied about.
Free software (built on Linux and other free OS's) have reinvigorated a form of hobbyist computing that had almost completely disappeared by the late 80's, early 90's. For me and millions of others, free software has made computing a fun hobby again. How can you be a hobbyist with nothing to tinker with? Proprietary software is boring.
He gave us the GPL. The GPL is a brilliant legal document and a revolutionary manifesto at the same time. It's simple. It's elegant. Even a non-lawyer can understand it (something you can't say about the typical EULA that comes with windows, etc.) And it has provided a firm foundation for a free software movement. You can tell its working by how much MS hates it. It "breaks the virtuous cycle" of commercial companies building proprietary systems out of free developer's effort. Also, the GPL is the basis for free software companies like Red Hat, Mandrake, et al. Linus' first release of Linux was "for non-commercial use only". The GPL changed his mind.
Even if you're a BSD/X11 license enthusiast, you should know that rms was instrumental in getting the BSD developers to re-implement the proprietary/AT&T-owned pieces of BSD 4.3. Their efforts became the basis for all the open source BSD's.
Some of the credit for these breakthroughs and successful developments goes fairly to rms. If not as the direct player in all of it, then as a prime mover, inspirer, definer, prophet.
Yes prophet. And like the old testament prophets of old, a "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house." No one likes a prophet. Typically, they are scruffy, ill-kempt, and wild-eyed. They speak harsh truths no one wants to hear. They shake things up. People hope they'll just go away.
The question of whether a prophet is right- is a different one. But no one can deny the effect of a prophet on his community. We're rms's community and the truth is he doesn't get a lot of respect here.
Why? I've heard some say it's because of his "pedantic semantics" and "politcal baggage". Well, I can't disagree with them. Specifically the issue of his calling Linux, GNU/Linux (and in the emacs configure script: lignux) lost rms a lot of political capital. The Linux community didn't want to hear him tell them that all their wonderful work (and it was wonderful. even back in '96 or so when this issue first came up) was dependent on the efforts of him and the FSF. And that they wanted credit.
The disagreement on Open Source and Free Software was similar. Pragmatists liked open source as it is easier to explain, and not so scarey to the proprietary companies who they wanted on-board. rms' politics and insistence on freedom as the essence of free software is scarey. cf. my bit on prophets. :) But to give him credit, that brand of anarchist
radicalism is important- I don't think Linux would have happened the way
it has if it wasn't rms' inspirational message.
Hmmm. This rant has turned into apoligism for rms. And rms needs no apologies. He's given us a lot. Probably, more than we'd like, or feel comfortable with.
Although I personally am a tremendous advocate for free software (and even open source), I can't endorse rms' beliefs that proprietary software is by its nature immoral. I think it has a lot of disadvantages. I think free software is better for user's b/c they have a choice about how it gets developed. I think its better for developers b/c it gives us a common store of accumulated wisdom and solutions on which to build new software. But I won't say that proprietary software is evil and those who write it are at best dupes. I feel like people pay the rent however they can, and it is still much easier to do that writing closed source software. Will it be true in the future? Maybe. I don't know. But I'm not going to make it into a moral judgement.
I didn't vote on the Gnome Foundation's board. I don't follow gnome's development really, so I didn't think it was right to involve myself. Would I have voted for rms? I don't know. As I've probably made clear, I admire the man and his work. He was an important factor in starting the Gnome project at its beginning. On the other hand, I think developments like the (purported) adaption of Gnome by Sun for Solaris could be very important to its future. rms probably doesn't like it. so, perhaps his losing is the right thing to have happened for gnome's future.
but I think its not right to celebrate his loss. certainly not to label him as a fool or a dinosaur as I've seen some linux-ites do. not only is it ungrateful, but it's foolish to label your fore-fathers as fools. What does that say about those who've followed in his tracks?
cheers, jem.
If you're interested in these issues (and if you're an American or interested in political liberty, you should be. ) you might check out an essay I recently wrote on these issues. I cover how the US has behaved in time of war and what this might mean for you, now. http://ibiblio.org/jem/rights-rant.html