I'm afraid you may be right about the political response if The Press gets this and starts down the wrong path. However, it doesn't have to be that way. Send letters (or e-mail) to your congresscritters telling our side of the story. We've let The Press play fast and loose with the definition of the fine old term "hacker" for too long. I think we need to start a re-education campaign and showing support for a common-sense initiative of the type propsed would be a good place to start.
If we can get any momentum behind this before AG Ashcroft gets hold of it we may stand a chance. Personally, I'm going to send e-mails to my congresscritters encouraging them to support this proposal and enclosing the definition of "hacker" from the jargon file as a step to educating them about the correct use of the term. Imagine the look on Ashcroft's face if we win this one.
That's because they couldn't hide their intentions behind a smokescreen of technical jargon. People understand the limits of use to which a rental truck can be put. They don't undestand the technology behind the computers they've come to rely on for many things in their lives. What they don't understand they fear. The situation is exacerbated by the anti-virus vendors constantly trumpeting how dangerous it use to use computers attached to the Internet.
I dare say that most people are convinced that "hackers" can wander at will over the mysterious byways of that thing called cyberspace. The government is doing a skillful job of playing on the combination of peoples' fear of the unknown (the Internet) and the known threat of terrorism. Right now the public will accept, without much thought for the future, anything that is sold to them as increasing their "safety." This is the situation that Ben Franklin warned about when he made his statement about those who give up a little freedom for a little safety soon find they have neither.
Just keep in mind that any government's first priority is to keep itself in power. In this conflict with terrorism the enemy is mainly invisible. That allows the government to define the threat from that enemy in any way they wish. Remember the "Clipper Chip" from the first years of the Clinton Administration? The same departments (FBI, CIA, NSA, DOD) that pushed for implementation of that piece of idiocy are back pushing even more restrictive measures now. They have the support of a frightened populace that doesn't understand the issues, but is willing to believe whatever "the experts" say about the threat and allow the passage of restrictive legislation such as this.
Somehow those of us who understand the technology and the threat that legislation like this poses must change the terms under which the legislative and propaganda battle is being fought. Perhaps some sort of public service ad campaign in which true hackers, in the original honorable meaning of the term, are shown as they really are? Maybe something like the ads the National Guard uses to show you that your next door neighbor may be a member of the Guard. We have got to take back our heritage from those in the media who use the disruptions of crackers to smear all those of us who love to play with technology just to see what it can do. Maybe the phrase "Hackers built the Internet" should be our rallying cry?
I absolutely agree. This sort of thing has got to be stopped now. The implications of this act are frightening. I seem to recall that either the so-called PATRIOT act or the DMCA (I don't remember which) uses a definition of "hacking" that is very broad and includes, under some circumstances, reverse-engineering, the use of encyrption technology, etc..
Combine this with the PATRIOT act, the DMCA, and the SSSCA and our rights in cyberspace and elsewhere are fast disappearing. Those who wish to gut the constitution of the U.S. are using the "threat" of terrorism as the instrument to do it with. Notice how we've been bombarded by more warnings of "imminent terrorist activity" these last few days? How convenient to trot that out as a smoke screen and an excuse for pushing this piece of legislation through as quickly as possible.
So long as the administration isn't forced to define under what circumstances the war against terrorism will end they will continue to get away with this sort of thing. It's so easy to manipulate public fear by simply announcing the occasional "yellow alert" or the seizure of an alleged terrorist. Unless we all act together and soon I'm very afraid for the future of open discourse in this country. I'm not usually one to draw historic parallels, but this is very like what Hitler did when he first took power; only in his case it was the Communists who were the threat used to start the restrictions placed on rights of association, speech, etc. that took place in the first few years of the Nazi regime.
Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don't suppose that many of those who voted for this bill considered the chilling effect that it will have on use of the Internet. So long as the DOJ and DOD can define the terms under which the struggle against the terrorist threat, which is very real as 9/11 showed us, is conducted we must guard against incursions being made on our civil liberties. Time to send more money to the EFF, etc. This sort of thing makes the threat that MS poses to Open Source look trivial by comparison.
I have to agree with you. Short-sighted as this action may be on the part of the UNIX(tm) vendors the relevant portion of the WIPO decision is:
"(a) The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's UNIX Marks. The.org part of the domain name should be disregarded as being of a generic nature. (b) Respondent has no rights orlegitimate interests in the domain name. The word UNIX is an invented word used in relation to computer software. UNIX is not a name which traders would legitimately choose unless to create an impression of an association with the Complainant. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use any of the UNIX marks nor has it licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to apply for or use any domain name incorporating any of the UNIX marks. (c) The domain name has been registered in bad faith.Complainant's UNIX marks are very well known and it is extremely unlikely that Respondent would not have been aware of that. By virtue of the wide spread use and reputation of the UNIX trademark, members of the public and persons in the industry would believe that the entity owning the domain name was the Complainant or was in some way associated with or connected with the Complainant. Any realistic use of the domain name must misrepresent an association with Complainant and its goodwill, and results in passing off and trade mark infringement."
This is a simple case of trademark infringement and does not appear to be aimed at anything other than protecting the UNIX(tm) of the Consortium. From a public relations standpoint this probably could have been handled in a more friendly manner. However,my understanding is that, from a legal standpoint the owner of a trademark is required to defend that trademark in order to remain in possesion of it.
Actually, I'm sure that they do have permission to put what they want on your computer. First off, you don't own the OS, MS does and they just license the use of the OS to you. They do not relinquish ownership of the code, even though it resides on your hardware. They have the right to change what they own.
The EULA that you are subject to, as soon as you break the shrink-wrap on the box, or take a pre-loaded computer out of its box and start it up, states that MS retains all rights of ownership. This includes the right to change the software. It also gives them the right to change the terms of the license agreement itself. You're free to not abide by the terms of the modified EULA, just remove all MS code from your machine.
It all comes down to the fact that any MS product you have on your machine is not yours, it still belongs to MS. If you don't like that switch to Linux or one of the other Open Source operating systems. Given what is going on in the TCPA/DRM realm the only way you will maintain your computing freedom is to start fighting for it now. One of the ways to get started is to denounce the use of any MS products. If enough people change somebody may get the message that we don't want our rights truncated.
Whether or not others are allowed to use a patented process, product, etc. depends on whether/how the patent holder licenses the use of the patent. The original patent holder has a wide variety of options regarding how to license the patent. They can range from not allowing anyone to use the patent to making the patent available to everyone that can come up with the license fee. It is this flexibility which will be the test of RedHat's committment to Open Source.
Personally, I think that software patents are a very bad idea. However, given that they are part of the reality in which software developers must function we have to deal with them. RedHat has the opportunity to make a very big statement in favor of Open Source software by making their patents available for free to Open Source developers. They could put together a license that provides no cost licenses to OS developers, but also allows them to charge a fee for closed source developers. I think that, given RedHat's track record, they will do something very much like this.
The only way we can avoid the problems that software patents will continue to cause is to convince the powers that be that software patents should not be allowed. Unfortunately, it is very doubtful that that change in course will ever happen. Not only is bureaucratic inertia working against us, but too many large corporations (can anyone say Microsoft or Sun?) are wedded to the use of patents as leverage for competitive advantage.
Let's hope that Redhat does the right thing here and makes the patent licenses available for no cost to Open Source developers. It may be worthwhile to write to RedHat and encourage them to take this course.
Yeah, and we see every day just how keeping that source code secret makes it more secure. This is just another example of MS FUD. Given Donald Rumsfeld's general hard-assed approach to issues I don't think they're apt to make much headway on this. After all, he just killed the $90 billion Challenger artillery project because backers couldn't prove its effectiveness.
However, we do need more academic research aimed at finding out whether or not Open Source software really is more secure. It's a claim that seems to be justified by our daily experience, but until OS software attains the breadth of use of MS products we really don't know how it works in the world of Joe Sixpack. The results of academic research would help us improve our products further.
I have also wondered about why RMS doesn't insist the GNU be prepended to the names of virtually all UNIX variants. If the issue really is about the number of GNU tools that are included in a distribution than most *nices should have GNU tacked on at the start. Sometimes I think that RMS makes the fuss about Linux because, given its success, there is little chance of the HURD being adopted by significant numbers of users. After all, there is already a kernel that does everything the HURD is going to do "real soon now."
I think that RMS's denigration of others who are willing to use non-free software to fulfill needs that free software doesn't is uncalled for. I firmly believe that software should be free, as in speech, and do my best not to use non-free software. However, not being a top-flight hacker I sometimes find it necessary to use non-free software because I lack the skills to whip out a free tool to fulfill my needs. In the real world of corporate software development and use it is not always possible to use free software for every purpose.
Given the realities of the marketplace it is sometimes necessary to compromise in order to attain one's long-term goal. In the case of free software this means that at times it is necessary to use non-free software if for no other reason than to demonstrate to one's bosses that free software "plays well with others." By compromising and using the occasional piece of non-free software I have been able to get free/Open Source software accepted in environments where it otherwise would not stand a chance of being allowed. As time goes on and more free software is developed I have sometimes been able to phase out the use of the non-free software. I did this at one employer by gradually introducing Big Brother and MRTG in place of a proprietary costly piece of system monitoring software. I couldn't have done this had I not been willing to compromise on the issue of using non-free software as the realities of the situation require.
Acting in a principled manner is something that happens too little in this world. However, I don't think that occasionally use of non-free software, when done with the goal of getting more free software into use, should be condemned out of hand. Not all of us are in a situation like RMS in which we own the computers on which we work. Thus, we are not always able to act as we would like. In the corporate world in which most of us work the need to compromise is the reality with which we must deal. RMS needs to realize that not evryone can or will live the monastic life that he has chosen in pursuit of his goals. RMS needs to learn that compromise is not necessarily inconsistent with maintaining one's free software principles. He also needs to start being consistent in his demands concerning when it's necessary to prepend GNU to the name of an OS or doubts concerning his ego will continue to surface.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm afraid you may be right about the political response if The Press gets this and starts down the wrong path. However, it doesn't have to be that way. Send letters (or e-mail) to your congresscritters telling our side of the story. We've let The Press play fast and loose with the definition of the fine old term "hacker" for too long. I think we need to start a re-education campaign and showing support for a common-sense initiative of the type propsed would be a good place to start.
If we can get any momentum behind this before AG Ashcroft gets hold of it we may stand a chance. Personally, I'm going to send e-mails to my congresscritters encouraging them to support this proposal and enclosing the definition of "hacker" from the jargon file as a step to educating them about the correct use of the term. Imagine the look on Ashcroft's face if we win this one.
Just my $.02,
Ron
That's because they couldn't hide their intentions behind a smokescreen of technical jargon. People understand the limits of use to which a rental truck can be put. They don't undestand the technology behind the computers they've come to rely on for many things in their lives. What they don't understand they fear. The situation is exacerbated by the anti-virus vendors constantly trumpeting how dangerous it use to use computers attached to the Internet.
I dare say that most people are convinced that "hackers" can wander at will over the mysterious byways of that thing called cyberspace. The government is doing a skillful job of playing on the combination of peoples' fear of the unknown (the Internet) and the known threat of terrorism. Right now the public will accept, without much thought for the future, anything that is sold to them as increasing their "safety." This is the situation that Ben Franklin warned about when he made his statement about those who give up a little freedom for a little safety soon find they have neither.
Just keep in mind that any government's first priority is to keep itself in power. In this conflict with terrorism the enemy is mainly invisible. That allows the government to define the threat from that enemy in any way they wish. Remember the "Clipper Chip" from the first years of the Clinton Administration? The same departments (FBI, CIA, NSA, DOD) that pushed for implementation of that piece of idiocy are back pushing even more restrictive measures now. They have the support of a frightened populace that doesn't understand the issues, but is willing to believe whatever "the experts" say about the threat and allow the passage of restrictive legislation such as this.
Somehow those of us who understand the technology and the threat that legislation like this poses must change the terms under which the legislative and propaganda battle is being fought. Perhaps some sort of public service ad campaign in which true hackers, in the original honorable meaning of the term, are shown as they really are? Maybe something like the ads the National Guard uses to show you that your next door neighbor may be a member of the Guard. We have got to take back our heritage from those in the media who use the disruptions of crackers to smear all those of us who love to play with technology just to see what it can do. Maybe the phrase "Hackers built the Internet" should be our rallying cry?
Just my $.02,
Ron
I absolutely agree. This sort of thing has got to be stopped now. The implications of this act are frightening. I seem to recall that either the so-called PATRIOT act or the DMCA (I don't remember which) uses a definition of "hacking" that is very broad and includes, under some circumstances, reverse-engineering, the use of encyrption technology, etc..
Combine this with the PATRIOT act, the DMCA, and the SSSCA and our rights in cyberspace and elsewhere are fast disappearing. Those who wish to gut the constitution of the U.S. are using the "threat" of terrorism as the instrument to do it with. Notice how we've been bombarded by more warnings of "imminent terrorist activity" these last few days? How convenient to trot that out as a smoke screen and an excuse for pushing this piece of legislation through as quickly as possible.
So long as the administration isn't forced to define under what circumstances the war against terrorism will end they will continue to get away with this sort of thing. It's so easy to manipulate public fear by simply announcing the occasional "yellow alert" or the seizure of an alleged terrorist. Unless we all act together and soon I'm very afraid for the future of open discourse in this country. I'm not usually one to draw historic parallels, but this is very like what Hitler did when he first took power; only in his case it was the Communists who were the threat used to start the restrictions placed on rights of association, speech, etc. that took place in the first few years of the Nazi regime.
Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don't suppose that many of those who voted for this bill considered the chilling effect that it will have on use of the Internet. So long as the DOJ and DOD can define the terms under which the struggle against the terrorist threat, which is very real as 9/11 showed us, is conducted we must guard against incursions being made on our civil liberties. Time to send more money to the EFF, etc. This sort of thing makes the threat that MS poses to Open Source look trivial by comparison.
Just my $.02,
Ron
I have to agree with you. Short-sighted as this action may be on the part of the UNIX(tm) vendors the relevant portion of the WIPO decision is:
.org part of the domain name should be disregarded as being of a generic nature.
"(a) The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's UNIX Marks. The
(b) Respondent has no rights orlegitimate interests in the domain name. The word UNIX is an invented word used in relation to computer software. UNIX is not a name which traders would legitimately choose unless to create an impression of an association with the Complainant. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use any of the UNIX marks nor has it licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to apply for or use any domain name incorporating any of the UNIX marks.
(c) The domain name has been registered in bad faith.Complainant's UNIX marks are very well known and it is extremely unlikely that Respondent would not have been aware of that. By virtue of the wide spread use and reputation of the UNIX trademark, members of the public and persons in the industry would believe that the entity owning the domain name was the Complainant or was in some way associated with or connected with the Complainant. Any realistic use of the
domain name must misrepresent an association with Complainant and its goodwill, and results in passing off and trade mark infringement."
This is a simple case of trademark infringement and does not appear to be aimed at anything other than protecting the UNIX(tm) of the Consortium. From a public relations standpoint this probably could have been handled in a more friendly manner. However,my understanding is that, from a legal standpoint the owner of a trademark is required to defend that trademark in order to remain in possesion of it.
Note: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
Just my $,02,
Ron
Actually, I'm sure that they do have permission to put what they want on your computer. First off, you don't own the OS, MS does and they just license the use of the OS to you. They do not relinquish ownership of the code, even though it resides on your hardware. They have the right to change what they own.
The EULA that you are subject to, as soon as you break the shrink-wrap on the box, or take a pre-loaded computer out of its box and start it up, states that MS retains all rights of ownership. This includes the right to change the software. It also gives them the right to change the terms of the license agreement itself. You're free to not abide by the terms of the modified EULA, just remove all MS code from your machine.
It all comes down to the fact that any MS product you have on your machine is not yours, it still belongs to MS. If you don't like that switch to Linux or one of the other Open Source operating systems. Given what is going on in the TCPA/DRM realm the only way you will maintain your computing freedom is to start fighting for it now. One of the ways to get started is to denounce the use of any MS products. If enough people change somebody may get the message that we don't want our rights truncated.
I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.
Just my $.02,
Ron
Whether or not others are allowed to use a patented process, product, etc. depends on whether/how the patent holder licenses the use of the patent. The original patent holder has a wide variety of options regarding how to license the patent. They can range from not allowing anyone to use the patent to making the patent available to everyone that can come up with the license fee. It is this flexibility which will be the test of RedHat's committment to Open Source.
Personally, I think that software patents are a very bad idea. However, given that they are part of the reality in which software developers must function we have to deal with them. RedHat has the opportunity to make a very big statement in favor of Open Source software by making their patents available for free to Open Source developers. They could put together a license that provides no cost licenses to OS developers, but also allows them to charge a fee for closed source developers. I think that, given RedHat's track record, they will do something very much like this.
The only way we can avoid the problems that software patents will continue to cause is to convince the powers that be that software patents should not be allowed. Unfortunately, it is very doubtful that that change in course will ever happen. Not only is bureaucratic inertia working against us, but too many large corporations (can anyone say Microsoft or Sun?) are wedded to the use of patents as leverage for competitive advantage.
Let's hope that Redhat does the right thing here and makes the patent licenses available for no cost to Open Source developers. It may be worthwhile to write to RedHat and encourage them to take this course.
The government isn't, but we do have the occasional freelancer making some money from those secrets.
Yeah, and we see every day just how keeping that source code secret makes it more secure. This is just another example of MS FUD. Given Donald Rumsfeld's general hard-assed approach to issues I don't think they're apt to make much headway on this. After all, he just killed the $90 billion Challenger artillery project because backers couldn't prove its effectiveness.
However, we do need more academic research aimed at finding out whether or not Open Source software really is more secure. It's a claim that seems to be justified by our daily experience, but until OS software attains the breadth of use of MS products we really don't know how it works in the world of Joe Sixpack. The results of academic research would help us improve our products further.
Just my $.02,
Ron
I have also wondered about why RMS doesn't insist the GNU be prepended to the names of virtually all UNIX variants. If the issue really is about the number of GNU tools that are included in a distribution than most *nices should have GNU tacked on at the start. Sometimes I think that RMS makes the fuss about Linux because, given its success, there is little chance of the HURD being adopted by significant numbers of users. After all, there is already a kernel that does everything the HURD is going to do "real soon now."
I think that RMS's denigration of others who are willing to use non-free software to fulfill needs that free software doesn't is uncalled for. I firmly believe that software should be free, as in speech, and do my best not to use non-free software. However, not being a top-flight hacker I sometimes find it necessary to use non-free software because I lack the skills to whip out a free tool to fulfill my needs. In the real world of corporate software development and use it is not always possible to use free software for every purpose.
Given the realities of the marketplace it is sometimes necessary to compromise in order to attain one's long-term goal. In the case of free software this means that at times it is necessary to use non-free software if for no other reason than to demonstrate to one's bosses that free software "plays well with others." By compromising and using the occasional piece of non-free software I have been able to get free/Open Source software accepted in environments where it otherwise would not stand a chance of being allowed. As time goes on and more free software is developed I have sometimes been able to phase out the use of the non-free software. I did this at one employer by gradually introducing Big Brother and MRTG in place of a proprietary costly piece of system monitoring software. I couldn't have done this had I not been willing to compromise on the issue of using non-free software as the realities of the situation require.
Acting in a principled manner is something that happens too little in this world. However, I don't think that occasionally use of non-free software, when done with the goal of getting more free software into use, should be condemned out of hand. Not all of us are in a situation like RMS in which we own the computers on which we work. Thus, we are not always able to act as we would like. In the corporate world in which most of us work the need to compromise is the reality with which we must deal. RMS needs to realize that not evryone can or will live the monastic life that he has chosen in pursuit of his goals. RMS needs to learn that compromise is not necessarily inconsistent with maintaining one's free software principles. He also needs to start being consistent in his demands concerning when it's necessary to prepend GNU to the name of an OS or doubts concerning his ego will continue to surface.
Just my $.02,
Ron