This is bad, very bad. If the bill passes as written, all software will
be subject to it. Senator Hollings and his cronies (and anyone who
thinks like them) need to get a clue. They need to be out of office.
(My apologies in advance if this does not come across as text. My
regular system is broken and I'm forced to use Winsucks and Nutscrape
for my mail.)
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51274,00.html
PGA
>
> This is bad, very bad. If the bill passes as written, all software will
> be subject to it. Senator Hollings and his cronies (and anyone who
> thinks like them) need to get a clue. They need to be out of office.
>
> (My apologies in advance if this does not come across as text. My
> regular system is broken and I'm forced to use Winsucks and Nutscrape
> for my mail.)
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51274,00.html
>
> PGA
Has there been anything that says the copy protection code can't be source?
If it were included in the source, along with all the other code, would that
be recognized as "protected"?
It would also be impossible to include copy protection in a compiler..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: [email protected]
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
The obvious solution is to continue the way Richard Stallman envisaged:
***Distribute all code in source form only - no binary distributions.***
This way, the source files are protected under freedom of speech rules and
the originator of the work is safe.
It is then up to the user to do with the code what he/she wants.
I think that while many people think that Richard is paranoid, he actually
was far more prophetic than most people wants to give him credit for...
Cheers,
--
Herman Oosthuysen
[email protected]
Suite 300, #3016, 5th Ave NE,
Calgary, Alberta, T2A 6K4, Canada
Phone: (403) 569-5687, Fax: (403) 235-3965
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Pollard <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; KPLUG List <[email protected]>;
KPLUG Newbie <[email protected]>; KPLUG LPSG
<[email protected]>; LKML <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: SSSCA Hits the Senate
>
> >
> > This is bad, very bad. If the bill passes as written, all software will
> > be subject to it. Senator Hollings and his cronies (and anyone who
> > thinks like them) need to get a clue. They need to be out of office.
> >
> > (My apologies in advance if this does not come across as text. My
> > regular system is broken and I'm forced to use Winsucks and Nutscrape
> > for my mail.)
> >
> > http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51274,00.html
> >
> > PGA
>
> Has there been anything that says the copy protection code can't be
source?
> If it were included in the source, along with all the other code, would
that
> be recognized as "protected"?
>
> It would also be impossible to include copy protection in a compiler..
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jesse I Pollard, II
> Email: [email protected]
>
> Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Corporate greed aside, what is the real benefit to the developer?
And since this is all supposed to 'digitally integrated' (i.e. encrypted
source code or some nonsense), who will be responsible for
authenticating the copy right ownership? Will the Fed administer some
sort of registry of developers? Will those outside of that registry
(presuming *OUCH* it existed) become enemies of the state!?
You thought Microsoft was controlling?????? (Unless of course, Sen.
Hollings was compensated handsomely for constructing this bill)
On Monday, March 25, 2002, at 07:22 AM, Jesse Pollard wrote:
>
>>
>> This is bad, very bad. If the bill passes as written, all software will
>> be subject to it. Senator Hollings and his cronies (and anyone who
>> thinks like them) need to get a clue. They need to be out of office.
>>
>> (My apologies in advance if this does not come across as text. My
>> regular system is broken and I'm forced to use Winsucks and Nutscrape
>> for my mail.)
>>
>> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51274,00.html
>>
>> PGA
>
> Has there been anything that says the copy protection code can't be
> source?
> If it were included in the source, along with all the other code, would
> that
> be recognized as "protected"?
>
> It would also be impossible to include copy protection in a compiler..
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jesse I Pollard, II
> Email: [email protected]
>
> Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
On Monday 25 March 2002 17:22, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> Has there been anything that says the copy protection code can't be source?
> If it were included in the source, along with all the other code, would
> that be recognized as "protected"?
Worst thing happens if somebody gets a patent for the copy protection schemes...
-- Itai
>On Monday 25 March 2002 17:22, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > Has there been anything that says the copy protection code can't be
>source?
> > If it were included in the source, along with all the other code, would
> > that be recognized as "protected"?
>
>Worst thing happens if somebody gets a patent for the copy protection
>schemes...
>
Didn't Slashdot report MS patenting the DRMOS (digital rights management
operating system) about 2 months ago?
Gabe Sechan
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
> On Monday 25 March 2002 17:22, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > Has there been anything that says the copy protection code can't be source?
> > If it were included in the source, along with all the other code, would
> > that be recognized as "protected"?
>
> Worst thing happens if somebody gets a patent for the copy protection schemes...
Microsoft already do
The bill says that the protection scheme must be open source, so no M$ tax.
I guess lots of Americans are going to tune in to European content if this
bill passes. It should be a boon to Canada and Mexico too. Maybe we should
support this bill...
--
Herman Oosthuysen
[email protected]
Suite 300, #3016, 5th Ave NE,
Calgary, Alberta, T2A 6K4, Canada
Phone: (403) 569-5687, Fax: (403) 235-3965
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: Jesse Pollard <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; KPLUG List <[email protected]>; KPLUG
Newbie <[email protected]>; KPLUG LPSG
<[email protected]>; LKML <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: SSSCA Hits the Senate
> > On Monday 25 March 2002 17:22, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > > Has there been anything that says the copy protection code can't be
source?
> > > If it were included in the source, along with all the other code,
would
> > > that be recognized as "protected"?
> >
> > Worst thing happens if somebody gets a patent for the copy protection
schemes...
>
> Microsoft already do
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Herman Oosthuysen wrote:
> The bill says that the protection scheme must be open source, so no M$
> tax.
The fact that the source code is available doesn't give you
the right to use it, if some company has a patent on the
technology ...
I hope this law will be so absolutely crippling to the USA
that the rest of the world will see the devastating effects
before having the time to pass similar laws too.
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
There is more on ReiserFS List about system-level encryption.
Look here: [reiserfs-list] system-level encryption patented
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=reiserfs&m=101690869021155&w=2
--
Dieter N?tzel
Graduate Student, Computer Science
University of Hamburg
Department of Computer Science
@home: [email protected]
----- Original Message -----
From: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>
> The fact that the source code is available doesn't give you
> the right to use it, if some company has a patent on the
> technology ...
If the law requires you to use it, then M$ won't be able to charge royalties
for a patent on it. There are enough precedents of that kind of thing, so it
will be free.
The whole idea however remains impractical, so even if it does pass into
law, it would be largely irrelivant to any marginally competent geek.
What the music industry fails to understand, is that the music doesn't sell
because it is bad. No amount of controls can compensate for that. Garbage
in, Garbage out... Maybe they should go back to vinyl records that play on
wind-up players with rose thorn pickups. That will instantly make music
recordings incompatible with all CD equipment and nobody will want to copy
it...
--
Herman Oosthuysen
[email protected]
Suite 300, #3016, 5th Ave NE,
Calgary, Alberta, T2A 6K4, Canada
Phone: (403) 569-5687, Fax: (403) 235-3965
This bill seems to be an extension of the DMCA... at least to me. And as far
as I am conserned, this bill will not get very far.
Matthew
----- Original Message -----
From: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>
To: Herman Oosthuysen <[email protected]>
Cc: LKML <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: SSSCA Hits the Senate
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Herman Oosthuysen wrote:
>
> > The bill says that the protection scheme must be open source, so no M$
> > tax.
>
> The fact that the source code is available doesn't give you
> the right to use it, if some company has a patent on the
> technology ...
>
> I hope this law will be so absolutely crippling to the USA
> that the rest of the world will see the devastating effects
> before having the time to pass similar laws too.
>
> Rik
> --
> Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
>
> http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Shhh, we should send them a copy of "The Snail Book", showing a shiny trail
of prior art...
--
Herman Oosthuysen
[email protected]
Suite 300, #3016, 5th Ave NE,
Calgary, Alberta, T2A 6K4, Canada
Phone: (403) 569-5687, Fax: (403) 235-3965
----- Original Message -----
From: Dieter N?tzel <[email protected]>
To: Linux Kernel List <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: SSSCA Hits the Senate
> There is more on ReiserFS List about system-level encryption.
>
> Look here: [reiserfs-list] system-level encryption patented
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=reiserfs&m=101690869021155&w=2
>
> --
> Dieter N?tzel
> Graduate Student, Computer Science
>
> University of Hamburg
> Department of Computer Science
> @home: [email protected]
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
"Herman Oosthuysen" <[email protected]> writes:
> The obvious solution is to continue the way Richard Stallman envisaged:
> ***Distribute all code in source form only - no binary distributions.***
>
> This way, the source files are protected under freedom of speech rules and
> the originator of the work is safe.
Unfortunately, this works only in the U.S. Other countries which will
follow the US leadership in consumer suppression regulate free speech
to make it conforming to law.
I agree, though, that source-only distribution avoids many problems
and is preferable.
--
Florian Weimer [email protected]
University of Stuttgart http://CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE/people/fw/
RUS-CERT +49-711-685-5973/fax +49-711-685-5898
"Herman Oosthuysen" <[email protected]> writes:
> The bill says that the protection scheme must be open source, so no
> M$ tax.
Source code for MP3 encoders has been available from the beginning,
too, IIRC even from ISO.
--
Florian Weimer [email protected]
University of Stuttgart http://CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE/people/fw/
RUS-CERT +49-711-685-5973/fax +49-711-685-5898
On Monday 25 March 2002 23:24 pm, Herman Oosthuysen wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>
>
> > The fact that the source code is available doesn't give you
> > the right to use it, if some company has a patent on the
> > technology ...
>
> If the law requires you to use it, then M$ won't be able to charge
> royalties for a patent on it. There are enough precedents of that kind of
> thing, so it will be free.
I started reading on <http://cryptome.org/ms-drm-os.htm>. Jugding
from the abstract there is not very much (or nothing at all) that can
be reused. Perhaps the body provides more insight.
> The whole idea however remains impractical, so even if it does pass into
> law, it would be largely irrelivant to any marginally competent geek.
I tend to agree...
> What the music industry fails to understand, is that the music doesn't sell
> because it is bad. No amount of controls can compensate for that. Garbage
> in, Garbage out...
I don't agree.. Music (and movies) sells, probably even better today
than before the inernet. They sell enough to have that power to pass
new laws and they are greedy.
> Maybe they should go back to vinyl records that play on
> wind-up players with rose thorn pickups. That will instantly make music
> recordings incompatible with all CD equipment and nobody will want to copy
> it...
So the music industry can move itself 30 years back, but why do they insist
of taking the computer industry to that journey?
-- Itai
Florian Weimer wrote:
> "Herman Oosthuysen" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>The obvious solution is to continue the way Richard Stallman envisaged:
>>***Distribute all code in source form only - no binary distributions.***
>>
>>This way, the source files are protected under freedom of speech rules and
>>the originator of the work is safe.
>
>
> Unfortunately, this works only in the U.S. Other countries which will
> follow the US leadership in consumer suppression regulate free speech
> to make it conforming to law.
>
> I agree, though, that source-only distribution avoids many problems
> and is preferable.
>
But not all the people out there are skilled enough to install a source
distribution. Also, binary installations may go faster, and the youth of
today tends to not having time...
So there are still problems with it. If one day computers are all so
fast like the one who compiled a kernel in 7.56 seconds, and we have a
nice API for compiling, it might be great idea, but it might happen that
someone else will claim to have had the idea. This certainly won't be me.
Thunder
--
Thunder from the hill.
Citizen of our universe.
Itai Nahshon wrote:
> So the music industry can move itself 30 years back, but why do they insist
> of taking the computer industry to that journey?
Guess that's not the problem. Seems they're looking for someone to blame for
their problems. I think they don't see themselves as loosing anything here.
Just getting someone punished, will be us. Maybe it is helpful to them.
Also, the congressmen need something to say we do work on that. Anyway,
do they know what they're doing? Someone go and ask them?
Thunder
--
Thunder from the hill.
Citizen of our universe.
But how are you going to compile your FIRST kernel?? At some point
you'll need a compiler, and they'll insist that the limitations go into
that first compiler that someone gets.
Thunder from the hill wrote:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> "Herman Oosthuysen" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>>> The obvious solution is to continue the way Richard Stallman envisaged:
>>> ***Distribute all code in source form only - no binary distributions.***
>>>
>>> This way, the source files are protected under freedom of speech
>>> rules and
>>> the originator of the work is safe.
>>
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, this works only in the U.S. Other countries which will
>> follow the US leadership in consumer suppression regulate free speech
>> to make it conforming to law.
>>
>> I agree, though, that source-only distribution avoids many problems
>> and is preferable.
>>
> But not all the people out there are skilled enough to install a source
> distribution. Also, binary installations may go faster, and the youth of
> today tends to not having time...
> So there are still problems with it. If one day computers are all so
> fast like the one who compiled a kernel in 7.56 seconds, and we have a
> nice API for compiling, it might be great idea, but it might happen that
> someone else will claim to have had the idea. This certainly won't be me.
>
> Thunder
--
Stephen Samuel +1(604)876-0426 [email protected]
http://www.bcgreen.com/~samuel/
Powerful committed communication, reaching through fear, uncertainty and
doubt to touch the jewel within each person and bring it to life.
Stephen Samuel wrote:
> But how are you going to compile your FIRST kernel?? At some point
> you'll need a compiler, and they'll insist that the limitations go into
> that first compiler that someone gets.
So either you can spell bytecode (but then you'll need an editor) or you
have it done before SSSCA takes over your computer.
Another problem: if it also applies to hardware, why did I get this new
raid5 controller a year ago? And what about all those people who just
got latest hardware? Is it illegal?
I think there'll be another kind of dealers after that.
Regards,
Thunder
--
Thunder from the hill.
Citizen of our universe.
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 16:29:23 -0500
"Matthew D. Pitts" <[email protected]> wrote:
> This bill seems to be an extension of the DMCA... at least to me. And as far
> as I am conserned, this bill will not get very far.
That's what people said about the DMCA, four years ago.
Granted, society hasn't ended because of it, but it's still very much
there. If you don't think it's an issue, perhaps you'd like to take it
up with, oh, Colen McMillen, Dmitri Sklyarov, or the people in charge
of bnetd? :)
Honestly, I hope you're right. Then again, I'm not willing to hedge
anything on the bet that you are, since in a way we've been there
before with interesting results.
Matt
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Thunder from the hill wrote:
> Stephen Samuel wrote:
> > But how are you going to compile your FIRST kernel?? At some point
> > you'll need a compiler, and they'll insist that the limitations go into
> > that first compiler that someone gets.
> So either you can spell bytecode (but then you'll need an editor) or you
> have it done before SSSCA takes over your computer.
> Another problem: if it also applies to hardware, why did I get this new
> raid5 controller a year ago? And what about all those people who just
> got latest hardware? Is it illegal?
> I think there'll be another kind of dealers after that.
>
> Regards,
> Thunder
> --
> Thunder from the hill.
> Citizen of our universe.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group