Richard Stallman on UCITA 292
Andy Tai writes "In this LinuxToday article, Richard Stallman writes about why the Free Software community must resist UCITA. Worth a read." UCITA, you'll remember, is the legislation being pushed in state governments which would make "click-wrap" license agreements enforceable, allow software manufacturers to ban reverse engineering and criticism of their software, etc.
Feeding the trolls (Score:4)
RMS is anything but a money grubbing whore. The man refuses to take jobs that don't meet his ideals and refuses to take money from groups that don't meet his ideals.
RMS has done MORE real coding than ANYONE in the free software movement. Emacs, gcc, and many, many other small utilities come to mind. So he's not released a major package in a few years. He could retire right now, and go down in history as one of the greatest programmers ever. Now, ESR, as much as I agree with him sometimes, is really a black pot screaming at the kettle here. This is a man who wrote... fetchmail. He didn't single handedly create the foundations of a new operating system. He didn't start a "movement". He wrote a (actually, revised an existing) small but useful utility. And he tried to change the name of the Free Software movement to Open Source.
Anyways, RMS has NOT grabbed hold of the Open Source movement. In fact, he's not fond of the term at all.
I really have to wonder if this isn't an exceptional troll, or someone who's really clueless...
--
Re:thats already in the liscences (Score:2)
Yeah, but nobody currently believes that these shrinkwrap(or clickwrap) licenses are enforceable. Namely because you can't agree to something you haven't read and you can't take it back after you've opened it to read the EULA. Microsoft has already shown that they will make it nigh impossible to return the software you purchased, even though the EULA says you can do so. UCITA will make these EULAs enforceable.
wrong reason... (Score:2)
It's not bad because people don't read the EULAs. That's their own damn fault. It's bad because they don't have to let you read it before you buy the software, and once you open the software to read the EULA, they don't have to let you return it if you don't agree to the EULA. The law would make contracts binding even though one party hasn't been given the chance to read the contract.
think about it... (Score:2)
If I open a box of software, run the installation program, read the EULA that pops up and decide I don't want to agree to it, what recourse do I have? I can't return the software since it's been opened. We all saw that Microsoft refused to honor the return clause in its own EULA when people tried to return Windows. That was even before UCITA. With UCITA as law they can do it with absolute impunity. They won't even have to try to pass the buck to the OEMs.
Re:Show me the money (Score:2)
Read up on network effects.
Re:Bah! (Score:2)
you are entitled by law to return it for a refund.
Jeez. We have to pay for a lawyer and take a company to court every time we want to return a piece of software? That'll get extremely expensive. We've already seen that simply trying to return it doesn't work, as evidenced by the unsuccessful attempts to return Windows.
Re:Bah! (Score:2)
That makes a bit more sense, but I'm not sure it was even a factor with the Windows returns. Most of the people who tried to get one were rejected outright without the OEM or Microsoft even getting any information from them about when they made their purchase. UCITA will just make it harder to get a refund because you'll likely have to get a lawyer to do it.
Re:Bah! (Score:3)
Clickthroughs are already enforceable (there's a long line of cases on this)
Could you cite a couple? I'd love to read up on them.
the First Amendment makes it impossible to prohibit criticism of software (there's an even longer line of cases on that).
Companies wouldn't prohibit you from criticizing the software, they would just prohibit you from benchmarking the software, thus preventing you from effectively backing up your criticism with hard numbers.
As to the poster who talked about "one-way" contracts: the problem is you need a license to use software.
The real problem here is that you don't get to read the contract until after you've bought the software and opened it, at which time it becomes unreturnable. Unless they start printing the EULA on the outside of the package, customers are going to get screwed.
The only good thing I can possibly see coming out of this is that it may have the effect of encouraging consumers to swear off commercial software from companies that try to screw their customers over. Microsoft is far from alone this time in their bad business practices, although they are going to be one of the most noticeable given their marketshare and prominence.
Re:Why UCITA is going to fail (Score:2)
Too much of the US govt and corporate America has let the courts decide much of the policy making -- they should be more pro-active rather than retro-active, though the former is not easily done as it requires being up to date and effort. In this case, at least slashdot helps us with the research side of things.
UCITA vs DMCA (Score:3)
Parts of the UCITA that try to account for banning of reverse engineering AT THE STATE LEVEL are explicitly given by the DMCA AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. Thus, UCITA in this regard automatically loses. State legislation cannot override federal laws or deny rights given by federal law.
In addition, click licenses are basically parts of interstate transport-- an area of judistriction that the state governments cannot control. (If you bought a CA-based program in CA as a CA resident, the state can affect you usually by sales tax, but not other way).
Some have suggested that UCITA may allow one company to introduce a new format (propriatary of course) into the next major release of the software, get it used by > 50%, then bait and switch, forcing they format as the defacto one for the entire industry, and as reverse engineering would be outlawed by UCITA, everyone else would be screwed. However, I cannot see how that would not be picked up by any monopoly watchers before it got to fruitation. And again, this relying on the inability to reverse engineer for interoperability.
However, that's only part of the issues with UCITA -- it's the loss of consumer protection that can come about if it's passed. I'd be more worried about this front than any other part of the UCITA.
Re:Feeding the trolls (Score:2)
Daniel
Re:What can a Canadian do? (Score:2)
Re:Stallman == hero (Score:2)
Sure he's a crackpot. But, he's a crackpot who stays true to his cause, a driven crackpot, exactly the kind of crackpot we need. Without RMS and the FSF providing the "lunatic fringe" of the open source (note the lack of case) revolution, the world would consider pragmatists like ESR and the Open Source(TM) movement to be the lunatic fringe. Which would probably mean that The Establishment would outright reject the concept of distributing the source code with the object code.
As it is, we have The Establishment embracing Open Source(TM), which is probably more than we could without RMS and his cronies.
In short, RMS may be a loonie, that's fine by me!
Re:UCITA Will never happen (Score:5)
I don't know about you, but sometimes it's good to let laws like this go through so that they can be shot down by the courts. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of excessive litigation, but some things definitely need to be tried in court. The deCSS thing is one of those things. This may well be another. Personally, I'm glad that the CDA was actually passed and then erased by the courts. What's the old saying, something like, "The undefined is the most dangerous?" If companies aren't explicitly told that they can't do this, they may very well do it.
IANAL, so they may already be told they can't do this. But if there's currently no legal basis one way or the other, I'd take a court decision over a law any day. Court precedents do a lot more to help you in present day America, with its highly litigious environment, than actual laws do.
Re:Not quite... (was: Re:Why UCITA is going to fai (Score:2)
If Judy in the secretarial pool pirates software, nobody questions the company's liability.
UCITA puts anything and everything the software company desires into the same Verboten Behavior category.
You're also ignoring the fact that managers too download random software...
Bottom line, all liability becomes questionable. And where there's a question, there's a lawsuit. Lawsuits, my friend, become both inevitable and expensive.
What part of fishing for dollars don't you understand?
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Why UCITA is going to fail (Score:5)
You're a manager at a large corporation. You employ thousands of people, some very experienced, others that you're just beginning to train.
Let me tell you what you can't afford. You can't afford the liability of any of your thousands of employees having the ability to commit the company as a whole to damn near anything. It's one thing to be liable if an employee pirates something. It's something completely different if you have to have your very expensive lawyers evaluate every single software EULA that any piss-ant department might be exposing your company to.
A mandate to only use standard EULAs is the end result from corporations, and suddenly most software companies have no chance of defeating Microsoft(whose EULA has to be accepted) or Open Source Software(whose licenses are standardized and non-threatening by default.)
Lets not forget that benchmarking restrictions apply just as strongly within a company--oops, now your managers aren't allowed to ask your engineers which database server would best fit your business's needs. More importantly, lets not forget that using a given piece of code could suddenly obligate your entire company to a full disclosure on how that code is being used--running a database on MSSQL? Oops, maybe in the next revision they'll say they have a right to retrieve "performance metrics" and "critical statistics" automatically...oh, don't try to firewall them, they'll remotely disable your server anyway...
And it'll all be legal. Violations of personal privacy pale in all sorts of aspects to the vitriolic reaction against violations of corporate privacy.
Now, nobody's stupid. This isn't going to happen, folks. UCITA's going nowhere, because it's just too much risk to too many people with far too much money.
The only reason this is even a topic of discussion is because more lawyers see a fountain of money flowing from the lawsuits than they see a fiduciary duty to their retained corporate clients to disclose the tremendous amount of legal risk such an ill-advised bill would create.
Never in the history of law has an unlimited amount of liability been enforceable in a unidirectional contract negotation! The fact that such a bill got thoroughly rejected in the United States Congress should say more than a little about the advisability of such a dangerous standard of liability.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Difference between GPL and EULA (Score:2)
The GNU GPL is not an end user license agreement (EULA). The GPL does not put any conditions on the use of GPL-covered software. The GPL regulates distribution, not use.
If you are a user of GPL-covered software then the GPL has no legal relevance to you. In fact, the GPL does not even begin to concern you until you distribute the software. For this reason, the GPL is not an End User License Agreement. It would be more accurate to call the GPL a "distributor's license agreement".
Restrictions on the distribution of software are well grounded in copyright law. UCITA is not needed to enforce distribution terms, nor does it aid in enforcing distribution terms. UCITA is all about use of software, and not at all about distribution of software. Usage restrictions such as a ban on benchmark publications or a ban on reverse engineering are much more enforcable with UCITA than without.
Please don't confuse the GPL with a EULA. A EULA attempts to restrict the ways that you can use the software, while the GPL only addresses software distribution and places no restrictions on use.
You've pointed out the best strategy (Score:2)
Which state are you in? It sounds like it might be the best place to start with a campaign for anti-UCITA legislation.
A very unrestrictive license (Score:4)
A very unrestrictive license.
Think about it. Every license starts at what you get with copyright law. Every EULA-esque license out there wants to *take* away those rights:
"You have a license to use this software, but:
You can't disclose performance benchmarks.
Or you can't make a backup copy.
Or you can't disassemble it.
Or you can't run it in an emulator or an unlicensed player/computer."
Or whatever they can think of to push the limits:
"You can't read it's files with a competitor's product.
You can't store it's files on a competitor's server.
You can't use it except in conjunction with the following list of other software.
We can remotely disable it if we believe you have broken this license.
You must succumb to the power of the Dark Side."
With the GPL, on the other hand,
"You have a license to use this software.
You have all rights copyright law gives you with this software.
In addition, you get these rights:
The right to modify or recompile the software and use the modified software.
The right to distribute the software or it's modifications under the GPL, as long as you distribute the source as well upon request.
The right to charge a fee for that distribution (not for the license or the source code, though)."
In other words, You don't even need to agree to the GPL to use GPL'ed software. However, if you don't agree to the GPL, you just have the ordinary copyright law restrictions to deal with, and you don't get the extra rights the GPL affords you; you can't modify or copy the software.
Granted, it's more restrictive than public domain software, but it's less restrictive than about every commercial license out there.
If the GPL were found to be legally invalid (which I don't expect to see), it wouldn't mean GPL'ed software suddenly became public domain; it would mean that GPL'ed software suddenly became restricted as per copyright law until it could be released by the authors under a different license.
The most important thing about this (Score:2)
One problem. (Score:4)
So far so good, except:
if UCITA passes, a UCITA-esque EULA could become the standard EULA, and if some network protocol for some proprietary app somewhere becomes an industry standard, the prohibition on reverse-engineering would nail Open Source groups to the wall and ream them with a wheedwhacker.
Corporate interests and UCITA should collide. (Score:5)
Overall, corporate interests should be antithetical to UCITA.
Imagine how lovely it would be for an insurance company to live with the fear that their entire WAN can be knocked out of operation by an irate software company. No more billing until they pay up whatever is disputed. And how just swell they must feel knowing that UCITA's proposed disabling codes could be hijacked by a disgruntled employee of some software company. Gee, won't they love to see that happen to their actuarial software.
Pretty much any financial firm, be it a thrift of some kind or a brokerage, or anything, should find UCITA to be nauseating. For a bank the thought that their software writers could be protected from a liability even if they know that there are backdoors in the ATM protocols or what-have-ye.
Then there are the airlines, also, very much a WAN-dependant industry with little in the way of a fallback if they lose their software.
Why am I saying this?
Because a well directed effort could get insurance-industry-dominate Connecticut and the state of New York not just to ditch UCITA, but to pass a "you gotta be kidding" type resolution.
Although UCITA passing would not mean that a company would have the audacity to try to use a UCITA-endorsed contract in dealing with a large software customer like a bank, it is still in the interests of many corporations in the US to lobby to give UCITA a well-deserved smackdown.
Because he likes to use copyright (Score:2)
So yes, his words are copyrighted by Richard Stallman. But what would he do with that copyright? Why make sure that nobody used his words in a way he disapproved of!
Not strange at all.
Cheers,
Ben
Hmmm (Score:4)
Yeah, I'm sure Satan will love this clause: "Note, this contract need not be read to be enforceable..."
Wonderful! Now you can sell your soul without even knowing it!
*/sarcasm*
the duck blind (Score:5)
Richard, Eric, Bruce, and everybody else on the soap box - step down for a moment and look around. Our message is going nowhere. People see the software, they use the software.. but they aren't terribly interested in whether they have to pay for it or not. "Does it work? Great, I'll take one."
We've been patting ourselves on the back long enough now. The honeymoon is over - let's knuckle down and start talking to the press. We need to boil these issues down to 1 page press releases, fliers, websites - and we need to make this accessible to the average consumer. We need to get them up in arms. I don't care how - make it a controversy. Invite RMS, ESR and the board of MPAA directors to a Jerry Springer show and let them throw chairs at each other - BUT MAKE IT HAPPEN. Turn this thing on it's head - it sounds like just another holy war now to the media - what's the interest? Put a spin on it - make it controversial. GET US A SPOT ON 60 MINUTES!
So you think ad hominem is valid. (Score:2)
That said, I think that while RMS's opinions seem a bit extreme to me sometimes, we need him to balance all the people who a) are apathetic about freedom issues in software, or
b) are against freedom in software, like you. As for your opinions about him, the first may well be true, the second is not, and both are irrelevant to the discussion.
Cheers,
IfZicoKnowsWhyDoesHeWriteSuchCrap@coolmail.org
Think about who owns the "primetime" media (Score:3)
In fact, if you look at the conglomerate structure and trace back most of these magazines you find
Now, compare that to the groups which are promoting the UCITA in its various forms and lobbied for passage of the extremely draconian Millenium Digitial Copyright Act. See any similarities? I thought you might.
We can rely on no one but ourselves to get the word out about this. Tell your family and friends, and anyone else who will listen with any tolerance. If enough people will do this the truth will spread in much the same way Linux has, by word of mouth and sneakernet. Talk yourself horse about these issues -- we all have to make up for the resounding silence the "primetime" media will maintain on a subject this close to their pocketbooks.
Organize internet wide awareness, via logos on web pages a la' the blue ribbon campaign.
Stop subscribing to these magazines, and make sure they know why (their silence on the DVD story, UCITA, and the MDCA, in other words, shoddy reporting and/or editors who have whored themselves out to their own special interest).
Please post other ideas -- currently our efforts on the DVD and mp3 front (I submitted a story [mp3.com] days ago about yet another lawsuit [mp3.com] against mp3.com from the RIAA which was never posted, knocked out in favor of "Phantom Menace Pre-Orders Available", no doubt -- now promoting a major product of these folks was real helpful to this struggle on slashdot's part, but I digress), as well as the DMCA and UCITA, are fairly fragmented.
We need to bring these efforts under an umbrella concept that lends itself (I shudder to say this, but must) soundbytes, banner ads, and little "click-me" buttons that can be spread around the net and made ubiquitious. It's early here in Chicago and I'm not exactly bursting with clever catchwords and phrases at the moment, but if anyone else has ideas please follow up with them.
This issue is far too critical to our personal freedom and our professional lives to be ignored or passively accepted.
Re:Stallman == hero (Score:2)
The United States had a great deal of respect for the laws of England, it was, and continues to be, the basis for our legal system. Respect for the King and the Parliament is a different matter.
One wonders how much straw is in the man (Score:2)
Please clarify. Back doors are not a threat because (a) nobody in their right mind will buy a product that contained one or (b) they would be illegal under this legislation. The former is insufficient reason, since products have already been sold that have back doors, usually without the knowledge of the buyer.
This is a non sequitur. The downfall of Lotus 123 and Wordperfect had 100% of nothing to do with their contract terms and everything to do with Microsoft's belligerent marketing of MS Office. Microsoft's failure with MS Bob proves that they can't force a bad product down our throats without the right leverage. (It may have been a different story if they had decided to bundle it with Windows, but they seem to reserve that tactic for killing competitor's products.)
What if, pray tell, Microsoft decide to assert their new-found rights under this bill and modify all future releases of Windows (and their respective licenses) such that "you agree to allow them to connect to your computer via the Internet in order to verify that you have a legally licensed copy of the software"? Will the free market suddenly move away from Windows in droves? Will all new computers suddenly be purchased with an alternative operating system? The god-like powers of the "free market" only work when the market is actually free, and a certain Judge Jackson finds that Microsoft has monopoly power in this area at the moment, which means the market is not in fact free.
A lame attempt at explanation (Score:4)
The author of the comment to which I am responding seems to know more about the state of law than I do (I am not even an American, let alone a lawyer), but here are the salient points as I understand them.
The main point of this law is that it finally makes the legality of a "software license" -- click-through or otherwise -- a definite thing. Software companies have been doing this "license" thing for a long time, but to my knowledge there has never been any legal precedent established as to whether they are in fact enforcable. Why is their enforcability in question?
Let's look a little at what a software license is. Software has been granted protection under the auspices of copyright law, which means there are certain things you may and may not do by merit of the fact that the software is a copyrighted work. Software licenses tend to re-state these terms, but you would have been subject to them anyway (even without the license terms) because that's what copyright law dictates. Software licenses also tend to extend these terms by such constraints as prohibitions on reverse engineering and disclaimers of warranty. Compare this to the GNU GPL which conditionally waives rights available to the copyright holder. Copyright normally prevents you from making duplicate or derived works; the GPL conditionally permits these actions.
Therein lies the crucial difference. I do not need your agreement in order to grant you privileges, but I do need your agreement for you to waive your rights. You have certain rights and prohibitions under copyright: the GPL relaxes or abolishes some of the prohibitions, and the BSD license relaxes even more, but a typical software license tries to take your rights away.
Now we move to step two: non-negotiability. You can, if you wish to do so, enter into an agreement with another party under which you waive certain rights or adopt certain responsibilities. That is what contract law is all about. Contracts are negotiated. This "software license" thing that you have to click through or rip open is not a contract. It is rarely disclosed up front, you have no opportunity to negotiate it, and you do not sign it. These fatal flaws in the scheme are weasel-worded around by such phrases as "by opening this package, you agree". Balderdash! Opening the package is the clear right of anyone who has purchased a product! You should not have to give up additional rights in order to use what you have rightfully purchased! Nor should you have to agree to a click-through license. There is a strong legal argument, I believe, in the notion that you have not agreed to a license just by clicking on "I Agree" -- it was simply a necessary action in order to use the product. It smacks of coercion, and a coerced contract is no contract at all.
Finally, what are we talking about here anyway? A license, or a contract? It looks like a contract, because you are expected to agree to it, but it calls itself a license. What's the difference? In my ignorant non-lawyer way of understanding things, a contract is a set of terms to which two parties mutually agree, whereas a license is a conditional grant of rights by an authoritative party. You do not have a right to drive: you must first obtain a license to do so. Nor do you have the right to bear arms if you live in a country which requires all firearms to be licensed: it is, rather, a privilege that the government grants you. So what's with this "software license" crap? Who gave the software companies the right to dictate to me what I can and can't do with software beyond the scope of copyright? The GPL and BSD licenses are true licenses because they grant privileges to the end-user; privileges which the software author is in a legal position to grant under copyright law. Any "thou shalt not reverse engineer", or "thou shalt not complain", or "thou shalt not say bad things about us" are unmitigated nonsense with no legal weight in a license unless the law already grants the copyright holder the option to assert these rights. Alas, we see a move towards granting many of these exact rights with the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act".
This is what the UCITA is about. It is a broad approach to making whatever language the software companies decide to put into their license terms legally enforcable. It establishes once and for all that a "software license" is a one-sided contract that you do "sign" by opening the packet or clicking on "I Agree", and thus opens up a whole new range of antisocial and unethical behaviour to the realms of legality.
That, at least, is my impression as an uninformed non-laywer who would almost certainly not understand the legislation even if I read it (and I haven't). Caveat lector.
The copyright holder of this post, The Famous Brett Watson, hereby places it in the Public Domain (P) 2000.
Lame question (Score:2)
Re:open source (Score:2)
Re:Why UCITA is going to fail (Score:2)
Re:UCITA Will never happen (Score:2)
--
"But, Mulder, the new millennium doesn't begin until January 2001."
Re:clickwrap? The more the merrier! (Score:2)
Infotainment vs. Calls to Action (Score:4)
Most of the mainstream media is really just entertainment. It's informational too, but hardly ever says anything about how you could be involved. Hence the term Infotainment (and I admit, it's a laughable term, and smacks of copywrighter syndrome, but I sort of like it). Possibly, it's as damaging as no news at all... in the same way as being continually exposed to calls for help from drowning people without doing anything about it might be.
(Except without the drowning people. I think I waxed a bit dramatic there.)
Anyway, I'd like to see more of the "how you can help" style. Probably won't come to USA Today or even CNN anytime soon, though. Thanks to Stallman and Slashdot saying something about it.
(Admirable how Bruce Perens encouraged people to donate to the EFF over on Technocrat.net, too. )
Mo' publicity, foo'! (Score:3)
Anyway, Stallman is, as usual, the best at what he does - which is, being preachy, but in a good way. However, he's evidently preaching to the choir: I'd wager that most of the people who read TLJ already know that UCITA is eeeeevil, and must not be allowed to pass. Meanwhile, outside the established community, very few people even know who Stallman is, let alone read his stuff.
So the foremost priority is to get him published somewhere big. Wired. Any of the big fancy Times-style newspapers. Heck, even a cover story on CNN.com would do.
Until that happens, Stallman will remain in obscurity, and maybe UCITA will be allowed to pass through with little complaint... in which case I'll promptly withdraw all my applications to American colleges.
I'll finish off with a haiku:
Dick watches with grief
Over the frozen water
A bird's lost its wings
Civil disobedience, anyone? (Score:4)
Stallman has talked about this before. It's a serious issue that must be fought, tooth and nail, with lobbying and with civil disobedience, if necessary.
Civil disobedience? A fine idea, but one must choose a method of civil disobedience that would be appropriate for the issue at hand. I suggest that the place to apply the civil disobedience pressure is the place where such software is usually sold.
Here is how such shink-wrapped software is usually sold:
Now my civil disobedience version (made available to all freely under the GPL):
Do this enough, and stores will begin to get the idea that selling shrink-wrapped software isn't such a great idea, after all.
An important point to consider when considering civil disobedience within the software store is that such stores do not take enough responsibility with respect to these agreements. In particular, the store does not give the customer an opportunity to read the text of the license agreement before purchasing the software. Either the FULL TEXT of the license agreement must be printed on the box, or the store must give the customer a copy of the FULL TEXT of the agreement to read before money changes hands.
Shrink-wrapped software isn't always where you expect it, either. I found one such example in a printer I recently bought, and if I didn't agree with it, I was not allowed to use the printer drivers. This shows how disruptive shrink-wrapped license agreemeents can be.
Disclaimer: I am describing the usual method of purchasing shrink-wrapped software within Australia. Your mileage may vary....
--
Re:the duck blind (Score:2)
Contact mooneer@earthlink.net if you're interested.
Re:Stallman == hero (Score:3)
While it may be unfair to compare UCITA to the rise of facism in Europe, just as it may be overstated to compare Stallman's creation of the GPL to Constantine's conversion to Christianity, but this last post has, IMHO, got to the nub of the gist.
Stallman is, as far as I can tell, calling for legal political opposition to a proposed piece of legislation. I think that it is clear that the anti-reverse engineering provisions of UCITA represent an unacceptable limitation on personal liberty. Current intellectual property law already adequately protects the interests of proprietary software vendors, many of whom have made their products by reverse engineering the work of others.
Stallman takes the position that a program, as a symbolic representation of thoughts and ideas, is equivalent in every respect to speech. Thus it can be copyrighted and sold, but it cannot be limited. You may disagree with this position.
The provisions that forbid reverse engineering would be like saying that because an idea has been expressed, no one else is allowed to think of the idea themselves and elborate on it or state it in a new way. Copyright law prevents me from publishing "I have a dream" as if I had said it, but it does not prevent me from talking about civil liberty, racial justice, or social inequity. (Note that I am not suggesting Stallman is comparable to Dr. King).
Who cares if a young man overstates the case? Firey overenthusiasm is a privledge of youth. Even older and more sage heads should mind the substance and not the form of the argument. Opposition to UCITA does not mean opposition to intellectual property. As I get tired of pointing out, Stallman's own GPL depends on intellectual property law.
UCITA is more than an extension of copyright, it amounts to a gag order on algorithms. While I don't see anyone progressing from this to censorship of thought directly, it is still something to be opposed.
I do agree with those who think civil disobedience of a bill (not a law) is putting the cart before the horse, but again, can't you see that this is the fervor of youth? Let passion spend. Wisdom comes with age and age is inevitable. Give him his head and he will tire. I hope never again to see the insightful phrase "shut up" in this forum.
Re:the duck blind (Score:2)
I think your sentiment is simultaneously too pessimistic and too idealistic at the same time.
I don't think that the history of legislation is primarily made up of cases where laws are passed or not passed due to a broad-based public consensus on the content of the laws themselves. The beautiful thing about representative democracy is precisely the fact that change can occur due to the actions of very small numbers of people. In otherwords, because some groups of people can gain influence disproportionate to their actual numbers.
And this, of course, is exactly why lack of change is the rule: when there is no very broad consensus, politicians are loathe to side with one interest group or another unless they can see a clear, one-sided benefit for themselves and their own careers. Donations to campaigns are one obvious benefit, as are winning (or keeping) the allegiance of an entire block of voters. But getting money for casting a vote isn't a great plan if the vote itself will later be used as the basis for negative campaigning by an opponent. In this case, the attack ads for voting in favor of shrink-wrap licenses practically write themselves.
Moreover, I expect that, to the average politician, angering even a small minority of net-savvy techno-geeks who make it clear they will back up what they say would be viewed as a really suspect thing to do unless it delivered a truly huge number of votes or dollars. Your state senator might not know what a EULA is, but if he or she knows that voting to strengthen them is going to lead to direct political attacks amplified Lord knows how much by that Internet thing, you can be sure that doing nothing will look much more attractive.
So, yes, action is needed, and education is always a good thing, but I'm far more optimistic that an action on something like this can protect the status quo without anything like a majority of citizens, or even the internet-aware citizens, knowing about it. Vocal minorities are way louder than you would think.
Re:Stallman == hero (Score:2)
Re:What can a Canadian do? (Score:2)
OpenBSD is based in Calgary? Hmm.. I'm in Calgary....
Hey... anyone in Calgary got any old SGI gear they wanna unload? *hint hint*
Re:Stallman supposes too much? (Score:2)
Why is it then, that in court, the judge tells you you must have a lawyer, and that you are not capable of understanding or interpreting the law yourself?
Re:Stallman supposes too much? (Score:2)
Re:Bah! (Score:2)
I don't understand why a license to use software would be required.
And, based on the assumption that no license is required, if you are sold a book/software, you have just bought the right to use it, any other agreements you are expected to enter need to be followed up with additional consideration. (For example, agree to this semi-restrictive license and we'll provide additional support for two years.)
You are right, the actual text of the contract doesn't need to be known when you agree, as long as it wasn't misrepresented. If you bought software and were told that you must agree to a license before actually using it, then it would be part of the agreement, as long as they didn't slip in horrendous terms that would be ruled unreasonable.
But, if you haven't already paid for the software, like in the case of shareware, or downloadable software, and you agree to the license, anything goes. There is no initial agreement, so if you click 'I Agree', the use of the software is your consideration, because you haven't already paid for that right.
IANAL, but I did take a year of law, and it was pretty clear that while there are some assumed contracts (like handing money to and getting an item from a retailer constitutes a legal sale even if no words are spoken) that every party must get consideration, and must have awareness of the agreement, if not the specific wording.
Awareness, as in, you can't be assumed to have agreed to a contract just by entering a store, or something.
Furthermore, any contract deficient in any of these (and other) aspects, or between non-capable people (minors, the mentally ill, etc) is void, and can be agreed to without burden. Sort of like a gift contract, where you hope the something will be done, but can't enforce it. The exception was contracts where they appear to be valid, and the problem is an intentional loophole intended for fraudulent use.
This means, I could offer you a contract whereby you pay me $1M, and I do nothing (not valid for lack of consideration) and you could sign it, but it wouldn't be binding because it isn't valid, so when I came to collect, you could ignore me.
This basically establishes my argument for click-throughs being void. You've paid for the software, thus gaining the right to use it immediately. Any additional restrictions not mentioned at purchase-time are a second contract. If they offer you the contract but offer the use of the software, that counts as no consideration because you already bought it. Additionally, they are withholding your right to use something you own until you agree with them, that doesn't give you the freedom to turn down the contract if you reject it (you have to say 'I Agree' or it's a coaster) so it's again invalid. Thus, the contract can be accepted without burden.
This bit about freedom is, contracts signed under duress aren't valid. If I was to sit on your car and require you to sign a contract, even if the contract was valid in all ways, before I'd move and let you use your car, the contract wouldn't be valid, because I have no right to withhold access to the car, and you, having to have access to something you own, which I am withholding, would be forced to sign. Alternately, this could be viewed as the implied addition of me returning your car to the contract, and because me not letting you use your car is illegal, the contract would again be invalid. The parallel is the software company requiring you to sign the contract (click 'I Agree') to use the product you already purchased. Once again, this assumes that you weren't given proper notification that use of this product was dependant on a later contract, before you agreed to the sale.
Canadian law could differ a bit from US law, but most of this sort of thing, asside from the proposed UCITA and the (existing) DMCA, are the same or very similar.
Anyways, if you want to provide cites, I'd appreciate it. I'll check my
Thanks for the opinions.
Re:Bah! (Score:3)
Currently, the only cases I know of that supported them are ones in which the license just reiterated the obvious, like the copyright. Similar to shooting down the old defense of "Well it didn't have the (c)" or "It used (c) instead of a C in a circle", where the judge just reaffirmed that the copyright is still valid even if you don't use any symbol.
So, to the best of my knowledge, the clickthrough license has never been valid because it is not a valid contract in many ways, lack of consideration and lack of disclosure being the two most obvious. (You already bought the software before being asked if you agree, so they can't offer you anything at the point which you don't already have. Also, you don't see the contract until after the sale is finalized, where you get your right to own it, and you can't be expected to agree to a secret contract, so it's invalid.)
While a contract can specify nearly anything for consideration (pretty well anything legal), the contract has to itself be valid, or the whole thing is meaningless. So, while they could, with a valid contract (that you sign before purchase, and are paid for) get you to agree to not talk about the product, not reverse engineer, not use while wearing green, etc, they can't do any of this with clickthroughs because they are totally invalid.
Ditto with shrinkwraps, for mostly the same reason.
The UCITA wants to change contract law, such that you don't need to know about a contract (or even have it be implied, like retail sales, etc) to be bound by it, don't need to receive consideration, and don't need to actively agree.
This *will* fail, because if it passes, contract law will be useless. Someone will sneak "And you agree to transfer title to everything you own to Company A." into a EULA and sue that user for everything they own, when that user is a big company, or a government depertment, the shit'll hit the fan, the defendant will buy as many judges as the software industry, and it'll be show down, probably with freaking huge punative damages.
Re:Corporate interests and UCITA should collide. (Score:2)
So while it is antithetical and dangerous for most companies, it is not dangerous for Red Hat, MicroSloth, Corel (or their US distribution arm), Adobe, etc, etc, etc. And when those companies have so damned much cash (as well as less liquid assets) they control serious lobbying dollars. The NRA, BBB, AMA, AMA (there are two. Ask me:) etc. should be happy to have 10% of that kind of cash.
Living in Maryland can make this a tricky vote for our legislature. On one hand, they can do the right thing for their citizens as well as the citizens of Virginia. Why mention Virginia? Silicon Valley East I've heard it called. With all of those gov't contracts, wouldn't the fed be more likely to purchase in Maryland, a consumer friendly state? I hope so. Nice income tax for the state.
But, let's say that Md. doesn't pass the UCITA. Then Supreme Widget Software of Va. says 'fine. There are no legal sellers of licenses to our software in Maryland. You must buy them in Va. (Or Deleware, or wherever).' The savvy senator, while perhaps not swayed by this argument, will see the LOSS of money to Virginia by some (CompUSA, white box manufacturers, etc.) and might listen to them.
I should be contacting my senator(s) within the week. (Would have done it earlier, but the ice has shut down the state. When I finally got back to work, the router had crapped out. Fixed that this morning, so I can do my research on the topic before writing the letter). Hopefully, I'll have an audience. With any luck, I may be able to get before a hearing on the subject.
Write your state legislators. Contact your local chambers of commerce and make sure they are aware of the situation. I don't hold out much/any hope for residents of WA, VA, CA, and a few other states. But if we are diligent, and perhaps a bit lucky, those will be the only three states with these absurd laws.
Re:UCITA Will never happen (Score:2)
This is part of the fundamental problem with UCITA - we are used to enjoying certain standards in our dealings with others. If you buy a defective product, you expect to have the right to return it. You don't expect to have to agree not to criticize the company or product when you install a piece of software. UCITA would change these fundamental assumptions about "how things should work", and not in your favor, either. It's dangerous.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Re:Stallman == hero (Score:2)
Do you have a point, I've seen you pipe up on this issue before.
I like free software. If the guy who *started* the whole shebang says this is a bad thing and threatens free software, I believe him. I've seen what UCITA promises, it's scary. I'm sure Doubleclick, M$, and Real all support it though, this might be a big fight.
and guess what (Score:2)
I admire your enthusiasm, but I question your knowledge of history.
cite and quote it correctly (Score:4)
"When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church -- and there was nobody left to be concerned. " [As quoted from the Congressional Record, 14, October 1968, page 31636]
Re:I don't see his argument. (Score:2)
The truth is far more interesting. There are Circuit Court opinions supporting both views, although it appears that the ProCD case (shrink-wrap yield a contract) seems to be leading the "trend." Such ambiguity is one of the UCITA proponents principal arguments for the need for a uniform Act.
Re:Difference between GPL and EULA (Score:2)
Agreed that, by its terms, GPL does not restrict use of the program. Why would that make any difference at all as to the question whether the UCITA applies? Even if your argument took GPL out of the definition of a "mass-market license," why wouldn't UCITA permit its enforcement?
My point is this: UCITA either applies or it does not. If it does not, then Stallman's argument fails, because it is based upon the theory that GPL changes the status quo. If it does, then Stallman's argument also fails because: (1) UCITA does not vary in liability provisions from the status quo; and (2) UCITA is far more likely to render GPL enforceable than non-enforceable.
Finally, if liability was REALLY the issue here (as opposed to a lockstep ideological opposition to UCITA), why not simply argue for minor changes to "repair" it so UCITA covers GPL to your satisfaction? Such an argument would likely be adopted by NCCUSL or a state legislature.
Even if true, why would that make any difference? (Score:2)
Even if your arguments were true, why would the distinction make a difference?
Re:The GPL IS an EULA. (Score:2)
Re:The GPL IS an EULA. (Score:2)
I dissent.
The first sale doctrine (17 U.S.C. s. 109) applies only to the distribution rights, and not to reproduction. You are no more permitted to make copies (from disk to RAM; see the MAI and Southeastern cases) of a computer program because you own the copy than you are permitted to photocopy a book.
Re:The GPL IS an EULA. (Score:2)
Your supposition that you are entitled to "use" (whatever that means) a work merely because you own a copy, is in error. The Copyright owner who has sold you a copy retains complete exclusive rights to reproduce, make derivative works from and distribute the work, subject to first sale. If your notion of "use" entails making copies (of any kind, except as subject to Sections 107-120), which is to say reproduction of the work, you commit actionable copyright infringement. In certain circumstances, that infringement can be a crime.
Your example of "using" a book is inapposite -- if you make copies without a license you have committed an infringement.
Your example of "using" a video tape of a film is inapposite -- if you make copies without a license you have committed an infringement. (For AV works, there is also a public performance exclusive right, by the way).
As to software, I am telling you (and you may choose to ignore me once more if you like) that there is authoritative case law holding that the use of the software without a license (or beyond the scope of a license) constitutes Copyright infringement by the intermediate copies made in RAM. I don't know if the MAI and Southeastern cases are available on-line (check out the 9th Circuit web site), but if you are truly interested in learning more about this, contact me privately and I'll get you the full citations.
In the meanwhile, you may take it as read that your incredulity is unwarranted -- I offered you a fair characterization of the Copyright law, which does not support your supposition as to what you may and may not do with copies of a work you believe you have purchased. There are defendants who have paid heftily because their supposition that ownership of a copy of software implies use was inconsistent with the Copyright Act.
By the way, Congress expressly considered legislatively overruling MAI and Southeastern last year, and actually did so, but only in the limited circumstance of "using" system software to repair a machine. Thus, the Congress expressly embraced the status quo except for that small example. If you know any cases to the contrary, I'd be most interested -- but I doubt you'll find any.
Re:The GPL IS an EULA. (Score:2)
Which inconsistency is that? I am unaware of any case addressing the unlicensed use of a DVD. It may well be that DVD copying without license is infringement. Of course, I'm not sure why one would think they were not licensed to view their film at home -- the package of every DVD I own says "licensed for home viewing" or similar language to that effect. (I do have one that says, "for home viewing only.") In each case, a license is implied by that language.
BTW, what's with the blanket statements about copying==infringement. Don't know much about Fair Use, but even I know that I can quote and publish excerpts for the purposes of review and literary criticism (among others).
The quoted passage mischaracterizes what I wrote:
Section 107, cited above, codifies the fair use defense.
Re:The GPL IS an EULA. (Score:2)
I don't see his argument. (Score:3)
With all due respect to RMS, I dissent! It seems that UCITA is actually more friendly to OSS developers than the status quo in this very regard.
First, with respect to liability "defaults," how is UCITA any different from the status quo? Under the UCC, for example, there are implied warranties against infringement, of merchantability and suitability for a particular purpose. Present law also permits a contract to override this default. On the other hand, if the GNU license agreement is not binding, then you are stuck with all implied licenses (and if not a contract, perhaps a claim in tort in those states showing chinks in the armor of the Economic Loss Rule)! The risk of unlimited liabilty under the status quo is substantial -- and it is the need to reverse this risk of liability which typically forms the strongest argument for a pro-mass-market position UNDER THE STATUS QUO.
Now as to mechanisms for such reversal, it appears to me that UCITA provides zillions of avenues to argue that assent to the GNU was manifest by conduct, even if the license were not (and it probably is) enforceable as a mass-market license. To the best of my knowledge (it has been a while since I looked at it, the words "shrink-wrap" do not appear in UCITA.
Compare this with the status quo, where we are at best at the mercy of a court to determine whether our GNU license limitation of liability provisions are enforceable against a user. Indeed, under the common law, only "shrink-wraps" and "click-wraps" have been accepted -- it remains to be seen if a license accompanying an electronic record without some mechanism to limit access is enforceable under the status quo.
So, I agree with RMS' points, but think that it argues FOR the adoption of UCITA rather than against it. I AM opposed to certain other provisions of the Act, but these provisions seem to me most among the most helpful to the OSS and free software movements.
Stallman == hero (Score:5)
Many people are going to say that RMS is a crackpot or a communist. If he were a crackpot, he would talk for hours about this stuff, but never produce anything. Instead, he's slaved over keyboards for years, destroying his wrists to build free software for all of us to share.
Some people here have never actually read anything by RMS, and they don't understand why he, and many others, think that proprietary software is bad. I recommend http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html as a starting place.
Calls to Action (Score:2)
Good point. For example, if you live in Washington State, you can contact your state legislators at www.leg.wa.gov [wa.gov] as well as the committees - for both the Senate and the House. Most other states have similar URLs.
But make sure, when contacting people, that you give your name, address, zip and phone. Ones without are usually filtered. Ask politely and give them URL links to info in the emails.
Questions from a legal ignoramus. (Score:2)
Could you explain why this is? If I don't need a license to read a book I have purchased, why do I need one to use software that I have purchased? Where do music recordings fall; do I need a license to listen to them? I guess what I'm asking is, in a nutshell, why do software producers feel they are entitled to rights beyond what is normally granted by copyright? For that matter, why is the license game restricted to intellectual property? Why cannot car manufacturers, for instance, get in on the action with their own license agreements when you buy their products?
Also, what terms can they put in these licenses? What about these examples? As the purchaser you agree:
I'm pretty sure I have seen (1) in EULAs before. Is it enforcable? I bet music companies would love to have this right. Do they, and it's just that nobody ever thought of "licensing" CDs before? Should any copyright holder have the right to say you can't sell a product secondhand when you're done with it?
Number (5) also appears routinely in EULAs; it was the crux of the flap over converting NT Workstation, in effect, to NT Server by changing a registry key. Why is it that if I buy a car I can make whatever modifications I want, but if I buy software I'm not allowed to make any modifications whatsoever? If Chrysler wanted to include a "license agreement" with any cars it sold that forbade any unauthorized modification, could they? Would it hold up?
What about number (2)? Presumably that isn't legal, right? But (3) routinely appears in EULAs as a "thou shalt not reverse engineer" clause. If a protocol or file format is proprietary, doesn't (3) amount to (2) in effect?
Anyhow, I hope one of the more legally versed among the readership will take a few minutes to explain some of these issues because from where I'm sitting it looks an awful lot like a case of "what's ours is ours, and what's yours is ours too," but I'm sure it can't be that because big business would never do that to us, right?
As far as I can tell, what it boils down to is that copyright holders (with software manufacturers in the vanguard) are increasingly trying to control not just distribution of their products, but also the use of their products. As a mere citizen, I no longer pretend to understand the law well enough to say whether they can get away with it. (Had I but known it would come to this, I would have studied law instead of science, simply as a matter of self-preservation.), but, at least to a legal outsider, it seems like copyright shouldn't convey the right to dictate terms of use. The lawyer-priests may tell us that it should, and I guess that makes it so, but that doesn't mean we have to like it, and and it doesn't mean that we can't resist with all of our meager powers. I doubt it will do any good unless the lawyer-priests have a change of heart and decide to champion our cause, but it will at least give us something to do while we wait for the next round of buggy patches to all of our duly licensed software to download.
Sincerely yours,
Cynical in Charlottesville
Re:Stallman == hero (Score:2)
The UCITA isn't law yet. Nothing like this has ever been law before, AFAIK. How can you think about all the good respect for it will do when it's never existed before to respect. Are you actually willing to speculate that something like this would be beneficial to you in some way?
UCITA Will never happen (Score:2)
NOTE: This doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it, if no one fights it then it MAY go through.
--
linuxisgood:~$ man woman
E-mail (Score:5)
"By reading this e-mail, you agree to vote against any and all bills endowing "click-wrap" license agreements enforcable"
Information will be free (Score:2)
I'm Glad I'm in Canada (Score:2)
I suspect that the US will experience a massive "Brain Drain" and corresponding "Exodus of Investment Capital" This might jolt legislators back to reality but probably not in time to prevent some nasty economic consequences (Proprietary Software Devlopers Excluded).
I question, however, is Canada safe from this legislation. US courts seem to have the ability to affect companies in Canada. The recent iCrave situation worries me. Many people on '/.' questioned how the US courts could make an effect in Canada but it seems to have happened. I haven't seen any information about how this was accomplished, but, I worry that some aspect of the UCITA could find it's way to MY COUNTRY.
We need a political lobby. (Score:2)
I think there are a LOT of people who are sympathetic to our ideals for free and open software, but I don't think our views are well represented to people in politics. I'm also somewhat disappointed in the "linux companies" ability to stand up for their customer's values in the political arena. I don't know about others, but I would definately smile on a distro and be more likely to purchase it if I felt that by doing so I would promote some pro-consumer political activism. I consider this part of the "service" I want.
I'd like to hear from people on how we can be more effective at getting our message to the politicians. I think we may need to take a look at the methods of other successful grassroots organizations and see if we can't combine some of their methods with the strenghths of this community. Anybody got any ideas?
Re:We need a political lobby. (Score:2)
Thanks, but I'm already a member. In fact, I link them on my home page. I think the EFF is a good at litigating, and maybe they can become a more powerful political lobby. My question still stands though - how can we (you, me, the EFF, slashdot readers, linux users, free software writers, etc...) be more effective at grabbing the software/technology agenda in politics.
Perhaps the best defence to the UCITA is a good offense. We could draft our own software quality legislation. I think many states have mechanisms whereby voters can directly put propositions on the ballot. I think most people would support a bill entitled "Software Consumer Protection Act" or somesuch.
RMS is right (Score:2)
I am probably one of the people in the community that RMS was referring to when he said that some of us have argued that more restrictive licenses would drive customers to free software. What I remember saying is that the restrictiveness of the license is just another part of the overall cost to the customer. Software will compete on license restrictiveness as well as price, functionality and reliability. That is already the case.
I suggest a modification in the GPL (somebody put it in legalese):
Any supporter of UCITA agrees to permanently delete all software on all computers under his control that is not licensed under a license accepted under the definition for Open Source or Free Software or that is licensed under a license that depends on UCITA. Said supporter will never again use non-free software. Supporters are defined as any legislator who voted in favor of UCITA, his or her office staff, any attorney who has drafted a license that depends on UCITA, anyone who has authorized the use of such a license or paid to have one written that is actually in use. For the purposes of determining control, corporate executives will be deemed to have control of the computers used by their companies. This license, even if it is subsequently found to depend on UCITA in anyway, is not subject to this provision.
Remember, if this clause could hold up, then a clause in a proprietary license forbidding you to use it on a dual boot machine with free software could hold up as well.
Not quite... (was: Re:Why UCITA is going to fail) (Score:2)
What? UCITA modifies the law of agency, too? Or did you not know that an employee of a corporation can only bind the corporation if she has actual or apparent agency, where actual agency is being actually authorized by the corporation to bind it, and apparent agency is appearing to a reasonable third person as being an agent of the corporation, able to bind it. Note: reasonable person, not reasonable computer. If Judy in the secretarial pool clicks on a click-through license, that won't bind the corporation to anything because Judy is neither an actual nor an apparent agent of the corporation.
Re:UCITA is Unconstitutional (Score:2)
Article I, Section 9 only applies to Congress (not the States), and further has been interpreted as only to have application to criminal law.
Re:Not quite... (was: Re:Why UCITA is going to fai (Score:2)
"If Judy in the secretarial pool pirates software, nobody questions the company's liability." That's because copyright infringement is a tort -- you can hit the company for negligent supervision and hold them liable, or use agency theory in tort where agency is given a broader read. However, we were talking about breach of contract, which is not a tort.
BTW, most managers are not agents either, or only have limited agency. By default, the only individuals who are agents for a corporation are its directors, its officers, and its counsel of record.
Bah! (Score:3)
Clickthroughs are already enforceable (there's a long line of cases on this) and the First Amendment makes it impossible to prohibit criticism of software (there's an even longer line of cases on that).
So I guess the real issue here is reverse engineering, and whether a contract which grants a software license in exchange for a promise not to reverse-engineer the software should be enforceable. Right now it is: contract law allows virtually anything except for that which "shocks the conscience." So a law which memorializes the common law may not be a step in the right direction, but it's not a step in the wrong one, either.
As to the poster who talked about "one-way" contracts: the problem is you need a license to use software. When you buy commercial software, you gain title to the "CD Coaster" and a license to use the software. Licenses are revokable at any time unless supported by consideration (which, in the case of a software purchase, is cash). When a license is supported by consideration, the license is revokable for breach of the contract of sale, and, as I mentioned earlier, the common law of contracts already allows virtually anything to be "consideration".
The real solution to this problem is to get Congress to amend the Copyright Act to make it clear that no license is required to USE software -- only to copy, distribute or modify it. This would make software more like a book. You don't need a license to use a book, after all.
I don't get it (Score:4)
Ok, I just read the article again. Let's see.
Of course, this is a secondary analysis from an article that was probably written without advise from legal counsel. I don't know where to find the text of this proposed law (was it authored by the American Law Institute like most uniform encodings, or is it a freelance effort?), so I can't give a more meaningful commentary.
Re:Lame question (Score:2)
I do believe that most of the software RMS' written is copyrighted by the FSF, which was created by RMS precisely to steward the GNU operating system. As such, it makes little difference.
Why? This page [gnu.org] explains fairly clearly why not:
As a general rule, I don't believe that it is essential for people to have permission to modify all sorts of articles and books. The issues for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. For example, I don't think you or I are obliged to give permission to modify articles like this one, which describe our actions and our views.
Anti-UCITA site (Score:2)
Particularly the UCITA list of articles at http://www.badsoftware.com/uccindex.htm [badsoftware.com]
Constitutional right to reverse-engineer (Score:2)
Um, what is the UCITA? (Score:2)
I appreciate efforts to Damn The Man as much as the next guy, but I feel a bit apprehensive to going against something which I don't even know what the acronym stands for.
Anyone have any actual legal docs on the UCITA, or for starters, can someone tell me what it means? United Communications In The Ass? Unlimited Corn Industry Task Allowence? Well?
I just hope the rest of the "freedom fighters" know more than I do...
------------
What can a Canadian do? (Score:2)
Free software doesn't use licenses? (Score:2)
What is the GPL but a very restrictive license then?
Re:One wonders how much straw is in the man (Score:2)
Um, actually, no. Microsoft crushed WordPerfect and Lotus in the corporate workplace partly because of price, and partly because of contract terms. One of my major clients, in 1994, was planning to implement an enterprise standard for office software. They had some divisions using Lotus 1-2-3, some using Excel, some using Samna Ami (later Lotus Ami Pro), some using WordPerfect, and some using Word. They had Quattro users, Paradox users, dBase users, FoxPro users--they had a mess.
Lotus showed up, and offered a site license: buy a copy of Lotus for every machine in the corporation, and individually register every single one of them--for a not very good discount (Lotus listed at $795). In English only--other languages (if they were available) had to be licensed separately at different terms. WordPerfect showed up, with a better discount, and less onerous terms--but sorry, you couldn't do anything like embed a Lotus spreadsheet in a WordPerfect document. And they'd only do the site license in English--other languages? Other terms, other negotiations, other pricing. Then Microsoft showed up--Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Access, for $229 per PC across the entire corporation. Japanese in Japan, Modern Chinese in the PRC, Traditional Chinese in Hong Kong and Taiwan, French in France and so forth. They didn't just embed spreadsheets in documents--they produced corporate developers (employees of the client) who had already done integration products with Office components. (Microsoft's Developer Network is hands-down the best developer support program there is--and all of these guys were MSDN members). In one memorable comment a manager remarked, "we could launch space shots from Cape Canaveral with WordBASIC if half of this stuff is to be believed...." (The client is a major supplier to NASA, BTW.)
The client saw an easy decision: Office offered vastly better integration, vastly more "open" architecture to permit IT developers to integrate solutions (every desktop has Excel--so you don't need to buy charting tools for custom apps. Just embed an Excel chart.) Dramatically lower price, and no Mickey Mouse contract terms. (Approximately 6,000 of the client's desktops are outside the U.S.--so the multiple-language contract was a big issue. I don't think you could even buy WordPerfect for Windows in Japan at that point--Lotus 1-2-3 in Japanese was terrible--but its been a long time.)
The client still has the same deal. They're up to 18,000 desktops, and will have over 30,000 desktops this summer after a pending merger is completed. Not because of Microsoft belligerence--but because Microsoft's solutions worked better and cost approximately 24% of the competing alternatives. It was, and still is, a no-brainer.
Which is to say, Microsoft won the business, and has kept the business, because of pricing, features, and support. Which is how a free market is supposed to work.
Back doors aren't necessarily a bad thing... (Score:3)
Hi!
(BTW--nice job in formatting your reply with HTML. Never dawned on me to use BLOCKQUOTE for, um, quoting....)
Nobody in their right mind will buy commercial TrojanWare. And no sane shrinkwrap producer will even consider shipping TrojanWare--because the immediate consequence of using a back door will be litigation. Anybody in business knows that it isn't the result of litigation that matters--just the fees for going to court will wipe you out. And, as eToys.com is discovering, a little bid of bad publicity can get your stock price hammered.
What the "self help" provision does is permit a vendor to include language in a contract that explicitly permits back doors or other means. I used to work for a company that did it--here's how it works. A lot of mid-priced software, and custom software projects, are sold on "thirds"--one-third of the contract price is due at the start of the project, one-third is due at delivery, and one-third is due thirty days after delivery. Sometimes getting that last third can be a real challenge--if you're dealing with a small company they may simply not have the cash and try to string you out; if you're dealing with a crook they might suggest that you pound sand--they're not paying. In a lot of custom development the vendor discovers that a lot of new features seem to get added to the feature list after he has delivered--"oh, I'm sure there'll be no problem with payment, if you just be sure to add this little thing for us...." That list can go on for months--because they know you need that last third. If the client tries to stiff you for that last third your only recourse is to take the client to court--but if the client is located across a state line you have to sue in federal court, where you have to demonstrate $50,000 in actual damages before you even have "standing" to sue. If you're looking to collect the last $15,000 on a $45,000 job you can try to hire a lawyer in the client's home state--but you might as well forget it. You'll burn through fifteen grand in legal fees before you get to court, so essentially you're screwed.
Unless you use some form of "self help." In the case of my former employer the system checked the date at startup (since this was an order entry system dates couldn't easily be spoofed) and checked a series of parameters to see if the software had been installed for more than 90 days. If it was, the operators would get a screen asking the supervisor to call customer service. Thirty days later, if the system still hadn't been paid for, another screen asked the supervisor to call customer service, as a serious problem exists with the system. (My employer viewed an invoice over 120 days old as a serious problem.) Thirty days later (thus, 150 days after installation, and four months after payment was due) every user logging in was prompted that the system could not function because a bill had not been paid.
We told every prospective client about that feature. To my knowledge it was never used--in part because the clients knew it was there. (We did do some weird stuff at startup if the date was Friday the 13th, but that's another story :-)
In the late 1980s the commonwealth of Virginia banned that kind of Trojan. And all of a sudden you simply couldn't collect that last third from deadbeats in Virginia--and the Virginia deadbeats knew it. The UCITA overturns that law, and similar laws in other states (I don't know if there are other states with similar laws or not).
Couple of additional points: first, my company doesn't use Trojans. We usually provide source code to our customers, and we typically do systems for companies that are large enough that they don't play those kinds of games. Second, the Independent Computer Consultants of America opposed the UCITA, especially the self-help provision. I don't know why, but it is an interesting perspective to this discussion that I'd like to learn more about.
Don't Panic Over Straw-Man Arguments.... (Score:4)
Simply put, the spectre of UCITA that he raises is that UCITA permits vendors and buyers to agree to contract terms. UCITA does not, in so many words, legalize Trojan Horses (so-called "self-help measures") without buyer consent. Nobody in his right mind is going to buy a TrojanWare shrinkwrap app. But "self-help" measures permit custom software developers to ensure that they get paid. They can only use self-help if the client agrees to them, in the contract.
Can Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, or another software giant force an onerous contract down your throat? Nope--markets do, in fact, work. In 1989 Lotus had a cast-iron lock on the spreadsheet market, WordPerfect had a lock on the word processing market, and Xerox had a lock on desktop publishing. Lotus 1-2-3 still has a dozen or so users, somewhere; Corel can't give away WordPerfect; and I'd bet most SlashDot users can't even name the erstwhile Xerox product that owned the DTP market. (Hint: Corel Draw was created as an add-on product for it, and Corel now owns it.) Lest you think that Microsoft hegemony can keep a bad product alive, two words: Microsoft Bob.
If you thought the world was going to end on New Year's Eve, you'll probably get panicked by UCITA as well. You shouldn't be--this isn't nearly as scary as the doomsayers are claiming.
Stallman: literary genius or just plain genius? (Score:2)
Some friends of free software have argued that UCITA would benefit our community, by making non-free software intolerably restrictive, and thus driving users to us. Realistically speaking, this is unlikely, because it assumes that proprietary software developers will act against their own interests. They may be greedy and ruthless, but they are not stupid.
This is *exactly* what my English 110 prof is talking about when she brings up "pursuasive writing". I didn't need to be pursuaded to be against the UCITA, but lines like the above quoted sure help get the wankers off the fence. Go Richard!
/me emails Skip Lockwood to see how he can help.
Re:Stallman == hero (Score:2)
If someone wants to write and sell a software product, more power to them. However, should they have the right to suppress criticism of their software, and of how it's put together? I don't think so. Part of the "law" protects free speech, and an essential part of the working of any market is freely available information about products, sellers and prices. Suppress information about software products and you contribute to a market failure in that industry. Maximizing information is a goal of all advocates of the market, be they liberal or conservative...
-Dave
Stallman is right! (Score:2)
UCITA is perhaps the worst thing that could happen to the computing profession, and could be very harmful to OSS.
UCITA essentially gives software manufactures the right to ship completely defective, and dangerous, products with impunity. Yes, users could refuse to purchase software with such restrictive agreements, but who actually reads click agreements when they download the latest plug-in or media player.
And Stallman is also right when it comes to the harm to Free Software. Outlawing reverse engineering would kill any chance for a non-microsoft (or friend) to succeed (OSS or not). M$ could develop a new format, stop supporting all the others, and could be the only comp. that produced viewers/editors for such. Anyone who needs compatibility with M$ products (such as allowing IE to view their websites) would be forced to by their software or loose 90% of computer users.
If this becomes law the effects could be devastating.
MPAA and RIAA vs. UCITA (Score:2)
It seems that the MPAA and RIAA have taken vocal stands against UCITA.
I guess they want to eat their cake and have it too (the logical way to phrase that cliche).
...bad in more ways than you can shake a stick at (Score:2)
Truly a nightmare.
UCITA is a TERRIBLE idea and needs to be stopped. (Score:4)
Cem Kaner [badsoftware.com] is a lawyer who's spent years fighting this. (He hates me, but I think he's a good guy.) His web site has a good summary of the situation, although it's out of date. Nobody seems to be tracking where this is in each state legislature, and somebody should be. It has to be opposed state by state now, and it may sneak into law in some states when nobody is watching.
SMALL CORRECTION (Score:2)
Sorry, that should probably read "holding them responsible for their users failure to register their software". Yuck. Too much work...
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
YES!!!! (Score:2)
I agree with this. Don't you think RedHat and VA Linux, etc., with their ridiculously high stock valuations, should get together and start to fund something like this?
Bob? Augustin? Anyone???
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
Re:Stallman == hero (Score:3)
This doesn't have to do with convenience.
First they came for the Jews. But I did not say anything because I was not a jew.
Then they came for the christians. But I did not say anything because I was not a christian.
then they came for me. And there was no one left to speak up for me.
Computers are rapidly becoming an essential part of our infrastructure. You cannot ignore assaults on the Internet anymore. Or software. How would you like it if you were on a life support machine that was shipped buggy? It dies, you die, and no one has any recourse because some doctor clicked "OK".
If you don't want your freedom, go to China. But stop ridiculing those of us who do.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
Re:SMALL CORRECTION (Score:3)
If they use it, the software sends a mail to ProFTP containing the username of the account, and the hostname it was connected to. They then send an email to that ISP, stating that the ISP will be held responsible for the actions of the user under the DMCA, and that they must temrinate the account if the user does not pay.
The letter is actually quite nasty, saying something to the effect of "we do not wish to receive any excuses or justifications for non-payment".
Quite nasty.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
UCITA is a VERY BAD THING (Score:5)
I found out that ProFTP has been sending nastygrams to ISPs under the DMCA holding their users accountable for not registering their software. (I always get these mixed up, could be FTPPro... find out for yourself. It was on Bugtraq a while ago.)
The UCITA will take this despicable process to the next level. Make no mistake - we are at war with these people. UCITA must not be allowed to pass for the same reason that the offending parts of the DMCA need to be overturned. They're going too far.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
The GPL: not a shrink-wrap license. (Score:3)
The GNU GPL is a copyright notice. As such, like any copyright notice, it covers modification and distribution only. There is nothing in the GPL about usage. The GPL even states that usage is not governed by its terms. You can therefore do whatever you want. You have no obligation to anyone.
Of course, if you want to distribute or modify it, you have to do so under the terms of the license. Not because you signed it or used the software, but because due to copyright law, the license is your only permission to do so.
That is an important part: since the GPL is just a copyright notice, it only covers only usage and modification. Contrary to popular belief, you do not have to agree to the GPL before using GPLed software, and are not bound by its terms simply by using the software.
Shrink-wrap licenses are not copyright notices. They are contracts. Contracts as in "I signed on a new mortgage", "I got married" or "I signed a NDA". And contracts can cover a LOT of ground, much more than mere distribution of modification.
With shrink-wrap licenses, you basically end up with legal obligations towards the other party. And with UCITA, shrink-wrap licenses can apply to internet content (articles and such) and be retroactively modified.
Question: do you really want to have legal obligations towards every news site you visit that feels like it? Remember, hitting the "Back" does not mean you never visited the site, never broke the "shrink wrap".
Well, I don't. Regardless of whether or not that power would be misused. But I'm in luck: I don't live in the US. If I did, I probably would be writing to my elected representatives, right now.
Dislike the GPL, if you must... But at least know it for what it is: a copyright notice, nothing more, nothing less.
The Law Makers - a syllogism (Score:4)
1) The people actually passing the laws (congressmen, legislators) know very little about computers, and so in an odd (ironic) way they really don't have a way to know the benifits/dangers from this law.
2)The lawmakers are going to try and become informed about this, but will turn to the very software makers that benefit most from this law for that information.
3) Money buys influence in Washington. (how much could Micro$oft "contribute").
Conclusion: So, the Law Makers are going to have a financial stake in being influenced by those who benefit
Now think about this pemise:
1) In many people's minds "open software"="freesoftware"=cheap bastards. That is to say that a lot of people see the open source movement being led by people who just don't want to have to pay for what someone else worked hard to make.
2) Again, in many people's minds "opensoftware"=hacking=criminals. I could ad to this, but I think we've all seen enough mainstream news stories about "criminal hackers" and not enough about "hackers as programs who give away their source code.
3) The Opensource/Freesoftware Community isn't the richest community out there, and there isn't a lot for "campaign contributions".
conclusion: The large corporations can portray the opensource community to the uneducated (in these matters) law makers as whinny criminals who bring nothing to the table.
Im not trying to say its all about money here, but Money at least buys access to talk to these guys. And, perceptions are important. And, the Legislators really don't know enough yet about this issue to vote yet. Just think about this. Go out and read all the news stories in the mainstream press (the ones these legislators read) and see what they say about opensource and about the DVD issue. Now you think what they WILL think.
The best way to counter this is with "clear information" This means sending polite and informative emails to legislators with links to news stories, even news posts about this issue.
It's our world now. But how can we really say that if we don't speak up once in a while.
Re:UCITA Will never happen (Score:3)
Here is the bad news ... if any state passes the ammendment to the Unform Commerce Code a software vendor can still force that the licence be interpreted under that state's law even though the user's state has not passed the ammendment unless the state had passed legislation to forbid that.
Just my two cents ... I've been reading about it in infoworld and other IS applications for some time. Corporations are really worried about this because it could have the effect of dis-allowing transfers of licences during aquisitions and other things they do not want to deal with.
- subsolar