Red Hat Asks for UCITA Reversal 148
OSS advocate writes "According to this NewsForge article, Red Hat has engaged the services of Carol Kunze (ucitaonline.com) to try to convince the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to take UCITA back. There's a list of email addresses in case you want to send the commish a letter yourself." Red Hat's letter is a good start.
Thank You (Score:2, Interesting)
As an established business, your views will hopefully make it more difficult for the commissioners to justify such laws.
Re:Thank You (Score:1)
Re:Thank You (Score:1)
Enlighten me..
What's not to like about a company who employs people to create software for the community, under a license which basically ensures that they have no control over it? They're writing software for the community, and encouraging businesses to adopt more free software.
What's not to like about that?
Their distro? I find it comparable to many other distros. It's a fine desktop, as well as a fine workstation or server.
Just because something is not obscure doesn't mean it's 'uncool' or 'evil'.
Is this the right battle? (Score:1)
OFS(Open file Standards) are a cause that we can get support from all computer users, as it benefits Linux but also Mac, Solaris and even M$ OS users.
A good argument to use is that the requirements to make information open and publicly available is discriminatory to poor people if the file standards require paying the M$ tax. An amendment to the FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) at the federal and state levels is what to ask for. When the Feds require open file standards, Linux will become much more competitive. Once the files standards are open, Linux can easily succeed.
Be aware that GIF, JPG, are not open standards. Even PDF cannot be modified to add functionality. If Adobe decides to come out with a super set of PDF and collect royalties they have every right to do so. What we should push for is for the government (particularly the Federal level) to support open standards, free to all, much as the bureau of standards has done for units of measure (let's hope no one claims a patent on the meter).
Furthermore, we need to ask that all the extensions of government web pages be free of proprietary structures so that any browser will be assured of displaying the page content without depending on proprietary plugins.
A sample letter for your federal and state representatives is at http://xtronics.com/reference/openfiles.htm
Your tax dollars at work (Score:1)
Not quite professional.. (Score:3, Insightful)
How about reversing DMCA, shortening the span of software patents, reversing copyright lengthening, passing laws about *not* passing laws to enhance the *life* of businesses?
Re:Not quite professional.. (Score:2)
Are you kidding? Didn't you read the part WRITTEN ALL IN CAPITALS? That really swung me.
Seriously, you're right. There's no argument in there, and no reason why UCITA will hurt OSS. In fact, I'd have thought it would help OSS. Have you ever sat down and read the EULA for a commercial product? They are at best laughable and at worst abominable. Hardly any of them are reasonable or would be accepted by a reasonable person knowing that they could be enforced.
We keep focussing on the negatives of UCITA. How about the positives? How about it actually driving customers away from companies that write terms like "You can't use Frontpage to create a website that criticizes Microsoft"? (real example) to companies that offer relaxed licenses, like OSS vendors.
Written by a tech head (Score:1)
Here's my list of bad things and suggestion
If anyone can reply with an even better corrected we may have somthing worth sending..
'I write to you'
you don't say?, put this at the end sig e.g. bill gates, OBO Microsoft.
'on behalf of Red Hat, Inc., a software services company which also distributes the open source operating system Linux.'
Ok I'm a linuxish techie I understand distribution in this context, what they do is 'Provide an intergrated package of open source and proriatary software running on a Linux operating system[ and supporting services].'
This isn't great but it's a lot better, 1st I've mentioned proriatary software/closed source software which would work under UCITA. The writer could then use this as a hammer to beet UCITA over the head with. X software can meet the UCITA, but an equally good piece of software cannot because if is open source and not cenrally supported, but somehow we manage to get the support we need etc....
Ok I've attacked the first paragraph
NCCUSL Commissioners,
Red Hat, Inc., has build up a strong businness provding software services and the Red Hat Linux distribution, an intergrated package of, open source and proriatary software running on a Linux operating system.
We are making what we appreciate is an extraordinary request. That you reverse the 1999 decision [passed by who] to adopt UCITA.
Personally I think the 'what we appreciate ' is a bit pointless if you didn't appreciate someting then you wouldn't have expressed an opinon about it[that it is extraordinary]
I think that sells the argument a bit better and gives Red hat some more ammunition.
Re:Not quite professional.. (Score:2)
All federal issues, not applicable to the group being lobbied.
Re:Not quite professional.. (Score:1, Insightful)
I wouldn't say that. If 1,000 1337 wArEz fanboys sent in emails saying that if this is passed, they will have to r0x0r some b0x0rs it would probably do more harm than good.
I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:4, Interesting)
I am not an electronics engineer (as per having a paper degree), however I
do engineer electronics that could be said to be equal to someone who has
such a degree. I am an inventor, a musician, a digital creator, an
electronics tinker'r whatever you would like to call it, the name really
doesn't matter as much as the intent. I take thoughts and create material
objects, it doesn't take a degree to do what I am saying. I would also
remind you I am a vetran of the United States Air Force as well as I am
currently a voter (libertarian.) Without creative folks such as myself
and others like Henry Ford, Thomas Jefferson, you wouldn't even have
electricity, lights, computers, and cars.
Statements like the following by the MPAA, "in order to help plug the hole,
watermark detectors would be required in all devices that perform analog to
digital conversions." are not very carefully thought out statements, they
worry me, as to exactly what is going on in my government and here is why.
At least four years ago, I was heavilly into building electronics, I was
engineering a device that converted from analog to digital and from digital
back to analog again. (It was basically a digital audio delay.) I started
with parts from old electronics that people had thrown out on the street. I
have spent many hours desoldering chips, and parts from electronics which
were discarded in this fashion.
I have a full personal library of technical manuals (several different
years) from Motorola, Texas Instruments, Analog Devices, Supertech, Zillog,
Intel, mosteck, National Semiconductor and MANY OTHERS. Basically I can
look up part numbers from nearly any chip and figure out how it works and
what I can use it for.
Durring the course of events I decided one day I wanted to build a digital
delay for my guitar. There were many D2A A2D chips to choose from, flash
converters, etc the list is endless. I won't bore you. To make a long
story short I decided to go with parts from Analog Devices for my A2D/D2A.
I ended up buying some parts from Analog Devices specifically part ADJ569JN,
and I used some memory that I had laying around from all the parts that I
collected. I had to build a counter circuit to make the ram work in each
memory segment for each sample. A fully blown electronics engineer I am
not however such an engineer can easilly verify what I say to be true. So,
basically the MPAA want's someone like me to add a watermark detector to
my digital audio delay. Well first off I do not care about digital
watermarking, that is not my problem, that was not part of my design, and
to be forced to learn how to engineer this into my design is...well insane.
And anyone who passes or suggests such laws is also...insane. So, before
you quickly dismiss me off as some wacko, I would suggest that those who
push such bills and legislation are the true wackos. Where I would rather
be more concerned about removing digital noise from the output (all digital
circuits have noise) and figuring out creative methods of how to modulate
the clock circuit for different sound effects, they *MPAA* would have me
spend my time working on how to put their watermark detector into my
circuit. Frankly with the lack of information (I had to buy books from
overseas to explain how to do digital to analog and analog to digital) that
is available in the United States I would warn those who would decide to
pass such legislation that a.) unless your ready to nuke our economy b.)
ready to make the purchase of electronics illegal. c.) have the brightest
engineers leave the United States d.) anger the public e.) ruin music
f.) ruin creativity by the future youth who take electronics classes in
schools g.) probably ruin your own political career then do not pass such
insane legislation. It is _not_ your place to make such decisions in my
opinion since you are _not_ qualified.
If your so smart to pass such legislation, answer me this. How many memory
segments will I need to use from my 8x8 ram to incorporate digital
watermarking into my Digital Audio Delay Device? Which pins does it need
to be connected to on the AD7569JN? What CHIP (which has the digital
watermarking in it) do I have to buy? How much does it cost? Who is the
maker of said chip? What is the part number on the chip? Is it compatable
with my circuit? Does this chip have any digital noise associated with it
which will bleed into my device? If so how do I supress such digital
noise? If your not ready to answer these questions, then your not ready to
pass this legislation.
I know that most senators and lawyers are not electronics (digital and analog)
experts so what qualifies them to pass law on a technology they do not fully
understand? Furthermore it comes to my attention that other bills like
the SSSCA which have had their name changed over and over, are insane,
poorly thought through, placing the burdon on the wrong folks to solve the
problem.
It also seems to me there are already laws against piracy, so no further
laws are needed. Another thing that upsets me is how these bills slip
through without even consulting the public, or letting someone like me
vote, in many cases government websites are broken and feedback forms
do not work, other times phones are busy, and nobody is around to answer
them, and some political candidates have NO EMAIL ADDRESS! this is
unacceptable. Forcing me to physically stand face to face in order to
get my point across is bad. Forcing me to make political contributions
for legislation is also bad.
Although I am no longer designing electronics at this current point in time
I may want to again. And I know that others like myself in the future will
become interested in Transmitters, Receivers, Digital and Analog
electronics, what in effect you are doing is pushing a new electronics
law (A very stupid law) into the natural laws of electronics. Especially
the young should be encouraged to get into electronics design early on in
their lives. It keeps them out of trouble and away from drugs and alchohol.
Another thing that frankly angers me is by passing the CBDTPA act you are
condemning me for using Linux, which is an operating system that does what
I want. You would be making the personal computer into some bastardised
piece of equipment that plays mickey mouse videos, when I do not even want
that on my computer at all. I use my computer to write code. In some
cases the code can do the exact same thing my earlier discussion on the
AD7569JN does. I do not want my resources being used by the media.
I want my resources being used for what I purchased them for. And that
is development. CBDTPA stifles development. It sacrifices the IT sector,
at the expense of the MPAA.
I do not pretend to have the money that the MPAA has. However is is
unfair to destroy education about electronics and dumb down america.
Which is, despite all, the BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!
I may not live long enough to get back into electronics design again, but
PLEASE DONT ruin the future because of a damned mouse.
Thank you for reading my comments.
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:1)
"Is it compatable with my circuit?"
"If your not ready to answer these questions, then your not ready to pass this legislation."
And so on....
Man, you could really use correct grammar and spelling. It really matters here. Those mistakes are clearly visible even for me, English not being my primary language...
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Too bad we can't go back and rewrite the Declaration of Independence to say "All men are created equal, as long as they know how to spell," then rewrite the First Amendement to the Constitution to say "The right to free speech shall not be infringed, as long as everything is spelled correctly."
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:2)
What is the "correct" spelling of certain words. The US Consitution predates The Rev Webster, some of Webster's revised spellings didn't make it into print because his publisher didn't like them.
The idea of a standard spelling is itself a relativly new idea. With some words having more than one "correct" spelling. especially proper nouns where original language does not use any derivative of the Roman alphabet.
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:1)
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:1)
I can only assume that you're being sarcastic at this point :)
I do agree that the government should heed all opinions from constituents, even if they have some small grammar or spelling errors. As long as the idea gets through, the government has the responsibility to take it into consideration. After all, there have been plenty of those in government themselves who were a little lacking on the speaking and writing side (Dan Quayle, George W. Bush, Richard M. Daley).
That being said, I do appreciate a comment in which someone does take the time to use correct grammar and spelling, especially if (like myself) they are writing without the benefit of a spelling checker. And it does occur to me that if we'd ignored those public figures listed above because they weren't well-spoken, we probably would have been better off after all :)
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely true. I work as an assistant to a senator (hence the anon. post), and stuff like this just gets discarded before any "important" people even read it. Grammar and spelling count almost as much as the ideas presented in the letter.
This is an incredibly elitist attitude. In effect you and the Senater you work for are saying, spelling and grammar are more important than the idea being expressed or even the person who is expressing it. Just because someone does not express themselves well, does not invalidate them as a human being. Being a grammar troll on Slashdot is one thing, but a US Senator and his staff should be interested in what everyone has to say, regardless of how poorly it is expressed. If you really feel this way and the Senator you work for supports this, then both of you need to find a new line of work
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:1)
This is an incredibly elitist attitude. In effect you and the Senater you work for are saying, spelling and grammar are more important than the idea being expressed or even the person who is expressing it. Just because someone does not express themselves well, does not invalidate them as a human being.
I'm sorry, but that has a strong sense of "If it was hard to write, it should be hard to read!"
Quite frankly, poor spelling and (particularly) poor grammar at best are distracting. At worst, they completely obscure the point an author wishes to make. Would /. readers put up with dense code full of poorly chosen variable names and devoid of comments? Technical people in general prize elegance--conciseness, clarity, and efficiency--in the work that they do. Why should we settle for less in our paper communication?
Elected officials have a finite amount of time to work with, just like everyone else. It shouldn't be spent parsing badly-written letters and flame mail.
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:2)
Elected officials have a finite amount of time to work with, just like everyone else. It shouldn't be spent parsing badly-written letters and flame mail.
Flame mail is one thing, however discarding an idea, no matter how good it is, based entirely on how it being poorly expressed is elitist, which I consider to be an unacceptable trait in an Elected Official. If an "Elected Official" doesn't have time or the staff to read his mail, then he needs to get more staff, he should not throw away perfectly good ideas, comments and opinions based on obitrary standards.
Technical people in general prize elegance--conciseness, clarity, and efficiency--in the work that they do. Why should we settle for less in our paper communication?
We should accept this because not everyone express themselves well or even the same way. Do you disregard people who don't speak english well ? I hope you don't. I stand by my original statment, just because someone does not express themselves well does not mean the idea is bad, the idea should be judged on its merits, not on so called standards of good grammar.
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:2)
What the Hell is "obitrary"?
This is exactly why we have spelling and grammar rules: I can't figure what you're trying to say.
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:2)
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:2)
How many times have I seen the act of voting in a US get flamed on /. and other similar fora? I don't care if you don't like the choices - start a write in campaign for someone you like better. But unless and until the political world is convinced that the "geek bloc" represents a substantial number of real votes, that they either must court or lose to the other guy/gal, the letters are pretty much pointless.
I suggest attaching a copy of your last ballot stub to the letter. (I'm starting an archive of my stubs so I can attach them all.) If you don't have a stub - see above.
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:2)
Failing that, it needs to be as illegal to "donate" to a politician as to "donate" to a cop who pulled you over. (All the idiotic "first amendment" rights arguments are flat-out wrong in both cases.)
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:2)
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:2)
No one forced these people to stand for office, they can always resign, if they are not happy.
And do you know how much of that is coming from ignorant cranks with only the most delicate grasp on reality?
If your "ignorant crank" happens to be a full time lobbiest they might be taken very seriously. Especially if they throw some money around too.
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:2)
I'm not saying that they shouldn't do their jobs, & I'm not saying that listening to the concerns of their constituents isn't part of that job. But that is not the same thing as saying it's a congressman's job to spend 16 hours a day reading every letter that comes into their office no matter how incoherant.
If you want to communicate to your congressman (or anybody for that matter) it's YOUR job to at least be coherent if not persuasive. Even if you manage that it's unlikely that the congressman will read your letter (as I said they get a LOT of letters) but at least someone on his staff will & the cumulative effect of all those letters is very persuasive to an elected official.
If your "ignorant crank" happens to be a full time lobbiest they might be taken very seriously. Especially if they throw some money around too.
True, Like I said I don't usually defend congressmen. It's just that failing to read poorly written letters is not the particular crime they should be pilloried for.
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:2)
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:1)
I ain't happy with this stoopid attitude. Anyone can understand that.
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:2)
This is the same attitude commonly expressed here -- people "educated" in Linux often consider Windows users backwards and stupid, thus tend to blow off whatever they have to say.
Maybe if more farmers and plumbers were elected to Congress, its members would be more inclined to listen to people who talk like farmers and plumbers, instead of only listening to people who talk like lawyers.
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:2)
Checking spelling (even if you're writing longhand and using a dictionary) is trivial, and asking someone else to read through your text will often weed out most obvious grammatical errors.
I'm hardly perfect when it comes to grammar and spelling, but if an issue is important enough to inspire me to sit down and write a letter to my representative then I'm going to do everything I can to be sure that it clearly conveys exactly the meaning I intend. If I can't be bothered to spend a minute or two to check the basic readability of my writing, then how much thought and effort actually went into the ideas I express?
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:2)
No, they have a good point. True, grammar and spelling don't seperate good ideas from bad ideas, but they are valid indicators of how much you actually care about what you've written.
What is an acceptable level of mistakes ? Is one misspelled word reason enough to throw away someones idea ? How about one badly formed sentance ? How about someone who doesn't speak english well, does that invalidate thier ideas ? Who sets these standards ? Who is holding them to this standard ?
To me this is just an EXCUSE and nothing more.
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:1)
Oh the irony!
N.B. Grammer is the Frasier actor's last name
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:2)
Do you seriously consider this sentence an example of good grammar?
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:1)
Why deal with it, when all we need are a few dozen tanks, and we can have another revolution?
Ilitrate peepol ov tha werld ewniet!
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:1)
Your Senatoral boss is probably very glad you posted as an AC. Otherwise I belive that the slashdot community in your district would help make sure he was not re-elected. And, of cource, their protest posters would be gramaticaly correct.
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:2)
Or even "Congress English", the actual "Queen's English" would likely fail on spelling, probably grammar and possibly idiom.
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:1)
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:2)
Maybe a similar "filter" should be applied to proposed legislation. Some bills might fail here just on their title
Re:I'm still waiting for ANY response to this. . . (Score:1)
Whatch as y de sendadors whant de peoples ta b' educayted bye de pubic schul sestym. Day wont d' peoples ta b' cept dern.
MOD parent up! (Score:2)
I'm almost glad I live in the UK...
Don't say you're a libertarian (Score:2)
UCITA? (Score:5, Informative)
If, like me, you've never heard of UCITA and are looking to form your own opinion, a summary is available here:
http://www.ucitaonline.com/slhpwiu.html [ucitaonline.com]
Re:UCITA? (Score:1)
(Oh ... what? I thought we were talking about the city in upstate New York...)
Caveate (Score:2)
I hope, before you formed that opinion, that you crossreferenced the UCITA promotional link you provided with other, more balanced links, almost all of which are critical of UCITA (including every software manufacturer, be it open source or proprietary, with the exception of Microsoft which as everyone here knows has its own, monopolistic agenda).
Do not be misled by one promotional site being run by the very persons who introduced the legislation to begin with. They are not trying to give you a balanced perspective on the issue.
Re:Caveate (Score:1)
I hope, before you formed that opinion, that you crossreferenced the UCITA promotional link you provided with other, more balanced links, almost all of which are critical of UCITA
I haven't formed any opinion yet. I just found that summary a useful starting point since - unlike the letter linked in the beginning of this thread - it doesn't assume prior knowledge of the subject.
Even if I do end up disagreeing with UCITA, it is still critical for me to know how its proponents intend it to be perceived.
Summary? (Score:2)
Plus it's on the EFF website, which is an organization I don't find annoying.
Lobby group needed. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Lobby group needed. (Score:2, Interesting)
AOL = AOL/TW
AOL/TW owns several members of the MPAA & RIAA (who are the enemy with laws like SSSCA and DMCA)
I cant think of too many cases where AOL has been friendly to open source. Mozilla didnt come from AOL, it came from netscape.
Basicly, anyone involved in open source could be involved with this Open Source Association Of America. For example: Red Hat, IBM, SuSe, FSF, OSDN (including sourceforge), mozilla.org, Apache people and others. Such a society could provide assistance, lobbying and stuff with regards to cases where a Big Company is doing stuff thats anti-open source (such as M$ suing someone for figuring out the windows media file formats or blizzard (aka Vivendi Universal) suing someone for figuring out the Battle.Net protocols.)
We need to lobby for laws that protect open source. And also for laws that make reverse engineering 100% legal. Reverse engineering is important to enable Open Source projects to interact with Closed file formats and protocols. Too many companies are using closed file formats, protocols etc to keep open source alternatives out. This practice has been going on since the days of Richard M Stallman and the famous "Laser Printer" incident and it needs to be stopped now.
Re:Lobby group needed. (Score:2)
Once the politicos see the value of Open Source and see it as filling a need that they understand, then it will be something that they value.
Re:Lobby group needed. (Score:1)
How about software that automaticall excludes the votes from blacks, the poor and registerd democrats -Dubya would like that but naah ! he has relatives to do that for him anyway.
Re:Lobby group needed. (Score:1)
Re:Lobby group needed. (Score:2)
Maybe someone should get Tiger Woods interested in Open Source?
Re:Lobby group needed. (Score:1)
More info on the UCITA (Score:5, Informative)
What it essentially seems to do is make EULA's legally binding and allows them to be undisclosed until after the sale is made. It doesn't seem so much anti-open source as it pro-commercial software.
Re:More info on the UCITA (Score:2)
Oh, wait a minute, apart from the sexual acts, a large proportion of commercial software fits that description already, doesn't it?
Re:More info on the UCITA (Score:4, Informative)
You weren't around when this first came up a few years back, were you?
Let me summarize why its bad for Open Source, then. It specifies that an EULA can forcibly modify practically any aspect of contract or copyright law, and does not have to be disclosed until some arbitrary point until after the sale.
Okay, you think, all is well and good. Blatant power grab translates to more fear of closed-source software, which means more open source/free software in use. Right?
Well, the problem is that this also modifies the 'defaults' for software and what can modify those. Namely, I seem to remember that it instituted stricter liability for software. Which can only be overrided by a shrink-wrap EULA.
The GPL, BSD license, Apache License, MPL, APL, and X11 license, among numerous others, are not shrink-wrap EULAs. Totally different category of contract, in fact. Thus, there is no way for the developers of gcc to disclaim liability.
As linked by other posters, http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/ucita.html provides a very good explanation of why this law is Bad.
Re:More info on the UCITA (Score:2)
How much is the award going to be? Three times what you paid? A hundred times? Still nothing.
If I give you a gift you can't sue me if it's defective. (You could perhaps have me arrested for a crime if it was harmful and I misrepresented it.) Gifts are free and as such don't have any implied contract (like there is for a sale) so nothing gets agreed to and nothing is binding, except the assigning of ownership (in most cases).
Re:More info on the UCITA (Score:2)
The problem, I believe, was that there were either minimum fines, or fines based on "damage done", not "damage done x cost of software". Remember the "damage done" figures for a simple web page defacement? They're usually in the millions, if not billions. Can the gcc developers prove that their software did not cause that much damage, in court? Because that's what this law would require they do.
Re:More info on the UCITA (Score:2)
There are implied contracts of sale. You don't need to sign anything when buying a book, but they're bound by a few implied warranties (even if they say otherwise) such as that the product must be what they claimed.
If you get a gift, there are no implied warranties. You can't sue someone if they give you a TV and it breaks, even if you think they probably bought the cheapest one they could.
In the case of a hacker defacing a website, claimed damages might be fairly high, but in product liability, if a product merely fails to do the expected job the judgements are usually related to purchase price. (If it blows up, or injures someone in an unexpected way, that's different.)
For the reason of $0 price (low damages) and the fact that it's a gift, I can't see free software suffering from this at all.
Re:More info on the UCITA (Score:2)
Except that, as I was trying to say, this law changes that. Read RMS writeup on it - he explains things fairly well. This law is both a power grab by proprietary software companies and an attempt to kill Free Software. Or was, I think its mostly dead now.
Re:More info on the UCITA (Score:1)
It's a quote attributed to Silenus the Minotaur speaking to King Midas by Nietzsche in The Birth of Tragedy.
The full quote is
Here are the e-mail address for the commissioners (Score:2, Informative)
NCCUSL Commissioner Email Addresses
Alaska
art@dillonfindley.com
Deborah_Behr@law.state.ak.us
lsjkj@aol.com
wgc@customcpu.com
Alabama
RepGaines@aol.com
rmccurle@law.ua.edu
tjones@law.ua.edu
bruce@hwnn.com
Arkansas
jpender@pmppa.com
larry@arkleg.state.ar.us
david@nixonlaw.com
pcarroll@roselawfirm.com
jdeacon@barrettdeacon.com
Arizona
henderson@nt.law.arizona.edu
l.lemon@azbar.org
tberg@fclaw.com
California
bion.gregory@ccusl.ca.gov
darlinghallrae@compuserve.com
elihu2000@aol.com
wburke@shearman.com
senator.sher@sen.ca.gov
nsterling@clrc.ca.gov
Pamela_Chin@parsons.com
Ronald.phillips@pepperdine.edu
williamsrc@aol.com
Colorado
charley.pike@state.co.us
russgeor@sni.net
lw2demuth@worldnet.att.net
tomg@grimshawharring.com
bkreplep@aol.com
Connecticut
bhawkins@goodwin.com
david.biklen@po.state.ct.us
john.langbein@yale.edu
pavetti@aol.com
lmorgan@rjmlawct.com
WBreetz@law.uconn.edu
District of Columbia
bkass@kass-skalet.com
cbrookinshudson@dccouncil.washington.dc.us
zeldonj@dcsc.gov
efdyke@venable.com
jamescmckay@yahoo.com
Delaware
mhoughton@mnat.com
ann.c.stilson@law.widener.edu
robinsonr@ce.net
Florida
lstagg@akerman.com
ecutl@carltonfields.com
ehrhardt@law.fsu.edu
hkittles@hklaw.com
jessen.linda@leg.state.fl.us
jmorse@law.fsu.edu
Georgia
mwmacy@aol.com
rwellman@arches.uga.edu
rgm@hbss.net
Hawaii
ekent@hawaii.edu
jachanin@hotmail.com
toyofuku@pixi.com
hiaglegis@yahoo.com
lewart@goodsill.com
takayama@capitol.hawaii.gov
Iowa
cdmahon@aol.com
Sheldon-kurtz@uiowa.edu
david.walker@drake.edu
Idaho
dghiger@stoel.com
pckm@marshallbatt.com
Illinois
ctabb@law.uiuc.edu
hjs@arnstein.com
mbgetty@aol.com
r-picker@uchicago.edu
richwards@legis.state.il.us
tryder@gtec.com
tjmccrackenjr@ameritech.net
jeremiah@hopsut.com
harry_leinenweber@ilnd.uscourts.gov
diane_ford@gov.state.il.us
Indiana
GBepko@iupui.edu
S40@ai.org
mts@starkey-law.com
hpatchel@iupui.edu
Kansas
elpom@networksplus.net
mroneal@southwind.net
zzconc@washburn.edu
temert@terraworld.net
hite@hitefanning.com
Kentucky
dcetrulo@email.msn.com
scawood@mmlk.com
johngillig@lrc.state.ky.us
john.spangler@lrc.state.ky.us
wswilborn@aol.com
Louisiana
guillotj@legis.state.la.us
henry.gabriel@sstar.com
wdh3770@aol.com
Massachusetts
smithee@bingham.com
stephen_chow@pscboston.com
Maryland
kingwebnet@aol.com
Maine
Bcoggeshall@PierceAtwood.com
rrobinson@rkmlegal.com
marsulu4@aol.com
Michigan
arichner@house.state.mi.us
ggulliver@lsb.state.mi.us
jjwhite@umich.edu
rwebster@clarkhill.com
sencdingell@senate.state.mi.us
Minnesota
HARRYMW@msn.com
robertstein@staff.abanet.org
mndavies@aol.com
harriet.lansing@courts.state.mn.us
hhaynsworth@wmitchell.edu
michele.timmons@revisor.leg.state.mn.us
Robert.Tennessen@gpmlaw.com
Missouri
jfarnold@lashlybaer.com
englishda@missouri.edu
mferry@gatewaylegal.org
fryp@missouri.edu
heinszt@missouri.edu
henningw@missouri.edu
Mississippi
tbeck@mail.lbo.state.ms.us
ncarlton@ltindall.com
navyjag@aol.com
iq.attys@usa.net
pwatson@mail.house.state.ms.us
hooper@olemiss.edu
smdavis@olemiss.edu
Montana
eck@selway.umt.edu
gpetesch@state.mt.us
Jcnelson@state.mt.us
jmazurek@state.mt.us
North Carolina
mbenfield@compuvision.net
flewis@mail.jus.state.nc.us
rbillings@law.wfu.edu
snichols@mail.jus.state.nc.us
wnj@coa.state.nc.us
russell.walker@ncisd.nc.us
North Dakota
oanderson@ou.edu
dhogue@ndak.net
jburingr@state.nd.us
mike.unhjem@bcbsnd.com
wstenehjem@aol.com
lklemin@state.nd.us
Nebraska
abeam@ce8.uscourts.gov
hsperlman@unl.edu
mgmlawnp@nponline.net
jpepperl@unicam.state.ne.us
ruth@nol.org
New Jersey
jdonegan@prsmo.com
New Mexico
ciscolaw@hotmail.com
desiderior@law.unm.edu
jpburton@rodey.com
pplarragoite@hotmail.com
paula.tackett@state.nm.us
mlo1@7cities.net
Nevada
fdaykin@lcb.state.nv.us
erdoes@lcb.state.nv.us
mjames@sen.state.nv.us
wasserman@lcb.state.nv.us
New York
jvigdor@boylanbrown.com
rlong@cglawllp.com
rsmith@dpw.com
SSternLaw@aol.com
normlg510@aol.com
Ohio
AttyBoris@aol.com
lee_mccorkle@wendys.com
rogers.23@osu.edu
sfisher@arterhadden.com
w-evans@onu.edu
Oklahoma
duchessb@swbell.net
lwhinery@ou.edu
Oregon
Gregory.A.Chaimov@state.or.us
jwillis@schwabe.com
mwalters@wrcdlaw.com
Pennsylvania
creitz@law.upenn.edu
jsheehan@state.pa.us
stuckey@state.pa.us
haf3@psu.edu
poulin@law.villanova.edu
Rhode Island
cmassouda@rilin.state.ri.us
judge_William_Hillman@mab.uscourts.gov
South Dakota
glebrun@lynnjackson.com
Law@DemJen.com
scott@jhmmj.com
dgregers@wfss.com
Tennessee
ctrost@wallerlaw.com
ellen.tewes@legislature.state.tn.us
rclark@armstrongallen.com
Texas
htindall@tindallfoster.com
leonard.reese@tlc.state.tx.us
rsatterwhite@stubbemanlawfirm.com
mmpc@texoma.com
p.guillot@airmail.net
marianne_auld@baylor.edu
Utah
RMartineau@SCMLAW.com
Virginia
emiller@leg.state.va.us
pamela_sargent@vawd.uscourts.gov
ccring@ober.com
jfrench@leg.state.va.us
ktaylor@t-mlaw.com
Virgin Islands
ytharpes@mail.senate.gov.vi
tbolt@vilaw.com
Vermont
cgravel@gravshea.com
clisman@lisman.com
lsmiddy@vermontlaw.edu
rcassidy@hoffcurtis.com
daglaw@sover.net
Washington
J_m.appelwick@courts.wa.gov
raron@u.washington.edu
usmjcimbr@hotmail.com
cooper_de@leg.wa.gov
Wisconsin
bruce.munson@legis.state.wi.us
ljbugge@itis.com
peter.dykman@legis.state.wi.us
Rep.Gundrum@legis.state.wi.us
Sen.George@legis.state.wi.us
Sen.Huelsman@legis.state.wi.us
West Virginia
fordlaw@inetone.net
jmcclaugherty@jacksonkelly.com
stamps4@aol.com
It's bad for all consumers! (Score:3, Interesting)
Just imagine restrictions on the number of people allowed to use a software program, or website terms stipulating that whatever you write becomes the property of the company behind the website. Such terms are not unheard of, and UCITA would turn these and many others into binding restrictions.
Re:It's bad for all consumers! (Score:3, Funny)
cexx.org has a campaign for a Software Vendors' License Agreement somewhere - basically, you get the software vendor to agree to it (and I think that getting a T-shirt saying "By selling computer software to me, you are agreeing to the terms of the Software Vendors' License Agreement", and pointing to a website, is sufficient for agreement, providing you wear the t-shirt when you buy the software in the store), and it overrides terms in the EULA.
Of course, I'm not sure whether it's legally binding, but it could be tried...
clarification (Score:5, Interesting)
Having said that, UCITA is indeed bad for users of Free Software. When Free Software authors are held liable for defects while software companies are allowed to disclaim liability (exactly the opposite of the way it should be!), both the developers and users of Free Software suffer. When proprietary vendors are allowed to create closed and legally inaccessible file formats, the developers and users of Free Software suffer greatly.
UCITA is an immense threat to anybody who is not a big corporation.
Unless... (Score:3, Informative)
What the UCITA does is make the click-through and shrinkwrap licensing have the force of law. Though I don't like this prospect, it can be used to keep free software authors out of legal trouble.
Re:Unless... (Score:2)
Re:clarification (Score:2)
"Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software."
(emphasis mine)
AFAIK, UCITA has no power to change that.
It does change that, though. It says that warranty against patent
infringment must be specifically disclaimed, or you provide a warranty
despite your "no warranty" clause.
We added the UCITA-specific language to the libpng license (the real
one used by libpng, not the one posted at OSI) several years ago.
Glenn
What's the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
It might be bad for end-users if it makes the "we offer no warranty whatsoever but we take your first born child" EULAs valid, but it seems irrelevent to those of us who never use them.
Tell me how that's wrong...?
Re:What's the problem? (Score:1)
Carol Kunze
Ucita online told this (Score:1)
In this page UcitaOnline tells something about linux and free software. I'have some trouble to understand the real sense (perhaps becaus I'm Italian and I'm not aquainted with polital English).
Any comment?
Pila
Re:Ucita online told this (Score:2)
It basically states that even with UCITA, software is still allowed to be sold "as is" (without a warranty). The GPL is an example of this type of software license.
KISS Rule (Score:3, Interesting)
example:
Re:KISS Rule (Score:2)
It was hard to write, It should be hard to read!
so use comments to make it harder to read. Try to break the readers spirit.
b += (a -= b);
a -= (b -= a);
char *c;
c =(a + b) - (a == b);//I don't know what this does, but my program started working after I did it...
*c = a && b;
Tomorrow in the mail (Score:5, Funny)
We have received your letter dated 29 July 2002 requesting that we rescind the UCITA regulations. Rest assured that we have been completely unaware of the deleterious impact these regulations might have on open source software; had we known we would never have adopted them at all. The Commissioners apologize for any inconvenience this has caused, and will now move to reverse UCITA's adoption immediately. Thank you for bringing these issues to our attention, and please don't hesitate to contact us again if you have any further concerns.
Sincerely,
The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
But WHY is UCITA contrary to Open Source? (Score:5, Interesting)
Thanks
Re:But WHY is UCITA contrary to Open Source? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But WHY is UCITA contrary to Open Source? (Score:1)
One brief example. UCITA implies a warranty that the software does not infringe someone else's IP rights. So if you transfer software (for say, the price of the medium) you make this warranty.
This makes sense for proprietary software where development is controlled, there is a contractual relationship (direct or indirect) between the distributor and the developer which can address allocation of this risk, and there is profit to cover the risk.
But distributors of OS/F, particularly of Linux with its hundreds of software modules, are not in a position to know if the code infringes anyone's copyright or not. Given the circumstances, which also include the fact that there are no license fees to generate income to cover the risk, its not reasonable for the law to imply this warranty on OS/F.
You can disclaim the warranty, but you have to get the user to agree. But OS/F does not get an up front (in connection with initial use of the software) agreement with the user. So it would have to start doing this.
And you would need to clarify in the agreement that the transfer is a sale and not a license. Because if it is a license and you don't address certain issues in the license agreement, the UCITA license default rules will apply, and they were written for proprietary software. The GPL would not be a "license" under UCITA because it is not a contract.
Plus, this type of warranty needs to be disclaimed with specific language (provided in UCITA). A general "there are no warranties" will not do.
And when UCITA gets to some (not all) state legislatures for adoption, it will be modified to disallow the disclaimer of warranties, particularly for consumers. Then there would be mandatory warranties on OS/F in these states.
The problem is that the impact of UCITA on OS/F was simply not considered. Of course, the real problem is warranties. When there are no license fees, and the product can be infinitely copied, warranties make no sense. This is where the real risk lies. Warranty exemption language similar to the exemption Maryland provided for open source was proposed, but got so watered down that it provides little benefit.
Carol
UCITA is pro-commercial,,,not anti open (Score:1, Redundant)
Seeing that, me thinks that it would also help open ource by making it harder for closed source companies to compete.
Think about it, what if M$ HAD to fix all the bugs with M$ SQL...could it compete with MySql ?
Question about my own code (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, I used a EULA (if you like) on my installer to disclaim responsibility if the program breaks and other various stuff.
Now, as I see it (and please correct me if i'm wrong) the UCITA would benifit me because my disclaimers would be legally enforcable. If the UCITA went away, then I would be stuck in a rather tricky situation where I could be held liable for all the stuff that my licence disclaims.
Or am I wrong? Can someone please explain how the UCITA would appect the hobbyiest programmer like myself that doesn't use the GPL (and hence doesn't distribute source).
Re:Question about my own code (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the UCITA contains more stringent laws on when you can disclaim a warranty, and the length to which you can do so. It does enforce EULAs (to an extent), but it also forces particular warranties onto all software, for which the distributor, publisher, and/or developer will be held responsible.
In other words, UCITA states that your disclaimers of warranty may not be legal at all, and that you may still be held responsible. Of course, the letter and most of the comments here haven't really pointed out that which is the most common issue for open source developers (since the GPL and most other open source/free licenses disclaim all warranties).
UCITA (Score:2, Informative)
Re:UCITA (Score:2)
Section 435. ACQUISITION OF LICENSEE'S CHILDREN
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the licensor is entitled to take any or all of the licensee's children and use them to pull the executive's carriage around town.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply if the licensee has no children. In this event, surgery to remove licensee's duodenum will be performed and said duodenum will be discarded.
Several constitutional scholars have made the claim that either taking the licensee's children or performing invasive surgery might be construed as antithetical to the concept of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Based on these discussions, the Committee recommends that section 435 not apply to licensees with one or more child or duodenum.
What's is the extent of UCITA, really? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a set of default laws regarding software development/distribution that apply where the parts have not agreed on anything. Plus a set of mandatory laws which can't be disagreed upon "to protect the user".
Does this mean that UCITA removes the responsibility from the shoulders of the luser in case something goes wrong?
Will it allow people to treat their computers like imported au pairs, with any results being the programmers responsibilty? What if someone deletes all their stuff with fdisk?
What if they use 'find / > /dev/hda'? Who's to blame?
I would assume that if the user is stupid and root at the same time, that's his/her/its problem, and no matter how many laws you have, idiots can only blame themselves for being idiots.
Of course, I'm not from the USA. In my country, Norway, lawyers can't even take percentages of the winnings to keep idiots from the nothing-to-loose suing. (And may I say, that's the best law since Thou shalt not kill)
If any of the above are the developers fault, can't you just put a notice on kernel.org/gnu.org that "You have entered restricted web space, please leave at once. Do not download anything." I'm sure you could somehow convince a jury that the luser 'hacked' kernel.org/gnu.org to gain access to data that wasn't intended for him/her/it in the first place (I mean, if it's illegal to use people's wide open SMB shares, surely the same applies to HTTP?)
Isn't it about time? (Score:1)
Want to get your letter noticed? (Score:1)
Of course, you may have some people with ear-pieces, wearing black suits, come to your house because of it. Then again, it seems all you have to do is leave off the return address and the FBI will NEVER be able to find you. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned that... If you don't know enough not to include the return address, you ought to spend a few years in jail.
Note, sugar will work in place of coffee creamer. Flower may even work in a pinch (but be warned, you may be mistaken for a scientific genius).
Spam (Score:1)
"Matthew, Do you know the meaning of spam? I have now received the same
message four times this morning. You are not helping your case. JJW"
from James J. White [jjwhite@umich.edu]
Get this mo'fo'
Re:Spam (Score:1)
But somehow if a politician got multiple telephone calls supporting a particular side of the issue, from AARP members or whatever, you can bet that it wouldn't count as spam. Multiple visits by lobbyists for the same cause? Again, not spam. Somehow political lobbying through inexpensive and commonly available means like email have become a Bad Thing.
I think there's a bit of a double standard here - if the common man tries to make their position known via email, and three other people happen to agree with them, then that's just gratuitous, but a mass telephone or snail mail campaign is just fine.
Re:Spam (Score:1)
Oh ya. And for god's sake, use snail-mail. they tend to pay WAY more attention...
If you live in New Jersey... (Score:1)
Someone at RedHat isn't thinking (Score:1, Flamebait)
this won't make friends (Score:1)
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver@compuserve.com
Subject: Undeliverable Message: Delivery report for message to darlinghallrae
Date: 25 Jul 2002 10:10:47 -0400
Message "UCITA Reversal", sent at 10:10 EDT on 25-Jul-02, could not be
delivered to darlinghallrae at 10:10 EDT on 25-Jul-02 because the recipient
mailbox is full.
Why UCITA is bad, in under 50 words (Score:2)
- Bob Frankston
Here's a reply from my state rep! (Score:1)
on the standby drafting committee to try to moderate its effects. The
Massachusetts delegatiion, supported by the Governor's Office, the
Attorney General and many legislators, oppose UCITA and are unlikely to
adopt it. I do agree with the view that it establishes a certain business
model (1992 shrink wrap) that is inappropriate at this time of change in
business models, both to new ones and back to old ones, and that it is
important to oppose UCITA at the national level.
Thank you for your input.
Steve Chow
My letter to NCCUSL and response (Score:1)
Mostly I got back autoresponders, but I did get this message, so at least open-source has one friend, even if not for the same reasons:
A starting point for further info (Score:1)
If you're interested in more information about the act, or maybe going a step further than just sending an email you might check out their websit.
http://www.4cite.org/
Money (Score:1)
How much did Red Hat donate to our last campaign?
Nothing, I see. And how much did Microsoft give us?
Oh.. Nice number, like it. Put their mail in the trash nothing that's going to threaten my campaign budget is going be released from my office.
Re:Bullets and ballots? (Score:2)
They stay in office largely because of a lack of education. Ultimately, the burden of education lies with the people who have the most knowledge. In other words, it is geeks like us who are responsible for educating the rest of society about technology; unfortunately, most of us are not exactly great communicators. We prefer to communicate with or through machines rather than face to face.
They stay alive because assassination is an even worse crime than writing bad legislation. The success of democracy depends on working within the system to effect change; once someone decides that he is above the system, that he can take the law into his own hands, then he puts himself beneath the slime who do this, and becomes a common murderer.
Just think of how people view Timothy McVeigh, abortion doctor killers, and terrorists, and you will see why they stay alive: Because killing them is much more wrong.
Red Hat, like any other company, has a financial stake that they must defend. Their position on UCITA is somewhat biased. Open Source software as a business model might be harmed by UCITA; however, it is about as likely to prevent people from working on Open Source as warning labels on packs of cigarettes are to keep people from smoking. People will still do it, because it is highly addictive, even if they later learn that it is bad for them. Open Source, that is.