Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[Wayne.Brown]

I wonder if there are any Linux hackers in Iraq?  It's doubtful the government
there would honor any legal action attempted by the US on DMCA issues.  OTOH, it
would put me in the rather weird position of agreeing with the Iraqi government,
which is something I NEVER would have expected...  :-)

Wayne




"Per Jessen" <per@computer.org> on 10/22/2001 01:13:42 PM

Please respond to "Per Jessen" <per@computer.org>

To:   "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
cc:    (bcc: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec)

Subject:  Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10



On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:51:53 -0500, Wayne.Brown@altec.com wrote:
>I never said that Alan, or any particular individual, should risk a lawsuit or
>jail.  I simply said that I hoped *someone outside the US* (that is, someone
not
>subject to US laws) would make the information available.  Surely there are
>places in the world that are beyond the reach of the DMCA.  How about those

Alan Cox, living in the UK, may be *somewhat* subject to US legislation.
Ties between the US and the UK are strong, and it is understandable if a UK-
resident person does not feel entirely out of reach of US law enforcement.

IMHO.


regards,
Per Jessen, Zurich

regards,
Per Jessen, Zurich
http://www.enidan.com - home of the J1 serial console.

Windows 2001: "I'm sorry Dave ...  I'm afraid I can't do that."


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[Nick LeRoy]

Wayne..

It's a scary comentary that the Iraqi government may provide more liberties 
that our own US government.  Sigh.

-Nick


On Monday 22 October 2001 13:27, Wayne.Brown@altec.com wrote:
> I wonder if there are any Linux hackers in Iraq?  It's doubtful the
> government there would honor any legal action attempted by the US on DMCA
> issues.  OTOH, it would put me in the rather weird position of agreeing
> with the Iraqi government, which is something I NEVER would have
> expected...  :-)
>
> Wayne

Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[Alexander Viro]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 Wayne.Brown@altec.com wrote:

> I wonder if there are any Linux hackers in Iraq?  It's doubtful the government
> there would honor any legal action attempted by the US on DMCA issues.  OTOH, it
> would put me in the rather weird position of agreeing with the Iraqi government,
> which is something I NEVER would have expected...  :-)

Oh, come on.  Every government is right on some issues.  Proof:

	For every government X there is at least one government Y such that X
would claim that Y is a bunch of corrupt assholes.  Since every government
_is_ a bunch of corrupt assholes, every government is right at least in one
of its claims.

Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[Paul Fulghum]

Alexander "Webster" Viro wrote:

> every government _is_ a bunch of corrupt assholes...

Good definition. Instead of arguing about which one
stinks the most, we should probe ways of wiping out
the DMCA without excess inflamation.

Paul Fulghum, paulkf@microgate.com
Microgate Corporation, www.microgate.com

Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[Tudor Bosman]

OK, let's get the disclaimer out of the way.  This post is opinionated,
and IANAL.  Now...


For reference, here is the full text of the DMCA subsection in question:
(1201(2)):

 ``(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public,
provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service,
device, component, or part thereof, that-

          ``(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose
    of circumventing a technological measure that effectively con-
    trols access to a work protected under this title;
          ``(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or
    use other than to circumvent a technological measure that
    effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
    or
          ``(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert
    with that person with that person's knowledge for use in cir-
    cumventing a technological measure that effectively controls
    access to a work protected under this title.


I would like to comment on this from two different angles.

1. The subsection mentions "any technology, product, service, device,
component, or part thereof".  While this definition is vague, and we
hackers tend to like splitting hairs (see Dave Touretzky's DeCSS
gallery, http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/index.html), there
is a clear distinction between (constitutionally-protected) speech (in a
non-machine readable) form, and a software product.  Other forms of
expression (source code, non-machine readable source code, source code
set to music, etc.) lie on the fine line between the two.

For example, exporting PGP on paper and OCR-ing it (because exporting it
in electronic form was illegal) was a legal absurdity.  While this 
hair-splitting might have amused a few lawyers and judges here and
there, I believe that a well-versed attorney could have torn that
defense to pieces, because we tried drawing demarcation lines instead of
concentrating on defeating the spirit of the law.

The above-mentioned paragraphs make no reference to "information" or a
"description" of such a circumvention device.  A high-level description
(in plain English) of a security hole is not a "technology, product,
service, device, component, or part thereof"; and if it can be construed
as such, surely the realization of such description (the source code
itself) is much closer to the notion of a "product".  Is this the end of
full disclosure and open source/free software?  Should BUGTRAQ be banned
from US residents?


2. The arguments for/against publishing the description of the security
hole in the DMCA context are the same as the arguments for/against full
disclosure in the security field in general.  IF the description were
published, then... (paraphrasing the three DMCA paragraphs I cited)

(A) it would NOT be primarily designed for circumventing a technological
measure that effectively controls access to a protected work- it would
be primarily designed for informing system administrators of their risks
and the importance of the patch, and informing developers of pitfalls to
avoid in writing new code;

(B) it would have a LARGE commercially significant purpose other than to
circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a
protected work- the main purpose would be to urge system administrators
and developers to implement a higher degree of protection (at the very
least, apply the patch), and

(C) it would NOT be marketed by Alan Cox or another acting in concert
with him for use in circumventing a technological measure that
effectively controls access to a protected work- this is a no-brainer, I
don't think there are many people on this list who openly advocate
exploiting security holes for gaining unauthorized access.


In conclusion, I tried to make two points in the above rant:

1. A description of a security hole is constitutionally protected
speech, and as such cannot be construed as violating the sections of the
DMCA.  If such description fits the definition of "technology, product,
service, device, component, or part thereof", then we're in big trouble,
because source code itself is much closer to the definition of a
"product" than a description of the source code.

2. A description of a security hole, or unpatched source code, or even
exploit code do not meet the criteria set forward by the DMCA for
illegal circumvention devices.


Best regards,

Tudor.


-- 
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
 safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
        - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[Mike Fedyk]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 12:14:47PM -0700, Tudor Bosman wrote:
> 2. A description of a security hole, or unpatched source code, or even
> exploit code do not meet the criteria set forward by the DMCA for
> illegal circumvention devices.
> 

I believe the exploit could be logically considered a "product" whos
use is to destroy.  Even though it can be used to test to see it the problem
is really fixed on a patched system...

Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[Tom Sightler]

> In conclusion, I tried to make two points in the above rant:
>
> 1. A description of a security hole is constitutionally protected
> speech, and as such cannot be construed as violating the sections of the
> DMCA.  If such description fits the definition of "technology, product,
> service, device, component, or part thereof", then we're in big trouble,
> because source code itself is much closer to the definition of a
> "product" than a description of the source code.
>
> 2. A description of a security hole, or unpatched source code, or even
> exploit code do not meet the criteria set forward by the DMCA for
> illegal circumvention devices.

Very good point indeed.  I would like for someone, anyone, to explain to me
exactly how disclosing security issues in open code would ever violate the
DMCA.  Alan stated that it comes from a legal opinion, I would like to see
this opinion and know who it was from.  Partially because I am from South
Carolina, the same state as SSSCA co-author Sen Hollings.  I would love to
be able to spell out this "doomsday" can't publish security issues scenario
and hear his response, but I just don't see it in the DMCA.  I would love
for someone to enlighten me on how they came to this conclusion with an
intelligent sentance other than "that what the DMCA says."  Where does it
say that?  How can you interpret that?

Everyone wants to bring up the Sklyarov case, but he didn't just expose the
weakness of the code, his company actively sold a product for financial gain
that circumvented the protection.  While I still don't think the Sklyarov
himself should be the target, it has very little similarity to any open
source products like Linux.

To meet the criteria for criminal prosecution under DMCA you must violate
the rules "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private
financial gain."  This is the only case in which the government can pursue
you without another parties involvement.

Later,
Tom

Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[Alan Cox]

> Everyone wants to bring up the Sklyarov case, but he didn't just expose the
> weakness of the code, his company actively sold a product for financial gain
> that circumvented the protection.  While I still don't think the Sklyarov

The Felten case is the more relevant one. 

Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[Dan Hollis]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Everyone wants to bring up the Sklyarov case, but he didn't just expose the
> > weakness of the code, his company actively sold a product for financial gain
> > that circumvented the protection.  While I still don't think the Sklyarov
> The Felten case is the more relevant one.

decss as well -- strange how people forget that one so easily

-Dan
-- 
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]

Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[Tom Sightler]

> On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Everyone wants to bring up the Sklyarov case, but he didn't just
expose the
> > > weakness of the code, his company actively sold a product for
financial gain
> > > that circumvented the protection.  While I still don't think the
Sklyarov
> > The Felten case is the more relevant one.
>
> decss as well -- strange how people forget that one so easily

Not forgotten, just trying to understand relevance.  How do these cases,
which all revolve around breaking commercial products and cause damage to
the corporations that push them, apply to security in the open source Linux
kernel to which the public is given all rights.

BTW, I'm not for the DMCA either, I understand the harm it causes, what I
don't understand is how people are twisting it to apply to Linux source code
and security issue.  Is Microsoft also in violation of the DMCA?  In some
cases they release security details on the issues their updates address.  If
so perhaps we should all sue Microsoft for damages and by tomorrow the law
will be repealed.

Later,
Tom

Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[Dan Hollis]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Tom Sightler wrote:
> If so perhaps we should all sue Microsoft for damages and by tomorrow the law
> will be repealed.

You cant sue microsoft -- you waive all rights to damages with the
shrinkwrap licenses.

-Dan
-- 
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]

Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[David Weinehall]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 05:12:53PM -0400, Tom Sightler wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > Everyone wants to bring up the Sklyarov case, but he didn't just
> expose the
> > > > weakness of the code, his company actively sold a product for
> financial gain
> > > > that circumvented the protection.  While I still don't think the
> Sklyarov
> > > The Felten case is the more relevant one.
> >
> > decss as well -- strange how people forget that one so easily
> 
> Not forgotten, just trying to understand relevance.  How do these cases,
> which all revolve around breaking commercial products and cause damage to
> the corporations that push them, apply to security in the open source Linux
> kernel to which the public is given all rights.

For me, DeCSS is an application that has a purpose for watching DVD:s
when I boot my G4 into Linux instead of MacOS.

And even those that actually use DeCSS only to gain their "copyright"
(that is, provide you with your right to copy what you have purchased,
for backup-purposes, for instance) or indeed those that illegaly copy
DVDs, seldom do so to break commercial products and cause damage to the
corporations that push them.

As for the Sklyarov-case, I'm pretty sure he'd been arrested even if his
program had been an open source program under the GPL, freely
distributed etc.

[snip]


/David Weinehall
  _                                                                 _
 // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander      \\
//  Project MCA Linux hacker        //  Dance across the winter sky //
\>  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    </   Full colour fire           </

Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[Tom Sightler]

> > Not forgotten, just trying to understand relevance.  How do these cases,
> > which all revolve around breaking commercial products and cause damage
to
> > the corporations that push them, apply to security in the open source
Linux
> > kernel to which the public is given all rights.
>
> For me, DeCSS is an application that has a purpose for watching DVD:s
> when I boot my G4 into Linux instead of MacOS.

For me too, but in other people's opinion it's a tool for pirates (I don't
share this opinion, however, I can see how some people, who don't understand
the difference, might have this opinion).  However, I don't think that a
security exploit in an open sourced OS is likely to be a "curcumvention
device" to even clueless people.

> And even those that actually use DeCSS only to gain their "copyright"
> (that is, provide you with your right to copy what you have purchased,
> for backup-purposes, for instance) or indeed those that illegaly copy
> DVDs, seldom do so to break commercial products and cause damage to the
> corporations that push them.

Agreed, but's that's how these corporations (or coporate representatives)
managed to get these cases to court.  However, I fail to see who is going to
be the prosecutor in the case of a security exploit against the open source
Linux kernel.  In every one of these cases, DeCSS, SDI, and eBook, the
encryption that was hacked was put in place by the companies specifically to
protect the copyrighted work.  The Linux kernel provides general access
controls and does not meet the following DMCA requirement to be a copyright
protection system:

"(B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the
measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application
of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the
copyright owner, to gain access to the work."

The part that is missing is the "authority of the copyright owner" portion.
In the case of CSS, SDI, and eBook, the copyright owners all specifically
allow access to the information only when using authorized means of viewing
the work.  Last I checked no copyright owner has said that ACL's are an
authorized means.

This is my main argument why I think Alan is safe to post security related
information in changelogs.  I just don't think there is any way for someone
to interpret this law to mean that posting that information is illegal.  Of
course, if he still doesn't want to I respect that opinion as well, but I'm
sure willing to do it.

> As for the Sklyarov-case, I'm pretty sure he'd been arrested even if his
> program had been an open source program under the GPL, freely
> distributed etc.

I would tend to agree, because Adobe initially filed the complaint for
damages he could have been arrested under the civil action.  However, once
Adobe agreed to drop the issue (I'm not sure they did, but it is my
understanding that they have) it didn't matter much, because they are not
required to pursue the criminal portion, the government alone can pursue it
from there.

BTW, I'm not trying to argue that the cases which use the DMCA are valid in
any way, I'm totally againts all of them as they definately impose on my
fair use rights, which is why I have never purchased an eBook, don't own a
DVD player (actually not 100% true, I have a DVD player in my laptop and
have used it for loading software and playing around with DVD playback under
Linux using some borrowed DVD's), and don't own music with any SDI
watermarks (that I know of).  If companies don't want to grant me fair use,
I don't want their products.

Later,
Tom

Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[D. Stimits]

Tom Sightler wrote:
> 
> > > Not forgotten, just trying to understand relevance.  How do these cases,
> > > which all revolve around breaking commercial products and cause damage
> to
> > > the corporations that push them, apply to security in the open source
> Linux
> > > kernel to which the public is given all rights.
> >
> > For me, DeCSS is an application that has a purpose for watching DVD:s
> > when I boot my G4 into Linux instead of MacOS.
> 
> For me too, but in other people's opinion it's a tool for pirates (I don't
> share this opinion, however, I can see how some people, who don't understand
> the difference, might have this opinion).  However, I don't think that a
> security exploit in an open sourced OS is likely to be a "curcumvention
> device" to even clueless people.
> 
> > And even those that actually use DeCSS only to gain their "copyright"
> > (that is, provide you with your right to copy what you have purchased,
> > for backup-purposes, for instance) or indeed those that illegaly copy
> > DVDs, seldom do so to break commercial products and cause damage to the
> > corporations that push them.
> 
> Agreed, but's that's how these corporations (or coporate representatives)
> managed to get these cases to court.  However, I fail to see who is going to
> be the prosecutor in the case of a security exploit against the open source
> Linux kernel.  In every one of these cases, DeCSS, SDI, and eBook, the
> encryption that was hacked was put in place by the companies specifically to
> protect the copyrighted work.  The Linux kernel provides general access
> controls and does not meet the following DMCA requirement to be a copyright
> protection system:
> 
> "(B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the
> measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application
> of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the
> copyright owner, to gain access to the work."
> 
> The part that is missing is the "authority of the copyright owner" portion.
> In the case of CSS, SDI, and eBook, the copyright owners all specifically
> allow access to the information only when using authorized means of viewing
> the work.  Last I checked no copyright owner has said that ACL's are an
> authorized means.

SSSCA grants all this. SSSCA would have enormous impact here. If SSSCA
passes, look out.
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/10/19/1546246&mode=thread

D. Stimits, stimits@idcomm.com

> 
> This is my main argument why I think Alan is safe to post security related
> information in changelogs.  I just don't think there is any way for someone
> to interpret this law to mean that posting that information is illegal.  Of
> course, if he still doesn't want to I respect that opinion as well, but I'm
> sure willing to do it.
> 
> > As for the Sklyarov-case, I'm pretty sure he'd been arrested even if his
> > program had been an open source program under the GPL, freely
> > distributed etc.
> 
> I would tend to agree, because Adobe initially filed the complaint for
> damages he could have been arrested under the civil action.  However, once
> Adobe agreed to drop the issue (I'm not sure they did, but it is my
> understanding that they have) it didn't matter much, because they are not
> required to pursue the criminal portion, the government alone can pursue it
> from there.
> 
> BTW, I'm not trying to argue that the cases which use the DMCA are valid in
> any way, I'm totally againts all of them as they definately impose on my
> fair use rights, which is why I have never purchased an eBook, don't own a
> DVD player (actually not 100% true, I have a DVD player in my laptop and
> have used it for loading software and playing around with DVD playback under
> Linux using some borrowed DVD's), and don't own music with any SDI
> watermarks (that I know of).  If companies don't want to grant me fair use,
> I don't want their products.
> 
> Later,
> Tom
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[Tom Sightler]

>
> SSSCA grants all this. SSSCA would have enormous impact here. If SSSCA
> passes, look out.
> http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/10/19/1546246&mode=thread
>
> D. Stimits, stimits@idcomm.com
>

I understand, but the SSSCA is not law now, only the DMCA.

I'm very concerned about the SSSCA, and being from the state of South
Carolina, which Sen. Hollings claims to represent, I'm hoping my letters and
pleadings will have at least some effect (maybe he'll read them).  I've
actually met Sen. Hollings once, and have voted against him on every
possible occassion.  I don't think he has a clue about the negative effects
such legislation would have.

This is partly why I'm so interested in this discussion.  The DMCA was bad
enough, athough I think Alan's interpretation is an extreme one, but the
SSSCA is impossible.  The best thing I could say about it is that I'm almost
sure it would have to be struck down in court.  Anyway, I'm reading up on
it, and working on a new letter to try to elaborate more.

Still, even when the SSSCA becomes law, I'll likely be one of the ones in
jail, because I'm not giving up on Linux, or the US, that easily.  I can
understand why other outside of the US might think otherwise though.

Later,
Tom

Re[2]: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[victor]

Hello D.,

Tuesday, October 23, 2001, 1:49:01 AM, you wrote:

DS> Tom Sightler wrote:
>> 
>> > > Not forgotten, just trying to understand relevance.  How do these cases,
>> > > which all revolve around breaking commercial products and cause damage
>> to
>> > > the corporations that push them, apply to security in the open source
>> Linux
>> > > kernel to which the public is given all rights.
>> >
>> > For me, DeCSS is an application that has a purpose for watching DVD:s
>> > when I boot my G4 into Linux instead of MacOS.
>> 
>> For me too, but in other people's opinion it's a tool for pirates (I don't
>> share this opinion, however, I can see how some people, who don't understand
>> the difference, might have this opinion).  However, I don't think that a
>> security exploit in an open sourced OS is likely to be a "curcumvention
>> device" to even clueless people.
>> 
>> > And even those that actually use DeCSS only to gain their "copyright"
>> > (that is, provide you with your right to copy what you have purchased,
>> > for backup-purposes, for instance) or indeed those that illegaly copy
>> > DVDs, seldom do so to break commercial products and cause damage to the
>> > corporations that push them.
>> 
>> Agreed, but's that's how these corporations (or coporate representatives)
>> managed to get these cases to court.  However, I fail to see who is going to
>> be the prosecutor in the case of a security exploit against the open source
>> Linux kernel.  In every one of these cases, DeCSS, SDI, and eBook, the
>> encryption that was hacked was put in place by the companies specifically to
>> protect the copyrighted work.  The Linux kernel provides general access
>> controls and does not meet the following DMCA requirement to be a copyright
>> protection system:
>> 
>> "(B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the
>> measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application
>> of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the
>> copyright owner, to gain access to the work."
>> 
>> The part that is missing is the "authority of the copyright owner" portion.
>> In the case of CSS, SDI, and eBook, the copyright owners all specifically
>> allow access to the information only when using authorized means of viewing
>> the work.  Last I checked no copyright owner has said that ACL's are an
>> authorized means.

DS> SSSCA grants all this. SSSCA would have enormous impact here. If SSSCA
DS> passes, look out.
DS> http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/10/19/1546246&mode=thread


we would call it $$$ca :(((
Researchers and hobbyists seeking new uses for innovative technology might well find their experimentation and prototypes to be criminal under this law.
Other countries will not have similar requirements in their laws and may actively fear the imposition of anti-copy technologies
like always imposing their laws to the world
i expect that Europe dont accept that, but what i would expect if
Spain's president is one of the friend of USA...

DS> D. Stimits, stimits@idcomm.com

>> 
>> This is my main argument why I think Alan is safe to post security related
>> information in changelogs.  I just don't think there is any way for someone
>> to interpret this law to mean that posting that information is illegal.  Of
>> course, if he still doesn't want to I respect that opinion as well, but I'm
>> sure willing to do it.
>> 
>> > As for the Sklyarov-case, I'm pretty sure he'd been arrested even if his
>> > program had been an open source program under the GPL, freely
>> > distributed etc.
>> 
>> I would tend to agree, because Adobe initially filed the complaint for
>> damages he could have been arrested under the civil action.  However, once
>> Adobe agreed to drop the issue (I'm not sure they did, but it is my
>> understanding that they have) it didn't matter much, because they are not
>> required to pursue the criminal portion, the government alone can pursue it
>> from there.
>> 
>> BTW, I'm not trying to argue that the cases which use the DMCA are valid in
>> any way, I'm totally againts all of them as they definately impose on my
>> fair use rights, which is why I have never purchased an eBook, don't own a
>> DVD player (actually not 100% true, I have a DVD player in my laptop and
>> have used it for loading software and playing around with DVD playback under
>> Linux using some borrowed DVD's), and don't own music with any SDI
>> watermarks (that I know of).  If companies don't want to grant me fair use,
>> I don't want their products.
>> 
>> Later,
>> Tom
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
DS> -
DS> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
DS> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
DS> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
DS> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/



-- 
Best regards,
 victor                            mailto:ixnay@infonegocio.com

Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[Tom Sightler]

> > Everyone wants to bring up the Sklyarov case, but he didn't just expose
the
> > weakness of the code, his company actively sold a product for financial
gain
> > that circumvented the protection.  While I still don't think the
Sklyarov
>
> The Felten case is the more relevant one.

OK, I need even more help here.  Isn't it Felten the one doing the suing in
that case.  I need more clarification.  I've tried to read both the EFF
pages as well as other sources and I don't even see where he has been sued
under the DMCA (although it does look like he was theatened with legal
action from the RIAA).  Has there been a recent ruling that I've been too
busy to see lately.

Thanks,
Tom

Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[Alan Cox]

> 1. A description of a security hole is constitutionally protected
> speech, and as such cannot be construed as violating the sections of the
> DMCA.  If such description fits the definition of "technology, product,
> service, device, component, or part thereof", then we're in big trouble,
> because source code itself is much closer to the definition of a
> "product" than a description of the source code.

I firmly believe that if justice prevails in the existing DMCA cases you
will be shown to be right. I've seen people compare the US to Iraq and
I don't buy that.

However until people stop shooting I'd prefer not to be a potential target.

Alan

Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[Riley Williams]

Hi Tudor.

> For reference, here is the full text of the DMCA subsection in
> question: (1201(2)):

> ``(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public,
> provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service,
> device, component, or part thereof, that-

> ``(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of
> circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls
> access to a work protected under this title;

> ``(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other
> than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls
> access to a work protected under this title;

> or

> ``(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with
> that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a
> technological measure that effectively controls access to a work
> protected under this title.

So...let me see if I understand this correctly...

When the US President vacates office to make room for his successor, he
can then be prosecuted for "otherwise trafficing" in a "service" that
"has only limited commercial significance or purpose...other than to
circumvent a technological measure..." because AS A PART OF HIS JOB as
President, he received information from his advisors relating to matters
of national security, but is now legally barred from knowing that
information by this act?

That should be fun to watch...

Best wishes from Riley.

Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[Luigi Genoni]

I do not know about linux kernel, but I know of a couple of GPLed projects
where nice guys from Iraq sended patches and they were merged (they were
good stuff).

Excuse me if I do not say the name of those projects, but I am
sure you understand.

just to say a paradox.

USA are quite like ancien Athen, it were imposing democracy to other greek
polis (greek polis were also in south Italy, asia and north africa...)
Then this democracy degenerated to a corrupt and tirannic (self proclaming
democratic) system.
Nice guys from Sparta and then from thebe, and of course from
Athen destroyed athenian supremacy.
(just read tucidide's history and then xenofonte's ellenics).


If USA is defending democracy, and USA is not a democracy, then
USA should start a was against itself to defend democracy defeating USA
government.

History shows that happened, so it could happen again.

Luigi

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 Wayne.Brown@altec.com wrote:

>
>
> I wonder if there are any Linux hackers in Iraq?  It's doubtful the government
> there would honor any legal action attempted by the US on DMCA issues.  OTOH, it
> would put me in the rather weird position of agreeing with the Iraqi government,
> which is something I NEVER would have expected...  :-)
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
>
> "Per Jessen" <per@computer.org> on 10/22/2001 01:13:42 PM
>
> Please respond to "Per Jessen" <per@computer.org>
>
> To:   "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> cc:    (bcc: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec)
>
> Subject:  Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10
>
>
>
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:51:53 -0500, Wayne.Brown@altec.com wrote:
> >I never said that Alan, or any particular individual, should risk a lawsuit or
> >jail.  I simply said that I hoped *someone outside the US* (that is, someone
> not
> >subject to US laws) would make the information available.  Surely there are
> >places in the world that are beyond the reach of the DMCA.  How about those
>
> Alan Cox, living in the UK, may be *somewhat* subject to US legislation.
> Ties between the US and the UK are strong, and it is understandable if a UK-
> resident person does not feel entirely out of reach of US law enforcement.
>
> IMHO.
>
>
> regards,
> Per Jessen, Zurich
>
> regards,
> Per Jessen, Zurich
> http://www.enidan.com - home of the J1 serial console.
>
> Windows 2001: "I'm sorry Dave ...  I'm afraid I can't do that."
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[Sam Varshavchik]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, PinkFreud wrote:

> Why not take that a step further?  It would seem to me that your
> insane interpretation of that insane law would mean that unix and it's
> derivatives (Linux, anyone?) would be illegal to use as well.

Only partially correct.  Linux will certainly be illegal under SSSCA.  
Read it.  UNIX is not.  And there's nothing insane about it.  That's what
the proposed bill says.

> Please don't tell me you woke up this morning and had a sudden attack of
> conscience that you were violating US law.  You've posted such changes

Perhaps a sudden realization, would be more like it.

-- 
Sam

Re[2]: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[victor]

Tuesday, October 23, 2001, 12:15:24 AM, you wrote:

SV> On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, PinkFreud wrote:

>> Why not take that a step further?  It would seem to me that your
>> insane interpretation of that insane law would mean that unix and it's
>> derivatives (Linux, anyone?) would be illegal to use as well

SV> Only partially correct.  Linux will certainly be illegal under SSSCA.
could something be illegal if you created 10 years before the law :??
or it could be illegal if you continue developing it :?
do you realy thing linux will be declare illegal and Linus will be
under this law if IBM, SGI, HP, COMPAQ and so many other computer
giants are developing for linux and linux is so popular, i dont think
that nobody could stop it
"It would seem to me that your
insane interpretation of that insane law would mean that unix and it's
derivatives"
if i read well SGI(irix) HP(HP-UX) SUN (SOLARIS & SUNos)
COMPAQ(True64, VMS) would crash
because unix is ilegal.... i dont think so
SV>  
SV> Read it.  UNIX is not.  And there's nothing insane about it.  That's what
SV> the proposed bill says.

>> Please don't tell me you woke up this morning and had a sudden attack of
>> conscience that you were violating US law.  You've posted such changes
i am a european citizen, i only wait to see if europe dont adopt that
law :/

SV> Perhaps a sudden realization, would be more like it.





Best regards,
 victor                            mailto:ixnay@infonegocio.com