Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

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

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