Re: Why We Must Fight UCITA
Doesnt this strike anyone as a bit odd that all of this is happening, and
yet it is not all over the news? Half the links in the message dont exist,
and the Electronic Frontier Foundation doesnt mention UCITA at all. Anyway,
what has DVD rom file formats got to do with software licenses for liability
of faults in software? Also, whoever wrote the addenums at the bottom has no
idea what they are talking about - the Free Software movement is distinct
from the open source movement - the Free Software Movement promises Free
Software, whereas the Open Source movement promises freely available source
code. So yes, Java is free software, so is Netscape (now).
Sounds like a hoax to me, folks, but if it is its the most convincing one
I've come across.
Nick
P.S. I might be totally wrong, so please dont flame me.
----- Original Message -----
From: Irv Mullins <irv at ELLIJAY.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 8:19 AM
Subject: Fwd: [ale] Why We Must Fight UCITA (fwd)
> Here's some important info on pending legislation that, if enacted, would
> make it impractical for Rob to distribute Euphoria (free or otherwise) and
> put an end to any of us distributing our software for others to use.
>
> Irv
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 13:34:25 -0700 (MST)
> From: Richard Stallman <gnu at gnu.org>
> To: info-gnu at gnu.org
> Subject: Why We Must Fight UCITA
>
> [Please redistribute this widely wherever it is appropriate.]
>
>
> Why We Must Fight UCITA
> by Richard Stallman
>
> UCITA is a proposed law, designed by the proprietary software
> developers, who are now asking all 50 states of the US to adopt it.
> If UCITA is adopted, it will threaten the free software community(1)
> with disaster. To understand why, please read on.
>
> We generally believe that big companies ought to be held to a strict
> standard of liability to their customers, because they can afford it
> and because it will keep them honest. On the other hand, individuals,
> amateurs, and good samaritans should be treated more favorably.
>
> UCITA does exactly the opposite. It makes individuals, amateurs, and
> good samaritans liable, but not big companies.
>
> You see, UCITA says that by default a software developer or
> distributor is completely liable for flaws in a program; but it also
> allows a shrink-wrap license to override the default. Sophisticated
> software companies that make proprietary software will use shrink-wrap
> licenses to avoid liability entirely. But amateurs, and self-employed
> contractors who develop software for others, will be often be shafted
> because they didn't know about this problem. And we free software
> developers won't have any reliable way to avoid the problem.
>
> What could we do about this? We could try to change our licenses to
> avoid it. But since we don't use shrink-wrap licenses, we cannot
> override the UCITA default. Perhaps we can prohibit distribution in
> the states that adopt UCITA. That might solve the problem--for the
> software we release in the future. But we can't do this retroactively
> for software we have already released. Those versions are already
> available, people are already licensed to distribute them in these
> states--and when they do so, under UCITA, they would make us liable.
> We are powerless to change this situation by changing our licenses
> now; we will have to make complex legal arguments that may or may not
> work.
>
> UCITA has another indirect consequence that would hamstring free
> software development in the long term--it gives proprietary software
> developers the power to prohibit reverse engineering. This would make
> it easy for them to establish secret file formats and protocols, which
> there would be no lawful way for us to figure out.
>
> That could be a disastrous obstacle for development of free software
> that can serve users' practical needs, because communicating with
> users of non-free software is one of those needs. Many users today
> feel that they must run Windows, simply so they can read and write
> files in Word format. Microsoft's "Halloween documents" announced a
> plan to use secret formats and protocols as a weapon to obstruct the
> development of the GNU/Linux system(2).
>
> Precisely this kind of restriction is now being used in Norway to
> prosecute 16-year-old Jon Johansen, who figured out the format of DVDs
> to make it possible to write free software to play them on free
> operating systems. (The Electronic Frontier Foundation is helping
> with his defense; see http://www.eff.org/ for further information.)
>
> Some friends of free software have argued that UCITA would benefit our
> community, by making non-free software intolerably restrictive, and
> thus driving users to us. Realistically speaking,, this is unlikely,
> because it assumes that proprietary software developers will act
> against their own interests. They may be greedy and ruthless, but
> they are not stupid.
>
> Proprietary software developers intend to use the additional power
> UCITA would give them to increase their profits. Rather than using
> this power at full throttle all the time, they will make an effort to
> find the most profitable way to use it. Those applications of UCITA
> power that make users stop buying will be abandoned; those that most
> users tolerate will become the norm. UCITA will not help us.
>
> UCITA does not apply only to software. It applies to any sort of
> computer-readable information. Even if you use only free software,
> you are likely to read articles on your computer, and access data
> bases. UCITA will allow the publishers to impose the most outrageous
> restrictions on you. They could change the license retroactively at
> any time, and force you to delete the material if you don't accept the
> change. They could even prohibit you from describing what you see as
> flaws in the material.
>
> This is too outrageous an injustice to wish on anyone, even if it
> would indirectly benefit a good cause. As ethical beings, we must not
> favor the infliction of hardship and injustice on others on the
> grounds that it will drive them to join our cause. We must not be
> Machiavellian. The point of free software is concern for each other.
>
> Our only smart plan, our only ethical plan, is...to defeat UCITA!
>
> If you want to help the fight against UCITA, by meeting with state
> legislators in your state, send mail to Skip Lockwood
> <dfc at dfc.org>. He can tell you how to contribute effectively.
>
> Volunteers are needed most urgently in Virginia and Maryland, but
> California and Oklahoma are coming soon. There will probably be a
> battle in every state sooner or later.
>
> For more information about UCITA, see www.4cite.org and
> www.badsoftware.com. InfoWorld magazine is also helping to fight
> against UCITA; see
>
ome.htm
>
>
> Copyright 2000 Richard Stallman
> Verbatim copying, distribution and display of this entire article
> are permitted in any medium provided this notice is preserved.
>
>
>
> (1) Other people have been using the term "open source" to describe a
> similar category of software. I use the term "free software" to show
> that the Free Software Movement still exists--that the Open Source
> Movement has not replaced or absorbed us.
>
> If you value your freedom as well as your convenience, I suggest you
> use the term "free software", not "open source", to describe your own
> work, so as to stand up clearly for your values.
>
> If you value accuracy, please use the term "free software", not "open
> source", to describe the work of the Free Software Movement. The GNU
> operating system, its GNU/Linux variant, the many GNU software
> packages, and the GNU GPL, are all primarily the work of the Free
> Software Movement. The supporters of the Open Source Movement have
> the right to promote their views, but they should not do so on the
> basis of our achievements.
>
> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html for
> more explanation.
>
> (2) The system is often called "Linux", but properly speaking Linux is
> actually the kernel, one major component of the system (see
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html).
>
> (3) Mozilla is free software; Netscape Navigator is not.
> The source for Netscape Navigator 4.0 is not available.
>
> (4) Sun's implementation of Java, and Blackdown which is a port of
> that, are not free software. Source code is unavailable for some
> parts; even where source has been released, the licenses are far too
> restrictive.
>
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
