Posted on 10/10/2006 4:56:51 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
Linux or open source seems to thrive wherever Left governments rule. And as Kerala schools log Microsoft out and boot open source systems, Linux world is buzzing with excitement over possibilities in the communist-ruled states. Though West Bengal and Tripura have to go whole hog to adopt a free software model, ideological closeness is more than evident. Kerala, most insiders’ feel, is turning out to be Richard Stallman's happiest hunting ground. His personal vibes with Velikakathu Sankaran Achuthanandan, even from VS's pre-chief minister era, are in play. It’s a picture watching the duo cozying together in a similar attire — Stallman in a crumbled white T-shirt and VS in homely sleeveless white banian. Secretly, people do wonder what Class VII drop-out Marxist patriarch chitchats with whiz-kid of the Red Hat business-model. However, those who attended a Stallman seminar on FOSS, could clearly see that Linux and Left are on the same wavelength.
(Excerpt) Read more at financialexpress.com ...
Is it not acceptable to ask you for specifics, with evidence that such code was contributed, on where our tax dollars have created (or even enhanced) technology? You still fail to answer - and I am not sure why?
Please answer the question. Otherwise you are just dreaming up imagined injury.
Linux is not US technology. That is what I think you fail to grasp.
You are the one claiming that Open Source is evil. I am trying to pin down the answers to these questions from you:
1. Why Open Source compared to Freeware, Shareware, Public Domain (and even Patent Law Public Dissemination)
2. What specific examples of code benefits have been contributed to the Linux kernel, and those specific benefits to military applications, by the US Government (and not available in other code) that was forced to be contributed back to the kernel?
3. ( a new one) - Why no venom for the hardware vendors who provide these 'supercomputers'. Can't run Linux without hardware.
Any answers besides argumentum ad hominem?
Neither is a photograph, but it's protected from prior restraint under the same clause.
It's easy for the government to implement export controls on whatever technology they want. Bill Clinton wrote most all of them covering software out of law on his very last day of office, my position is they should be put back.
Already discussed, of course. Open source includes source code. Other things equivalent to open source that have potential military applications should be restricted as well. Basic stuff dude, what's your hangup so you need this explained multiple times?
What specific examples of code benefits have been contributed to the Linux kernel, and those specific benefits to military applications, by the US Government
Why do you need specifics when you don't even care? I already said security improvements but a specific example would be when The National Security Agency released a version of Linux called SE Linux to the rest of the world for free that contained extensive security improvements. Either you never heard of it, or you don't care if our adversaries get security technology from our NSA for free. Based on your previous outright admissions you apparently couldn't care less.
Why no venom for the hardware vendors who provide these 'supercomputers'.
Who said I didn't have concerns over transfers of hardware technology? This thread is about software, but check the record I like many others was outraged when IBM was granted CFIUS approval to sell their entire PC division to the Chicom government. The safe bet would have obviously been that I did care, but you do not, but you got that one wrong too.
Publication of knowledge--including hardcopy or electronic source code--would not be covered by export controls. Again, you are running into a basic question of constitutionality, and the courts have long held that any act of prior restraint would have to be evaluated under a standard of "strict scrutiny," which is almost impossible to meet.
My complements to your tenacity. Most of us here have tired of dealing with this boor.
Sorry but that's not very believable. This country had export controls on software before Bill Clinton revoked most if not all of them on his last day in office. If you've got a better precident that software never was restricted or can't be again put it on the table. Thanks.
No you've just gotten tired of being continually shot down in flames, as happened again today and as mr flip flopper here is well on his way to having happen as well.
Please provide proof that source code--not executable code, source code--was export controlled and subject to prior restraint on publication.
You're the one claiming the source code component of software can't be export controlled, so the burden of proof is obviously yours.
Really?
Many would differ on that rather assinine categorical statement.
Here's the DECSS source code written in haiku.
An anonymous author contributed a CSS descrambler in pure lambda calculus, where even integers are represented as functions. Is this "code"? Or is it pure mathematics?
A description of the descrambling algorithm in plain English, written by Dave Touretzky. This description is not machine readable, but it can easily be translated into C code by a knowledgeable C programmer. It could not be translated by a non-programmer, or a machine. Is it therefore protected speech?
In October, 2000, Omri Schwarz released Perl scripts for automatically translating C to English, and English back to C. Here is the English version of css-auth.c that it produces, called css-auth.eng.
A dramatic reading of the file css_descramble.c, read by Xader Vartec. This is a 3.5Mbyte MP3 file; it runs 7 minutes and 20 seconds.
Joe Wecker of the band Don't Eat Pete recorded a musical version of my "plain English" rendition of the source code, with musical accompaniment. This is a 7.2Mbyte MP3 file that runs 7 minutes 28 seconds. Transcript courtesy of Keith Dawson of tbtf.com. Shane Killian later did a hilarious square dance version.
Jeff Schrepfer turned the code directly into music, as a MIDI file. The file was created by starting with the source code and "removing all the white space, then transforming each ASCII character into a single 32nd note of its midi equivalent (midi notes, like ASCII characters, are coded into values ranging from 1 to 127.)" Mike Castleman improved on this by encoding whitespace and newlines in the note lengths.
Verilog is a hardware description language. Here is the Verilog source for an actual circumvention device, contributed by anonymous author DAH, who writes: "not only can a human read the source, and a simulator interpret it, but with other quasi-pushbutton tools you could configure an FPGA (or fab an ASIC) with it.
Visit our Steganography Wing to see many additional creative ways to encode the source for the decryption algorithm, including as a prime number.
More examples of interesting ways to demonstrate that code is speech can be found here.
Sorry, that is the null hypothesis. It is incumbent on you to disprove it by citing the relevant laws and regulations that forbade publication, since that would be the only way of actually restricting source code export to foreign countries. (Hint: embassies can and do subscribe to magazines.)
What you are saying is that every computer science magazine that included source code in their articles had to have approval from State and Commerce before they sent a copy overseas.
You obviously initiated the claim, in post 215. Now we see you have nothing to back it up. Big surprise /SARC
I merely stated the obvious--that source code is text, and that the government is strongly enjoined from restricting publication thereof.
Now we see you have nothing to back it up.
You are the one asserting that the government had an unlimited right to impose prior restraint on publication prior to January 20th, 2001; please provide proof for your argument.
It's your claim, not mine, either prove it or it dies empty of proof. Source code is useless without other properly matched executable processes anyway, so your whole diversion amounts to little more than another weak attempt to justify free transfers of technology to foreign goverments and companies.
I hate to help the buzzard out on this, but for a while, source code for encryption algorythms was considered a munition by the U.S. government for the purpose of export.
The commerce department was
-export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-3-lines-PERL
#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj $/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1 lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
The above 3 lines of code is a perl program which implements RSA encryption and decryption, and is small enough to use as a signature file. Peter Junger, a law professor in the US, obtained from the US Commerce department a written statement ruling that this program must not be exported from the US.
Yes, boys and girls, the U.S. government is stupid enough to actually put that kind of lunacy in writing.
Interestingly, this restriction of theirs was only for electronic transmissions. If you were to put the exact same text and mail it to a friend in Britain, it would be perfectly legal, but if you were to send it in an email, you'd have committed a felony. WooHoo!
Phil Zimmerman, the original author of PGP, a high quality encryption program that became relatively popular at the time was hasseled for several years because the source code, (or binaries for that matter), was exported by someone. Of course the algorythms at issue were publicly known, but it was apparently FedGov's contention that them dumb assed ferriners would never be able to actually write a program that could make use of the mathematics of public-key cryptography.
Later editions of PGP were printed in books in an OCR-friendly format and were exported to europe where they were promptly scanned and compiled by other freedom loving folk who think that privacy in their communications is a Good Thingtm.
Of course, the buzzard will claim that these efforts were illegal or immoral or both, but the fact is, in a country where freedom of speech is important, (or is at least supposed to be), ideas cannot easily or effectively be suppressed.
Negative claims cannot be logically proven; they can merely be disproven. Feel feel to disprove it.
Source code is useless without other properly matched executable processes anyway, so your whole diversion amounts to little more than another weak attempt to justify free transfers of technology to foreign goverments and companies.
Those "executable processes" also originate in source code, which can also be released into the wild by publication.
As far as I can tell, you are demanding that any and all publication in one particular field of endeavour--one that you apparently have some financial interest in--be subject to prior restraint by the government.
Am I misstating your position?
Bottom line: if someone wants to give away software instead of selling it, what is it to you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.