Linux users march on city hall (my title: Che Guevara to be raised from the dead)

Linux users march on city hall

A small but enthusiastic crowd of Linux lovers hit the streets of San Francisco on Thursday, hoping to trumpet the virtues of open source to lawmakers and voters.

Led by Michael Tiemann, chief technology officer of Linux seller Red Hat, the group marched the mile-long stretch from the LinuxWorld conference to San Francisco City Hall. There Tiemann unveiled the Digital Software Security Act, a proposal that would prohibit the state from buying software that doesn't open its code. Tiemann, wearing a red fedora and clutching a map so he could find his destination, said he also wanted to point out the hypocrisy of the state, which is one of the holdouts in the antitrust battle against Microsoft even as it runs the company's software in government offices.

"While they're spending money suing the monopolist, they're also feeding the monopolist with the other hand," Tiemann told the crowd.

The march attracted the zealous, the fearful and the merely curious.

One marcher, a hotshot Linux programmer who goes by the name of Tack, said it's important that government types listen to open-source advocates before passing laws dealing with technology. He said he's already suffering from federal laws that outlaw certain types of programming that could crack copy protections. "Instead of being able to focus on developing a new technology for my client, I have to think like a lawyer, said Tack, who described himself as a "freelance tech guy." "I don't want to land in jail."

Another marcher, Tim Sullivan, said the event is a chance for programmers to actively protect their right to code.

"I think this is a good chance to stand up for our freedoms," said Sullivan, 22, a computer science student at Oregon State University. "I'm not really a policy person, but it's pretty evident that it's ridiculous to stop people from writing software."

Forming a band of two dozen bobbing red hats, the group snaked through downtown San Francisco, stopping periodically to hear Tiemann cite rights eroded. He spoke of foreign programmers afraid to travel to the United States, content companies with too much power in Washington, and governments financially strangled by their reliance on proprietary software.

Hoping to reach regular folks, marchers wound up Market Street and past rows of outdoor chess players and department store bag-laden tourists. They stopped briefly at the Metreon shopping center, at a cable car turnaround, and finally, on the steps of city hall. Occasionally they chanted "Balance the budget. Switch to Linux." Few outsiders looked up from their activities to acknowledge the crowd.

At one point, marchers came across a historical plaque that was sponsored by Microsoft. They groaned and quickly papered over the software giant's name with a bumper sticker poking fun at proprietary software that doesn't allow programmers to tinker. "Why would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?" it read.

Turnout was on the low end of the 20 to 100 people Tiemann expected. Some programmers complained of the early 10:30 a.m. start time. One said he had to drag his friend out of bed. Others cited the fast clip of the gangly Tiemann, who took off promptly from the conference hall and rushed up the street, forcing some programmers to jog breathlessly behind him.

But open-source guru Bruce Perens, who marched alongside Tiemann, lamented that most technologists simply aren't paying attention. "It's obvious only a tiny bit of people from (LinuxWorld) turned out, and that presents a problem," he said. "Either they don't understand the issues or they have a business partnership that doesn't allow them to talk about it."

City officials did not greet the marchers when they arrived at city hall. Tiemann said he picked the city hall destination--despite the fact he's pushing his proposal at the state level--because it was the closest major government landmark to the LinuxWorld show. No state legislators have expressed official support for the bill, but Tiemann said he has some meetings planned with lawmakers in the next few days. State Assemblyman Juan Vargas, D-San Diego, has met with proposal author Walt Pennington but took no position one way or the other, spokesman George Balgos said.

The move comes as several government entities across the globe are considering legislation that would require considering open-source alternatives to proprietary software such as Microsoft's.

Not surprisingly, proponents of proprietary software are acting swiftly to quash such endeavors. The Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA), a computer industry lobbying group that along with Microsoft has campaigned against open source, said a mandate to pick open software could drive IT companies out of business, endanger 200,000 technology jobs in the state, and restrict choice.

"Such purchase decisions should be made on the basis of objective criteria without a presumption that proprietary, hybrid or open-source software would be the best solution in every case stated," Grant Mydland, CompTIA's director of state government relations and grassroots programs, said in a statement Thursday.

"I never said that. I believe that the distinction between physical property and IP needs to legally blurred. Software should be treated more like a physical commodity than IP. If I buy a copy of OfficeXP, Microsoft should not be legally allowed to include product activation any more than Honda should not be able to sell an Accord that only works for the first two owners, but needs confirmation from Honda before it'll start up for the third owner."

Bad, sad, and mad mad mad metaphor.

If you want to accurize it, you'd need to either have an open-end lease for the car -- and then try to sell what belonged to the dealer -- or, claim that if you purchase the car, you also "purchased" the "right" to start manufacturing carbon copies of it, right down to the "Honda" nameplate and VIN.

I don't think you'd get too far in either case.

"What software do you develop? I would like to try to avoid ever using it."

I'm sure you would like to avoid using it. However, I have no incentive to disclose anything to you in that regard, other than to suggest that should you in fact use it, and be found in violation of the terms and conditions of its license, you will find out what happens to those who violate such agreements.

"that does not give you legitimate reason to push for stronger copyright laws that violate the US Constitution nor does it give you the right to turn your customers into serfs."

Spare me the histrionics. I can't stand drama queens.

"You have obviously brainwashed yourself. Go on, keep believing that. I obviously cannot convince you otherwise and it would be a waste of my time to continue trying. You'd find that I hold the very idea of a 'common good' in deep contempt on most threads."

Cute. Listening to a Libertarianoid (note distinction from "Libertarian", since you now deny membership) decry a "common good" obsession is like listening to an islamist insist that he isn't "against the Jews".

Perhaps your claim might hold a bit more credibility if you had not spent much of your time on this thread advocating that which you now claim to reject.

First, check your "S" key: It seems to be transposed with the "$" key.

Must be that recent TH linux patch I applied :)

Second, you can think of software as a kind of interactive cable TV. You don't "own" it in any sense. It's a service. The data and your interactions are clearly covered by the service agreement. Your rights as a consumer are simple: If you don't like it, don't buy. It's that simple. The terms are clear, if you bother to read the license. Illiteracy, ignorance, or apathy isn't an excuse not to pay attention to the terms: They are revealed.

Again, IP laws are a contract and compromise between consumers (the people) and companies. Both have certain rights they expect from the contract. These new laws and EULA's certainly obliterate consumer rights while giving full power to businesses, eliminating the compromise. Do you believe consumers have any inalienable rights with a product/service they have purchased, or that corporations have sole control over all aspects of the products usage.

Except that's the fundamental problem: Your freeloading bretheren want everything for free and, therefore, are reproducing it. That's the crux of the problem and the reason that the license exists.

Software piracy always has been illegal and always will be illegal. Homocide always has been illegal and always will be illegal. Guns aid in homicide. Therefore, should guns be illegal?

The terms are spelled out in black and white. They're legally binding. If that still isn't enough for you, you might want to try "Hooked on Phonics".

Con men still swindle elderly ladies and go to prison for it and the women mostly give their money away foolishly to them. Nothing brazenly illegal about that, no? Are you going to champion their cause?

There are far more differences than that, bub. care to enumerate them? If software were like any other physical consumer good (like a book or a chair or a loaf of braid), I'd agree. But it's not. It can be readily reproduced. It can be readily distributed in a way that physical goods can't. Therefore, it needs special protections to prevent a*holes from stealing it.

I can take a book and easily reproduce portions of it and use it in an article I publish and generate a profit from, as long as I cite the source. Every day FR members reproduce IP from other sources and post it here. Creating new works referencing old ones is what people have been doing for hundreds of years. Academia is completely founded on this principle. Now enter software, this mysterious pseudo product/service, quasi new IP that somehow exists only in peoples minds. Think not of it as organised electrons in memory or magnetic poles on a disk with minimal diference between books with organized ink on paper, but as some mysterious black box that somehow appears on ones computer screen like magic. To learn how software works in order to make a better or compatible product would clearly violate the DMCA; To learn how someone makes a loaf of bread or a chair and build a better one is legal and innovative. To use a m$ (oops) product and a competing product that is disallowed in a future EULA is illegal and could lead to fines and maybe a prison sentence; to combine peanut butter, jelly, and bread makes a tasty combination. To copy a portion of code from a piece of software and give it to another person is a violation of the softwares EULA's and the DCMA and will definitly lead to prison terms and large fines; To copy a recipe from a cookbook and pass it to a friend who loved the meas is a cordial gift.

I never said it was. But I do have a problem with anyone -- particularly government -- confiscating private property.

What does the government have to do with this? I buy a product from a company, I want to use it the way I want to, not the way the corporation sees fit. You do own the software media. and free use of arrangement of bits on the software as long as I do not reproduce and it and give/sell it

This may come as a surprise but software is a relatively new concept. The founders foresaw the protection of intellectual property -- ideas, as it were -- under the blanket of the Constitution. Software represents a bag of ideas. Companies have to be protected. Or else people will abuse it. That you can't accept that fact is particularly galling. You don't mind daytripping with a blindfold on, saying that people shouldn't have the right to reproduce software, but all the while ignoring the fact that eliminating restrictions would create precisely that result. Stunning.

Ahh, so whenever new technologies arise we should automatically revaluate IP laws. Interesting, I wonder if they had this same discussion when books moved from manual printing presses to mechanical ones. Indeed, companies need to be protected and software piracy is (and will be) illegal. On the converse, cosumers should be protected and not be abused by draconian EULA's.

Democracy is always a compromise between freedom and protection. Yes, people do get killed by other people with guns, but as a society we deem guns a valuable tool for protection. Yes, violence in the media probably does affect some people and leads them towards violent tendencies, but we as a society deem violence in the media as an acceptable form of free speech. Yes, allowing people to use software as they would like and allowing them to back it up does indeed allow some people to redistribute it illegally, but the value to end consumers through inovation, utilization, restoration capabilites is worh the trade off. This could lead to a decline in revenue from a perfect world, or lost job opportunites from a company in a perfect world. However, people have been reading, sharing, and learning from books for hundreds of years and yet there are still people writing and publishing books. Contrary to to the reports from the BSA, 12 billion dollars doesn't just disappear off the face of the earth but gets invested else where, or 25,000 people just sit at home dejected, never working again because they didn't get the job of their dreams but find news jobs in the software industry.

There will always be a demand for software, therefore there will always be a company selling a product to fill that demand and if they create a product people like and buy, they will be sucessfull. M$ (oops) products are the most popular software products on the market and therfore are the most pirated, yet this has not kept them from becoming the richest company in the world. Opportunity will always be there as long as there is a market. Once again, leting corporations control all usage of all products is a horrible idea because corporations do not want to compete and give their consumers the best value for the best price, their sole motivation is to maximize profit. Corporate greed is good, corporate greed at the cost of consumer rights and a free market is bad.

"The law doesn't prevent you from examining the cab, talking about the idea of a cab, or producing your own cab service"

Oh, yes it does!

NYC has the medallion system. There are a finite number of medallions. Each medallion is a cheap piece of tin that's riveted to the hood of the taxi. The medallion sells for a serious multiple of the value of the taxi itself.

Other cities use other taxi licensing systems.

BTW, the NYC Hack Bureau is a truly byzantine bureaucracy. If you hate software licenses, you'll fry your synapses on Hack Bureau arcana. You see, not only are the taxis regulated, but the drivers have to jump through an amazing number of hoops. (I went about halfway through the process back in '70 or '71 until about three weeks into it, with umpteen subway miles under my belt spent traveling between various hellholes (to interview various licensed companies, to see if I could get sponsored) and back and forth to the Hack Bureau at the Coleseum, filling out mile of forms after mile of forms, I said screw it and went to work for the Post Office.)

If you "clone" the cab, using either a counterfeit medallion, or run a "gypsy" cab without a medallion, you are breaking the law.

Nice try, though. Thanks for playing.

Actual violations of the DMCA can be punished with a civil suit for damages or, if done for commercial gain, prosecuted as criminal acts. The Justice Department indicted Dmitry Sklyarov because his employer, ElcomSoft, sold an e-book decoder that he helped to create, triggering the DMCA's criminal penalties.

Criminal offense in the US, not in Russia. Company is based in Russia and sells its products online through its website last time I visited it. The US is exerting its sovereignty beyond its borders into Russia. The product was sold to Americans buying from a Russian company, based in Russia which hired Russians who were living and working in Russia. I bet you'll come up with some justification like you did in another thread where you said we should screw with foreign nations and their governments whenever it can in any way make us more prosperous or "safer."

On the other hand, it's conceivable that the DMCA permits a civil suit against an academic report that includes source code or object code.

In other words, it must remain theory. No proof of concept. Most jurors couldn't tell the difference between an algorithm written in pseudo-code and one implemented in a real programming language. Effectively, unless you write the algorithm in a natural language, it is a potential civil offense.

If published research does not include working code--which is a vital part of research--the odds of a successful lawsuit rapidly approach zero.

Any decent code monkey can take a good algorithm and implement it. So once again, no algorithm.

Basically what he's saying is that you can talk about a potential hole in a DRM system, but you cannot in any way publish anything that could actually demonstrate its real existance.

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.