Posted on 08/15/2002 4:54:26 PM PDT by Bush2000
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.
What part of that from the US Constitution refers to writings and discoveries as property rather than means of promoting the sciences and the arts? What part of for limited times is so hard for people like you and Don Joe to understand? Limited times does not imply "lifetime of the creator plus x years." Yeah, it would still be limited if the law said that "copyrights now last as long as the US Government exists," but we both know that's not what the founders meant...
Property is held for life or until you relinquish control of it. A will is a way of relinquishing control to someone else. There are no time constraints on property besides death. You're just reaching for an adequate defense of your stretching the US Constitution that doesn't exist.
If the founders felt copyrights were property then they would have explictly stated such. Their philosophy was that the government could not do something it was not explictly permitted to do nor could it approach something in a way it was not specifically allowed to. Thus if they really felt Don Joe's software was property they would have stated so so as to clearly state the federal government's role. But they didn't which means that they did not feel that it is property. Oh, and if it was really property, the states would have the authority in the US Constitution to pass their own laws to restrict the distribution of bootlegs. The states were intended to play the main role in the protection of property rights. The only state laws regarding copyrighed goods are contract laws and procurement laws.
Patents on anything other than a product design are not creative. They are a discovery of a fact of reality. Society is better off without them.
Does building and demoing a device that can break bank vaults for an academic and bank executive audience cross into the realm of theft? No. It is a way of proving that such a thing is a real possibility that has to be taken into consideration. I oppose the DMCA primarily because the law, not the state, should determine whether things like DVD copiers are successful. If don't want your "property" to be copied, don't release it to the public. You have no right to do that anymore than you have a right to leave your wife's jewelry on your front step with a sign that says "look, but don't touch" and expect law enforcement to take you seriously if someone walks off with them. Of course that would be assuming your IP is in fact fitting to be put on a level of legal status equal to the on that physical property enjoys (which it does not).
Whatever. Seems to be a good bit of confusion about the DMCA on all sides, if HP, SDMI, RIAA *and* USG all tried to put this magic bullet in the chamber and fire it. Of course it will stifle research. Who wants to be the one to say "this copyright protection thing is flawed -- but I can't prove it or I'll get sued or go to jail"?
Tell ya what: if I discovered something like DeCSS I'd keep it to myself, for my own use. Screw it. What the MPAA doesn't know won't hurt me.
If y'all want to think that DMCA will protect your sh!t, fine. Just make sure your sh!t doesn't get out of the country. Because the research will be conducted, it will get published, circumvention code and black boxes will be built and distributed... but not here in the good ol' US of A.
We are not losing our edge in technology, we're flushing it away with crappy bought-and-paid-for laws like this.
Reread your thinly veiled SS threat that I quoted
So I suppose it is illegal to make photocopies of works checked out from public and school libraries? Man, you better raise some hell about this, with these evil copying machines in the hands of students we must close all libraries down since no one can 100% gaurantee authors works will be protected.
Ah, the debate counterpart of the "kick the chessboard over" alternative to "resignation". :)
Hint: there's a reason the word "touche'" has been accepted as a borrowed word into the English lexicon. Seeing as how you seem to be headed in the direction you're headed, I'd suggest learning it, and embracing it, because you'll be needing to apply it quite a bit as you enter (and perhaps even pass through) puberty.
"The fact of the mater is you CAN copy the concept of a cab, you CAN provide your own service, and you CAN improve upon the idea to garner more business."
True, you can.
You can also save a lot of the headache of dealing with venture capitalists, bank loan officers, and mom and dad, by getting your money out of the bank via the "note and pistol" method rather than the "filling out forms and answering questions" technique.
However, you'll go to prison. Just like you will if you violate the Hack laws.
Oh golly, a double entendre. :)
"State laws that, get this, protect consumers from unscrupulous business tactics and protect consumer rights do not equate to IP restrictions."
The laws put people in prison when they violate the laws.
Get that!
And remember, keep your mitts off my bits!
Good grief you really are clinically paranoid, aren't you.
That is frightening.
OK, sonnie, sit down, lissen up, and STFU for a spell while I type REAL f'n slow for you:
Try to consider -- even if for just the most fleeting of moments -- that perhaps, just perhaps, the voices in your head are lying to you.
Now please feel free to get back with me when you come down.
Better yet, don't.
How sad...
How long have you and the English language been on such poor terms?
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.