December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 00:45:55 +0100 > From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction > There are two distinct licenses promoted by the FSF. They are the GNU > GPL (General Public License) and the GNU LGPL (Library General Public > License). > > As you suggest the LGPL is usuable. I'm suggesting both are usable for commercial code development, just don't put GPL'ed source code in your source code. There is NO limitation of the GPL or the LGPL that prevents a commercial product from making calls into the GPL'ed library. The problem with your interpretation is that in a sense you want your cake and eat it too. In short you want to be able to use somebody elses code in your product without their having a say in how their code is used or receiving a cut of the profits. The GPL/LGPL is specificaly designed to prevent this. If you use their code (not the binaries, though you will be required to provide source to those binaries if you distribute it with your product though this won't include the binaries to your commercial product) then you must release your code - an extension of derivation. If you desire to produce commercial secure-source code compatible with a GPL license then simply don't ship *any* GPL with your product and use no GPL source or LGPL'ed library in source form in that product. The point to the L/GPL is not to prevent commercial code development but rather to prevent somebody from taking a library some programmer written and released for non-commercial (a distinction not permited under public domain) use while retaining control over that source so that if somebody, like yourself, bops along and decides they can make a million with it the original programmer gets a cut or you loose your million. How does the original programmer get a cut? Simple, the commercial entity contacts the programmer and licenses a non-GPL'ed version of the library. Bottem line, don't steal other peoples code to make money without paying them for their effort. It's that simple. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

IP: The virtual president
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Jean Staffen <jstaffen(a)flash.net> Subject: IP: The virtual president Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 22:22:11 -0500 (CDT) To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com This is the most INCREDIBLE article. I never thought I'd read something like this in the mainstream media!!! -Jean The virtual president=20 =20 By Missy Kelly=20 Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com=20 "You know, by the time you become the leader of a country, someone else makes all the decisions." -- Bill Clinton September 4, 1998=20 Well, shut my mouth. The president of the United States admits publicly that he is the puppet of larger powers -- that "someone else," in fact, "makes all the decisions."=20 Of course, those who understand how power really works in this nation recognize the veracity of his statement immediately. But for Bill to state it so openly is truly remarkable -- not just for its honesty, but for its recklessness.=20 In a glib and Freudian moment, it just slipped out.=20 It appears Bill is "getting it."=20 Clinton was reminded the week of Aug. 25 that The Agenda Transcended the Man. He was given a heads-up that his removal from office would have to happen. The New York Times intoned, "But if there is no hope for the agenda, what need is there for the man?" Garry Wills also called for his resignation, writing, "[Clinton] would be saying that the goals he fought for are more important than personal pride or prerogatives." Other former sycophants in the press piped up using minor variations of the same phraseology: Clinton should resign because the "agenda" transcends the man. The Agenda is paramount.=20 Yet, Bill still didn't "get it" -- that in his pact with the devil, the devil held the upper hand. In typical Bill psycho-fashion, he thought he could once again charm his way out of removal; and make a "show of force" to prove to his masters that he still had the right stuff to salvage his career and continue with the Agenda. To that end, his White House staff -- a separate operation from the power brokers -- was told by Bill to pull out all stops to save his presidency.=20 But suddenly there were leaks to the Washington Post that there were more bimbos than just Monica in Bill's White House closets. "I never had an affair with the President, but all the others who have get to stay," Monica allegedly whined to Clinton aide Marsha Scott while pleading to be returned to a White House position.=20 More forcefully, the power brokers served Bill notice that their demands for removal were to be taken seriously when the Department of Justice, out of the blue, announced that the President himself -- Bill Clinton -- was the subject of a NEW 90-day investigation into campaign donation illegalities. On three -- count 'em -- three separate prior occasions, Attorney General Janet Reno had formally investigated such charges and declared there was "nothing there." Publicly, no new information had come to light, but suddenly there was the alarming notion that there was a "there, there" and it involved Bill Clinton himself.=20 The message: Bill, you will do what we tell you. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. Start packing your bags. Bill is "getting it," now.=20 Bill is resigning himself to his resignation.=20 The President has not yet identified for us who this "someone else" is who really puppets the highest office of our land. So for purposes of discussion, let's just give them an identifier. Borrowing from John LeCarre's "The Night Manager," let's call them "Flagship."=20 Flagship, of course, knows not only where all the bodies are buried -- literally and figuratively -- but= has the wherewithal to pick through them all, choosing one misdeed after another, exposing them one by one until Bill relents. It's blackmail. And blackmail works unless you handle it in the manner Rep. Dan Burton has in the past couple of days. Bill Clinton is incapable -- truly incapable -- of doing what Burton did. Truly.=20 "You may find you can get away with virtual presidents, virtual prime ministers, virtual everything." -- Bill Clinton, September 4, 1998=20 This is another Freudian lament, verbalized by a Bill Clinton who finally "gets it." He was and is the VIRTUAL PRESIDENT. By his own admission, he was a front, with no power to make decisions. By his own admission, they were made for him, by "someone else." They were made by those whom Flagship had placed in lower level, under-the-radar positions within the cabinet. They didn't even have to ask Bill's permission. They got their orders, and implemented them.=20 Bill's job was to pretend -- pretend he was the leader, pretend he was in charge -- maintain the fa=E7ade of a "virtual" president in a "virtual" democracy where a "virtual" rule of law exists. In fact, the levers of= power were already controlled -- controlled so precisely, in fact, as to make the president irrelevant, controlled by people who have never been elected to office, and whose names we do not even know.=20 Flagship cannot afford impeachment hearings. There is an Agenda, and a timeline that must be maintained. It is of utmost importance that the new leader be installed immediately. Therefore, I would not be surprised if Bill is gone within two weeks or less.=20 If you consider Bill's virtual presidency, you know the words he spoke are true. He was so much a puppet that he even dispensed with the appearance of business. He cut off daily briefings, which every other president attended. He lengthened the time between other regularly scheduled meetings. He hardly ever meets -- or even talks -- to his cabinet members. Recall Warren Christopher, the first Secretary of State, and William Perry, the Secretary of Defense, expressing extreme frustration that they could not get a meeting with the president, even in times of crisis.=20 Instead, poor, useless Bill was busy playing golf, jogging, or on one of his many, many vacations. Having his weekly dinners with his Arkie crowd, screening new movies, attending fundraisers at the pace of 30 a month, playing host to a legion of Lincoln bedroom guests, and having coffee with drug smugglers, arms dealers, terrorists, communists and crony capitalists. In between, he was juggling his many women, coordinating their liaisons and cover stories. Plus all that time he devoted to considering how he could provide answers that were "legally correct" but "misleading" in all of his many scandals. Phew, I am exhausted just thinking about it.=20 How many times have we said during this presidency -- who is really running this country when we have a president who is missing in action? Time and again, it was apparent that Bill Clinton was not on task doing presidential duties. But for him to admit it, openly -- whoa! Surely he doesn't think his scorched earth policy extends to his masters, does he? Is he truly so arrogant that he thinks he can take them down, too, in a child-like temper tantrum? If so, he is truly playing with fire. But I suspect, no. Bill may have harbored those thoughts last week, but is seeing the light, now. His unguarded comments were purely Freudian meanderings of the mind.=20 Clinton made the reckless error of speaking his thoughts out loud. As stupid as this was, it is not so surprising. It is intimately a part of this man's sick psychology that he would want to provide excuses for his problems outside of himself -- to explain that it really isn't his fault. After all, I don't really have= any power -- I am a virtual president. I am not to blame. I am a victim -- I was just doing what I was told.=20 Bill has always been a victim of someone else, and never responsible for his own actions. As we pull our love away from him, it becomes ever so much more important to his psyche that he win us over. He can't help himself. He must explain, and win us back. Biographers have often noted that Clinton would be in a room full of adoring fans, and one person who wasn't enthralled. Clinton would devote all his energy to charming that one person. There is pathology to this man that is ingrained. Without reflected adoration, there is no Bill Clinton. He ceases to exist.=20 But if he doesn't contain himself, and stop trying to make public excuses that touch this close to the heart of power in this nation, he's putting himself in extreme jeopardy. Flagship must be assured that Clinton will never expose his masters and the Agenda. And this is a real fear -- they, too, understand the psyche of Bill Clinton.=20 When Bill resigns, he will have to go deeply off the radar screen -- I mean no mention of him. Disappear. There can be no distractions as the Agenda barges forward. But Bill's psyche cannot tolerate this -- his must have sycophants and lovers -- he is no one without the human mirror of his success. I remind you of what happened to him after he lost the governor's race in Arkansas 20 years ago. Study that period. This was a pathetic man, deep in depression, who approached perfect strangers and asked them why they hadn't voted for him. It conjures up visions of a former President calling up Larry King Live and blathering on that he's lonely and misunderstood, ala O.J. Simpson.=20 Flagship cannot afford a Bill Clinton behaving this way, and possibly exposing their Agenda. Therefore, I suspect that not only will Bill Clinton be removed from office -- i.e. forced to resign -- before the end of September, but I also strongly fear that Bill will commit Arkancide within the year.=20 Bill was always in "the game" for Bill. Hillary was always in this for the Agenda. She has always believed that the Agenda transcended the man, which is why she has always put up with -- beyond rational endurance -- Bill's shenanigans. She knew from the get-go that they were the chosen ones, part of a select stable from whom the anointed, the "someone else" Bill referred to, would choose to lead us into convergence, the Third Way. This Third Way is part of a long-term strategy that was developed 40 years ago.=20 Knowing this, Hillary stuck with Bill because her allegiance -- above all else -- has always been to the Agenda. And because this is still true, she cannot possibly stay with Bill now that he has become a liability. To cheers and salutations, she will divorce= Bill Clinton shortly after he resigns, and no one will blink an eye. She will divorce him not because he's "done her wrong" but because he is no longer useful. Then Hillary, in all her glory, will be unleashed on this= world. She will have her own, not reflected, power most likely as Queen of the World through her new U.N. position. Maybe things aren't looking so bad for Hillary, after all.=20 Rahm Emanuel, in continuing his attacks against Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr last week invoked the ghost of military strategist Karl Von Clausewitz.=20 "Clausewitz [sic] said war is an extension of politics, by other means." Odd. A former ballet dancer a student of Von Clausewitz?=20 Would you agree that the Clintons and their supporters resort to all sorts of stratagems, maneuvers, illegal methods, evasions and subterfuge to achieve their objectives?=20 Would you?=20 Does the record of their actions comport with that statement?=20 Hmmm?=20 Those are the exact words of Lenin, when he laid out his plans for global communism.=20 Missy Kelly is a writer-researcher and political analyst.=20 ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **********************************************

3 2

IP: NATIONAL ID
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Larry Becraft <becraft(a)hiwaay.net> Subject: IP: NATIONAL ID Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 11:51:20 -0500 To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com To Whomever is interested in fighting the National ID: The Dept. of Transportation has a pending regulation which is the basis for the national ID. The deadline for submitting objections is Oct. 2 and we need to have several thousand objections filed with the DoT. There are about 2200 objections filed so far. I have my own letter objecting to the national ID posted to the "fight the fingerprint" webpage, which is accessed thru: http://www.networkusa.org/index.shtml All you have to do is personalize it for yourself. Specifically, my letter is posted at this URL: http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1b/fp-dot-becraft-reg-obj.html Scott McDonald also has a suggested letter posted on this same page, and it is found at: http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1b/fp-dot-reg-obj-format.html Please take a few moments to download and copy any of these letters, personalize it for yourself and mail it in. Please circulate this note so that people will send in more objections. Larry Becraft ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **********************************************

1 0

IP: Military's secret plans for civilian 'preparedness'
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Military's secret plans for civilian 'preparedness' Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:45:04 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: World Net Daily http://www.WorldNetDaily.com/exclusiv/980928_domestic_rapid_depl.html ARMED AND DANGEROUS Domestic rapid deployment forces The military's secret plans for civilian 'preparedness' This report is part of a continuing series by WorldNetDaily on the militarization of federal government and America's civilian sector. By Joseph Farah Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com Under the guise of preparedness for domestic terrorist attacks, the U.S. military is training thousands of local police officers, national guardsmen and other officials to respond to national emergencies under centralized federal authority and control, according to plans revealed by Defense Department sources. In addition, U.S. military forces are stepping up training exercises in American civilian population centers, prompting constitutional concerns in some quarters. The plans for military involvement in the civilian sector are a direct result of the "Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996," which mandated the federal government to develop response scenarios to domestic terrorist incidents involving nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological weapons. The legislation designated the Department of Defense as the lead agency in coordinating sweeping plans involving the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the FBI, Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services. Representatives of all these agencies meet monthly as the Senior Interagency Coordination Group, or SICG. The Defense Appropriations Act of 1997 added funding for the Pentagon "to improve the capability of the federal, state and local emergency response agencies." "The United States Army Chemical and Biological Defense Command leads interagency training development and city visits," H. Allen Holmes, assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, testified to the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year. "Interagency teams coordinate with fire, police, emergency medical and hazardous material officials and tailor training to city requirements. Additionally, FEMA has developed a terrorism annex to the Federal Response Plan to ensure coordination across all agencies at all levels." In 1997, the Defense Department spent $30.5 million on the training and civil response aspects of the program, Holmes reported. An additional $10 million was dedicated to improving the U.S. Marine Corps Chemical-Biological Incident Response Force. This year, Congress allocated $50 million for the domestic preparedness program. Another $50 million is appropriated for the program in 1999. The money is for training purposes only. However, the Defense Department is lending equipment to state and local agencies, according to Holmes. The program calls for the National Guard to stand up 10 Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection teams in selected cities across the nation using 200 full-time active guardsmen and reservists. Members of Army Guard and reserve chemical companies will be trained next year to conduct searches for weapons of mass destruction. The goal of the domestic preparedness program is to train 120 cities by 2001 and to provide mechanism for every community in the nation to "leverage federal expertise," according to the Defense Department. The interagency team has trained more than 10,000 "first responder trainers" -- drawn from firefighting, law enforcement, emergency medical communities and emergency telephone operators and dispatchers -- in 30 cities, according to Defense Secretary William Cohen. Another 25 cities will receive training in the next year, he said. "Our program is specifically designed so that the people we train become trainers themselves," Cohen said earlier this month in a report to the Council on Foreign Relations titled "Security in a Grave New World." "This approach will greatly magnify our efforts to produce a core of qualified first responders across the nation." FEMA has compiled a master inventory containing information on the resources and capabilities of each agency involved in the program and what is available to state and local officials in emergency situations. However, the information on that inventory is not available to the public or the press -- only to federal and state emergency planners. Undisclosed surplus military equipment is being made available to state and local government agencies through this program. Some civil liberties groups have pointed out that the intense, coordinated rush to "fight terrorism" in America comes at an odd time -- given the government's own figures reporting a 25-year low in such attacks and incidents. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers points out, for instance, that the overwhelming majority of law enforcement's record number of applications to eavesdrop on people through electronic surveillance technology involves investigation into drug, racketeering and gambling offenses -- not terrorism. There was bipartisan support in Congress for giving the executive branch of government vast new, codified authority to plant wiretaps and electronic bugs and to confiscate property as a result of investigations in this effort to "combat terrorism." The 1996 law grants the president exclusive, unreviewable powers to designate groups "terrorist organizations." Under such powers, the government could deport suspects -- including permanent residents and non-immigrants -- based on "classified" or "secret evidence" under the cloak of national security. Another provision of the legislation requires banks to freeze assets of domestic groups and citizens deemed agents of such "terrorist organizations." There is no mechanism established to challenge such decisions by banks. In a development the Defense Department claims is unrelated to the terrorism plans, more actual combat training is taking place in urban centers. Earlier this month, Marines took part in such a training exercise in Maryland. Last month, a special unit of U.S. Marines with assault rifles conducted maneuvers in Birmingham, AL. These exercises are part of a program called "Training in the Urban Environment. " All of the operations, including the exact timing of the exercises, were kept secret from the public, raising concerns about civil liberties issues. Similar exercises have been conducted recently in Chicago, Jacksonville, FL, and other U.S. cities. The question on some minds is: Who exactly are the Marines preparing to wage war with in America's urban environments? The training is part of a certification program in "urban combat." The program includes missions, such as rescuing a pilot, which the Marines might be called to perform in foreign countries such as Somalia, military spokesmen say. Marine officials say the urban landscape adds a new dimension to the training the Marines have already received. © 1998 Western Journalism Center ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **********************************************

1 0

cypherpunk license: PLEASE STEAL ME (Re: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 01:53:23 +0100 > From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > Subject: cypherpunk license: PLEASE STEAL ME (Re: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction) > OK, but it would seem to me that to interpret GPL in this way is in > violation of the spirit (and probably legal intent if interpreted by a > lawyer). Actualy this situation is specificaly addressed in the LGPL in regards header files and how they are the gray area in all this and probably indefensible in a court (it says this in the LGPL go look...www.gnu.org) As programmers this is what we want after all, the API to be described so we can replace those proprietary libraries and programs if we desire. Actualy you missed the obvious way to distribute commercial code and the (L)GPL will protect your propietary work.... In both licenses it is very specific in noting that a L/GPL'ed work that is subsumed in another causes that work to become L/GPL'ed by default. It further notes that there is NO implication that the use of commercial code/libraries in a L/GPL'ed work can be construed to L/GPL that proprietary code. How I do jobs for my customers is that I develop my programs and libraries I want to protect via copyright and then distribute them with a set of scripts and makefiles that during install build the end product. So the end user can enjoy the privileges of the L/GPL'ed code (ie can fix bugs and relink the libraries to their hearts content) and I protect my work. The catch is to make sure the makefiles and scripts are L/GPL'ed. You could even include gcc or egc on the distribution medium and use it to compile the resultant without worrying about your commercial code being subsumed. It is quite commen today for commercial houses to use gcc/egc to develop and distribute fully commercial code, the catch is that none of the end resultant code can come from L/GPL'ed sources. This harks back to my comment earlier today about the GNU/cash system being a perfect medium for the implimentation of crypto/e$ protocols. The catch is that you have to be willing to give up your claims to the stubs that must be placed in the L/GPL'ed product. If you can get away with using named pipes as buffers and T's then it becomes reasonably trivial to create a situation where one can inject non-L/GPL'ed code into the stream without the functional code so injected falling under the L/GPL. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Copyright may limit Internet (w/o encryption) [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > X-within-URL: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9809/28/copyright.fight.ap/ > WASHINGTON (AP) -- When Lois Gibbs learned in 1978 that 20,000 tons of > toxic chemicals were buried under her Niagara Falls, N.Y., > neighborhood, she tried to make sense of all the information and > scientific names suddenly thrown at her. > > She turned to her local library, wading through medical journals and > old newspaper articles to understand the chemicals and the diseases > they caused. Gibbs credits this immediate access to information with > helping her organize parents in Love Canal and spread the word about > toxic dumps. > > Now, thanks to the Internet, there's more information than ever > before. But educators and librarians fear that average citizens won't > be able to get at it because of proposed changes in copyright laws. > > Congress is trying to balance protecting the work of authors, > songwriters and others with making important information available to > students and other researchers. > > The House and Senate could agree this week on legislation that would > implement two copyright treaties adopted in 1996 by the U.N. World > Intellectual Property Organization. > > Current "fair use" laws allow personal use of copyrighted material > without obtaining advance permission. Students can quote from books in > their research papers and cable systems can relay television programs, > for example. The new version could lead to the encryption of some > material, keeping it out of the hands of anyone without a password or > other authorization. > > Hollywood and publishing industry officials say they are not trying to > keep information from the general public. But they want to protect the > work of their artists and writers from being downloaded and mass > distributed with a few keystrokes. > > "Everyone hopes that the Internet will become a great resource for > education, entertainment and commerce," said Allan Adler, vice > president for legal and governmental affairs at the Association of > American Publishers. "But one of the problems is that the medium > represents an extraordinary capability for flawless reproduction and > instantaneous distribution." [text deleted] ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

NSA on TDC....
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, There is a show on TDC right now (21:09 Ctl.) on the NSA. Has some interesting shots of their CRITIC center as well as a brief discussion of their computing resources. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Letter to Editor on Censorship
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Monday 9/28/1998's San Mateo County Times had a really strong, if slightly naive, editorial in favor of the First Amendment protections on speech and the press. Among other things, it was quite positive about the fact that the Starr Report was able to be widely published in spite of content that would have been censored in the past, and that it would be hard to imagine how we'd explain to future generations 25 or 50 years from now that we'd covered up this important part of the historical record just because its content was vulgar. Heh. Their heart's in the right place... To: Editor, San Mateo County Times, Thank you for Monday's great editorial supporting freedom of speech. Unfortunately, it's a right preserved only by hard work, and getting recognition for all forms of speech beyond just ink on paper is an ongoing struggle. Publishing the Starr Report on the Internet would have been illegal if the EFF, ACLU, and publishers hadn't challenged the "Communications Decency Act", which the Supreme Court threw out 9-0, and unlike Nixon's tapes, a few "Expletive Deleted"s can't clean up the Starr Report. As your editorial says "it would be hard to imagine", but censors are still at it - a Congressional committee just passed a reworded version, hoping they can get away with "protecting minors" as a loophole. Some people contend that the First Amendment doesn't protect rude language, only political speech. But if you oppose campaign finance limits, they'll contend that elections are too important to allow unregulated political speech on TV or newspapers. And Joe Camel? He's illegal too. Meanwhile, the range of opinions on TV and radio is quite narrow - big corporations and government public broadcasting buy up the few TV licenses, while the FCC bans low-power broadcasters who can provide a diversity of opinion, and most cities grant monopolies on cable TV networks. And FBI director Louis Freeh, in his push for expanded wiretaps, has been using Anti-Communist Cold War restrictions on exporting encryption software to keep foreigners and Americans from using tools that allow them to talk privately without censorship. Eternal vigilance is still the price of liberty. ================ Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

Re: cypherpunk license: PLEASE STEAL ME (Re: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 03:22:27 +0100 > From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: cypherpunk license: PLEASE STEAL ME (Re: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction) (fwd) > Yes, I know, I have read LGPL a few times, and it does include the > sorts of exceptions you describe. But I said GPL, and GPL is the > license which I was suggesting causes problems. As I said, LGPL is > sort of useable. GPL and LGPL both support fully this model of commercial use of L/GPL'ed code. > Right, this is the major sticking point for commercial people I find. I find most commercial people lack imagination, though they make up for it with a desire for money. > Yes, but the more interesting, less restrictive case is where they > really want to modify the code. cf the example I gave of say adding > pgp5 compatibility to pgp26ui. There would be no significant problem if you include the necessary stubs and make them L/GPL'ed. By both the L/GPL the use of 3rd party code (L/GPL'ed, PD, or proprietary) hanging off those stubs would NOT be L/GPL'ed. > I think that if you modify to any significant extent a GPL peice of > software, and try to sell it you could run into problems. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the L/GPL that prevents me from selling such code at whatever price I can manage to charge for it, I could even change it significantly. I, however, MUST include the source code or provide it for a reasonable fee if requested by the end user. Your point is irrelevant. Now if I try to sell it as (my) *copyrighted* code then I'm in for a world of hurt and justifiably so. This, again, desire to take advantage of others work is the hallmark of thieves and marketing droids (if there is a difference between the two). > Your legal > bill for trying to work out how bad it is will be expensive. Will be nil. The L/GPL themselves clearly state they don't override previous copyrights of material that might be used with L/GPL'ed products. That L/GPL subsumption ONLY applies to code that is built using L/GPL'ed source. In other words for the L/GPL to be inovked on your code requires that you use somebodies elses L/GPL'ed code in (NOT with) your code. This is clearly understood by businesses that do use gcc/egc in that they use no libraries, headers, etc. from L/GPL sources, develop them in-house or buy them from 3rd parties. They only use the compiler/linker/tools to get hooked together. > If you want to be creative, you could do what you want to it ignoring > the license, then provide a binary patch from their binary to your > binary. Or whatever. Commercial lawyers are cautious animals though, > so because you could theoretically hack around things does not mean > that some company's lawyer is going to recommend that they do it. The goal of the L/GPL is NOT to stop commercial programming, it is to return to the end user a level of control and understanding (at least in principle) so they may build a system to do what they want and not some marketing droid at a multi-national. This is NO hack, it is specificaly detailed in the L/GPL as a legitimate use of such licensed code. > That aspect of LGPL (availability of source) is useful to the extent > that it encourages people to make source of the crypto parts > available. No, it suggests they should make the API definition available. As to it being useful, it is critical to the long term stability of systems and the continued development of imaginative software. > Use of GNU development tools is a different, and more straight forward > issue than using GNU licensed code. Only if you don't understand the L/GPL. > The point remains: the simplest and best thing to do about licenses if > you are more concerned about crypto deployment than source > availability is not to use GPL, and probably to avoid LGPL also. No, the best thing to do is build your copyrighted libraries and release the API's via headerfiles or whatever in the GPL'ed code. > Use BSD, use PD, either is better than GPL for the purpose. No, they're not because in PD you loose ALL control of your code and if somebody else uses it in a commercial app or not then you're pretty much screwed as they laugh their asses off on the way to the bank. Considering the extend of BSD that would be the last choice of an OS that I would bank my business on. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks defeat? (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Eric Murray <ericm(a)lne.com> > Subject: Re: Cypherpunks defeat? > Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 19:56:16 -0700 (PDT) > using plastic. But it's ok for the merchant to offer 'discounts' for > buyers who use cash instead of credit cards. That 'discount' > is the real price of the goods with the credit-card surcharge > subtracted. Often that's 3-4%, sometimes as low as 1.2%. I haven't seen that in 10 years or more. I doubt that anyone will find this approach very widely. > Visa and MasterCard don't have massive staffs and huge office > buildings because they're dumb. You don't know big corporations very well do you. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1