See also: last week's Letters page.

Letters to the editor

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:41:44 -0500
From: JK <katz@jasperweb.com>
To: letters@lwn.net
Subject: GPL style music lisence

In your Feb 22, 2001 edition you said "there may become a need for a 
more formal GPL style music license that allows material to be freely 
traded as long as it is never sold."

But one of the brilliant things about the GPL is that it does indeed 
allow for the selling of Free software. This levels the playing field in 
a natural way: it lets all different sorts of motives become involved in 
the creation, distribution, and modification of software. How much money 
would Red Hat have invested in GNU/Linux if they'd been forbidden from 
selling it?

More akin to the GPL would be a music license that would allow users to 
listen to the Free music, give it away, play live versions of it in 
concert, use the lyrics in a different melody, add a new middle part, 
reverse the meaning of the chorus, add a drum track, remove the guitar 
solo and add a new one, compile it with other Free songs and sell them 
on CD, sell downloads over the net, etc. (the possibilites are endless!) 
... All, of course, under the condition that the "derived works" are 
also Free. In a way, isn't this what old, cultural, folk songs were? 
What Rap often aspires to be? What Napster is doing (without the 
license)? And what art should be about?

RMS et al put a lot of thought into the specifics of software 
development when devising the GPL, and a simmilar effort may be required 
to customize a Free music licence. E.g., taping of concerts with Free 
works would, under the terms of the lisence, be allowd; Free music CD's 
would be, under the lisence, copy-able, including cover art and inserts; 
if multitrack music files are provided, then modified versions must be 
made available in multi-track form...etc.

Artists could make money in both traditional and innovative ways: 
concerts, songwriter/player-for-hire (by musicians who make money from 
concerts or by venues), original music-for-hire for other media 
(soundtracks to custom-compliment other work), music lessons... but also 
though selling "official" value-added CD versions (think signed copies), 
attracting larger crowds by covering/modifying other songs... Free music 
would not necessarily make it harder to make money as a musician.

Most interestingly, I believe, would be Free music's impact on 
"non-artists." We would be able to share more; we'd be able to devise 
new ways to make money (and our businesses could end up supporting 
musicians directly, though patronage or outright hiring, or by creating 
new marketplaces). We could also enjoy MORE of our favorite music: live 
concerts would be available on tape, new versions of songs we like by 
other performers would exist, interestingly modified ("improved") 
versions would become plentiful...

Best of all, I think it may encourage all of us to experiment on our 
own. It would be easy to modify music files that were packaged in a 
friendly way, with multiple (commented) tracks, and 
Midi/sampling/recording software.

If it hadn't been for the Internet, with its "View Source," I, who was a 
"non-technical" person, would never have learned about computers. (Now 
I'm the Technology Director of a web design company.) Many people call 
me a "non-musician" today...

Jamie Katz

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:07:11 -0500
From: Robert L Krawitz <rlk@alum.mit.edu>
To: letters@lwn.net
Subject: Allchin's comments

Microsoft "clarified" Allchin's comments to be referring specifically
to the GPL, rather than to open source in general (e. g. BSD license).
In that context, I'm quite willing to believe that Microsoft is trying
to create a cloud around the GPL; there's already enough
misunderstanding of what the GPL does and does not allow so it's not
hard for someone else to create even more uncertainty.  It's
completely disingenuous, of course; nobody's forcing anyone to use
GPL'ed code, and Microsoft's real point is that open source is OK as
long as Microsoft can take it and use it in proprietary products with
no strings attached.

There might be another goal here, namely to create a split in the free
source community.  There are already significant disagreements over
the GPL over issues quite similar to what Microsoft raised in the
clarification.

-- 
Robert Krawitz <rlk@alum.mit.edu>      http://www.tiac.net/users/rlk/

Tall Clubs International  --  http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf@uunet.uu.net
Project lead for Gimp Print/stp --  http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net

"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
--Eric Crampton

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:00:53 -0500
From: Bill Sneed <bsneed@mint.net>
To: letters@lwn.net
Subject: Jim Allchin, etc.

To the editor: 

I think you're absolutely correct on this.  For the last decade,
Microsoft has had it's way with Federal & State I.T. managers -- but
this is changing.

The first thing I did after reading Allchin's remarks was to visit
most of the Web sites for the D.O.E.'s national laboratories.
The level of Linux infiltration is quite astounding. NASA's use of
Linux, and Open Source in general, is well documented.

Such non-high tech undertakings as a centralize "command post" for
forest fire fighting in the Western U.S. is Linux-based.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's office in Raleigh, N.C. proudly
proclaims its wide use of Linux -- even on a laptop!

Some of the D.O.D's largest private-sector contractors are now 
using Linux, e.g., Lockheed-Martin  

Check out the Federal Computing News and search on Linux.  While
there's not a tidal wave of stories regarding Linux the numbers are
increasing and the stories are increasingly favorable. 

We've got the N.S.A. building a (supposedly) secure version of Linux
and underwriting all kinds of interesting research at the Univ. 
of Utah based on Linux.  

Similar levels of Linux use are a little harder to document at
State and local government levels but I have no reason to believe
you won't find the same Linux-creep there as well.

Is Microsoft worried?  You bet they are because the end of the
gravy train is in sight -- and it's about time.

...Bill Sneed, Prospect, Maine...

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:39:14 -0800
From: "Jonathan Day" <jd9812@my-deja.com>
To: letters@lwn.net
Subject: Jim Allchin, Microsoft, and Ancient Rome

Dear sir,

    By now you're probably sick of hearing Jim Allchin's name, let alone of
what people think of him. However, I'll throw in my 2 cents worth.

    It has been standard military tactics, by all conquerors, to divide
their enemies. The more their enemies fight amongst themselves, the less
the conquerer has to do.

    In light of Microsoft's history, as revealed in the DOJ court case, and
in light of the recent Microsoft press release, claiming that Mr Allchin
was only referring to GPL/LGPL software, it does not take a rocket
scientist to deduce what is happening.

    We are being invited to destroy ourselves. Either we can accept, or we
can refuse. And I mean 'we'. Open Source / Free Software is only truly
stable (and truly enforcable) at larger scales. Splinter too much, and
Microsoft'll have breakfast, lunch and dinner all nicely lined up, and
there won't be a damn thing anyone can do to stop them.

Yours,

Jonathan Day




------------------------------------------------------------
--== Sent via Deja.com ==--
http://www.deja.com/

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:15:20 -0800 (PST)
From: John Jensen <jjens@primenet.com>
To: letters@lwn.net
Subject: common ground


I have to admit that I enjoyed the rough-and-tumble of the last week as
much as anyone.  The comments by Microsoft's Mr. Jim Allchin set of storms
of righteous indignation ... one person's indignation feeding the next. 
Everybody had fun dumping on their favorite bogey-men, and expressing the
differences they felt with "the other side."

The interesting thing for me is how lightly anyone has touched upon the
common ground.  In the clarification of his comments, Mr. Allchin and
Microsoft, apparently endorsed the BSD License for use in government-
funded software development(1).  At what many might consider the other
"extreme", Richard Stallman endorses the same license as "free" and
"useful to the free software community"(2). 

It strikes me that the big missing story of the week was the common ground
reached between (broadly speaking) open source and proprietary software
developers.   Did "everybody" just agree that open source can be an
appropriate choice?

1 - http://weblog.mercurycenter.com/ejournal/2001/02/19
2 - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html

John Jensen
-- 
33° 39' 44N   117° 45' 06W

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:36:08 +0800
From: Leon Brooks <leon@brooks.fdns.net>
To: Hemanshu Nigam <MPAA23@pacbell.net>,
Subject: Unauthorized Distribution of Copyrighted Motion Pictures

Good morning, Hemanshu Nigam!

Re: Your email posted at
     http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/mpaa-threat-feb2001.txt

Having perused this email, I am wondering about several aspects of it, 
and how they may impact my websites.

First, I want to consider your statements to and about Dr Touretzky.

 > Date of Infringement: 1/31/2001 3:09:19 PM EST

As the email relates to ``Unauthorised Distribution of Copyrighted 
Motion Pictures'' and there does not appear to be any copyrighted motion 
picture nor a significant section of one, nor even a still frame from 
one on Dr Touretzky's website [in particular see ref 1], is not the 
subject misleading, possibly even libellous, since you seem to be 
implying by this that Dr Touretzky has distributed or is distributing 
copyrighted motion pictures without authority?

 > Dear dst@cs.cmu.edu

Actually, the man's name is Doctor David S. Touretzky. Is it legal to 
address someone by a string of symbols rather than their name? David 
could allow practically anyone to use that email address, has no legal 
obligation to use it or protect it himself, and could choose to use 
another, at any instant. Likewise the ISP. Not only can you not be 
certain that David has received any communication from you, but there is 
not the slightest guarantee of confidentiality in any unencrypted email 
you send.

 > We have received information that you are unlawfully
 > offering product at the above referenced web site.  We
 > have notified your ISP of the unlawful nature of this
 > web site and have asked for its immediate removal.

Now this *has* to be unconstitutional! You have ``received 
information,'' you have not *proven* or *established* anything, and here 
you are offering what is likely to be a libellous statement about Dr 
Touretzky to his ISP. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence?

Even if the nature of certain files on Dr Touretzky's website had been 
established as illegal, the most you would have been permitted to demand 
by law is the removal of the specific files deemed to be illegal.

Now I would like to consider your email to the hostmaster of Dr 
Touretzky's ISP (in this case, a node within Carnegie Mellon University).

 > We have received information that the above referenced
 > Internet site is providing a circumvention device commonly
 > known as DeCSS.

DeCSS code cannot be a circumvention device, for it is only software. In 
order for Dr Touretzky to be providing a circumvention device, he must 
be providing a device capable of performing circumvention - which in the 
case of a programmable device includes a program which actually does the 
circumvention.

Unless Dr Touretzky's webserver has an interpreter installed which will 
run one of the languages in which code is published on his website, or a 
compiled (binary) version of one of the sources displayed, his webserver 
cannot be a circumvention device in itself. I see no evidence on the web 
page that his (Unix) webserver has any of those installed. Nor can I see 
any evidence on his site of circumvented protection, no proof at all 
that what he is publishing actually circumvents CSS or any other 
protection or encryption scheme.

 > DeCSS is a software utility that decrypts or unscrambles the
 > contents of DVDs (consisting of copyrighted motion pictures)
 > or otherwise circumvents the protection afforded by the
 > Contents Scramble System (CSS) and permits the copying of the
 > DVD contents and/or any portion thereof. As such, DeCSS is an
 > unlawful circumvention device within the meaning of the
 > Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 United States
 > Code Section 1201(a)(2)(3).

Ah! So if make a movie, copyright it and encrypt it using something 
simple like ROT13 or a single-character repeated XOR, every piece of 
ROT13-capable or XORing software in the USA immediately becomes subject 
to control under the DMCA? How about if I encrypt the movie using PGP or 
GPG, publicly-available and widely used encryption programs? How about 
if I or someone else sends the movie across an encrypted network, such 
as PPTP or Free/SWAN? This sounds like a great little money-spinner.

 > We therefore demand that you [the ISP] take appropriate steps
 > to cause the immediate removal of DeCSS from the above
 > identified Internet site,

The ISP now has a legal dilemma. Even if the charges as laid out are 
proven, what of the material on Dr Touretzky's website is DeCSS? If the 
ISP removes material which is not DeCSS, they may cause an actionable 
loss to Dr Touretzky or to other parties relying upon the service 
provided by the website. Not to mention losing a significant amount of 
goodwill, and accountable asset, amongt their clientele. If the ISP 
fails to remove material which later is proven to be DeCSS, they may be 
vulnerable to action by you.

This is all assuming that the ISP has the right to tamper with any 
service offered to Dr Touretzky, or data belonging to Dr Touretzky.

 > along with such other actions as may be necessary or appropriate
 > to suspend this illegal activity.

Yet you still haven't established precisely which activities of Dr 
Turetzky's, if any, are actually illegal.

 > We also request that you:

 > 1. maintain and take whatever steps are necessary to prevent
 > the destruction of all records, including electronic records,
 > in your possession or control related to this Internet site,
 > account holder or subscriber, and

So if the ISP's hard disk currently contains copies of DeCSS and/or 
movies possibly decrypted, possibly using DeCSS, being material 
``related to'' the website, are you here demanding that they make copies 
of this material, that is, to ``import[...] provid[e], or otherwise 
traffick[ in]'' this material?

OK, now let's discuss the applicability to my websites.

I have a copy of and intend to publish much of the educational and 
entertaining material available as at now from 
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ - but I would like to so without putting any 
of the potential hosting agencies at risk.

One of the sites will be hosted in Australia, where reverse engineering 
is protected by law, so a communication such as the one from you which I 
have quoted above is likely to fall under the legal category 
``threatening letters demanding money [compensation] with menaces 
[threats of legal action]'' - so it may actually work out to be highly 
lucrative for an Australian ISP to host the site.

However, one of the sites in question will be hosted in the USA, so I 
need to know which of the items on David Touretsky's page is actually 
DeCSS (if any: the source code to produce DeCSS may not qualify as 
DeCSS, in the same way that plans or machine-tool tapes for an object 
are not that object). It also seems likely that even if plans for DeCSS 
were ruled to _be_ DeCSS (law often seems loathe to follow common 
sense), some of those plans may be exempted as works of art, lampoons of 
the original CSS decoder, or fair academic use of maerial.

I understand that Dr Touretsky has also contacted you with similar 
questions, but that your answer may be somewhat constrained by impending 
threats of legal proceedings. However, the purpose of this communication 
is to *avoid* legal proceedings.

If you would be so kind as to lay out the legal reasons for including or 
excluding specific items from Dr Touretsky's collection, I could also 
publish that list on my sites as a separate issue from Dr Touretsky's 
case, which would help to protect your intellectual property by 
encouraging others only to publish such related art as is legal. If I 
receive no list within a reasonable time, say two weeks, I can safely 
assume that none of the items in the collection are legally offensive to 
you or to the DMCA, and publish them all (subject, of course to the 
permission of any involved copyright holders).


aTdHvAaNnKcSe

Leon RJ Brooks
Computer Consultant
Western Australia

[1] Touretzky, D. S. (2000) Gallery of CSS Descramblers. Available: 
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery, 27 February 2001.

-- 
"If thine enemy wrong thee, buy each of his children Windows."
     -- Redmond proverb

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:25:53 -0500 (EST)
From: "Steven W. Orr" <steveo@world.std.com>
To: <letters@lwn.net>
Subject: Regarding the demise of Maximum Linux.

I am not going to mourn the death of Maximum Linux. I received a copy and
thought that it would be nice to add yet another magazine to my intake. My
standard is that if I can get just one good idea from somthing, then it's
worth the read, and the cost of any magazine subscription is never much of
an issue. I found that they were targeting a *very* specific audience:

1. They had to be very young and hip.
2. They had to be brand new to Linux.

Somehow they took these requirements and felt that speaking in a young and
hip manner allowed them the artistic license to be inaccurate. There were,
on average, one or two falsehoods, made-up stuff, incomplete thoughts,
etc.  on every page of the magazine. This flavor was not limited to any
one writer. It seemed to be a requirement for all contributers.

I wrote to the editor with a complete list of these inaccuracies and was
told that this style was needed to hook the target market they were
looking for.

There's so much good material out there. It's too bad they couldn't have
learned from the ones that are doing well.

-- 
-Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have -
-happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ
-Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all-
-individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question? steveo@world.com