» BB Is Watching You

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/07/fbi_spyware

Now, I have to say that I definitely want someone who threatens to bomb someone (or something) to be caught before he or she can commit the act. I also want to emphasize that they did get a warrant. They did the right thing in this case.

I have a sense of uneasiness about this, not because they caught this kid, but because so much of our lives are lived online these days. In the old days, if they had figured out how to make your television report which programs you were watching, it would not have meant much. There were three major networks, that tended to play similar programming at any particular time of the day. So maybe you watched Sonny & Cher instead of Donny & Marie, but it did not tell much about who you were inside.

Nowadays, your computer and network connection bring much of your entertainment. They bring your news and information. They bring your business dealings. They bring your family communications. A malware attack threatens all of that. This is where it becomes a little scary, because you now have to protect yourself against both criminals and crime-fighters. What happens if FBI spyware winds up on a shared computer or winds up infesting non-targeted computers? What happens if someone "captures" the FBI's spyware and deploys it against other people? These are some of the issues that should probably be openly discussed before we allow government agencies to undermine people's computer systems' security.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: fbi, spyware

  No comments | ¶

» A Microsoft statement about GPLv3: Distortion Field

Microsoft Statement About GPLv3: A Microsoft statement about GPLv3.

Microsoft has released a statement responding to the release of the GNU General Public License version 3. I am not a lawyer, and it seems pretty clear that lawyers and judges will be debating the exact meaning of the license for years, but I think that Microsoft's statement does not really address the chief aims of the GPL.

The GPL exists to prevent corporate "shirts" from taking code from the community and locking it up under proprietary licenses such as the infamous EULA that Microsoft uses. Version 3 adds provisions to patch "tivoization" and patent holes that were found in version 2 of the license. Microsoft's agreement with Novell takes advantage of just such a hole. In the agreement, Novell is in compliance with the wording but not the avowed intent of version 2 of the license. It gives paid direct customers of Novell certain rights to use (but not distribute) software and source code under patent licenses. It does not give the same rights to any other users or distributors of the software.

This is much like the local street gang's agreement not to hurt or shoot your kids at the park in exchange for a payment from you. Your kids are still not safe, because any time a gang shoots kids it endangers all kids in the area. Any time a major software company threatens to sue a competitor's customers, all software buyers are in the cross-hairs.

Even just threatening such a thing is totally reckless, along the lines of a presidential candidate threatening to invade China if he or she is elected. In the last hundred years, not once but twice, someone has started a war that spread to much of the world and threatened the existence of civilization as we know it. We would not look favorably upon a politician that threatened to repeat this lesson, yet there are those who look favorably upon the same kind of threat to civilization as we know it--the kind of threats coming from the highest levels of Microsoft.

In fact, we do not believe that Microsoft needs a license under GPL to carry out any aspect of its collaboration with Novell, including its distribution of support certificates, even if Novell chooses to distribute GPLv3 code in the future. Furthermore, Microsoft does not grant any implied or express patent rights under or as a result of GPLv3, and GPLv3 licensors have no authority to represent or bind Microsoft in any way.

Microsoft makes some assertions here: that passing out coupons for software is not distribution (a stance that the Raiders In Adamantium Armor [the RIAA] would disagree with, I'm sure), and that its license grants would not be subject to the "one-for-all and all-for-one" clauses of the GPLv3. It is clear that they are worried, since they are refusing to do anything that might be construed as distribution:

At this point in time, in order to avoid any doubt or legal debate on this issue, Microsoft has decided that the Novell support certificates that we distribute to customers will not entitle the recipient to receive from Novell, or any other party, any subscription for support and updates relating to any code licensed under GPLv3. We will closely study the situation and decide whether to expand the scope of the certificates in the future.

[Emphasis mine] If they were more sure of their position, they would not have to curtail the scope of the coupons. I notice that they are still talking about "interoperability" without any apparent desire to truly work with competitors to make life easier for customers. How do we know this? Look at OOXML. Rather than use a perfectly good ISO (and OASIS) standard format (one that has been proven in over thirty different products), Microsoft is trying to push Not-so-open XML (OOXML) on us, the users of software. Given that Not-so-open XML is an abject failure at its stated objective, the only purpose left that may be motivating the push for ISO-ification of OOXML is continuing their monopoly.

Look also at the continuing threats against all FLOSS that are emanating from Microsoft's headshed in Redmond, WA. It is almost like Harry Potter's Voldemort, a shadowy and malevolent presence. No doubt that we will soon see the resolution of Potter's conflict, but the software conflict will continue for some time. Just remember, as I read on Luis Villa's blog, the GPL is meant primarily to protect the user, but in the process also protects the developer. Past experience has shown that monopolists (and any company that is part of an "opoly") tend to forget about improving their product or service and instead focus on figuring out new ways to package the same functionality so that customers will have to buy it again.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: gpl, gplv3, microsoft

  No comments | ¶