[lug] SSSCA to make all open source software illegal

[D. Stimits]

John Karns wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, J. Wayde Allen said:
> 
> > On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, John Karns wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm ... the only thing that I can remember like this was the discussion I
> > was pushing where I questioned some of the driving forces behind the
> > simplification of Linux.  I don't think we were saying that making the
> > system easier to use was bad.  At least that wasn't exactly the point I
> > was trying to make.
> >
> > I guess the problem I have with the "it's got to be easier" battle cry is
> > that no one knows exactly what is meant by "easier".  What concerns me is
> > that this is usually interpreted as being graphical.  I'm not convinced
> > that the GUI is a necessary and/or sufficient condition for the system
> > being easier to use.  Please by all means prove me wrong.
> 
> I don't think that our views are that much different, but I *would* argue
> that the GUI is a defacto necessity for ease of use today in a mass
> market.  That's not to say that this would apply wrt to techie / power
> users.  We have a choice as to whether we wish to use it or not.
> 
> > > I argue that it is not an inevitability.
> >
> > I don't think anyone is arguing this either.
> >
> > > Furthermore, the potential gains far outweigh the risks.
> >
> > OK, but in any case I think we have to be careful about what we wish
> > for.  Linux built on the Unix toolbox philosophy is powerful, open, and in
> > many ways unique.  Linux built on the concept of GUI based interaction,
> 
> Indeed - I don't advocate gutting the Unix component.  It's what makes
> Linux all the things you describe.
> 
> > simplified configuration based on the most likely encountered scenario,
> > and targeted exclusively at the business desktop is really not that much
> > different than MSWindows, or MacOS.
> 
> I think it's a lot different - it's open source for one.  Secondly it's an
> open system.  I guess some still consider MSW to be an open system, but
> certainly not in the same way that Linux is.  Underneath the GUI config
> utilities, I can still access the system cfg files and customize a great
> deal; not to mention choices of window managers, etc.  I don't see the
> simplified cfg that you speak of as being undesireable, as long as it
> doesn't tie my hands.  This is true in the same sense that I can choose
> not to use SuSE YaST or xconfigurator / (name any similar automated system
> cfg utility here) and manipulate the system cfg directly if I desire.
> This is what I mean by the modular approach, and when I say that X is *on
> top* of the OS - not imbedded in it as are the GUI components of the other
> OS.
> 
> One thing that was recently mentioned here is a sore need for a printing
> subsystem uniform across distros.  Probably extremely difficult, but
> extremely necessary.

It seems that Linux and UNIX grew up from Postscript beginnings. I
happen to love Postscript, but it is proprietary, so all the low end or
consumer grade printers have their own languages. There is a general
scheme of trying to create PS documents from any printing application,
and using ghostscript to send it to any non-PS printer. The unfortunate
side effect is that no printer utilities for particular brands exists,
e.g., aligning ink cartridges. It is common that these printers that
work from Linux can't be maintained from Linux because all we know how
to do is convert for printing, we don't have hardware specs for
aligning, cleaning, so on. This also means it really sucks to try to
detect hardware for printing. I think what we need is something like
ghostscript, but designed for printer maintenance and detection. E.G.,
it would understand (possibly via modules) how to align and maintain any
printer; it would have some knowledge of detecting various brands and
models to choose the right maintenance protocols. It would be the part
of the subsystem that ghostscript falls short on. You can't make a new
print subsystem that follows none of the printer languages unless
someone is willing to write the drivers for these new languages...almost
nobody would do that, ghostscript already does it. Detection and
maintenance is the side that would be nice to have.

> 
> > I'm not sure I believe this.  Predicting the demise of Linux and
> > OpenSource simply on the basis of it not dominating the commercial market
> > seems to ignore a good many basic human traits as well as the underlying
> > principles of the scientific method.
> 
> I didn't necessarily mean to say or imply that dominance is necessary
> (nice to dream though), but a strong presence, which I think is different.
> Granted that Linux has a strong presence in the server arena; but it's
> transparent to the non-tech types.
> 
> I guess I'm a bit jaded when it comes to relying on human traits.  Slight
> digression: And this encompasses the principles of the scientific method
> as you put it as well.  Things are changing rapidly in this area.  The
> corp's are moving into the labs, as they are subsidizing a great deal of
> what was formerly publicly subsidized.  I think that the scientific
> community has lost a lot of the independence that it once had.  The
> incident of Dr. Putzai a few years ago is a good example.  I won't go into
> it here, but I'm sure there is much information to be found via the net.
> 
> > Don't get me wrong.  I do think that fighting the DMCA and the SSSCA is
> > important.  However, I also think that they are only small pieces of the
> > puzzle.  The problem is much bigger than both of these items.  At the top
> > of this fight is the issue of ownership of intellectual property.  This
> > goes far beyond the world of computing.  It strikes at the very heart of
> > who owns what you think?  Is an idea something to be bought and sold?  Is
> 
> I strongly agree here.
> 
> > truth a commodity?  Until recently we used to work on the old adage that
> > invention is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.  Today, the push is to
> > control the inspiration.  There is currently a lot of drum beating to try
> > and make this happen.  I'm not at all convinced that any of this control
> > is however real.  My "guess" is that an attempt at such control will tend
> > to destroy competiveness by eliminating the willingess of people to share
> > their ideas.  As such this may be self limiting as the companies seeking
> > to impose such control discover just how elusive real control actually
> > is.  Let's put it this way, scheduled break throughs tend to be specious
> > at best.
> 
> Agreed here too, although the I think that results you point to would be
> more of a long term result than in the short term.  Linux would probably
> be a thing of the past before those things became generally apparent.
> 
> > > Currently Linux has few real allies in the
> > > corporate world.  Linux in the mainstream would mean that there would be
> > > significant investment of corporate resources which would render the
> > > question of abolishing Linux / open source impractical.
> >
> > If you consider IBM, HP, SUN, NASA, NOAA, NIST, Red Hat, VA Linux, etc. to
> > be inconsequential then maybe.  The reality of much of what is being
> 
> I would say that IBM seems to be the only vendor of the 1st three you
> mention that is giving anything more than lip service to Linux (when will
> we see HP start shipping Linux drivers with their printers?)  RH and VA I
> don't think are in the same category.  I don't mean to disparage them in
> any way either.  Surely RH has done as much as other commercial entity to
> legitimize and promote Linux; but I'm speaking of wide-scale desktop
> useage.  The three N's I wouldn't consider in the corporate sector.  What
> I'm trying to get at is that IMO, $$ is what this is all about, and in
> this respect, the corp's rule.

I think Sun, even if they don't put out huge bucks for Linux directly,
would be hurt badly by loss of java server markets run on linux, as well
as suddenly being forced to use other operating systems. They did fairly
much open source solaris, they could kiss it good-bye.

> 
> > proposed is that its enforcement is unrealistic.  It is unlikely that you
> > can enforce a law when it means reworking the space program, changing the
> > the design and construction of the nations fundamental standards,
> > re-developing the environmental models used by the national weather
> > service, or redesign and redeployment of 1000's of embeded systems and
> > servers.
> 
> I hope you're right.  I do know one thing though, that a certain person in
> Redmond won't rest until every possible threat to his empire is quashed, or
> until he's 6 ft under. (note to Carnivore: it's not a threat! I'm not a
> terrorist!)  And he has shown that he will use any means to do it - our
> complacency is his friend.

The article on "good news" shows MS is actually fighting SSSCA. I doubt
MS wants such legislation unless it is to its particular benefit, and
the legislation is too strong even for MS ATM. See:

http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-10-23-008-20-NW-BZ-LL

D. Stimits, stimits at idcomm.com

> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> John Karns                                        jkarns at csd.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug