Re: UCITA bans GPL
On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote: snippage I don't think the Virginia legislature would care much that they can't legally distribute GPL software. ...at least until late November when they get voted out because of the negative publicity that it generates (or that we would help generate, to put it more succinctly and more in line with the original intent of this thread as I read it). You have paid nothing for the preceding, therefore it's worth every penny you've paid for it: if you did pay for it, might I remind you of the immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money? Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
UCITA bans GPL
We all know that UCITA alters the requirements for warranties on software - making free software providers responsible for providing warranties, but exempting commercial software providers from this requirement. I believe that this law could be construed as banning distribution of GPL software. This is good! As we know, it is illegal to distribute GPL software if all the freedoms (and restrictions) of the GPL cannot be distributed along with the software. The software was distributed with no warranty to current license-holders in Virginia (and any other UCITA areas) and they are required, by the GPL, to distribute the software only under the same terms that they received it under. They will not be able to do that. Anyone they distribute the software to would be required to extend warranty protection to any further recipients - which requires imposing restrictions on redistribution on them - which is, of course, prohibited. The GPL sort of makes an exception if a warranty is required by law. But I believe that one could argue that UCITA does not require a warranty in the sense that the GPL was presumably referring to - for example, if a state had a law requiring that all products must come with certain warranty provisions. In fact, UCITA does not require software distributors to provide a warranty at all. It merely states a method for disclaiming warranty that does not happen to be compatible with any known methods for distributing GPL software. This will, in effect, make it impossible to distribute the software. I think we should argue that GPL software, because of this problem, cannot be distributed at all. First, it would accomplish the goal of avoiding liability for software warranty issues; presumably Microsoft, or some other proprietary-software company, will begin suing free software authors indiscriminately. Second, it would make lawmakers (and the public) realize they have been hoodwinked - and it will make companies with a large stake in the integrity of the free software process (IBM being the most obvious) realize that they cannot have their cake and eat it, too. A few headlines along the lines of Linux banned in Virginia ought to wake people up - hopefully leading to the eventual repeal of the UCITA. Yes, this is a form of take my ball and go home. :} I would love to hear any arguments on whether this would be an effective legal strategy.
Re: UCITA bans GPL
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 04:47:10PM -0500, William T Wilson wrote: We all know that UCITA alters the requirements for warranties on software - making free software providers responsible for providing warranties, but exempting commercial software providers from this requirement. Note that the UCITA is not law, and there's a lot of people who think it would be a bad idea for it to be made law (attorney generals of about half the states, the senior staff of the federal trade commission, the motion picture association of america, the newspaper association of america, the association of research libraries and a number of computer oriented groups, such as the ACM and the FSF). Note that the UCITA makes it legal to hide the terms of an agreement until after you make payment. Note that the UCITA makes it legal to consider accessing a product as consent to its terms. Note that the UCITA makes it illegal to even discuss product flaws. [This would probably be ruled unconstitutional, even if the UCITA passes, but that would take a lot of time and dedication on someone's part]. I believe that this law could be construed as banning distribution of GPL software. This is good! How does this benefit you? -- Raul
Re: UCITA bans GPL
On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote: Note that the UCITA is not law, and there's a lot of people who think it would be a bad idea for it to be made law (attorney generals of about half On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 05:33:04PM -0500, William T Wilson wrote: But there are a lot of people that think it should be made law - such as the Virginia state legislature. Virginia, Washington and Delware all gain a major part of their revenue from the people backing this proposal. [Ironically, the attorney general of Washington is among those opposing this proposal.] Note that the UCITA makes it legal to hide the terms of an agreement ... Oh yes, there are many flaws with UCITA. Many many flaws. I'm not arguing the relative merits of UCITA - I'm pretty sure that just about everybody here already knows just how bad it really is. I'm curious why the MPAA opposes it. It seems like they wouldn't really stand to lose anything? I believe that it's because MPAA is also a consumer of intellectual property. I believe that this law could be construed as banning distribution of GPL software. This is good! How does this benefit you? In places where discussion has been closed (i.e. Virginia) it gets the legislators to realize they just passed a very bad law. In any case, we don't want GPL software distributed in a place where the authors can be made monetarily liable for trivial problems with their software. I don't think the Virginia legislature would care much that they can't legally distribute GPL software. BTW: I don't believe that even the anti-discussion aspects of UCITA would be ruled unconstitutional, since it is not the government that would be setting the standards for when things can or cannot be discussed. It would simply make it very easy for a corporation to obtain NDA-strength restrictions on their end users. I disagree, but I don't care enough to explain my reasoning. -- Raul
