Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:18:37 -0400, Rich Pieri wrote: > On 4/9/2016 10:24 AM, IngeGNUe wrote: > I'm still not sure that you can actually take a fully copyleft work and > make it fully proprietary, though. Copyleft entails the copyright holder > forfeiting some rights to control the work and it is

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/9/2016 10:24 AM, IngeGNUe wrote: > holder. Makes sense? Yup. I'm still not sure that you can actually take a fully copyleft work and make it fully proprietary, though. Copyleft entails the copyright holder forfeiting some rights to control the work and it is not clear to me if those rights,

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 04/08/16 22:51, Rich Pieri wrote: > On 4/8/2016 9:36 PM, IngeGNUe wrote: >> * With copyleft, in order to privatize/proprietize this software > > Stop. Denying private ownership of software is the essence of copyleft. > You cannot privatize copylefted works. I think we're getting tripped up

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/8/2016 9:36 PM, IngeGNUe wrote: > * With copyleft, in order to privatize/proprietize this software Stop. Denying private ownership of software is the essence of copyleft. You cannot privatize copylefted works. > * With a permissive license, you don't have to pay up. Just snatch it > up.

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 04/08/16 09:55, Rich Pieri wrote: > On 4/7/2016 10:32 PM, IngeGNUe wrote: >> No, that's exactly what I mean by privatization. > > Okay. I'm cool with it. > > I find it interesting that you mean this and then go on to call the GPL > the best software license for the public good. RMS created

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/8/2016 10:03 PM, j...@trillian.mit.edu wrote: > Perhaps the {{Citation needed}} tag could be adopted? Better, I think, to provide some evidence to back up assertions instead of expecting all of us to accept whatever ${REVERED_NUTJOB} spews as holy writ. -- Rich P.

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

Rich P. wrote: | On 4/8/2016 3:07 PM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote: | > I'm officially bowing out of this thread. I think the type of "discussion" | > taking place is detrimental to the list as a whole. | | Since when has requiring proof for assertions ever been detrimental to | any

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/8/2016 3:07 PM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote: > I'm officially bowing out of this thread. I think the type of "discussion" > taking place is detrimental to the list as a whole. Since when has requiring proof for assertions ever been detrimental to any discussion? -- Rich P.

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

I'm officially bowing out of this thread. I think the type of "discussion" taking place is detrimental to the list as a whole. For anyone with actual input on the U.S. Federal Government Source Code Policy, I urge you to respond to their official request for comments by April 11

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

Derek apparently hasn't gotten to this yet so I'll take it upon myself for now. On 4/7/2016 2:32 PM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote: >>> It's WRONG that the US taxpayer spends about $82 billion a year >>> collectively supporting private contractors for things like 'Census taking >>> software' >>

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/7/2016 10:32 PM, IngeGNUe wrote: > No, that's exactly what I mean by privatization. Okay. I'm cool with it. I find it interesting that you mean this and then go on to call the GPL the best software license for the public good. RMS created the first GPL and founded the FSF because, well, to

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 04/07/16 20:37, Rich Pieri wrote: > On 4/7/2016 6:19 PM, IngeGNUe wrote: >> But what I can say is that I think the government in its role as a >> public institution should, befitting its role, share its code (public >> property) publicly, but also that it should have the right to defend its >>

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/7/2016 9:02 PM, Mike Small wrote: > I was reading part 7 of GPLv3 while composing my previous message and saw > exactly the opposite. Maybe you could quote what you're referring to. Yup, I did miss it. Brane definitely not firing on all cylinders this afternoon/evening. But... > b)

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

Rich Pieri writes: > ... Regardless, the GNU licenses > prohibit adding terms that restrict the removal of attributions. That's > a problem in a world where recognition is so highly prized. I was reading part 7 of GPLv3 while composing my previous message and saw

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/7/2016 6:19 PM, IngeGNUe wrote: > But what I can say is that I think the government in its role as a > public institution should, befitting its role, share its code (public > property) publicly, but also that it should have the right to defend its > code from unexpected privatization.

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/7/2016 4:48 PM, Mike Small wrote: > You're misreading or my sentence is ambiguous. Possible. Maybe likely. Read the documents I linked before continuing to try to second guess me trying to second guess you. > Well, I meant the BSD, MIT, ISC, Apache, etc. licenses here. In other > words

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 04/07/16 11:23, Mike Small wrote: > IngeGNUe writes: >>> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its >>> victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under >>> robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

Rich Pieri writes: >> I don't think it shows what you say unless the argument is that these >> OASCR people are bright as hell and they don't even mention rms's >> arguments so therefore said arguments must be crap. [snip] > > DoE-funded scientists are the same scientists

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/7/2016 2:13 PM, Mike Small wrote: > Interesting. I don't think it shows that but it does appear to be an > example of a government agency asserting copyright. And now I'm mixed up > again cause I thought they couldn't do that. Because they are not doing what you seem to think they are doing.

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 6:15 PM, John Hall wrote: > https://www.usa.gov/government-works > It would be great to hear from an IP lawyer on this. > I am not a lawyer, but I've been educating myself about patent, trademark and copyright legislation and practice for a long

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Derek Martin wrote: > > > It's WRONG that elections are not held on verifiable free software > > platforms. > > > It's WRONG that the US taxpayer spends about $82 billion a year > > collectively supporting private contractors for things

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/7/2016 1:07 PM, Daniel Barrett wrote: > Erm... I thought the worst kind of tyrant is one who tortures and > rapes his people, steals their goods, dismembers his enemies alive, > burns the land, and hits puppies. The brutal tyrant will on occasion have his brutality sated, granting the people

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

Rich Pieri writes: > On 4/7/2016 12:27 PM, Mike Small wrote: >> Ah, then I agree with you that that seems like overreach unless and >> until someone demonstrates rms's arguments are good enough to inform >> general law. > > I have evidence that I believe strongly

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

Daniel Barrett writes: > On April 7, 2016, Rich Pieri wrote: >>No. A tyrant with good intentions is the worst kind of tyrant. > > Erm... I thought the worst kind of tyrant is one who tortures and > rapes his people, steals their goods, dismembers his enemies alive, >

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On April 7, 2016, Rich Pieri wrote: >No. A tyrant with good intentions is the worst kind of tyrant. Erm... I thought the worst kind of tyrant is one who tortures and rapes his people, steals their goods, dismembers his enemies alive, burns the land, and hits puppies. -- Dan Barrett

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/7/2016 12:27 PM, Mike Small wrote: > Ah, then I agree with you that that seems like overreach unless and > until someone demonstrates rms's arguments are good enough to inform > general law. I have evidence that I believe strongly demonstrates that RMS's arguments should not be used to

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

Rich Pieri writes: > On 4/7/2016 11:23 AM, Mike Small wrote: >> I haven't understood the thread, not seeing how it is that the U.S. >> government now can hold copyright on its works and thus it be >> possible for them to use the GPL. > > Because it's not about the

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/7/2016 11:23 AM, Mike Small wrote: > I haven't understood the thread, not seeing how it is that the U.S. > government now can hold copyright on its works and thus it be > possible for them to use the GPL. Because it's not about the government per se. It's about software funded by government

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

IngeGNUe writes: >> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its >> victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under >> robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's >> cruelty may sometimes sleep, his

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/7/2016 12:32 AM, IngeGNUe wrote: > Unfortunately that is the nature of rule-making: somebody or some people > think thing should be a certain way, and seek to make it that way. There > is no way to enforce rules without ignoring the fact that some person or > people disagree with said rules.

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 04/06/16 10:27, Rich Pieri wrote: > On 4/6/2016 8:54 AM, IngeGNUe wrote: >> Legal is not moral is not legal BUT, rules exist for a reason and it is >> good to enforce rules. It would be chaos if no one enforced rules! > > I don't disagree per se. Laws are necessary for a reasonably ordered >

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 04:01:39PM -0400, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote: > I opened this discussion by proposing that not only should the US > Government "open source" it's work, but that the BEST choice for licensing > that work in a way that ensures public benefit is to use the principles of >

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 17:34:55 wrote: > | On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:47:40PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > | > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:36:55 -0400 > | > Dan Ritter wrote: > | > > | > > I'm perfectly good with the current method we use in Waltham: > you | >

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

| On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:47:40PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: | > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:36:55 -0400 | > Dan Ritter wrote: | > | > > I'm perfectly good with the current method we use in Waltham: you | > > fill out your paper scantron ballot, you put it in the machine | > >

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:47:40PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:36:55 -0400 > Dan Ritter wrote: > > > I'm perfectly good with the current method we use in Waltham: you > > fill out your paper scantron ballot, you put it in the machine > > yourself, the

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:36:55 -0400 Dan Ritter wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:32:55PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 16:01:39 -0400 > > "Greg Rundlett (freephile)" wrote: > > > > > It's WRONG that elections are not held on

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:32:55PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 16:01:39 -0400 > "Greg Rundlett (freephile)" wrote: > > > It's WRONG that elections are not held on verifiable free software > > platforms. > > Richard Stallman disagrees with you. About a

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 16:01:39 -0400 "Greg Rundlett (freephile)" wrote: > It's WRONG that elections are not held on verifiable free software > platforms. Richard Stallman disagrees with you. About a decade ago, I copied him on a LUG thread about Free Software on voting

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/6/2016 8:54 AM, IngeGNUe wrote: > Legal is not moral is not legal BUT, rules exist for a reason and it is > good to enforce rules. It would be chaos if no one enforced rules! I don't disagree per se. Laws are necessary for a reasonably ordered society to function. What I disagree with is

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 04/05/16 16:01, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote: > I opened this discussion by proposing that not only should the US > Government "open source" it's work, but that the BEST choice for licensing > that work in a way that ensures public benefit is to use the principles of > copyleft as enshrined

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/5/2016 5:33 PM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote: > Laws are based on morality; or more simply: good and bad, right and > wrong. They always have been. I could point you to a primer, but > I'm trying to stay on topic. Patently false. Not all laws are based on morality. For example, what

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Rich Pieri wrote: > On 4/5/2016 4:01 PM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote: > > It's a legal technique to enforce a greater morality. > > Legally enforced morality. > > 'nuff said. > > Laws are based on morality; or more simply: good and

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/5/2016 4:01 PM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote: > It's a legal technique to enforce a greater morality. Legally enforced morality. 'nuff said. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

I opened this discussion by proposing that not only should the US Government "open source" it's work, but that the BEST choice for licensing that work in a way that ensures public benefit is to use the principles of copyleft as enshrined in the GPL v3 license. It's a legal technique to enforce a

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/4/2016 10:43 PM, Matthew Gillen wrote: > Would they? Most (all?) of those exploits involve you installing an app > that takes advantage of a bug in the OS to jailbreak the system, or > visiting a web site with a vulnerable browser, etc. What all these have For any version of iOS the

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/4/2016 4:54 PM, Rich Pieri wrote: > Every or nearly every version of iOS, including the version on Farook's > employer's iPhone, has vulnerabilities that can be exploited in order to > run unsigned versions of the operating system. GPL Part 3 prohibits > using laws like WIPO as protection

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/4/2016 7:15 PM, Mike Small wrote: > There's no irony here. I like the idea of a GPL with provisions not > granting equal rights to scumbags who spy on environmental orgs and > black lives matter activists or to people who manufacture weapons. But > it's easy to see the mess that would result

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

Rich Pieri writes: > On 4/4/2016 4:05 PM, Mike Small wrote: >> That's a bit weak. You would only be liable if you in fact did not erase >> your backups and had some. So their definition would stand on a >> hypothetical present fact (that backups exist) and a hypothetical

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/4/2016 4:05 PM, Mike Small wrote: > That's a bit weak. You would only be liable if you in fact did not erase > your backups and had some. So their definition would stand on a > hypothetical present fact (that backups exist) and a hypothetical future > action (that the victim doesn't destroy

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

Rich Pieri writes: > On 4/4/2016 12:50 PM, Mike Small wrote: >> I don't know a lot about copyright, but I'm guessing being a victim of >> theft or warranted seizure aren't among experiences that "would make you >> directly or secondarily liable for infringement under

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/4/2016 12:50 PM, Mike Small wrote: > I don't know a lot about copyright, but I'm guessing being a victim of > theft or warranted seizure aren't among experiences that "would make you > directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable > copyright law." You are guessing

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

Rich Pieri writes: > On 4/4/2016 11:28 AM, Mike Small wrote: >> on a device they keep), without any autodestruction happening. When the >> FBI takes possession of a person's, especially a late person's, device >> and software they aren't being conveyed anything. They've

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/4/2016 11:28 AM, Mike Small wrote: > on a device they keep), without any autodestruction happening. When the > FBI takes possession of a person's, especially a late person's, device > and software they aren't being conveyed anything. They've simply taken > hold of someone's device and

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

Matthew Gillen writes: > On 4/3/2016 2:49 AM, Rich Pieri wrote: >> On 4/2/2016 10:20 PM, Matthew Gillen wrote: >>> That would satisfy the anti-tivoization and be within the limits of the >>> GPLv3, while still causing a problem for the FBI in this particular >>> instance. >>

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/3/2016 7:58 AM, Matthew Gillen wrote: > That is quite debatable. Auto-bricking the phone would definitely count > as interfering with the device. Erasing protected storage that does not > render the device unusable (even if, for instance, it made it so you > could never talk to iTunes

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/3/2016 2:49 AM, Rich Pieri wrote: > On 4/2/2016 10:20 PM, Matthew Gillen wrote: >> That would satisfy the anti-tivoization and be within the limits of the >> GPLv3, while still causing a problem for the FBI in this particular >> instance. > > Incorrect on both counts. Part 6 prohibits

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/2/2016 10:20 PM, Matthew Gillen wrote: > That would satisfy the anti-tivoization and be within the limits of the > GPLv3, while still causing a problem for the FBI in this particular > instance. Incorrect on both counts. Part 6 prohibits restrictions on consumer devices that prevent or

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/2/2016 11:54 AM, Rich Pieri wrote: > On 4/1/2016 11:31 PM, Matthew Gillen wrote: >> The problem the FBI had even if they modified the OS themselves was >> signing it as an official update so that the phone would accept it... > > The terms of the GPLv3 prohibit the use of digital signatures

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 09:11:52PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 20:27:28 -0500 Derek Martin > wrote: > > > I think there's no compelling reason to see releasing software > > under a non-GPL-style license as inherently a bad thing. > > Until the

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/1/2016 11:31 PM, Matthew Gillen wrote: > The problem the FBI had even if they modified the OS themselves was > signing it as an official update so that the phone would accept it... The terms of the GPLv3 prohibit the use of digital signatures to prevent the execution of modified software.

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/1/2016 9:48 PM, Rich Pieri wrote: > On 4/1/2016 9:11 PM, Steve Litt wrote: >> Until the corporation patents a proprietary modification of the Open >> Source software. > > You know, if the full iOS source code were GPLv3 then the FBI would not > have needed Apple to provide a custom OS to

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 4/1/2016 9:11 PM, Steve Litt wrote: > Until the corporation patents a proprietary modification of the Open > Source software. You know, if the full iOS source code were GPLv3 then the FBI would not have needed Apple to provide a custom OS to help them extract the data from Farook's iPhone. The

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 20:27:28 -0500 Derek Martin wrote: > I think there's no > compelling reason to see releasing software under a non-GPL-style > license as inherently a bad thing. Until the corporation patents a proprietary modification of the Open Source software.

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 03:33:22PM -0400, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote: > The US Fed. Govt. is proposing a pilot program to release at least 20% of > newly developed custom code as 'OSS'. Yay! > If the government actually goes through with 'open sourcing' their work, > it's actually a giant

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 3/27/2016 8:38 AM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote: > Software is completely different than roads or schools. But you already > know that. So I don't know why you're making this argument. Asserting that software is different from physical works validates the premise that prepending "software

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 3/27/2016 9:22 AM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote: > Competing is a choice that only the stronger among us will > voluntarily make. So it is a false assertion that everyone wants > that choice. You're arguing that the old, the sick, the poor wants > to compete against large corporations

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

Greg Rundlett https://eQuality-Tech.com https://freephile.org On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Rich Pieri wrote: > On 3/25/2016 10:13 PM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote: > > You talk about freedom to compete. I'm talking about freedom to > cooperate. > > Reframing

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 12:18 PM, David Rysdam wrote: > "Greg Rundlett (freephile)" writes: > > If the government actually goes through with 'open sourcing' their work, > > it's actually a giant corporate handout because companies will have > greater > >

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 3/25/2016 10:13 PM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote: > You talk about freedom to compete. I'm talking about freedom to cooperate. Reframing the argument does not answer the question I asked. But I'll play along because you're wrong. I'm not talking about freedom to compete. I'm talking about

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Rich Pieri wrote: > On 3/25/2016 5:04 PM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote: > > I am saying that a Free Software license would provide greater access to > public > > works. I said nothing about denying access. Instead, I point out that >

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 3/25/2016 6:15 PM, John Hall wrote: > What organizations are there already involved in the e-government > ecosystem? The Department of Energy has for some years required that all copyrightable software funded by DoE educational and research grants which is publicly published be published under

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 3/25/2016 5:04 PM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote: > I am saying that a Free Software license would provide greater access to > public > works. I said nothing about denying access. Instead, I point out that when You wrote: >> it's actually a giant corporate handout because companies will

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

The FAQ is from the previous links goes into a great deal of detail but unfortunately I don't have the time to parse through it. I found it useful to search for "software" on the FAQ page. http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#toc30 On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 6:15 PM, John Hall

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

https://www.usa.gov/government-works It would be great to hear from an IP lawyer on this. All licenses are attached through copyright laws and federal government works cannot have a copyright so can not be released under a license. There are literally no restrictions except those noted at the

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Rich Pieri wrote: > On 3/25/2016 3:33 PM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote: > > If the government actually goes through with 'open sourcing' their work, > > it's actually a giant corporate handout because companies will have > greater > >

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

Code written by Govt. employees is 'Public Domain', meaning specifically exempted from copyright. However, most? government software is written by contractors, and not published or shared. I don't know for sure, but I imagine that a large amount of that work is under a proprietary license. I

Re: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

On 3/25/2016 3:33 PM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote: > If the government actually goes through with 'open sourcing' their work, > it's actually a giant corporate handout because companies will have greater > access to publicly funded works that they can then incorporate into > proprietary works.

[Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

The US Fed. Govt. is proposing a pilot program to release at least 20% of newly developed custom code as 'OSS'. https://sourcecode.cio.gov/ They're accepting comments now. And since it's hosted on GitHub, you "comment" via the issue queue, and you can also fork the project and issue a pull