MESSAGE
| DATE | 2002-11-03 |
| FROM | Matthew Hirsch
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] DMCA HORROR SHOW
|
Please excuse if you have seen this before.
----- Forwarded message from OpenSource-at-bdcimail.com -----
Subject: RUSSELL PAVLICEK: "The Open Source" from InfoWorld.com, Wednesday, October 30, 2002
========================================================
RUSSELL PAVLICEK: "The Open Source" InfoWorld.com
========================================================
Wednesday, October 30, 2002
DMCA HORROR SHOW
Posted October 25, 2002 01:01 PM Pacific Time
WELL, IT'S THAT time of year again when horrifying
things terrorize people in their dreams. Ghoulish
tales fill the air. And grown people peek over their
shoulders in fear.
No, I'm not talking about Halloween. It's time again to
consider the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
For those who don't recall the bill, the DMCA was
supposed to be the magic legal bullet that would
protect copyright holders from efforts to crack
security measures protecting intellectual property.
Although that may sound reasonable and
business-friendly, it has proved to be otherwise --
especially when it comes to open-source software.
It has come to the forefront once again for two
reasons. First, Red Hat recently issued a security
patch for the Linux kernel. Unfortunately, due to the
DMCA's provisions, company officials believe they
cannot explain to U.S. citizens what the patch does. A
European Web site ( http://www.thefreeworld.net/non-US
) will divulge the information to non-U.S. citizens
but will deny access to Americans. Explaining the
problem might violate the DMCA and leave Red Hat
exposed to possible prosecution.
You see, if Red Hat describes the security flaw, it
will indirectly reveal how unscrupulous individuals
can exploit the security deficiency in a number of
Linux distributions. And that, Red Hat officials say,
appears to be a violation of the DMCA. After all, if
Dmitry Sklyarov can be hauled off to jail for publicly
demonstrating that a commercial security scheme did
not work as advertised, anything is possible.
Now I fully understand that businesses need to be
properly compensated for creating innovative
solutions, but this situation is too ludicrous for
words. When a law such as the DMCA cripples free
speech to the point where a company such as Red Hat is
too scared to release details of a patch it is
distributing, something is dreadfully wrong. This law
crosses the line from protecting business to enforcing
ignorance.
As implemented, the DMCA makes as much sense as
outlawing cars to protect the rights of the buggy-whip
industry. It's one thing to encourage business; it's
another to do so by denying that the rest of the world
is moving on. In this case, the DMCA flies into the
face of open-source development because Red Hat does
not "own" the Linux kernel and therefore cannot
discuss things that compromise its security. The law
might work for some closed-source software companies,
but it is clearly out of sync with the open-source
movement gaining momentum worldwide.
The second issue that brings the DMCA into the light of
scrutiny is the fact that the U.S. Copyright Office is
asking for public comment regarding the law. The
feedback period begins Nov. 19 and lasts until Dec.
18. If you have strong feelings about the DMCA, you'll
have an opportunity to express them. Links to the
appropriate government Web site are in the Open Source
forum at www.infoworld.com/os.
Russell Pavlicek is a contributing editor at InfoWorld.
Contact him at
pavlicek-at-linuxprofessionalsolutions.com. Log on to his
forum at http://www.infoworld.com/os.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
"The job is never done. Just because you've wiped out
the top N holes in your systems doesn't mean that
it's Miller time. Expand the scope of your sweeps to
include more obscure vulnerabilities -- after all,
you never hear or see the one that gets you."
--"Security Adviser" columnist P.J. Connolly
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/10/28/021028opsecurity.xml?1030weli
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
