[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/bulletins bulletin-001.html
|
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
|
Subject: |
www/bulletins bulletin-001.html |
|
Date: |
Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:44:29 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 08/10/20 12:44:29
Modified files:
bulletins : bulletin-001.html
Log message:
Validation fixes. Remove translations links.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/bulletins/bulletin-001.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.9&r2=1.10
Patches:
Index: bulletin-001.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/bulletins/bulletin-001.html,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -b -r1.9 -r1.10
--- bulletin-001.html 22 Apr 2008 16:30:36 -0000 1.9
+++ bulletin-001.html 20 Oct 2008 12:43:41 -0000 1.10
@@ -11,22 +11,25 @@
</head>
<body>
-<a href="#translations">Translations</a> of this page
-
<h3>FSF Bulletin Issue 1, November 2002</h3>
-<a href="/graphics/agnuhead.html"><img src="/graphics/gnu-head-sm.jpg" alt="
[image of the Head of a GNU] " width="129" height="122" /></a>
+<a href="/graphics/agnuhead.html"><img src="/graphics/gnu-head-sm.jpg"
+alt=" [image of the Head of a GNU] " width="129" height="122" /></a>
-<P>
<hr/>
<h4>Table of Contents</h4>
<ul>
- <li> <a href="#FromExecutiveDirector" id="TOCFromExecutiveDirector">From the
Executive Director</a> </li>
- <li> <a href="#DSP" id="TOCDSP">The Digital Speech Project Status</a></li>
- <li> <a href="#GPLViolations" id="TOCGPLViolations">Anatomy of GPL
Violations</a></li>
- <li> <a href="#TreacherousComp" id="TOCTreacherousComp" >Can You Trust Your
Computer?</a><li>
- <li> <a href="#GNUPress" id="TOCGNUPress">New Title from GNU Press</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#FromExecutiveDirector"
+ id="TOCFromExecutiveDirector">From the Executive Director</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#DSP" id="TOCDSP">The Digital Speech Project
+ Status</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#GPLViolations" id="TOCGPLViolations">Anatomy of GPL
+ Violations</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#TreacherousComp" id="TOCTreacherousComp" >Can You
+ Trust Your Computer?</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#GNUPress" id="TOCGNUPress">New Title from GNU
+ Press</a></li>
</ul>
<hr />
@@ -35,283 +38,403 @@
<a href="#TOCFromExecutiveDirector" id="FromExecutiveDirector">
From the Executive Director </a>
</h3>
-by Bradley M. Kuhn
-<br>
-<P>
-This is the first issue of our new semiannual FSF Bulletin. While our
long-time supporters will fondly remember
-the now-defunct GNU's Bulletin, we hope that this new bulletin will help keep
our donors and associate members
-informed in a new way, now that FSF's activities extend far beyond just the
GNU project that we help sponsor.
-<P>
-The last six months have reminded us all that slowly but surely, the
mainstream culture is becoming aware of what we
-in the Free Software Movement have long known -- freedom to share and improve
information technology is a fundamental
-right. In early October, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Eldred
v.Ashcroft, a case which considers the
-constitutionality of the "Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act". Our General
Counsel, Eben Moglen, who authored FSF's
-<a href="/philosophy/eldred-amicus.html" >amicus brief</a> in the case,
mentioned to me that he had rarely seen a Supreme Court hearing so widely
attended; he barely
-was able to get a seat himself despite being a member of the Supreme Court
bar. We likely won't know the outcome
-of this case until we're publishing the next issue of this bulletin. However,
the excitement and interest surrounding
-this case bodes well for our movement, regardless of the outcome. The public
is beginning to reconsider how copyright
-law should be used to protect citizens' right to innovate and draw on our
shared commons.
-<P>
-Just before the mid-term elections, we saw the next round of attacks in
Microsoft's campaign against the GNU GPL.
-Adam Smith, a Congressional Representative from the state of Washington, who
is well-funded by Microsoft lobbying
-dollars, circulated a "<i>dear colleague</i>" letter discouraging government
use of GPL'ed software. Like all the
-Microsoft attacks of the last eighteen months, it backfired and Smith
backpedaled within two weeks. Even though
-Steve Ballmer has now declared GPL'ed software "enemy number one", ousting the
likes of Oracle and Sun, we still
-remain the wily adversary. Microsoft so far knows only how to fight
competitors like themselves -- companies
-interested in subjugating users by restricting them. For now, Microsoft and
other proprietary software companies
-remain unsure how to oppose a movement whose primary goal is software
liberation. Our adept responses to their
-attacks have kept them off-balance.
-<P>
-However, to keep pace with attacks from Microsoft and the media companies,
and to continue our education efforts
-about software freedom, we do need your support. One new way to support FSF is
to take advantage of our new
-Associate Membership program. In addition to receiving these bulletins,
associate members of FSF receive a 20%
-discount on all FSF merchandise and books, up to five email forwarding address
of the form <i>NAME</i>@member.fsf.org,
-and an invitation to an annual meeting in the Boston area with FSF board
members and staff. If you buy a
-full-year associate membership for $120 by the end of 2002, you'll receive a
complimentary copy of RMS' new
-book <i>Free Software, Free Society</i>. You can join online at <a
href="http://member.fsf.org"; >http://member.fsf.org/</a>.
-<P>
-In the next few years, we will fight the most defining battles of our movement
since its inception in 1984. We
-won't get the job done alone. Like all the work we've done so far, success
will depend on each one of us working
-together. FSF will need your help to succeed.
-<P>
+<p>by Bradley M. Kuhn</p>
+<p>
+This is the first issue of our new semiannual FSF Bulletin. While our
+long-time supporters will fondly remember the now-defunct GNU's
+Bulletin, we hope that this new bulletin will help keep our donors and
+associate members informed in a new way, now that FSF's activities
+extend far beyond just the GNU project that we help sponsor.</p>
+
+<p>
+The last six months have reminded us all that slowly but surely, the
+mainstream culture is becoming aware of what we in the Free Software
+Movement have long known — freedom to share and improve
+information technology is a fundamental right. In early October, the
+Supreme Court heard arguments in Eldred v.Ashcroft, a case which
+considers the constitutionality of the “Sony Bono Copyright
+Extension Act”. Our General Counsel, Eben Moglen, who authored
+FSF's <a href="/philosophy/eldred-amicus.html">amicus brief</a> in the
+case, mentioned to me that he had rarely seen a Supreme Court hearing
+so widely attended; he barely was able to get a seat himself despite
+being a member of the Supreme Court bar. We likely won't know the
+outcome of this case until we're publishing the next issue of this
+bulletin. However, the excitement and interest surrounding this case
+bodes well for our movement, regardless of the outcome. The public is
+beginning to reconsider how copyright law should be used to protect
+citizens' right to innovate and draw on our shared commons.</p>
+
+<p>
+Just before the mid-term elections, we saw the next round of attacks
+in Microsoft's campaign against the GNU GPL. Adam Smith, a
+Congressional Representative from the state of Washington, who is
+well-funded by Microsoft lobbying dollars, circulated a “<i>dear
+colleague</i>” letter discouraging government use of GPL'ed
+software. Like all the Microsoft attacks of the last eighteen months,
+it backfired and Smith backpedaled within two weeks. Even though
+Steve Ballmer has now declared GPL'ed software “enemy number
+one”, ousting the likes of Oracle and Sun, we still remain the
+wily adversary. Microsoft so far knows only how to fight competitors
+like themselves — companies interested in subjugating users by
+restricting them. For now, Microsoft and other proprietary software
+companies remain unsure how to oppose a movement whose primary goal is
+software liberation. Our adept responses to their attacks have kept
+them off-balance.</p>
+
+<p>
+However, to keep pace with attacks from Microsoft and the media
+companies, and to continue our education efforts about software
+freedom, we do need your support. One new way to support FSF is to
+take advantage of our new Associate Membership program. In addition
+to receiving these bulletins, associate members of FSF receive a 20%
+discount on all FSF merchandise and books, up to five email forwarding
+address of the form <i>NAME</i>@member.fsf.org, and an invitation to
+an annual meeting in the Boston area with FSF board members and staff.
+If you buy a full-year associate membership for $120 by the end of
+2002, you'll receive a complimentary copy of RMS' new book <i>Free
+Software, Free Society</i>. You can join online
+at <a href="http://member.fsf.org";>http://member.fsf.org/</a>.</p>
+<p>
+In the next few years, we will fight the most defining battles of our
+movement since its inception in 1984. We won't get the job done
+alone. Like all the work we've done so far, success will depend on
+each one of us working together. FSF will need your help to
+succeed.</p>
<h3>
<a href="#TOCDSP" id="DSP" >The Digital Speech Project Status</a>
</h3>
-by Staff
-<br>
+<p>by Staff</p>
+
<p><em>Update June 10, 2005: The digitalspeech.org domain accidentally
expired, so these links now takes you directly to the EFF</em></p>
-<P>
-The <a href="http://www.eff.org"; >Digital Speech Project (DSP)</a>, sponsored
by the Free Software Foundation,
-is putting together a grassroots coalition to defend the public’s right
to use technology for its own purposes.
-<P>
-To stop heavy-handed actions of the media companies and our legislature to
curtail digital freedom, the DSP has
-assembled a steering committee made up of activists and concerned individuals
from a broad array of backgrounds.
-<P>
-Heading up the committee is Ravi Khanna, FSF's Director of Communications and
an experienced human rights activist.
-Other members of the committee include college students, a Boston-based
singer/songwriter, a law professor, a music
-teacher, a librarian, two radio station executives, an analyst, the executive
director of FSF, and the outreach
-coordinator for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
-<P>
-It is an eclectic group -- a planned microcosm of the grassroots support they
hope to achieve. They are
-convinced that legislation like the DMCA hurts everyone: software developers,
technology companies, computer users,
-authors, artists, musicians, filmmakers, and anyone who benefits from and
enjoys a free marketplace for creative
-expression.
-<P>
-For the past several months the committee has been working on a statement of
principles, a condensation of the
-beliefs and goals of the DSP. With the creation of the statement, committee
members hope to come away with
-a concise, easy-to-grasp snapshot that can be shared with their constituents
in the workplace and on college
-campuses.
-<P>
-In fact, campuses are among the best places to start, according to committee
member and FSF executive director,
-Bradley M. Kuhn:
-<blockquote>"We dove into the project with vigor earlier this year. We focused
on forming campus
-Digital Freedom groups. A few campus groups, including the Digital Freedom
group at the University of Kentucky,
-have gotten very active.
-<P>
-What I find when I visit these campuses is a growing underground awareness --
based mostly (but not exclusively)
-in the computer science departments -- that current notions of copyright law
are too extreme and downright harmful.
-From what I've seen, college students, despite the popular opinion from the
mainstream press, don't dismiss the
-artists' needs when they share music non-commercially online.
-<P>
-In fact, when I lead class discussions on the topic, all the students who
speak up say they've considered it carefully,
-and that they find the current system of music production to be a scam
controlled by the publishing companies.
-They know as well as Courtney Love does that the current regime isn't about
the artist; it's about corporate
-control".
-</blockquote>
-<P>
-However, Kuhn points out that getting the word out to people who've never
thought about digital freedom before
-takes time.
-<blockquote>"We formed the committee because we believe that the best approach
is to first and foremost build a broad
-coalition. With that coalition, represented by the committee, we hope to get
the interest of funders to provide us the
-resources to design and execute a strong grassroots campaign".</blockquote>
-<P>
-This month, the committee is expected to approve the Statement of Principles,
which should be available
-on <a href="http://www.eff.org"; >www.digitalspeech.org (now www.eff.org)</a>
</span>by the end of the year. This
-statement will serve as the guiding document for the project as FSF and the
committee launch a nation-wide
-grassroots organizing campaign for digital freedom in 2003.
-<P>
+<p>
+The <a href="http://www.eff.org";>Digital Speech Project (DSP)</a>,
+sponsored by the Free Software Foundation, is putting together a
+grassroots coalition to defend the public’s right to use
+technology for its own purposes.</p>
+<p>
+To stop heavy-handed actions of the media companies and our
+legislature to curtail digital freedom, the DSP has assembled a
+steering committee made up of activists and concerned individuals from
+a broad array of backgrounds.</p>
+<p>
+Heading up the committee is Ravi Khanna, FSF's Director of
+Communications and an experienced human rights activist. Other
+members of the committee include college students, a Boston-based
+singer/songwriter, a law professor, a music teacher, a librarian, two
+radio station executives, an analyst, the executive director of FSF,
+and the outreach coordinator for the Electronic Frontier
+Foundation.</p>
+<p>
+It is an eclectic group — a planned microcosm of the grassroots
+support they hope to achieve. They are convinced that legislation like
+the DMCA hurts everyone: software developers, technology companies,
+computer users, authors, artists, musicians, filmmakers, and anyone
+who benefits from and enjoys a free marketplace for creative
+expression.</p>
+<p>
+For the past several months the committee has been working on a
+statement of principles, a condensation of the beliefs and goals of
+the DSP. With the creation of the statement, committee members hope
+to come away with a concise, easy-to-grasp snapshot that can be shared
+with their constituents in the workplace and on college campuses.</p>
+<p>
+In fact, campuses are among the best places to start, according to
+committee member and FSF executive director, Bradley M. Kuhn:</p>
+<p><blockquote><p>We dove into the project with vigor earlier this year.
+We focused on forming campus Digital Freedom groups. A few campus
+groups, including the Digital Freedom group at the University of
+Kentucky, have gotten very active.</p>
+<p>
+What I find when I visit these campuses is a growing underground
+awareness — based mostly (but not exclusively) in the computer
+science departments — that current notions of copyright law are
+too extreme and downright harmful. From what I've seen, college
+students, despite the popular opinion from the mainstream press, don't
+dismiss the artists' needs when they share music non-commercially
+online.</p>
+<p>
+In fact, when I lead class discussions on the topic, all the students
+who speak up say they've considered it carefully, and that they find
+the current system of music production to be a scam controlled by the
+publishing companies. They know as well as Courtney Love does that
+the current regime isn't about the artist; it's about corporate
+control.</p></blockquote></p>
+<p>
+However, Kuhn points out that getting the word out to people who've
+never thought about digital freedom before takes time.</p>
+<p><blockquote>We formed the committee because we believe that the
+best approach is to first and foremost build a broad coalition. With
+that coalition, represented by the committee, we hope to get the
+interest of funders to provide us the resources to design and execute
+a strong grassroots campaign.</blockquote></p>
+<p>
+This month, the committee is expected to approve the Statement of
+Principles, which should be available on <a href="http://www.eff.org";>
+www.digitalspeech.org (now www.eff.org)</a> by the end of the year.
+This statement will serve as the guiding document for the project as
+FSF and the committee launch a nation-wide grassroots organizing
+campaign for digital freedom in 2003.</p>
<h3>
<a href="#TOCGPLViolations" id="GPLViolations" >Anatomy of GPL Violations</a>
</h3>
-by David `novalis' Turner<br>
-GPL Compliance Engineer<br>
-<P>
-For the last eight months, I have served as FSF's primary GPL violation
investigator and compliance engineer. I work
-with violation reporters and GPL violators throughout the whole process --
from violation confirmation to resolution.
-After handling more than fifty GPL violations over the past eight months, I
have a few observations about the process
-that will hopefully enlighten FSF's supporters about the GPL enforcement
process. (To get the lawyer's perspective,
-please read <a href="/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html" >Eben Moglen's
article</a>.)
-<P>
+<p>by David ‘novalis’ Turner<br />
+GPL Compliance Engineer</p>
+<p>
+For the last eight months, I have served as FSF's primary GPL
+violation investigator and compliance engineer. I work with violation
+reporters and GPL violators throughout the whole process — from
+violation confirmation to resolution. After handling more than fifty
+GPL violations over the past eight months, I have a few observations
+about the process that will hopefully enlighten FSF's supporters about
+the GPL enforcement process. (To get the lawyer's perspective, please
+read <a href="/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html" >Eben Moglen's
+article</a>.)</p>
+
<h4>Who violates the GPL?</h4>
-A plurality of GPL violations on FSF-copyrighted Free Software are in the
embedded market. Companies
-often port GCC to new chips or boards and distribute the binaries without
releasing source code. The next
-most common class is firewall vendors. Many small companies, and a few larger
ones, make CDs with small
-GNU/Linux distributions. You stick these CDs into an old PC with a couple of
network cards, and you have a
-firewall. Unfortunately, you often have a GPL violation too.
-<P>
+
+<p>A plurality of GPL violations on FSF-copyrighted Free Software are
+in the embedded market. Companies often port GCC to new chips or
+boards and distribute the binaries without releasing source code. The
+next most common class is firewall vendors. Many small companies, and
+a few larger ones, make CDs with small GNU/Linux distributions. You
+stick these CDs into an old PC with a couple of network cards, and you
+have a firewall. Unfortunately, you often have a GPL violation
+too.</p>
+
<h4>What are the most common types of violations?</h4>
-The most common violations are failure by a distributor to include source code
or an offer for source code. This
-comes as no surprise, since, from the point of view of proprietary software
companies, it's the most unusual
-provision in the license. In cases where there <i>is </i>an offer for source
code, it's often only open to those
-who have binaries, rather than to all third parties (as required by GPL Sec
3(b)). Even worse, sometimes when there's
-an offer for source code, requests for that source are ignored.
-<P>
-Another unusual provision -- that no additional restrictions beyond those in
the GPL are permitted (Sec 6) --
-accounts for most of the remaining violations. Corporate lawyers often like to
wrap a whole distribution
-with an End User Licensing Agreement (EULA). Most of the time, such EULAs are
incompatible with the
-GPL, as they attempt to trump the rights that the GPL protects.
-<P>
+<p>The most common violations are failure by a distributor to include
+source code or an offer for source code. This comes as no surprise,
+since, from the point of view of proprietary software companies, it's
+the most unusual provision in the license. In cases where
+there <i>is</i> an offer for source code, it's often only open to
+those who have binaries, rather than to all third parties (as required
+by GPL Sec 3(b)). Even worse, sometimes when there's an offer for
+source code, requests for that source are ignored.</p>
+<p>
+Another unusual provision — that no additional restrictions
+beyond those in the GPL are permitted (Sec 6) — accounts for
+most of the remaining violations. Corporate lawyers often like to
+wrap a whole distribution with an End User Licensing Agreement (EULA).
+Most of the time, such EULAs are incompatible with the GPL, as they
+attempt to trump the rights that the GPL protects.</p>
+
<h4>How does FSF find out about violations?</h4>
-<P>
-We encourage the public to send violation reports to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"; >address@hidden</a>. Most of our reports are from
customers of the GPL violators. Some are from bored hackers, who download demos
or
-read online copies of licenses. A few are from courageous whistle-blowers
inside the violating companies themselves.
-I read all mail to that address and work with the reporters to get details.
Once we've confirmed a violation, I write
-a letter for our executive director to send to the violator.
-<P>
+<p>
+We encourage the public to send violation reports
+to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
address@hidden</a>. Most of our reports are from customers
+of the GPL violators. Some are from bored hackers, who download demos
+or read online copies of licenses. A few are from courageous
+whistle-blowers inside the violating companies themselves. I read all
+mail to that address and work with the reporters to get details. Once
+we've confirmed a violation, I write a letter for our executive
+director to send to the violator.</p>
+
<h4>How do violations get fixed?</h4>
-<P>
-Most violators want to cooperate with us and correct the violations. If they
don't, a conference call with Daniel
-Ravicher, our volunteer outside counsel, usually convinces them that it's in
their best interest to cooperate in
-a friendly way. After all, fixing the violation is usually as simple as
releasing the source code. When the violation
-has been large or has gone on for a long time, we ask that previous customers
of the product be notified that source
-code is available. Sometimes, we have to explain the intricacies of how GPL'd
code can be distributed alongside
-proprietary code (and how it can't). Usually, the violator has fixed most of
the problems within a month, leaving
-only minor details.
-<P>
+<p>
+Most violators want to cooperate with us and correct the violations.
+If they don't, a conference call with Daniel Ravicher, our volunteer
+outside counsel, usually convinces them that it's in their best
+interest to cooperate in a friendly way. After all, fixing the
+violation is usually as simple as releasing the source code. When the
+violation has been large or has gone on for a long time, we ask that
+previous customers of the product be notified that source code is
+available. Sometimes, we have to explain the intricacies of how GPL'd
+code can be distributed alongside proprietary code (and how it can't).
+Usually, the violator has fixed most of the problems within a month,
+leaving only minor details.</p>
+
<h4>What happens afterwards?</h4>
-<P>
-Once we've confirmed that the company now complies, intends to continue to do
so, and has carried out corrective
-measures for past violations, we formally restore their distribution rights
that were lost (GPL Sec 4). In cases where
-we are concerned about future violations, we ask the company to appoint an
internal GPL Compliance Officer,
-high enough that she oversees the legal situation of all software products for
the company. This person becomes
-FSF's line of communication for all future GPL violations by that company.
-<P>
-We then ask companies to reimburse us for the time we spend on solving their
problem. It's in their interest to pay
-our costs, so that we can pursue their competitors when they violate the GPL.
We don't want to ask our donors to
-continue subsidizing corporate GPL violators, as they have done so far. But
still, while we've been asking for such
-reimbursement for a few months now, no violators have actually moved to
reimburse us yet. For now, we must ask
-our donors help to enforce the license. You can support my work at FSF by
making a directed GPL Compliance Lab
-donation at<a href="http://donate.fsf.org/gpl/"; >
http://donate.fsf.org/gpl/</a>.
-<P>
- <span
+<p>
+Once we've confirmed that the company now complies, intends to
+continue to do so, and has carried out corrective measures for past
+violations, we formally restore their distribution rights that were
+lost (GPL Sec 4). In cases where we are concerned about future
+violations, we ask the company to appoint an internal GPL Compliance
+Officer, high enough that she oversees the legal situation of all
+software products for the company. This person becomes FSF's line of
+communication for all future GPL violations by that company.</p>
+<p>
+We then ask companies to reimburse us for the time we spend on solving
+their problem. It's in their interest to pay our costs, so that we
+can pursue their competitors when they violate the GPL. We don't want
+to ask our donors to continue subsidizing corporate GPL violators, as
+they have done so far. But still, while we've been asking for such
+reimbursement for a few months now, no violators have actually moved
+to reimburse us yet. For now, we must ask our donors help to enforce
+the license. You can support my work at FSF by making a directed GPL
+Compliance Lab donation at <a href="http://donate.fsf.org/gpl/";>
+http://donate.fsf.org/gpl/</a>.</p>
+
<h3>
<a href="#TOCTreacherousComp" id="TreacherousComp" >Can You Trust Your
Computer?</a>
</h3>
-by Richard M. Stallman<br>
-<P>
-Who should your computer take its orders from? Most people think their
computers should obey them, not obey
-someone else. With a plan they call "trusted computing", large media
corporations (including the movie companies
-and record companies), together with computer companies such as Microsoft and
Intel, are planning to make your
-computer obey them instead of you. Proprietary programs have included
malicious features before, but this plan would
-make it universal.
-<P>
-Proprietary software means, fundamentally, that you don't control what it
does; you can't study the source code, or
-change it. It's not surprising that clever businessmen find ways to use their
control to put you at a disadvantage.
-Microsoft has done this several times: one version of Windows was designed to
report to Microsoft all the
-software on your hard disk; a recent "security" upgrade in Windows Media
Player required users to agree to
-new restrictions. But Microsoft is not alone: the KaZaa music-sharing software
is designed so that KaZaa's business
-partner can rent out the use of your computer to their clients. These
malicious features are often secret, but even
-once you know about them it is hard to remove them, since you don't have the
source code.
-<P>
-In the past, these were isolated incidents. "Trusted computing" would make it
pervasive. "Treacherous computing"
-is a more appropriate name, because the plan is designed to make sure your
computer will systematically disobey you. In
-fact, it is designed to stop your computer from functioning as a
general-purpose computer. Every operation may require
-explicit permission.
-<P>
-The technical idea underlying treacherous computing is that the computer
includes a digital encryption and
-signature device, and the keys are kept secret from you. (Microsoft's version
of this is called "Palladium".)
-Proprietary programs will use this device to control which other programs you
can run, which documents or
-data you can access, and what programs you can pass them to. These programs
will continually download new
-authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically
on your work. If you don't
-allow your computer to obtain the new rules periodically from the Internet,
some capabilities will automatically
-cease to function.
-<P>
-Of course, Hollywood and the record companies plan to use treacherous
computing for "DRM" (Digital Restrictions
-Management), so that downloaded videos and music can be played only on one
specified computer. Sharing will be
-entirely impossible, at least using the authorized files that you would get
from those companies. You, the public, ought
-to have both the freedom and the ability to share these things. (I expect that
someone will find a way to produce
-unencrypted versions, and to upload and share them, so DRM will not entirely
succeed, but that is no excuse for the
-system.)
-<P>
-Making sharing impossible is bad enough, but it gets worse. There are plans to
use the same facility for email and
-documents -- resulting in email that disappears in two weeks, or documents
that can only be read on the computers
-in one company.
-<P>
-Imagine if you get an email from your boss telling you to do something that
you think is risky; a month later, when
-it backfires, you can't use the email to show that the decision was not yours.
"Getting it in writing" doesn't
-protect you when the order is written in disappearing ink.
-<P>
-Imagine if you get an email from your boss stating a policy that is illegal or
morally outrageous, such as to shred
-your company's audit documents, or to allow a dangerous threat to your country
to move forward unchecked. Today
-you can send this to a reporter and expose the activity. With treacherous
computing, the reporter won't be able to
-read the document; her computer will refuse to obey her. Treacherous computing
becomes a paradise for corruption.
-<P>
-Word processors such as Microsoft Word could use treacherous computing when
they save your documents, to
-make sure no competing word processors can read them. Today we must figure out
the secrets of Word format by
-laborious experiments in order to make free word processors read Word
documents. If Word encrypts documents using
-treacherous computing when saving them, the free software community won't have
a chance of developing software to
-read them -- and if we could, such programs might even be forbidden by the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
-<P>
-Since treacherous computing will impose automatically downloaded rules on your
work, you cannot be certain that
-what you write today can be read tomorrow. If Microsoft, or the U.S.
government, does not like what you said in a
-document you wrote, they could post new instructions telling all computers to
refuse to let anyone read that
-document. Each computer would obey when it downloads the new instructions.
Your writing would be subject to
-1984-style retroactive erasure. You might be unable to read it yourself.
-<P>
-You might think you can find out what nasty things a treacherous computing
application does, study how
-painful they are, and decide whether to accept them. It would be short-sighted
and foolish to accept, but
-the point is that the deal you think you are making won't stand still. Once
you come to depend on using the
-program, you are hooked and they know it; then they can change the deal. Some
applications will automatically
-download upgrades that will do something different -- and they won't give you
a choice about whether to upgrade.
-<P>
-Today you can avoid being restricted by proprietary software by not using it.
If you run GNU/Linux or another
-free operating system, and if you avoid installing proprietary applications on
it, then you are in charge of what your
-computer does. If a free program has a malicious feature, other developers in
the community will take it out, and
-you can use the corrected version. You can also run free application programs
and tools on non-free operating
-systems; this falls short of fully giving you freedom, but many users do it.
-<P>
-Treacherous computing puts the existence of free operating systems and free
applications at risk, because you
-may not be able to run them at all. Some versions of treacherous computing
would require the operating system
-to be specifically authorized by a particular company. Free operating systems
could not be installed. Some versions of
-treacherous computing would require every program to be specifically
authorized by the operating system developer.
-You could not run free applications on such a system. If you did figure out
how, and told someone, that could be a crime.
-<P>
-Editor's note: The full version of this essay is part of <i>Free Software,
Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M.
-Stallman</i>.
+<p>by Richard M. Stallman</p>
+<p>
+Who should your computer take its orders from? Most people think
+their computers should obey them, not obey someone else. With a plan
+they call “trusted computing”, large media corporations
+(including the movie companies and record companies), together with
+computer companies such as Microsoft and Intel, are planning to make
+your computer obey them instead of you. Proprietary programs have
+included malicious features before, but this plan would make it
+universal.</p>
+<p>
+Proprietary software means, fundamentally, that you don't control what
+it does; you can't study the source code, or change it. It's not
+surprising that clever businessmen find ways to use their control to
+put you at a disadvantage. Microsoft has done this several times: one
+version of Windows was designed to report to Microsoft all the
+software on your hard disk; a recent “security” upgrade in
+Windows Media Player required users to agree to new restrictions. But
+Microsoft is not alone: the KaZaa music-sharing software is designed
+so that KaZaa's business partner can rent out the use of your computer
+to their clients. These malicious features are often secret, but even
+once you know about them it is hard to remove them, since you don't
+have the source code.</p>
+<p>
+In the past, these were isolated incidents. “Trusted
+computing” would make it pervasive. "Treacherous computing" is a
+more appropriate name, because the plan is designed to make sure your
+computer will systematically disobey you. In fact, it is designed to
+stop your computer from functioning as a general-purpose computer.
+Every operation may require explicit permission.</p>
+<p>
+The technical idea underlying treacherous computing is that the
+computer includes a digital encryption and signature device, and the
+keys are kept secret from you. (Microsoft's version of this is called
+“Palladium”.) Proprietary programs will use this device
+to control which other programs you can run, which documents or data
+you can access, and what programs you can pass them to. These
+programs will continually download new authorization rules through the
+Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work. If you
+don't allow your computer to obtain the new rules periodically from
+the Internet, some capabilities will automatically cease to
+function.</p>
+<p>
+Of course, Hollywood and the record companies plan to use treacherous
+computing for “DRM” (Digital Restrictions Management), so
+that downloaded videos and music can be played only on one specified
+computer. Sharing will be entirely impossible, at least using the
+authorized files that you would get from those companies. You, the
+public, ought to have both the freedom and the ability to share these
+things. (I expect that someone will find a way to produce unencrypted
+versions, and to upload and share them, so DRM will not entirely
+succeed, but that is no excuse for the system.)</p>
+<p>
+Making sharing impossible is bad enough, but it gets worse. There are
+plans to use the same facility for email and documents —
+resulting in email that disappears in two weeks, or documents that can
+only be read on the computers in one company.</p>
+<p>
+Imagine if you get an email from your boss telling you to do something
+that you think is risky; a month later, when it backfires, you can't
+use the email to show that the decision was not yours. “Getting
+it in writing” doesn't protect you when the order is written in
+disappearing ink.</p>
+<p>
+Imagine if you get an email from your boss stating a policy that is
+illegal or morally outrageous, such as to shred your company's audit
+documents, or to allow a dangerous threat to your country to move
+forward unchecked. Today you can send this to a reporter and expose
+the activity. With treacherous computing, the reporter won't be able
+to read the document; her computer will refuse to obey her.
+Treacherous computing becomes a paradise for corruption.</p>
+<p>
+Word processors such as Microsoft Word could use treacherous computing
+when they save your documents, to make sure no competing word
+processors can read them. Today we must figure out the secrets of
+Word format by laborious experiments in order to make free word
+processors read Word documents. If Word encrypts documents using
+treacherous computing when saving them, the free software community
+won't have a chance of developing software to read them — and if
+we could, such programs might even be forbidden by the Digital
+Millennium Copyright Act.</p>
+<p>
+Since treacherous computing will impose automatically downloaded rules
+on your work, you cannot be certain that what you write today can be
+read tomorrow. If Microsoft, or the U.S. government, does not like
+what you said in a document you wrote, they could post new
+instructions telling all computers to refuse to let anyone read that
+document. Each computer would obey when it downloads the new
+instructions. Your writing would be subject to 1984-style retroactive
+erasure. You might be unable to read it yourself.</p>
+<p>
+You might think you can find out what nasty things a treacherous
+computing application does, study how painful they are, and decide
+whether to accept them. It would be short-sighted and foolish to
+accept, but the point is that the deal you think you are making won't
+stand still. Once you come to depend on using the program, you are
+hooked and they know it; then they can change the deal. Some
+applications will automatically download upgrades that will do
+something different — and they won't give you a choice about
+whether to upgrade.</p>
+<p>
+Today you can avoid being restricted by proprietary software by not
+using it. If you run GNU/Linux or another free operating system, and
+if you avoid installing proprietary applications on it, then you are
+in charge of what your computer does. If a free program has a
+malicious feature, other developers in the community will take it out,
+and you can use the corrected version. You can also run free
+application programs and tools on non-free operating systems; this
+falls short of fully giving you freedom, but many users do it.</p>
+<p>
+Treacherous computing puts the existence of free operating systems and
+free applications at risk, because you may not be able to run them at
+all. Some versions of treacherous computing would require the
+operating system to be specifically authorized by a particular
+company. Free operating systems could not be installed. Some
+versions of treacherous computing would require every program to be
+specifically authorized by the operating system developer. You could
+not run free applications on such a system. If you did figure out how,
+and told someone, that could be a crime.</p>
+<p>
+Editor's note: The full version of this essay is part of <i>Free
+Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard
+M. Stallman</i>.</p>
<h3>
<a href="#TOCGNUPress" id="GNUPress" >New Title from GNU Press</a>
</h3>
-<i>Free Software, Free Society:</i><br>
-<i>Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman</i><br>
-Introduction by Laurence Lessig<br>
-Edited by Joshua Gay<br>
-$24.95 - Hard Cover Edition<br>
-Available at <a href="http://www.gnupress.org"; >www.gnupress.org</a><br>
-<P>
-The intersection of ethics, law, business and computer software is the subject
of this collection of essays and
-speeches by MacArthur Foundation Grant winner, Richard M. Stallman. It
includes historical writings such as The
-GNU Manifesto, which defined and launched the activist Free Software Movement,
along with new writings on current
-topics such as "trusted computing" and the proposed CBDTPA. Stallman takes a
critical look at common abuses of
-copyright law and patents when applied to computer software programs, and how
these abuses damage our entire
-society and remove our existing freedoms. He also discusses the social aspects
of software and how Free Software
-can create community and social justice.
-<P>
-The introduction is by Lawrence Lessig, the author of two well-known books on
similar topics. He is a noted legal
-expert on copyright law and a Stanford Law School professor.
-<P>
-<blockquote>"<i>It isn't that RMS is an idealist, we've plenty of those. And
it isn't that he's a brilliant programmer,
-we have those too. It's rather that he mixes those two with a well
thought-out philosophical
-basis and a pragmatic understanding of the world and people. He takes
ideas about freedom and cooperation
-that many of us share and shows how they can form a consistent world view that
has room for the realities of money
-and business.</i>"</blockquote>
-<p align="right">Bil Lewis, computer scientist, multithreaded programming
expert.
+<p><i>Free Software, Free Society:</i><br />
+<i>Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman</i><br />
+Introduction by Laurence Lessig<br />
+Edited by Joshua Gay<br />
+$24.95 - Hard Cover Edition<br />
+Available
+at <a href="http://www.gnupress.org";>www.gnupress.org</a></p>
+<p>
+The intersection of ethics, law, business and computer software is the
+subject of this collection of essays and speeches by MacArthur
+Foundation Grant winner, Richard M. Stallman. It includes historical
+writings such as The GNU Manifesto, which defined and launched the
+activist Free Software Movement, along with new writings on current
+topics such as “trusted computing” and the proposed
+CBDTPA. Stallman takes a critical look at common abuses of copyright
+law and patents when applied to computer software programs, and how
+these abuses damage our entire society and remove our existing
+freedoms. He also discusses the social aspects of software and how
+Free Software can create community and social justice.</p>
+<p>
+The introduction is by Lawrence Lessig, the author of two well-known
+books on similar topics. He is a noted legal expert on copyright law
+and a Stanford Law School professor.</p>
+
+<p><blockquote>It isn't that RMS is an idealist, we've plenty of
+those. And it isn't that he's a brilliant programmer, we have those
+too. It's rather that he mixes those two with a well thought-out
+philosophical basis and a pragmatic understanding of the world and
+people. He takes ideas about freedom and cooperation that many of us
+share and shows how they can form a consistent world view that has
+room for the realities of money and business.
+<p align="right">— Bil Lewis, computer scientist, multithreaded
+programming expert</p></blockquote></p>
<!-- If needed, change the copyright block at the bottom. In general, -->
@@ -321,31 +444,6 @@
<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document -->
<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002." -->
-<P>
-<HR>
-
-<p style="font-size: 10pt;">
-<a id="translations"></a>
-<b>Translations of this page:</b><br />
-
-<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical, and in the original -->
-<!-- language if possible, otherwise default to English -->
-<!-- If you do not have it English, please comment what the -->
-<!-- English is. If you add a new language here, please -->
-<!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
-<!-- - in /home/www/bin/nightly-vars either TAGSLANG or WEBLANG -->
-<!-- - in /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
-<!-- one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
-<!-- - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
-<!-- to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
-<!-- Please also check you have the 2 letter language code right versus -->
-<!-- http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/iso639.htm -->
-
-[
- <a href="/boilerplate.html">English</a>
-]
-</p>
-
<div class="copyright">
<p>
Return to the <a href="/home.html">GNU Project home page</a>.
@@ -354,10 +452,10 @@
<p>
Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
-There are also <a href="/home.html#ContactInfo">other ways to contact</a>
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF.
<br />
-Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to
+Please send broken links and other corrections or suggestions to
<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
</p>
@@ -369,10 +467,10 @@
</p>
<p>
-Copyright © 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
-51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA
-<br />
-Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
+Copyright © 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008 Free Software
+Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110,
+USA</p>
+<p>Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is
preserved.
</p>
@@ -380,7 +478,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2008/04/22 16:30:36 $
+$Date: 2008/10/20 12:43:41 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
- www/bulletins bulletin-001.html,
Yavor Doganov <=