I have no idea about "IDEA."

Johan Wevers johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl
Mon Mar 31 15:54:30 2003

none none wrote:

> We call it theft (maybe a semantics issue, maybe a phrase coined
> by intellectual property owners, but it has become the most common
> method of reference within the current English lexicon).

Strange. Seems indeed that the industry has pushed the usage of
language here. I doubt that that will happen in The Netherlands,
where noone I know has any problems with using copied software.

> You missed my point completely. I said that merely avoiding any
> bad publicity represents a sufficient reason not to violate the
> Ascom copyright.

If anyone would feel such a thing worthy of publishing (there are other,
more interesting matters happening for reporters right now...) I doubt
many people here would see it as "bad" publicity.

> As a reason, I stated that the BSA might notice
> the publicity and say "this company violated the IDEA licensing
> provisions. We should audit them and see if they have any other
> unlicensed (or even licensed software that they can not 'prove'
> that they have the licenses for) software."

It is still a matter of debate if the BSA isn't assuming too much. If they
make a lot of publicity and hinder the normal work of a company and find
nothing, they will get sued for damages.

> More people care here than you might think. I know a number of
> people whose livelihoods depend on intellectual property (authors,
> lawyers, people who work for pharmaceutical companies) who would
> absolutely never use unlicensed software - even on their home
> computers.

I know none here. Scientists usually have small budgets so they copy
everything they can get for free, although they ofter prefer open source.
But even a (retired) police lieutenant I know, who is usually very strict
about breaking the law, doesn't care about using copied software or copied

>> Users != customers.
> OK. How will they get new users?

By new people who use pgp 2.6.x for example. That the product is frozen is
not always seen as a disadvantage. I still use it as main crypto program,
I'm using gpg mostly for being compatible and being able to decrypt what pgp
for windows users mail me.

> Nobody will include a non-free crypto algorithm in any new product,
> and the number of people using legacy applications will continue
> to shrink.

If you consider pgp 2 a "legacy application" I don't think you're right.

> 2. Your quote "sufficient to remove almost all personal liberties the
> government considers usable to terrorists" represents a statement both
> inflammatory and untrue.

Untrue? Well, we already see how the press if being equalized (I don't know
if this is the correct term?) in the USA. Anything that might point on US
casualties in the Iraq war is not told, and certainly not shown. Imagine
that the people might come to disagree with the government...

Not everything needs to be formally legislized to happen. The former USSR
gave in their constituion almost the same basic rights to their people than
we have in Europe, but anyone can see the difference in practice.

> 3. As the world (figuratively) shrinks, I think we will see (to some
> degree) a convergence of procedures like this among governments. We
> need to stick together.

If I have to choose, I prefer the, perhaps formally more limited but in
practice larger personal freedom we have in the "old Europe" than the
rights only have on paper when you can't afford the lawyers up to the
supreme court you have in the USA.

ir. J.C.A. Wevers         //  Physics and science fiction site:
johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl   //  http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html
PGP/GPG public keys at http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/pgpkeys.html