Pro Bono Geek

The Free Software Foundation (I’ve linked to them from my side bar since this blog’s inception) has finally released it’s draft copy of the GNU General Public License Version 3. The FOSS community has been using GPLv2 since June of 1991. But as the software world has changed the critics of v2 became louder and louder, calling for a new license to meet today’s technical and legal reality. Over the next month I plan on posting a series of comments on various new (or substantially altered) sections of v3.

Today I want to discuss the meaning and ramifications of Section 3 “Digital Restrictions Management.” First, not the clever turn of acronyms here. DRM usually means “Digital Rights Management” but since the FSF is no friend of that kind of technology, they’ve switch Rights with Restrictions which I’ll remind all you non-legal folks are necessary opposites. Anytime someone has a right, everyone else has an equal and opposite restriction. My right to speak means everyone else has a restriction on their ability to not have me speak. So, tip-of-the-hate to FSF for playing word games… now on to the meat of the section.

It breaks down into three sections which I’ll will discuss in order.

As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors technical attempts to restrict users’ freedom to copy, modify, and share copyrighted works. Each of its provisions shall be interpreted in light of this specific declaration of the licensor’s intent.

This language has a curious legal impact that really won’t be fully understood until the GPLv3 is litigated. Essentially, anytime there is ambiguity in language the parties can refer to this language for assistance in determining meaning. But it’s also somewhat precatory in nature because the intent stuff only comes into play when there is honest ambiguity. If the license is clear, a party cannot come back in and say that the grant in question does not conform with this intent section. Tough luck. Clear grants cannot be overridden by even the clearest of intents. If the intent was so strong, they should have built it into the grants themselves.

The next section is part of the same paragraph as the first section. It reads.

Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally invade users’ privacy, nor for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.

So, the first bit about denying permission to illegally invade users’ privacy is interesting. It is tying rights granted by the license to the particular jurisdiction in which it is being used. So, permission is not granted if the software is a keylogger and used in a jurisdiction where such things are illegal… but just fine in a different jurisdiction. Strange. Doubly strange because what is, and is not, illegal is a decision for governments, groups that FSF has traditional spurned. It also creates great potential for legal confusion, because what makes something an illegal invasion of privacy as opposed to an illegal invasion of trust (a.k.a a fraud claim). Add in legal complexity of common law and you just asking for trouble.

On a philosophical level, I think I disagree with this provision. If the invasion is illegal than the courts will take care of it. Otherwise, I personally subscribe to the theory that use of technology should not be limited by its creators. The user should be the one who decides. BitTorrent is a great example here. BitTorrent can, and is, used for massive copyright violations. Should the developers prohibit such use in the license? No. The user should be the one who decide what activities they chose to engage in. By inserting this privacy language into the GPL, the FSF is saying that it will take the moral burden of protecting privacy, but leaves all other illegal activities in the hands of the users. The positions are inconsistent and blow holes in the argument that developers should not be liable for the illegal acts committed by their users.

The last section I agree with, but it took some careful reading. Here’s the language.

No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data.

Let’s break this down into it’s parts. The first sentence is in reference to the DMCA and we’ll get to that in a moment, so put that aside and focus on everything after the colon. If I “distribute a covered work” (which means giving someone else a GPLed program) and that work is “part of a a system to generate or access certain data” (meaning the work controls access to copyrighted work, like how iTunes allows you access the iTunes Music Store) then I have given “general permission” to “develop, distribute, and use… other software capable of accessing the same data” (so, if iTunes was license under the GPL, then I would be allowed to develop software that could also access the iTunes Music Store).

Thought of it another context, WestLaw is a sophisticated legal database protected by technical measures. Because it’s a database of essentially public domain documents, there is little (possible no) copyright protection. So, if WestLaw uses GPLed software in its access software, then other GPL developers can write software to access the WestLaw database and do so without fear of reprisal.

Such protection is necessary because of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which makes it against the law to circumvent a “Technical Measure.” This clause of the GPL waives a copyright holders DMCA rights to protect their TMs if they chose to use GPLed software. It’s a fair trade in my mind. No one is required to use FOSS software, but if you are, then your contributions back to the system need to be usable by others. WestLaw might contribute all sorts of code, but if it remains illegal to use that code to access its databases, then its useful contribution is zero.

Expect more about the GPLv3 as the weeks go on… some earlier sections are still too confusing, and I’m not done reading the whole thing, so there should be lots to talk about.

probonogeek Uncategorized

As many people know, I collect State Quarters. I started way back in ‘99 when the whole project started using this very nifty book my sister got me for Christmas. Actually, my whole family collects the State Quarters, but I’m the only one who does so in a manner most consistent with fanaticism.

Anyway… for those unfamiliar with the State Quarter program, the U.S. Mint releases five new quarters every year, thus completing the 50 state program over a period of 10 years. States are released in the order in which they were admitted to the Union. For the past 8 years we’ve been delighted by the likes of Florida, Georgia, and yes… Rhode Island. As we enter into the last three years of the program those late comer states are finally getting to strut their stuff. Which means it’s time for Washington State to swing into action with an exciting quarter design of it’s own.

Before I show you the three finalists, let me say that I had a bet with my friends about our fair state’s design. I suspected (deep in my soul) that the Committee would be unable to reconcile their East/West differences… giving us a quarter that proudly displayed both the Seattle Space Needle and the Washington Apple. I was not excited about that prospected. Florida’s quarter is easily the worst because it makes evident that they couldn’t agree on what best represents their state. Now, I did make a second prediction… if they were able to agree on a single symbol the symbol would be Mt. Rainier. Its visible from both regions, so it struck me as the obvious compromise choice.

All that being said, here are the three finalists as reported by the Seattle Times.

A salmon, Mount Rainier and an apple within an outline of the state

A salmon breaching the water with Mount Rainier as a backdrop

A Northwest Native-American orca

All in all, I’m impressed. Mt. Rainer, so I’m right on that count, but I didn’t think about salmon. Very clever Washington State Quarter Advisory Commission. My personal vote is for option #3. Although I like the picturesque nature of the Mt. Rainier options, I think the Native-American motif will set our quarter apart from the rest of the state quarters. I’m not quite sure why it’s an orca though?! Wouldn’t a salmon have been better? Given that, my guess is the State will settle on option #2… unless, of course, those apple lovers come out in force.

Apples… if apples get to be on the quarter, where is my Space Needle!?

probonogeek Uncategorized

It’s funny how a week can turn around so quickly. Anyone reading this past week’s post would think I was on my way to completing a thoroughly awful week. But fate has conspired to turn that all around. Some of it’s personal, and not befitting of my resolution to keep deeply person items off this page… but other items are worth shouting from the rooftops.

First, GPSS gave me the go ahead to negotiate with the ASUW to purchase webhosting capacity. This is a great step towards better sharing of resources between the two student governments. GPSS benefits because we get high level technology without having to do the hiring or pay for time and energy we don’t really need. ASUW benefits because now they have their big brother looking over their shoulder to make sure things are run right. That may sound strange… but interdependency is a great way to ensure stability. If I can come up with an agreement that is mutually beneficial for both GPSS and ASUW then I hope to take the model and apply it to SAF.

Speaking of SAF, this Friday the Committee approved for comment my proposed guidelines. These guidelines will be distributed far and wide over the next couple of weeks so that interested parties can submit comment for review. The Acting Vice President has suggested that if all goes according to plan we can get the new guidelines approved by the Regents at their March meeting. This has been an amazing process and really serves as a crowning achievement for my time in student government… right up there with the Senate Reform process from a few years ago.

Add to all of that my recent gush of civic pride stemming from the Seahawks’ thundering defeat of the Washington Redskins on Saturday and you’ve got a great week, even with all that bad stuff from Tuesday and Wednesday.

And, you know, even if all that stuff had gone south… I’d still be pretty happy. Good stuff is going on, and I really couldn’t be more excited where it’s going to take me next.

probonogeek Uncategorized

Today the GPSS Senate rejected my recommendation to keep the STF at $40 in one of the closer votes of the year. I have a number of procedural quibbles with how this all went down, but that’s my own fault for failing to take the lay of the land before I made my strategic decisions. I should have anticipated poor procedure.

What I did not anticipate is the rejection of one of my central projects. I consider the work I do with the S&A Fee Committee to be some of the most important work I do. It’s part of changing the culture of student fees. The student government has been fighting against arbitrary and capricious fees since as long as I can remember, and I’ve been proud to take that fight to the source. But with this vote on STF students rejected the opportunity to sustain the project. The culture of student fees to to remain as a piggy bank for whomever asks loudest.

Committees must be judge with suspicion… they have certain motivies that are not always consistent with the desires and priorities of the larger group. Failure to recognize that, failure to hold those committees accountable, is what leads to poor policy making.

The worst part of it all… I wondering if I have been wasting the past three years with this SAF stuff? If it’s true that people get the government they deserve, maybe I should have just let them all wallow in their own short sightedness.

probonogeek Uncategorized

This evening I was treated in a way I felt completely inappropriate given my history and standing in the student government. I haven’t been exposed to such obvious and calculated guile in some time. Honestly, the last time I can think of this sort of behavior was before we took back the student government for students of vision and responsibility (both are requisite for good leadership). Allow me to explain what I’m talking about and you can be the judge.

For whatever reason, the rules of the Student Technology Fee Committee (STFC) require any fee increase to be approved by the student governments. For reasons that are quite irrelevant to this discussion, I oppose a fee increase proposed by the STFC. The proposal must be approved by the GPSS and the ASUW. I am confident in my ability to defeat the proposal at the GPSS meeting tomorrow, but as a sign of professional courtesy I took my concerns to the ASUW Senate as well. In fact, I did one better than that… I went to the committee responsible for the resolution.

Now, in general, people like me (good orators) don’t go to committee. The more effective route is to keep your issue lurking until the floor debate and then raise it just before final passage… essentially giving the committee of jurisdiction the run around. I chose, stupidly it would appear, to go to the committee and raise my concerns, which I did last week. I did so with such effectiveness that the committee chair, who was hostile to me the moment I sat down at his committee, felt it prudent to table the resolution a week to allow the chair of STFC to come before the committee and defend the fee increase. Fine, I thought, he’ll come, we’ll battle it out at the committee, and things will be settled. Well, no.

Tonight the STFC chair did come to the committee, he did speak, and then the committee chair asked if we had any questions. I did not have questions, I had responses. Once it was determine that no questions were forthcoming and that people wanted to actually talk about the resolution, the chair said we didn’t have any more time and a decision had to be made. When asked if the committee could table the resolution again he lied, saying that if we didn’t make a decision tonight the resolution would be tabled indefinitely (the rule allows Steering to grant an extension). A vote was then taken to report out favorably, 6 to 5.

To make it perfectly clear, I was never given a chance to respond to the comments of the STFC chair. As far as I know he was never briefed as to my concerns. In general, the charge of the committee to explore and evaluate resolutions with expertice was completely subverted. What we have is a stupid 6 to 5 decision made without relevant consideration for the implications of such a decision.

It was stupid and an insulting slap in the face after I tried to respect the committee process. ASUW readers, take note, I intend to make that clear to the Senate next week.

probonogeek Uncategorized

The following quote appears in today’s Washington Post

The American people should be able to come in the front door of Congress, not the basement.

These simple words were uttered by none other than former Speaker New Gingrich, architect of the Republic Revolution in 1994. Not exactly my hero, but on this point we agree.

The topic is the illconceived Capitol Visitor Center. I suggest reading the linked article, as it does a good job describing the monstrosity that has consumed the Capitol Building since before I served there as an intern in 2002. The idea is to create a center where visitors can congregate before taking their managed tours of the Capitol. What this means to those citizens who travel up to 3000 miles for the opportunity is exactly what Newt said… no awe inspiring steps and columns for you Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer. That’s all fenced off and guarded. Entrance into the Capitol is currently only possible through side tunnels from the Senate and House Office buildings. Once the center is opened you’ll be able to enter from yet another exciting underground entrance.

I understand closing off the White House. I’m not a big fan, but it makes sense. The Executive is a single individual, and protection remains a top priority. Such is not the case with the legislature. It is the people’s branch and openness should be its rallying cry. For me the visitors center represents a loss of open government; it represents closing down our sacred institutions because of unsubstantiated fears of terrorism. It replaces reasonable and noninvasive security measures with obstructive new way of life.

I never got a chance to assend those steps up to the Capitol (although I was escorted down them when I was ejected from the Capitol on my first week interning). No citizen will ever get the chance, and it’s sad.

probonogeek Uncategorized

I discovered this list on a website I frequent. It’s worth sharing far and wide.

1. Being gay is not natural. And as you know Americans have always rejected unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because, as you know, a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

probonogeek Uncategorized

Last Christmas my mother got me a Simpson’s Trivia Tearoff Calendar. Let it be understood, both far and wide, that this trivia calendar was not for the faint of heart. A simple casual observer would have gotten very few of these questions. Want an example?

In “The PTA Disbands” (2F19) what other union joins the teachers’ strike as a sign of sympathy?

1. Piano Tuners
2. Meat Pounders
3. Tire Retreaders
4. Unemployed Actors

If you said a then you might have a calling as a professional Simpson’s trivia buff (for the record, I got that one right).

After 313 questions (only one question per weekend) I have a final score: 181 correct, 132 incorrect. That’s a 57.8% success rate. Which is not all that spectacular, but I’m still pretty proud. For a while I was averaging two of every three questions… then came the bad times. I may have to study more next time.

probonogeek Uncategorized

And goodbye to 2005. It was, all told, a good year. Certainly had its share of downs… but like the phoenix–or the Fenix Underground–we rise from the ashes to approach a new world and soar to even greater heights. Saying goodbye to 2005 means saying goodbye to some amazing things, but it’s probably much healthier that way. There are some good things on the horizon… school is finally coming to a well deserved end, my mothers financial woes are finally over thanks to an inheritance to be paid out after my grandmother’s passing, Brett & Timber are getting married, plans to go to Vegas, and of course, the big move to Washington.

There are also the little things. Like improvements in relations with Sara and Jill… and even a possible new special someone (times gonna tell on that one though). Or the mobility of my flexcar… even my new shoes from Nordstrom’s (After-Christmas Sale man, it’s good stuff) are reason to celebrate. They lasted a full three hours dancing, plus a ton of walking and standing and my feet feel great.

As I stood in the dance hall, listening to a dance version of Don’t Cha, celebrating both the actual new years and the one announced by the DJ a full three minutes later I couldn’t help but think… next year’s gonna be alright.

probonogeek Uncategorized

I received an exciting email this morning. The relevant part reads

A MESSAGE FOR SEAN KELLOGG
FROM PUGET SOUND BLOOD CENTER

You are eligible to donate blood.

For the past year I’ve been on the banned list because of my trip to Nicaragua. In a way it was great, because my disqualification stopped the flow of phone calls… but it was also sad, because I like to give blood. Also, I’m just a pint away from getting my first gallon pin!

Time to find me a blood bank.

probonogeek Uncategorized