On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, David Honig wrote:
>>Not a problem -- as long as what you're making available to the
>>public at DefCon is not a program that script kiddies can download
>>and use to break stuff.
>
>What's a 'program' in the above sentence? Is source a program? Source
>without the main(
At 07:08 AM 7/28/01 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
>
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, David Honig wrote:
>
>>>You can create an executable, with source code, package it up and
>>>send it to the copyright owner with a note that says "your protection
>>>is broken: here's the proof."
>>
>>How about dropping them
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, David Honig wrote:
>>You can create an executable, with source code, package it up and
>>send it to the copyright owner with a note that says "your protection
>>is broken: here's the proof."
>
>How about dropping them a note to send an engineer to DefCon?
Not a problem --
At 02:16 PM 7/27/01 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
>
>You can present your paper at defcon, as long as there's not an
>executable.
>
No executable, but source. Source code is how some people
communicate. Building an executable is another (intentional)
behavior. Using that executable is another
> I think a lot of the flaws with the DMCA could be fixed by allowing
> an exemption for a "notice period" -- one year after you notify them
> that their crypto is broken, they've had enough time to fix it --
> and if they haven't fixed it, they deserve what they get.
>
>
>> `(3) FACTORS IN DETERMINING EXEMPTION- In determining whether a person
>> qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be
>> considered shall include--
>> `(A) whether the information derived from the encryption research was
>> disseminated, and if so, whether it was dissemin
Yikes, editors pay me a few dollars a word to research and write this kinda
stuff. Why don't you ask for tips and compile them, if you're interested?
-Declan
At 10:15 AM 7/27/01 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Declan,
>
>What are today's options for anonymous publication? A good summary might
> `(3) FACTORS IN DETERMINING EXEMPTION- In determining whether a person
> qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be
> considered shall include--
> `(A) whether the information derived from the encryption research was
> disseminated, and if so, whether it was disseminated
If you say "Declan, what is the answer to this question?" it is reasonable
to conclude you're asking me. I'm happy to participate in debate, but if
you want me to perform research, evaluate performance, and compile results,
that's closer to real work. TANSTAAFL.
-Declan
At 10:31 AM 7/27/01 -
Un-yikes yourself. Since the mail goes to a list I wasn't necessarily
asking you to do the job - I'm interested enough that if tips filter in
I'll check them out and package them nicely in an FAQ. That is assuming
one does not already exist.
Mike
Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> Yikes, editors pay m
Like I said, I'm not defending the DMCA. I was merely correcting
the fellow who didn't know the exemption (of sorts) existed.
-Declan
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 09:18:38AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Declan,
>
> It's pretty bad.
>
> The exemption (2) only applies if the intent is to advanc
At 12:30 PM -0400 7/27/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Like I said, I'm not defending the DMCA. I was merely correcting
>the fellow who didn't know the exemption (of sorts) existed.
>
Not being an expert on the DCMA, I'm still trying to square the
notion of an "exemption for research" (my words, su
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 10:25:42AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> The courts will no doubt have their say, but right now the DCMA sure
> looks to be a ban on publication of research.
Yeah. Felten could have gone forward and almost certainly not been
sued, but his co-authors were far more skittish.
The
Declan,
It's pretty bad.
The exemption (2) only applies if the intent is to advance the state of
the art in general or in the development of products. The means to
negate the exemption look like they're deeply embedded in the code.
(2)(A) is certainly easy to meet - woohoo.
(2)(B) is not too ba
14 matches
Mail list logo
