* getting the government to open source all
critical software?
Yes, the preference should be Open Source -
1. Allows all to compete equally (Only MS can produce
MS Office, IBM/Lotus Lotus Notes, etc)
2. Ensures citizen accountability of government
3. Ensures all citizens can access systems equally
(i.e. company A software requires Company A system to
access - citizen could access with any software to do
business)
4. Ensures records are able to be read in years to
come (ex: Medical records must be stored for, I
believe, 20 years after last visit, or 20 years after
patient turns 18, whichever is longer - show me a
proprietary software package still available in 38
years).
* Require open source software audits on all
voting systems?
Better - no electronic voting systems at all.
1. Problem is procedural, not technical - canada, UK,
other countries manage to do a nationwide vote in
under 4 hours using the high tech of paper and pencil.
2. Read cryptogram on inherent problems with ANY
e-voting system
(http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-back.html)
Other Issues -
* Software patents - should not be allowed
1. Most current software patents are not new/unique
(requirement of patent)
2. Innnovation in software has not been a problem
3 Patents in Sw have been used to prevent compitition
- not for stimulating innovation - we have no sign
that people would not do innnovative software without
patents.
* Reform of patent system (related to above)
Many of the problems, in my view, are from the way we
make the patent office a money-maker for the
Government - they get paid when they award a patent.
So, patents are supposed to be rare, only for
innovative, new things, but we tell the patent office
"you get paid by the # of patents you award - awarding
more patents is good" - guess what they do?
Suggestion - change the system, you pay to file, and
get some back if awarded a patent. The smaller
percentage of the filings that are awarded patent
status, the more money the patent office takes in.
Guess where their priority will be?
Also need to beef up the office with more examiners,
and require them to use more sources for determining
"prior art." Also recommend a reform that if a patent
is challenged in the first year or two (successfully)
in court, the patent holder AND the patent office pay
all expenses of the winner.
Bottom line - patents should be returned to original
purpose - get innovation into the public arena for
others to build on, not for companies to use to
prevent competition and build monopolies.
* DMCA
Bad law, crimilizes INTENT, not action. Copyright
violation was already a crime, should persecute under
the laws that were in existance. Making laws that say
"breaking the law is wrong" is wrong - we should
already know that breaking the law is wrong, and it
already has punishment. Even worse - DMCA doesn't
even do that well - what it really says is "I assume
you're a criminal because of the tools you have that
have legal uses" (violates presumption of innocence).
Also, the purpose of copyright, as well as patents
(neither of which is specifically mentioned in the
constitution) (read Thomas Jefferson's writings) was
to incentivize people to put inventions & writings out
there for others to build on - temporary monopoly in
return for making public.
just some ideas,
jeff
_______________________________________________
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
