[svlug] Fedora or Ubuntu for novis

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Alan DuBoff (aland at softorchestra.com):

[Thanks for posting the "LICENSE" file's text.]

> --Start of LICENSE--
> This library (libselinux) is public domain software, i.e. not 
> copyrighted.

So far, so good.

> Warranty Exclusion
> ------------------
> 
> You agree that this software is a non-commercially developed 
> program that may contain "bugs" (as that term is used in the 
> industry) and that it may not function as intended. The software 
> is licensed "as is". NSA makes no, and hereby expressly 
> disclaims all, warranties, express, implied, statutory, or 
> otherwise with respect to the software, including 
> noninfringement and the implied warranties of merchantability 
> and fitness for a particular purpose.
> 
> Limitation of Liability
> -----------------------
> 
> In no event will NSA be liable for any damages, including loss 
> of data, lost profits, cost of cover, or other special, 
> incidental, consequential, direct or indirect damages arising 
> from the software or the use thereof, however caused and on any 
> theory of liability. This limitation will apply even if NSA has 
> been advised of the possibility of such damage. You acknowledge 
> that this is a reasonable allocation of risk.

Hah, hah, hah.  Nice try, NSA lawyers.  Do you see the problem, Alan?

Line one of the document says "Hey, we don't own this stuff.  In fact,
nobody does.'

The rest of the document says "Oh, and you get to use this code _only_
subject to the following conditions...."  Sorry, line one just rendered
those conditions inherently unenforceable.  You just decline to accept
those terms, and they have no hold over you -- because NSA cannot
require them as a condition of exercising rights reserved to them as
copyright owner, because they are _not_ the copyright owner.

Writing bullshit is a time-honoured specialty of attorneys, and should
not be disrespected.  If your attorney can get some third party or 
adversary to not assert a right through sheer bluff, your money on
him/her might be very well spent.


> --end of LICENSE--

> If I understand you correctly, the NSA only put this information 
> in a file called LICENSE as they knew that's where people would 
> look. Ok, fair enough. I wonder what they felt people would be 
> looking for other than a license? Would they look for credit 
> card information? Social Security numbers?

This sounds a bit tendentious, Alan.  Let me see your rhetorical
question and raise you a new one:  Do you think putting the output of
/dev/random into a file called SOCIAL-SECURITY-NUMBER renders the
contents a Social Security number?

_Think_, Alan!   A licence is a grant of permission to use your
property.  In this case, NSA is saying neither it nor anyone else owns
the property in question, as a consequence of Federal law.  Therefore, 
by definition of the word "licence", the contents of the file cannot 
be a licence -- because NSA have _nothing to license out_.  They don't
own it.  Get it?


> Honestly, I don't know or try to pretend to know what the NSA 
> was thinking when they issued this code, nor would a court of 
> law in that regard, IMO.

Well, I do.

NSA's legal staff were thinking that they should acknowledge the
provisions of 17 U.S.C. 105, and at the same time do everything they can
discourage liability lawsuits.


> How is this code not in the public domain with no copyrights, as 
> I had originally stated?

Alan, I've been saying _all along_ that every bit of code produced
directly by the NSA or any other Federal department or agency is
immediately and fully public domain, as a straightforward consequence 
of Federal law.  

Where were you?