A 'Statement of Assurance' on SELinux patents

A 'Statement of Assurance' on SELinux patents

[Erich Allewohl]

hi
I found this on linux weekly news

http://lwn.net/Articles/6267/

Erich
-- 
--x==O==x-- Money makes Aiplanes flying... Pilots land em.

--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

RE: A 'Statement of Assurance' on SELinux patents

[Ed Street]

Hello,

So basically SCC is telling us they don't care what we do with Selinux
as long as they do not have a product that would be considered
'competitive' I do believe that this is discussed under the Sherman act
and in the constitution :)

So tell me what is prohibiting SCC from taking OUR additional work on
Selinux and making a competitive product and using this 'agreement' to
state that we/I can no longer use it.

I have discussed this topic with some lawyer friends of mine and they
said it stinks, full of holes and does violate several laws in the
United States.

In the end I do have the impression that SCC is in a financial crunch
and looking for $ anywhere they can grab it.  Now to pull SCC's
financial reports.

Ed


--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: A 'Statement of Assurance' on SELinux patents

[Russell Coker]

On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 05:48, Ed Street wrote:
> So basically SCC is telling us they don't care what we do with Selinux
> as long as they do not have a product that would be considered
> 'competitive' I do believe that this is discussed under the Sherman act
> and in the constitution :)

The part about competitive products is a minor issue.  The major issue is 
that they can sell the patents (even to a wholly owned subsidiary) and not 
have the assurance statement apply.

> So tell me what is prohibiting SCC from taking OUR additional work on
> Selinux and making a competitive product and using this 'agreement' to
> state that we/I can no longer use it.

The fact that our work is under the GPL, and many of us are in countries 
where the patents in question don't apply.

> I have discussed this topic with some lawyer friends of mine and they
> said it stinks, full of holes and does violate several laws in the
> United States.

If you believe that SCC has broken a law then you should contact appropriate 
law enforcement agencies with the evidence.

I doubt your assertion, but I wouldn't mind being proven wrong.  ;)

> In the end I do have the impression that SCC is in a financial crunch
> and looking for $ anywhere they can grab it.  Now to pull SCC's
> financial reports.

I'm surprised that SCC isn't supporting SE Linux.  If they had acted 
differently then they could have got a lot of positive PR from SE Linux which 
would really help them get those lucrative security consulting contracts (the 
real money is in consulting services not in selling software).

-- 
I do not get viruses because I do not use MS software.
If you use Outlook then please do not put my email address in your
address-book so that WHEN you get a virus it won't use my address in the
>From field.

--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

RE: A 'Statement of Assurance' on SELinux patents

[Ed Street]

Hello,

Well that's logical.  If you sell the rights to something you no longer
have control over the licensing of that product.  BTW has anyone
actually attempted to purchase the patent that applies to Selinux?  All
that would be needed is to purchase the rights to use it in Selinux but
not the complete patent.

Ed

=> The part about competitive products is a minor issue.  The major
issue is
=> that they can sell the patents (even to a wholly owned subsidiary)
and
=> not
=> have the assurance statement apply.


--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: A 'Statement of Assurance' on SELinux patents

[Dale Amon]

On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 09:12:26AM -0400, Ed Street wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Well that's logical.  If you sell the rights to something you no longer
> have control over the licensing of that product.  BTW has anyone
> actually attempted to purchase the patent that applies to Selinux?  All
> that would be needed is to purchase the rights to use it in Selinux but
> not the complete patent.
> 

But in GPL'd code I can lift a code fragment from anywhere, join it
with code fragments from any other GPL'd source, and my own and come
up with a totally new GPL'd application. So it would be a rather broad
license.





--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

RE: A 'Statement of Assurance' on SELinux patents

[Ed Street]

Hello,

Also note here that GPL has never been tried in a us court of law.  If
this case does goto court the courts will uphold the patent, as all
other related cases.  What will be in question is the recent change of
agreement in violation of the initial contract and does this new
agreement violate the Sherman act and other laws.

Ed

=> But in GPL'd code I can lift a code fragment from anywhere, join it
=> with code fragments from any other GPL'd source, and my own and come
=> up with a totally new GPL'd application. So it would be a rather
broad
=> license.
=> 
=> 



--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: A 'Statement of Assurance' on SELinux patents

[Russell Coker]

On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 15:12, Ed Street wrote:
> Well that's logical.  If you sell the rights to something you no longer
> have control over the licensing of that product.

No.  It is quite possible to sell things and keep control.  SCC can sell a 
product containing their patented code while keeping control over the patent, 
so it is just as easy for them to sell the patent while excluding certain 
types of use.

> BTW has anyone
> actually attempted to purchase the patent that applies to Selinux?  All
> that would be needed is to purchase the rights to use it in Selinux but
> not the complete patent.

Who would want to do that?  The NSA appear to believe that they have already 
paid for all necessary rights, so naturally they will not want to pay twice 
(also such a payment would be regarded as an admission of guilt).

I won't give SCC a cent, will you?

-- 
I do not get viruses because I do not use MS software.
If you use Outlook then please do not put my email address in your
address-book so that WHEN you get a virus it won't use my address in the
>From field.

--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: A 'Statement of Assurance' on SELinux patents

[Shaun Savage]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I have retained an law firm to handle this issue for me.   I stated I 
was releasing a firewall, router based on NSA SELinux mid in 2001, 
before  the "assurance" came out.  The product is GPL complient, all 
source is avaiable, except for the configuration software, cacheing DNS, 
web/SOAP server, and snort alert anaysis program.  I plan to releases it 
for use in small school districts and advance home users.  I have even 
released the Compressed Block Device (CBD) driver GPL, It reduces the 
system size so that I can fix the whole system into 8M flash.  I have 
spent a year working on this project.

Shaun


Russell Coker wrote:

|On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 15:12, Ed Street wrote:
|
|>Well that's logical.  If you sell the rights to something you no longer
|>have control over the licensing of that product.
|
|
|No.  It is quite possible to sell things and keep control.  SCC can sell a
|product containing their patented code while keeping control over the 
patent,
|so it is just as easy for them to sell the patent while excluding certain
|types of use.
|
|>BTW has anyone
|>actually attempted to purchase the patent that applies to Selinux?  All
|>that would be needed is to purchase the rights to use it in Selinux but
|>not the complete patent.
|
|
|Who would want to do that?  The NSA appear to believe that they have 
already
|paid for all necessary rights, so naturally they will not want to pay twice
|(also such a payment would be regarded as an admission of guilt).
|
|I won't give SCC a cent, will you?
|

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - savages@savages.net

iD8DBQE9T++Wn6I06Opz+XURAj+TAKCvI0GmCMNvEZsKQhCNrJN3CpG1IACdEc16
n4ldioVaJfuyHpOyJ8XjwjU=
=HYHP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: A 'Statement of Assurance' on SELinux patents

[Ben McGinnes]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 631 bytes --]

Russell Coker(russell@coker.com.au)@Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 04:18:41PM +0200:
> 
> Who would want to do that?  The NSA appear to believe that they have already 
> paid for all necessary rights, so naturally they will not want to pay twice 
> (also such a payment would be regarded as an admission of guilt).
> 
> I won't give SCC a cent, will you?


Ah, pride, it's a wonderful thing ... I guess, that leaves the only
other alternative (on the buying assets front) as
someone/something/some group buying SCC in its entirety.  Though this, of course, begs the question, "why would anyone *want* to?"  ;)


Regards,
Ben

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 174 bytes --]

Re: A 'Statement of Assurance' on SELinux patents

[James Griffin]

Ben McGinnes wrote:
> 
> Russell Coker(russell@coker.com.au)@Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 04:18:41PM +0200:
> >
> > Who would want to do that?  The NSA appear to believe that they have already
> > paid for all necessary rights, so naturally they will not want to pay twice
> > (also such a payment would be regarded as an admission of guilt).
> >
> > I won't give SCC a cent, will you?
> 
> Ah, pride, it's a wonderful thing ... I guess, that leaves the only
> other alternative (on the buying assets front) as
> someone/something/some group buying SCC in its entirety.  Though this, of course, begs the question, "why would anyone *want* to?"  ;)
> 
> Regards,
> Ben
> 

Principle or pride?  I'm not sure, but am inclined to opt for
"principle" in Mr. Coker's case.

All in all, it seems to me that what we have here is a failure of
imagination coupled with a lack of historical perspective.

To answer the question "why would any one *want* to?", let me suggest
that it is to further "poison the well" and increase the FUD associated
with this issue.  As for the unasked question "who would want to?", I
would suggest a convicted abusive monopolist that might not like having
a well vetted, low cost, highly securable competitive alternative to
their latest marketing program concerning trusted computing.

I'll leave the historical perspective as an exercise for the interested
reader, but offer a hint, graphic rendering patents.

Regards,
Jim

--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: A 'Statement of Assurance' on SELinux patents

[JW]

On Wednesday 07 August 2002 07:38 am, James Griffin wrote:
>  As for the unasked question "who would want to?", I
> would suggest a convicted abusive monopolist that might not like having
> a well vetted, low cost, highly securable competitive alternative to
> their latest marketing program concerning trusted computing.
>
> I'll leave the historical perspective as an exercise for the interested
> reader, but offer a hint, graphic rendering patents.
>
> Regards,
> Jim


Kreeps.....

Patents are really sick.


	JW

--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: A 'Statement of Assurance' on SELinux patents

[Ben McGinnes]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 593 bytes --]

James Griffin(agriffin@cpcug.org)@Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:38:19AM -0400:
> 
> Principle or pride?  I'm not sure, but am inclined to opt for
> "principle" in Mr. Coker's case.

Well, to pick another P-word, "point" ... as in "a good one."  :)

[other good point about monopoly-potential in buying patent/SCC]

Which is one very good reason, of course, for a more well-meaning
group to purchase either the company or the patent; in order to prevent
any future corporate travesty on the part of either SCC or anyone else
they might sell the relevant patents to.


Regards,
Ben


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 174 bytes --]

Re: A 'Statement of Assurance' on SELinux patents

[Russell Coker]

On Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:53, Ben McGinnes wrote:
> [other good point about monopoly-potential in buying patent/SCC]
>
> Which is one very good reason, of course, for a more well-meaning
> group to purchase either the company or the patent; in order to prevent
> any future corporate travesty on the part of either SCC or anyone else
> they might sell the relevant patents to.

So if you behave badly then you get paid for doing so...

I prefer the model of channeling money to people who do good things.  If a 
company produces solid products, does the right thing, and contributes to the 
community then you recommend them.  If a company has great products but 
doesn't contribute to the community and leaves legal issues etc in an unclear 
state which costs people money then you should not deal with them.  This 
discourages bad behaviour, and is also sound practise.

Some years ago I recommended that a client make a significant investment in 
Linux related hardware from a company that did not behave particularly well.  
Since then the lack of support from the company (delayed releases supporting 
new versions of software and configuration changes that aren't properly 
documented making it difficult to migrate the config files) has been 
continually delaying upgrades on the machine in question.  The amount of time 
that has been wasted due to that hardware has cost more than the purchase 
price of the hardware.

I have learnt from that experience that the business ethics of a company you 
deal with are quite important, especially months or years after purchase.  I 
will recommend to my clients that they spend more money for a product with 
less features if it means better support (usually no-one uses all the 
features of a product and the purchase price is often a small fraction of the 
overall cost).  Often the only way to determine the level of support you can 
expect is to see how the company deals with the community (because by the 
time you get accurate information it's way too late).

-- 
I do not get viruses because I do not use MS software.
If you use Outlook then please do not put my email address in your
address-book so that WHEN you get a virus it won't use my address in the
>From field.

--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: A 'Statement of Assurance' on SELinux patents

[Joshua D. Guttman]

Has anybody checked how long it will be before the patents expire?
Maybe it's not too many years.

        Joshua 
-- 
	Joshua D. Guttman		<guttman@mitre.org> 
	MITRE, Mail Stop S119		Office:	+1 781 271 2654
	202 Burlington Rd.		Cell:	+1 781 526 5713
	Bedford, MA 01730-1420 USA	Fax:	+1 781 271 8953



--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: A 'Statement of Assurance' on SELinux patents

[Edward J. Huff]

On Thu, 2002-08-08 at 10:40, Joshua D. Guttman wrote:
> Has anybody checked how long it will be before the patents expire?
> Maybe it's not too many years.
> 
>         Joshua 

          Publication   / Filing        / Likely expiration
US4713753 Dec. 15, 1987 / Feb. 21, 1985 / Feb. 21, 2005
US4621321 Nov.  4, 1986 / Feb. 16, 1984 / Feb. 16, 2004
US4701840 Oct. 20, 1987 / June 20, 1986 / June 20, 2006

-- Ed Huff


--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: A 'Statement of Assurance' on SELinux patents

[Ben McGinnes]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3467 bytes --]

Russell Coker(russell@coker.com.au)@Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 04:22:56PM +0200:
> 
> So if you behave badly then you get paid for doing so...

<*sigh*>

Unfortunately I'm not talking about an ideal world ...

It's not a matter about reward and punishment, more a matter of damage
control.

> I prefer the model of channeling money to people who do good things. 

Most people do, unfortunately there are many in the corporate world
that you or I would be loathe to call "people".  These are the
denizens of "Marketing" and "corporate strategy."  ;)

> If a company produces solid products, does the right thing, and
> contributes to the community then you recommend them.  If a company
> has great products but doesn't contribute to the community and leaves
> legal issues etc in an unclear state which costs people money then you
> should not deal with them.  This discourages bad behaviour, and is
> also sound practise.

This "bad behaviour," as you put it, is also comprising of strategies
which allows many companies to thrive, in some cases to an
unprecedented level.  I shouldn't need to cite non-SCC examples, we
can all think of examples and even just by restricting our thoughts to
the IT industry.

Furthermore, since the economy has taken such an important place in
International Relations, especially since the end of WWII, there has
definitely been a focus on the coercive power of economic activity
worldwide.  This is even reflected in much of the jargon adopted by
companies and their PR campaigners (e.g. "corporate strategy," or even
"campaign").

In too many cases there is such focus on corporate strength adding to
sovreign strength that the ideal, laissez-faire structure you describe
suffers considerably.  Personally I'd love to see a more laissez-faire
world, but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon.
Consequently the strategy (there's that word again) of damage control
is going to be more prevalent in many situations than the old
carrot/stick approach.

> Some years ago I recommended that a client make a significant
> investment in Linux related hardware from a company that did not
> behave particularly well. 

The problem is, though, we're not discussing a piece of hardware that
one would have multiple alternatives to.  Ultimately we're discussing
the application of a particular idea or theory and the freedom (or
lack thereof) to use it as we see fit.

[Decent points about company behaviour SNIPPED.]

> Often the only way to determine the level of support you can expect
> is to see how the company deals with the community (because by the
> time you get accurate information it's way too late).

I'm not really arguing with that, I think we've already established
that the rules of the game SCC want to play are such that allow it to
lord over its control of the TE patents.  My proposal is to change the
game and re-write the rules by either purchasing the patents outright
or the entirety of SCC, thereby allowing a more altruistic group to
place the patents in the public domain.

This is not necessarily a very viable solution since it is likely to
be *very* costly, but it is certainly the most obvious way to remove
any interference in current projects by SCC.

On the other hand, if the patents really do expire as indicated on
this list by others then it may very well be a moot point over the
next two to four years.


Regards,
Ben

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 174 bytes --]

Re: A 'Statement of Assurance' on SELinux patents

[Rik van Riel]

On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Ben McGinnes wrote:
> James Griffin(agriffin@cpcug.org)@Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:38:19AM -0400:
> >
> > Principle or pride?  I'm not sure, but am inclined to opt for
> > "principle" in Mr. Coker's case.
>
> Well, to pick another P-word, "point" ... as in "a good one."  :)
>
> [other good point about monopoly-potential in buying patent/SCC]
>
> Which is one very good reason, of course, for a more well-meaning
> group to purchase either the company or the patent; in order to prevent
> any future corporate travesty on the part of either SCC or anyone else
> they might sell the relevant patents to.

It would be embarrasing indeed for the NSA if the only
country where their product couldn't be used by corporations
was their own country ...

regards,

Rik
-- 
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/


--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: A 'Statement of Assurance' on SELinux patents

[Russell Coker]

On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 03:35, Erich Allewohl wrote:
> I found this on linux weekly news
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/6267/

This has already been discussed here, at length, with more insight and 
detailed discussion than the lwn article.

-- 
I do not get viruses because I do not use MS software.
If you use Outlook then please do not put my email address in your
address-book so that WHEN you get a virus it won't use my address in the
>From field.

--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.