[linux-elitists] [susette@blackwellsf.com: SEEKING LINUX USERS FOR DOCUMENTARY STYLE PHOTO SHOOT IN SF]

Seth David Schoen schoen@loyalty.org
Mon Mar 19 12:40:34 PST 2001

Mr . Bad writes:

> >>>>> "SDS" == Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org> writes:
>     SDS> Maybe you should just both memorize a one-time pad in advance
>     SDS> so you can have confidential non-secret communications right
>     SDS> in front of any IBM representative.
> They'd have to know the exact length of the message beforehand. Kind
> of difficult.

Not really.

(Yet another song about Don Marti elided here.)

You can use OTPs one bit at a time.  If a bit has never been used,
it's still "good" and secure.

It is also safe to speak in the clear about the offset into your OTP.
E.g. "start at bit 483".

>     SDS> Lessig, Samuelson, and Moglen come to mind.  How does Larry
>     SDS> Lessig feel about software patents?
> Nauseous, I believe.

Speaking of Lessig and Samuelson, Don, maybe this evening's BayFF in
Berkeley would be a good place to recruit Real Free Software Lawyers.
The 2nd most ever Real Free Software Lawyers that I saw in one place
were at BayFF once.  (The record is the RSA Patent Expiration Party,
but that's gone and will never come again.  Hmmmm.)

Maybe John Gilmore will be there, who once said this:


Presciently, as often, and well, as often.  Look at how he begins:

	Most people at this conference have spent some time looking
	at the concept of free software.  But closely allied to that
	concept is the concept of freedom of speech in software.   Free
	software (or open source software) cannot exist without freedom
	of speech in software.
	Freedom of speech means the absence of censorship.  Each speaker or
	author is free to speak or write on topics of their own choosing, to
	audiences of their own choosing, in their own choice of language and
	their own choice of words, without hindrance from the government.
	Software has been written for years without general examination of its
	free speech aspects.  So far, attempts to censor software have
	carefully been couched in other terms, such as "creation of patent
	rights", "restrictions on export of defense trade goods", or
	"outlawing circumvention of intellectual property protection
	technologies".  However, the constitutional theories about software
	that these special cases are creating will come to control
	whether the government can censor *all* kinds of software.

John said that almost exactly a year before the world heard of DeCSS.

Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org>  | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp.  http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/  | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down:  http://www.loyalty.org/   (CAF)  | not have leisure.  -- Pirke Avot 2:5

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list