Re: Secure Computing statement of assurance

bmcginnesat_private

Russell Coker(russellat_private)@Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 11:01:24PM +0200:
> On page 2 of that pdf file:
> ======
> No Third Party Restrictions.  This Statement of Assurance is made by Secure 
> Computing alone, and DOES NOT BIND or obligate ANY OTHER PERSON or party.  
> Secure Computing may license or otherwise TRANSFER any or ALL OF ITS RIGHTS 
> IN THE SUBJECT PATENTS, including the Subject Patent Rights, without any 
> restriction or condition.  The RECIPIENTS OF SUCH RIGHTS ARE NOT BOUND BY 
> THIS STATEMENT OF ASSURANCE, and may assert any rights acquired from Secure 
> Computing without any limitation or restriction.
> ======
> 
> I think that is a very clear statement that challenges the right of the NSA 
> to distribute SE Linux under the GPL in the event of the patents being sold 
> to another party.  Essentially if the patents were sold to another company 
> then either the NSA would have to pay that other company, or we as users of 
> SE Linux would have to arrange license agreements.

Further to this, if they really wanted to, SCC could even create a new
incoroporated entity (e.g. HGLFTNOASHFWG, Pty. Ltd.[1]) to sell the
patent to which would, of course, not be bound by any of the decisions
of SCC.  Even if it is essentially all the same people.

Essentially this means that they have provided something to placate
us, but which they can reverse at any point in the future should it
fit a new corporate strategy.  From a commercial view point it's quite
reasonable, but from the GPL/development point of view it is
essentially a useless gesture.

From a PR point of view it's potentially even more damaging to SCC
(depending on whether the wider geek/development community interprets
it as an honest attempt to resolve the issue or an under-handed
trick).

Regards,
Ben

Footnotes: 

1 = That's an acronym for "Hey Guys Let's Fsck The NSA Over And See
	How Far We Get", Pty. Ltd.[2]
2 = Of course I'm being a bit silly, but only a bit.  ;)