Why is Everyone Upset with RadioShack?

The following is a position paper that I wrote in April of 2015 To set the timeline, this was merely weeks if not days after RadioShack announced that it was selling it's customer information database, which came shortly after it's bankruptcy. You know, that database that was assembled with the information demanded of you at the register every time you stopped in to grab a pack of batteries. This is in spite of their policy that they would never sell that information without your consent (emphasis mine).

Free as in Speech

There's a lot of terms in the world of software that can sound like the same thing to someone not well versed in all of this.  And a lot of these terms have a lot more in common than they have different. adding to the confusion.  So exactly what is Open Source Software (OSS), Free Software, Freeware, Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) or even Shared Source Software? And more importantly, how are they different?  And exactly what is the whole free as in speech vs. free as in beer thing?

Open Source Software (OSS here on) is software where the source code is made available to the users of the software. There are a number of licenses that this software is released under, such as the BSD License, The GPL, and others. I'll skip the pros and cons of all of these different open source licenses and how they differ because that's more of a philosophical debate.  What is important is that you as the user are free to use the software as you wish as well as being able to examine or even modify the source code.  Different open source licenses place different restrictions on redistributing the source code or software which makes use of some or all of the source code.  But any truly open source license does not restrict my use of the software in any way, only how I am permitted to redistribute it, despite a lot of FUD against the GPL that is out there.  I can modify the source code in any way I wish and keep the changes to myself as long as I am not distributing anything containing the original source code or my modifications. If you care to compare and contrast software licenses and your rights and responsibilities as a user or a distributor, visit the Free Software Foudation's website at www.fsf.org.

The FSF builds on this principle with their term Free Software.  The FSF states that "'Free Software' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of 'free' as in free speech, not as in 'free beer.'"  To put it simply, when you enjoy free beer, you are free to drink and enjoy the beer, but you're not getting the recipe so you can go home and brew you up another batch tomorrow.  With free as in speech, you are getting that recipe, and you are allowed to make your own any time you wish.  Free as in speech is free software (such as a utility like The Gimp), free as in beer is freeware (such as Paint.NET).

So what is the difference between Free Software and Open Source Software?  That lies mainly with the developers of the software.  Free Software is as much as philosophy as a license.  Proponents of Free Software want all software to be free (within their definition of free) with an almost religious devotion.  Proponents of Open Source Software either just want to share their work or cite the open source model as a superior way of developing software.  Most of us fall somewhere in between and use the term Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) which is fine since both camps use the same licenses.

There is one more category related to this discussion.  Some commercial software vendors provide what what is referred to as Shared Source Software.  This is where the vendor provides the source code for a product to a customer for review, but the customer usually has no rights to anything other than a review.  Therefore shared source is not really related to free and open source software despite the providers attempting to make the case that it is.

Seizing Internet Domains

Homework Assignment from the past.

The question of who, if anyone, had authority to seize the domain name of a questionable website first came to the forefront two years ago when the commonwealth of Kentucky attempted to take control of 141 domain names belonging to websites associated with online gambling. While most forms of online gambling are currently illegal in the United States, it was quite controversial when a county circuit judge gave the state the green light to seize control of these sites. The major question about this was the motive. In the state of Kentucky as of 2005, 96,000 jobs were in some way related to the horse racing industry. It is fair to ask whether this was simply attempting to shut down illegal websites, or a state simply looking after its own bottom line.

This issue came to the forefront again recently with what has been dubbed in the media as the “Internet Kill Switch.” This past June, a Senate committee approved the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 (S. 3480). This bill will create a White House office of cyber security and a vaguely worded section that many interpret as giving the president the authority to effectively shut down the Internet in an emergency. The committee however denies that the president would be able to shut down the Internet. A version of the bill, H.R. 5548, has also been introduced in the House.