As you all are aware, TI has been quite pissy about the whole signing key debate. For a while now, the article on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy) has elected to take down the keys, and is under watch by the Wikimedia Foundation Office to ensure that no one puts them back up.
I have taken issue with this.
In the talk page of the article, found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy, I have made a well reasoned argument to the resoration of the keys. I have also asked for others who agree with the argument to add credibility to the argument and post their agreement on the talk page.
I trust I can get support from the community on this issue. Thank you.

I just sent this email to the Wikipedia lawyer overseeing this article:

Mr. Godwin,
It has come to my attention that the Wikipedia article regarding the signing keys Texas Instruments uses to digitally sign OSes is under your supervision, and that the keys themselves are not to be replaced on the site.
I have made a comment in the talk page regarding this, and I will try not to be redundant in the following email, but I wish to present my argument for their restoration.
Holding aside mention of the creative potential of the community with these keys in their possesion, I would like to discuss the lack of legal basis for TI's claims. Under section 201.1.b and 201.1.d of United States Copyright law, under which these keys are supposedly protected, materials that are "consisting eniterly of information that is common property containing no original authorship," including numbers, cannot be copyrighted. In addition, "ideas, plans, methods, systems, or devices, as distinguished from the particular manner in which they are expressed or described in a writing," is stated in the same legislature. The nature of the signing keys is that they are part of a method of encryption. As expressed above, this cannot be copyrighted. TI's claims are based on copyright law, and seeing as they hold no rights over the signing keys, are baseless.
It has also begun to appear that TI has decided to stop their distribution through inaction. If TI does not make a case with those that distrubuted that, they do not hold a chance of losing. However, if they do not, websites like Wikipedia are less likely to post the keys. However, due to the obvious lack of a legal basis, it appears very much that the self-proclaimed "neutral" Wikipedia is taking a side. The side that Wikipedia is taking is one that has no legal base. However, by allowing the keys to be published, you take a neutral stance by publishing non-copyrighted material to the general public.
Wikimedia's mission statement claims to "develop educational content," and the signing keys provide the only method of creating a OS for these calculators that are easily accessible to the user. Also, there is no legal basis whatsoever in Texas Instruments claims that would prevent this goal. I hope we can both agree that, for the betterment of technology and for the improvement of Wikipedia, these numbers be replaced.
I hope to see your reply soon.

--
======================
Drew DeVault
======================

I agree

Then I await your post on the Wikipedia talk page, which is what I was talking about on SAX .

What you quoted has no meaning without context, which you did not provide for it.

Vague pronouns.

Two "however" sentences in a row. That's sort of like saying
Code:
in TI-BASIC

A tad unprofessional.

A) The meaning/context is provided: " The nature of the signing keys is that they are part of a method of encryption. As expressed above, this cannot be copyrighted."

B) I can live with that

C) I thought about that phrase for a few minutes, and decided that it could remain that way.

D) Well...