Re: [ba-ohs-talk] ohs cvs? [Licensing]
Eric Armstrong wrote:
> Alatalo Toni wrote:
>
>
>>James Michael DuPont <mdupont777@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>--- "John J. Deneen" <jjdeneen@netzero.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> About 8-months have elapsed since the Bootstrap Alliance website
>>>>was last updated .... (01)
>>>
>>>even more, I have not seen any code submitted. (02)
>>
>>that has been my greatest wonder as well.
>
>
> I've been monitoring the list, wondering if anything was ever going to
> happen. I kept hearing about all the great open source efforts that
> were going to contribute it, if only the license issues were resolved.
>
> Then the license were resolved -- to everyone's satisfaction, as far
> as I could tell -- and the list fell silent.
>
> The problem that extends well beyond *that* however, is the fact
> that someone seems to have misplaced the OHS spec. Dear me.
> Now, where did that pesky spec go? I know it was around here
> someplace...
>
> Lacking *an* OHS, I would love to see a list of descriptions for
> OHS-like systems that showed:
> a) What they intended to achieve, where they intended to go
> b) What languages/platforms they used
> c) How much was currently implemented
> d) The project plan or feature wishlist
> e) What others had to say about it
> (01)
Eric- (02)
That would be a great set of organized descriptions to have! (03)
Sorry to continue to be a wet blanket, but for me at least the license
issue was never resolved. Submissions to the Bootstrap lists were never
to my knowledge licensed by the Bootstrap Institute or Stanford under
any license. A posting from Mei Lin Fung back around May 31, 2002
affirmed essentially something like that the Bootstrap Allianace (not BI
and not Stanford) did not consider a newer mailing list as being under
"permission to use" but no reference was made to Stanford or BI signing
off on this. (04)
I responded to that but at the time the mailing list must have been
broken as the message (see below) got bounced. I didn't follow up beyond
that as I'm sort of past caring about it at this point -- the list is
very useful as it is just for discussing what others are doing, also I
have made all my points before and they had obviously not been
integrated into the result. I think a copy of that CCd to the lawyer
involved got through but there was no direct response on that. (05)
Essentially what still needs to happen in my opinion is:
a) "permission to use" still needs to be formally repealed or limited in
writing by the related parties who claim it (specifically the liability
issue) and replaced by a simpler authorization to use under one or more
licenses and perhaps also of an affirmation "to the best of my
knowledge" of noninfringement. In my opinion the 5/31/2002 statement
does not address this.
b) all the the mailing list contents need to be formally licensed so we
can legally use it as a core for a shared OHS. This has still never
happened to my knowledge. (Was Chris Dent et al ever at least given any
formal permission to redistribute the mailing list on their site?)
c) Other issues relating to volunteerism previously brought up still
need to be resolved, but this is meaningless until a) and b) are
resolved. The specific verbage of "permission to use" sort of says all
that needs to be said about attitute implicitly towards volunteers (i.e.
ask for help and stick the patent infringement liability on the helpers.)
d) (Probably) Acceptance that any complex system may likely incorporate
multiple components under different licenses. (06)
However, these sorts of choices are always risk vs. reward. For many
people, they may not consider the legal risk outstanding from
"permission to use" to worth worrying about, and likewise, they may not
worry too much about potential copyright violations of putting list
material on the web if they think they are otherwise working in good
faith. (Chris Dent et al...)
http://ella.slis.indiana.edu./~klabarre/unrev_firstpage.html
http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~cjdent/unrev/index.cgi (07)
For me, the risk is too high as things still stand to contribute to the
OHS considering the reward and the alternatives. That is also why I
stopped posting to the list (except generally in relation to resolving
the license issue so I can participate.) Personally, I find it much
legally safer to contribute to free or open source efforts unencumbered
by "permission to use", and to likewise not directly use any Bootstrap
related mailing contents as source materials due to "permission to use". (08)
Also, Chris Dent et al. had the problem of finding their university not
immediately amenable to letting them release their source code under a
non-proprietary license (has this been resolved?) so actually this (and
other examples) makes me much more inclined to contribute significant
works only under the copylefted licesnes like the GPL or LGPL (naturally
others might choose other things for other reasons), whereas I think the
license supposedly decided on here is/was MPLish? (09)
However, it has also occurred to me to resolve issue b) above by
individually contacting significant list posters (such as yourself) and
asking them to jointly license their works under an alternative license
(whatever) as a way to circumvents BI and Stanford's lack of response on
that specific topic. However, I have not proceeded on that basis because
of other priorities, and also because the tarbaby of "permission to use"
might still stick to even that effort. (010)
-Paul Fernhout (011)
I have attached my bounced response from then: (012)
============================================ (013)
This is the Postfix program at host carmine.bestweb.net. (014)
I'm sorry to have to inform you that the message returned
below could not be delivered to one or more destinations. (015)
For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster> (016)
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the message returned below. (017)
The Postfix program (018)
<ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>: Name service error for bootstrap.org: Host
found
but no data record of requested type (019)
<ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org>: Name service error for bootstrap.org:
Host found
but no data record of requested type (020)
<engelbart@bootstrap.org>: Name service error for bootstrap.org: Host
found but
no data record of requested type (021)
Reporting-MTA: dns; carmine.bestweb.net
Arrival-Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 22:17:35 -0500 (EST) (022)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; Name service error for bootstrap.org: Host found
but no data record of requested type (023)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; Name service error for bootstrap.org: Host found
but no data record of requested type (024)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; engelbart@bootstrap.org
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; Name service error for bootstrap.org: Host found
but no data record of requested type (025)
Subject:
Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Licensing and Permission to Use
From:
Paul Fernhout <pdfernhout@kurtz-fernhout.com>
Date:
Fri, 31 May 2002 23:18:27 -0400
To:
ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org
CC:
ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org, krobbins@amtech-usa.org,
engelbart@bootstrap.org (026)
Mei Lin Fung wrote: (027)
> B. Permission to Use clarification
>
> The CPC resolved 5/30/02 to communicate to the unrev and ohs lists:
>
> B.1 The Bootstrap Alliance (BA) is the sole host of the ba-ohs-talk list
> and the ba-unrev-talk list and encourages participation in the list
> discussions.
>
> BA wishes to clarify that the ba-unrev-talk discussion list and the
> ba-ohs-talk discussion list are not formally connected to the Colloquium
> on the Unfinished Revolution, co-sponsored by Stanford University,2000.
> Presenters in the Colloquium were asked to sign a document, called
> Permission to Use. The Permission to Use does not apply to BA activities
> and in no way governs interactions on either the ba-unrev-talk and
> ba-ohs-talk lists. (028)
Not to be too picky, but ideally looking forward to BI & Stanford
signing off on this too. For reference:
http://www.bootstrap.org/colloquium/permission.html
"I hereby grant the Bootstrap Institute ("BI") and/or Stanford
University
("Stanford") permission to use... This permission and indemnity shall
apply to all activities involved as a result of my participation in the
Colloquium and its extended or subsequent related activities." The only
mention of BA there is just in reference to a webcast. As I see it,
people in BA are as stuck in the "permission to use" tarbaby as anyone
else remotely affiliated with the Colloquium (especially when sponsoring
a mailing list with "unrev" in it).
http://www.crt.state.la.us/folklife/edu_ss200_rabbit_tarbaby.html (029)
Is the legal opinion that such a disclaimer is sufficient to not make
these mailing lists or related projects "subsequent activities"? If so,
I applaud closure on that topic. (030)
In any case, thanks for the update on permission to use.
Nice to see the start of formal progress on this issue. (031)
-Paul Fernhout (032)