Re: [ba-ohs-talk] ohs cvs? [Licensing]
Ah, so that's what happened. (01)
Thanks for bringing me up to date, Paul.
I understand your concerns, and I'm sorry they were never
resolved. (02)
"Paul D. Fernhout" wrote: (03)
> 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
> >
>
> Eric-
>
> That would be a great set of organized descriptions to have!
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> 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".
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> -Paul Fernhout
>
> I have attached my bounced response from then:
>
> ============================================
>
> This is the Postfix program at host carmine.bestweb.net.
>
> I'm sorry to have to inform you that the message returned
> below could not be delivered to one or more destinations.
>
> For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>
>
> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
> delete your own text from the message returned below.
>
> The Postfix program
>
> <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>: Name service error for bootstrap.org: Host
> found
> but no data record of requested type
>
> <ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org>: Name service error for bootstrap.org:
> Host found
> but no data record of requested type
>
> <engelbart@bootstrap.org>: Name service error for bootstrap.org: Host
> found but
> no data record of requested type
>
> Reporting-MTA: dns; carmine.bestweb.net
> Arrival-Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 22:17:35 -0500 (EST)
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> Mei Lin Fung wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> In any case, thanks for the update on permission to use.
> Nice to see the start of formal progress on this issue.
>
> -Paul Fernhout (04)