John \"sb\" Werneken wrote:
>
> ACTION suggestion (if as a non-participant in the coding, I may do so): how
> about an "RFC UNREV-II-1: Request for Comments, to UNREV-II Group": "That
> our work carry the Free BSD License, of the type not requiring the
> acknowledgment". From what I see, ALL posters support either open source per
> se or open source with the ability for derivative work to be made
> proprietary. From what I understand, that License is accepted as "open
> source" and allows derivative work to be made proprietary.
>
> If it got support, we would (1) dispose of an issue; (2) establish a frame
> for decision making; (3) experience the joy of moving forward on something;
> (4) remove an apparent source of contention and/or of energy diversion.
This license issue sometime seems like an immovable object. Here is a
way around it.
Here's a fall back plan of almost the status-quo if license agreement is
not reachable.
Drop the notion of BI/Colloquium developing any open source code --
since Stanford with its tradition for education for dollars and BI as a
for-profit company are having trouble making the transition to open
content and open source -- despite the best intentions. The continuance
of the one-sided "permission to use" agreement shows this, since
practically no cautious/experienced developer would release open source
code under. No point in fighting that. People who want to build
proprietary stuff to sell on top of an open source base (SRI etc.) can
make whatever deals they want with BI/Stanford or others.
Keep using this list as a place for individuals to point out to other
individuals open source ideas and efforts related to OHS/DKR issues. Use
it to provide pointers to their own open source code and new releases.
This has been happening already to an extent, especially with all the
wonderful pointers to various projects which I have enjoyed immensely.
Then let those projects be discused here, with code discussions handled
privately via private emails or lists unrelated to the Colloquium
(avoiding implicit "permission to use" for any code fragment), and with
code improvement acceptance handled by individuals under their own
terms.
Individuals who have particiapted in the colloquium would have to make
it clear that their own coding efforts were not an "extended activity of
the colloquium" even if they were discussed on the list. Perhaps they
would also need to start a legal defense fund for when Stanford (or BI)
starts knocking on doors of anyone who has posted to this list, facing
lawyers toting around a copy of "permission to use" asking for their
salary and claiming warranty/indemnification protection for their
clients use or sublicensing of such individuals code. :-(
Code to become part of the Colloquium would then have to be explicity
granted, by an individual signing a document something like: "I agree to
submit this code under the 'Permission to Use' unlimited indemnification
license -- something which I would never do.
This list then becomes a "meta"-NIC for discussing open source efforts
related to the OHS/DKR concept (which in practice is what it is now,
just not officially).
Over time, out of that, there very likely may arise some meaningful new
or enhanced projects "owned" by their originators and contributors (and
in no way by BI or Stanford). These might then grow to be something
impressive.
If at some time BI or Stanford will then agree to allow some or all of
the content of the list or videos to become part of any such a project
under some terms acceptable to both, then so be it.
This is what will happen anyway unless/until BI or Stanford addresses
the license issue. It may happen even then, given the social dynamics of
open source programming. Creative people may have many things to
contribute that may not yet be in "the spec". Implementing someone
else's detailed spec is usually (but not always) done for pay not joy.
The only times it is done for joy are usually when the coder is getting
a lot out of a mentoring relationship or some other indirect benefit.
If all this happened (as it is happening now), I would still think
Stanford & BI would have made a great contribution to an open source
OHS/DKR by creating this forum -- even if they have not contributed a
line of code under an open source license or a single email under an
open content license.
-Paul Fernhout
Kurtz-Fernhout Software
=========================================================
Developers of custom software and educational simulations
Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone bills too big? Don't worry, beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4113/4/_/444287/_/958232051/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 13 2000 - 08:42:02 PDT