Re: [unrev-II] Leadership and licenses

From: Peter P. Yim (
Date: Wed Jun 14 2000 - 23:44:41 PDT

  • Next message: Yee Su Ling: "[unrev-II] OHS 6/8/2000 minutes"

    Just to keep the records straight --

    The services provided by Stanford to run the UnRev-II colloquium and
    webcast were fully paid for (therefore, there was actually no "handouts"
    from Stanford) from part of the contributions made by two individuals --
    Pierluigi Zappacosta and Dan Lynch. It is true, though, that Stanford
    Center for Professional Education (who did the production) committed to
    billing Bootstrap at their cost. Masakazu Ohashi/Chuo University (whose
    contribution was applied to the reception after the last colloquium
    session) and Jeff Rulifson/Sun Microsystems (whose contribution is to be
    applied to an Engelbart book project that was planned, for which Doug's
    vision and his lifetime work, as elaborated in the colloquium, can be
    captured) also made subsequent contributions.

    The "permission to use" licensing terms posted prior to the colloquium
    were prompted partly by Stanford (that being their normal practice
    towards taped/broadcast/webcast activities), and partly by the lack of
    visibility, during the planning and early stages of the colloquium, as
    to how activities and funding will develop. While "open source" has
    always been Doug's desire, BI opted to temporarily go with the same
    terms (as it is possible to go from privately held IPR to open
    licensing, but not vice versa), deferring the licensing decision to a
    later date when there is better visibility in the activities and the
    applicable economic model, and, enough expertise within the community to
    fully understand and interpret the consequences of such decision to Doug
    and itself.

    I was personally present when such discussions and deliberation were
    made. Bringing oneself back to those points in time, one has to be
    mindful that we were then talking about planning an exposition of 45+
    years of intellectual labor from Doug himself, let alone those of
    numerous other contributors (whom Doug has invited by virtue of their
    potential contribution to the colloquium, rather than their affinity to
    any particular licensing model). We trust doing it that way, then,
    leaves open the most number of options.

    Then, again, that was the past, and this is now. I, too, am glad that
    the issue is being addressed now -- and by a much more competent
    community, no less!

    Best regards,


    Paul Fernhout wrote Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:22:59 -0400:
    > ... [snip] ...
    > Stanford "handouts" include running the whole Colloquium and the
    > Webcast. What they got out of that is another course for their
    > professional development series. Thus, we got the "permission to use"
    > license which still causes liability and fairness issues for "open
    > source" software development. This is a major impediment to open source
    > development of the OHS/DKR, and I am glad to see it is being addressed
    > (from your other comments).
    > ... [snip] ...

    Community email addresses:
      Post message:
      List owner:

    Shortcut URL to this page:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 14 2000 - 23:53:50 PDT