[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing

Very thoughtful and articulate, both Murray and Chris.    (01)

I like to think that there really is something going on now that just might 
prove to be the activity necessary to get a proper OHS, Doug's own vision, 
that is, off the ground.    (02)

On licensing, Eugene Kim articulated a position 
http://www.eekim.com/ohs/attic/whybsd.html that, to the best of my 
recollection, serves as a valuable interpretation of the discussions a 
group here in the Silicon Valley, which included the Doug himself, had.  My 
recollections (which, btw, are subject to senior moments) tell me that we 
decided that something akin to the Apache (http://www.apache.org) license 
was more than sufficient, though there has been some added discussions 
about the incorporation of additional legal matter that would try to 
prevent users of the OHS license from obtaining patents that could block 
the evolution of OHS in any direction.  Doug's vision, at least my 
interpretation of it, is that OHS should be completely free to evolve in 
any direction necessary to serve those needs of humanity for which it is 
created.    (03)

What, then, is going on now?  At this point in time, Mei Lin Fung has taken 
a position of leadership in guiding the internal affairs associated with 
the Bootstrap Alliance and its goal to facilitate the facilitated evolution 
of OHS (pretty meta, what?) and its practical application.  These goals are 
centered around Doug's vision, and not necessarily related to the various 
visions others (like me) bring to the table.  As she stated earlier, Doug 
has had dozens of years to ruminate on the topics of interest here, and it 
is time to permit him to see those expressed in working software.    (04)

None of that is to say that those of us with hair-brained ideas of our own 
should not pursue those ideas.  Indeed, I, for one, continue to hack away 
at expressions of my own ideas at a furious rate.  I would like to think 
that once the evolutionary process is started, and when Doug's ideas are, 
indeed, being tested, then the advantages of cross pollination from 
external projects will greatly benefit all of us.    (05)

It is my opinion that email lists are not a particularly efficient way to 
conduct collaborative design.  They are great for exchanging random bits of 
information, some of which contribute to evolution of ideas, but they are 
not structured enough to sustain an effort to get a design 'out the 
door'.  It is to Eric Armstrong's credit that I and others on this list 
have discovered and begun to develop tools that support IBIS.  I'd like to 
think that we will find a way to begin using IBIS in support of the 
evolution of an OHS.  Certainly, r-objects.com's Pepper could bring that 
online today.    (06)

My 0.02 EUROs for the day.
Jack    (07)

At 12:48 PM 5/31/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>cdent wrote:
>>(This post in honor of Jon Awbrey.)
>I take it you're on the PORT or SUO lists. If you are unaware, Jon
>and I are working together on some tools to assist him in creating
>web content. The results, called an Augmented Plain Text processor,
>take plaintext content with a few short codes to indicate headings
>and converts it into valid XHTML, complete with a TOC and properly
>indented divisions. This is part of the Ceryle project, soon to be
>delivered. (Jon is my seemingly-willing guinea pig...)
>>I'd hate to think that a suggestion of mine caused yet another
>>valuable participant to slip out of view. I learn something from
>>you just about every time you post, and that's why I'm
>>participating: to learn things.
>Well, Chris, I am flattered by your comments, but I should perhaps
>correct what seems to be a misunderstanding. I'm not unsubscribing
>from the list, I'm just going into lurk mode until some measure of
>a more formalized process is worked out, such that what happens to
>many of the ideas expounded upon on the mailing list has been made
>more clear. This is of serious concern to me, as this should be to
>all of us. No, no slip on your part - the licensing discussion was
>taking its toll; your comments merely brought me to publicly state
>what I had been planning anyway.
>>However, it does seem like something needs to be done, especially
>>if there is interest in getting Doug to participate. Your post
>>suggests that the state of the mailing lists is not a major
>>factor in participation, whereas licensing and process is.
>>The process and license suggested by Doug and Mei Lin in other
>>postings appear to be:
>>- OHS, including the preliminary HyperScope, is GPL
>>- participatory process involves
>>   - creating ideas on the list as focussed discussion
>>   - feeding them to Doug and some others on a weekly basis
>>   - refactoring the ideas based on feedback
>>   - coding prototypes of the ideas
>>Is that a correct or incorrect interpretation? Is that a good or
>>bad model?
>>If that model is followed, is the current list situation okay?
>I don't think there's inherently anything wrong with any of what
>you've written, but none of it is formal. And it doesn't satisfy
>what's been stated as necessary for this list, which is to start
>working on an OHS specification. I don't have a quibble with the
>list being used for that. It's just that there have been quite a
>lot of good ideas floating around here, with any clever business
>person able to take these ideas and go to market with them. That
>would be fine if that is the understanding, but I am not willing
>to participate in such an endeavour simply in order to help make
>someone some money. I used to get paid good money for doing that.
>If we aren't necessarily advancing the OHS (which perhaps we are,
>perhaps we're not -- that remains to be seen) and if the process
>and license aren't worked out, then it seems we're a. not moving
>forward, and b. giving away our gold needlessly.
>This might seem a bit strange from someone who has publicly
>stated that he's planning on giving away his ideas (as part
>of Ceryle and my Ph.D. program), but I consider that rather
>differently. I've been rather critical of the W3C's process
>at times, since I've seen that process really abused, and I
>had never thought it a good process to begin with -- it has
>improved somewhat, though last time I heard they were again
>in a quagmire over IPR rights and licensing. Microsoft, IBM,
>and other big companies are playing ugly games with IPR and
>I'm hesitant nowadays. I didn't like the fact that my works
>were owned by Sun, even works that Sun didn't request of me
>as part of my job. The rights to my own work was one of the
>reasons I left.
>With the W3C, I never liked working under its dictatorship,
>but at least it has a formal process that to a respectable
>degree protects the intellectual investment of its players,
>who demand this (as both large and small companies with IP
>investments in both people and ideas). We need that here.
>But I (actually) don't mean to preach. I merely mean
>to step into lurk mode until some reasonable process
>has been agreed upon in this regard. I think it kind
>of pointless for us non-lawyers to continue to argue
>about licensing. Until there is a formalized process,
>each of us participating here simply has to consider
>what ideas (if any) we give away. I don't think this
>is particularly selfish, perhaps it's more unselfish
>in the end. I just don't want to be giving away (for
>free) all these ideas, if some corporation will just
>take them to the bank. If we're going to do that, we
>should at least understand that we are. It is just a
>bit too hazy for my taste right now.
>Murray Altheim                  <http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/>
>Knowledge Media Institute
>The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK
>      In the evening
>      The rice leaves in the garden
>      Rustle in the autumn wind
>      That blows through my reed hut.  -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu    (08)