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

Re: [ba-ohs-talk] ohs cvs? [Licensing]

Paul, just a couple of thoughts here.    (01)

First, it may well be that your earlier post bounced for reasons of server 
problems. Note that the ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org address is the same one 
you used here. But, I don't recall ever sending anything to 
engelbart@bootstrap.org -- perhaps that's what bounced that post. I've 
always used doug@... and that one always works, except on days when the 
server is having morning sickness or something.    (02)

Second, as a member of a small group of people who worked on the licensing 
issues, including the Stanford issue, I though that problem was resolved 
officially, once and for all. Maybe not.  The license chosen is Apache. No 
further actions, to my recollection, have occured that would change that 
commitment.  About Stanford, perhaps more needs to be stated by Mei Lin 
Fung, or others, but I (perhaps wrongly) recall that ba-ohs-talk is a 
separate issue from unrevII (which now seems to be a trap for nasty spam 
and should be closed down) and thus not subject to the "heavy hand" of 
Stanford agreements.    (03)

I plan to do a bit more due diligence on these matters.    (04)

Thanks, Paul
Jack    (05)

At 02:05 PM 1/11/2003 -0500, Paul Fernhout wrote:
>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
> >
>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 
>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 
>     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
>Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Licensing and Permission to Use
>Paul Fernhout <pdfernhout@kurtz-fernhout.com>
>Fri, 31 May 2002 23:18:27 -0400
>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
>("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    (06)

XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
Addison-Wesley. Jack Park, Editor. Sam Hunting, Technical Editor    (07)

Build smarter kids globally and you reduce the need for smarter bombs.    (08)