On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 8:26:34 PM UTC-5, Mike Connor wrote:
> On 6 July 2015 at 19:34, B Galliart <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > (1) Mike Connor's post in this thread on June 17th makes it clear the
> > Mozilla Foundation's "master goal" puts Mozilla Manifesto Principle #9 as
> > the only priority and throws out the rest.
> >
>
> This is a willful and absurd misreading of my statements. My statement is
> that we don't have an obligation to build an open version of every service
> on the internet. And that partnering with commercial interests is something
> to be balanced against openness, but explicitly not forbidden. If you know
> my history with the project, I hope you can understand where this sort of
> rhetoric and characterization is actually deeply offensive.
I'm sorry, you are right that I don't know enough about your history with the
project. I should have let your words from June 17th speak for themselves
rather than try to provide my own summary.
> > (2) Mike Connor's statements seem to be backed by Justin Dolske's actions
> > of marking the issue related to OSD compliance as hidden due to "advocacy"
> > and then close the integration process as completed. This would seem to
> > violate Mozilla Manifesto #7 and Manifesto #8 if those still mattered.
> >
>
> I'm not sure where OSD compliance came into the picture. To the best of my
> knowledge, the OSD has never been viewed as an obligation. (The first time
> I had this argument was in 2005 or so, if we've made public statements to
> the contrary I must have missed them.) We believe openness and
> transparency win, but we've always balanced that against pragmatism.
Maybe that is part of the problem then. I thought OSD was implied by Mozilla
Manifesto Principle #7 ("Free and open source software promotes the development
of the Internet as a public resource"). "Open Source" is more than just
publishing the source code, it has a strict set of 10 rules that must all
apply. Once one rule is thrown out, what you are left with is "Source Code
Available" software rather than Open Source. If Manifesto #7 really means
Source Available instead of Open Source, then just modify it accordingly. It
is also confusing what parts of the Mozilla Manifesto still hold under the rule
of pragmatism and which are just published now for show.
> On the specific issue of #6, and what I assume is your concern around the
> TOS, I'm reasonably certain that "personal, non-commercial use" doesn't
> quite mean what you think it means, and is meant to exclude commercial
> services from using Pocket as the backend for their own products. I'll let
> Gerv track that with the legal folks, as it'd be absurd to ship a feature
> that can't be used inside of a commercial environment. OSD or not, that'd
> simply be a terrible idea.
Starting with your last point, I don't know if I agree with that shipping a
feature that can't be used inside a commercial environment is completely a
terrible idea. I don't want HR signing up employees for an integrated dating
system (if such an integration comes to pass). My point isn't if OSD #6 needs
to always apply as much as if Mozilla Manifesto #7 implies OSD #6 then any
deviation should be clearly stated in the About Your Rights under the web based
information services. I have been upset because neither a clarification on OSD
#6 or an update to the document has been performed. Instead, the integration
gets a rubber stamp of complete without any consideration to the issue. It
shouldn't be that issues that come up regarding the manifesto should just be
marked hidden for advocacy and closed.
As far as what I think "personal/non-commercial" means, I have considered that
to also mean the exclusion of alternative servers. That seems to be exactly
the reason why the integration API is made up of "private end-points" rather
than the documented ones. Bust just like with the client, OSD #6 means for
there to be any open source implementation of the server side, it must allow
for commercial use of the software. As such, by prohibiting commercial use of
Firefox integration protocol compatible servers is also prohibiting any
practical method to provide open source servers as well.
So then how does the Mozilla Manifesto #6 ("The effectiveness of the Internet
as a public resource depends upon interoperability (protocols, data formats,
content), innovation and decentralized participation worldwide.") still play
any role with an integration that depends on a single vendor's servers?
I think (if I am not misreading your June 17th post incorrrectly again) that
you were stating that Pocket integration is key to attract and retain users.
But if it is that important, then where is the redundancy in keeping these
users? What if Pocket changes the ToS or privacy policy in a way that a large
portion of users don't agree to? How do they continue to use the integration?
Or what if Pocket get bought out the same way OnLive was and the service shuts
down in 30 days? I don't see a protocol for a single vendor as promoting
interoperability or being decentralized. It seem like closing off other
Firefox integration compatible servers (including open source servers) goes
even farther in the realm of terrible ideas.
> I'm not going to reply to this type of baseless attack directly, except to
> say that making personal attacks against my integrity is a _really_ bad way
> to change my mind, and detracts from your legitimate concerns. If you
> actually want to help, I'd recommend starting by reassessing your tendency
> to assume bad faith. As I've explained recently to a friend and Mozillian,
> it's one of the most toxic things you can do if you want to be a force for
> good. Your heart seems to be in the right place, but your words are not.
You are correct, I have gotten toxic and I am sorry. I have a hard time
believing people see the concerns as legitimate in a world where "advocacy" is
just marked hidden and disregarded.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
