On 9/27/2012 9:33 AM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > Then what the hell *is* the deal with the AFS trademarks?
As in "what is a trademark?" or "what rights does a trademark give the holder?" or "why won't IBM simply give the trademarks away?" or something else? > Can I market a product as 'Compatible with OpenAFS'? Since there is no definition of "Compatible with OpenAFS" that is a question for you to ask your corporate attorney. That is not a question this mailing list can answer for you. > If I submit code to Gerrit for an IPv6 implementation that afs3-std has not > signed off on, is someone going to claim I'm violating IBM's trademarks > and/or the copyrights on the .xg files? Trademarks have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not OpenAFS will accept code that implements a non-standardized extension. OpenAFS will not accept non-standardized extensions because of an agreement that the OpenAFS Elders and Gatekeepers made with the community when the AFS3 Standardization Process was created. Trademarks also have nothing to do with creating derivative works of the .XG files. The problem with the .XG files is that they are licensed under the IBM Public License 1.0 which is incompatible with the IETF RFC Editor publication requirements. The AFS3 Standardization Process can make derivative works and publish them in a forum that is not the IETF. > I would like to hear an opinion of the Usenix association lawyers, IBM's > laywers, or Red Hat's lawers, as a public statement on this mailing list, > rather than all the uninformed speculation all of us are doing about it. I would like world peace and to win the lottery without buying a ticket. Welcome to the real world where we do not get to have explicit rules and legal clarity. > >>> Is there a statement to what ends a donation to the Usenix openafs fund >>> would be used for? >> >> Any purpose the Elders believe will further the ends of OpenAFS. Given >> the low amount of money involved it has been things like >> - procuring a 64 bit intel machine for a Linux port when such things were >> rare >> - subsidizing (or guaranteeing against) cost overruns for AFS workshops > > I think the Elders have done a wonderful job ensuring the AFS workshops > continue. The Elders are not involved in running the workshops. The Elders are a financial backstop to ensure that a workshop can cover its expenses if there is insufficient attendance or unforeseen problems occur. Secure Endpoints Inc. is the legal backstop that provides insurance, contracting, payment processing, payroll, and other services to the organizers. At some workshops a quorum of Elders have attended and hold a Q&A session but that is the extent of the involvement. > Unfortunately, this appears to be all they are capable or willing to do, > since there has been talk of a foundation for years, and the conclusion, as > far as I can tell, was 'its too hard, with all the trademark/IBM license > nonsense'. You are seriously beginning to try my patience. OpenAFS is what it is today because of the OpenAFS Elders and the Gatekeepers who have worked very hard for nearly twelve years to protect OpenAFS for the community of end users without compensation and at considerable personal expense. We have funded lawyers, we have paid for travel, we have taken time out of our lives to visit end user organizations and potential corporate donors. I am very sorry that you do not get to have everything that you want in life. I wish that it was possible to incorporate and sustain a Foundation in 2006 when the efforts to do so began. If so, I could have a nice job being paid to be a gatekeeper. I would not have needed to fund Your File System, Inc., accept an SBIR contract, and put my family at deep financial risk in order to satisfy my goal as a Gatekeeper. That being developing software for the community so that organizations do not end up in a position where their choice is to discard 20 years worth of data or perform multi-million dollar conversions to something new. Producing the necessary software needed for the next decade requires millions of dollars of developer time. Resources that the OpenAFS end user community have been unable to provide for a broad range of reasons. Your statements are effectively calling myself, Derrick, Russ, Laura, Todd, Ali, Harald, Warren, Tom, and the rest of the Elders "incompetent". For that I take offense. The Elders are highly competent individuals who were asked to serve because of expertise that they bring to the organization. Laura has tirelessly worked within IBM to release AFS as open source in the first place and to try to obtain the legal assurances that we require. > What is the official documented process for me to apply to be an AFS Elder > and try to get some of this crap done? OpenAFS Elders are self selected. As an Elder, I would nominate others to join the Elders when I determined that an individual had expertise which would benefit the group or was in a position to evangelize OpenAFS within critical communities or could ensure funding. One of the most important criteria is being able to work well with the other members of the Elders and the Gatekeepers. Since everyone is a volunteer with limited time resources, it is critical that members work efficiently and remain motivated to contribute. While I appreciate your frustration and motivation, I do not appreciate your attitude. Nor do I understand what it is that you believe that you could do that others have not done in the past or are not continuing to do to this day? Are you going to speak with the CIOs of major research universities and ask them to contribute? Done that. Are you going to ask the U.S. Dept of Energy, CERN and the associated HEPix community members to contribute? Done that. Are you going to ask the Fortune 500 corporations that use OpenAFS to contribute? Done that. Are you going to ask Michael Bloomberg to contribute? Done that. Are you going to obtain legal representation from the Software Freedom Law Center and hold endless discussions with IBM attorneys? Done that. Are you going to speak with open source umbrella organizations such as the Software Free Conservancy about hosting OpenAFS? Done that. Are you going to speak with major hardware vendors such as EMC, NetApp, Sun Microsystems (now Oracle), HP, etc. about embedding AFS protocol in their products? Done that. Are you going to speak with major operating system vendors and Linux packagers about distributing OpenAFS or an internally developed implementation? Done that. Are you going to travel the world giving talks at conferences evangelizing OpenAFS? Done that. Are you going to apply to Google Summer of Code and mentor students in an effort to grow the developer base? Done that. Are you going to establish partnerships with Undergraduate Computer Sciences programs and fund Capstone Senior Projects to grow the developer base? Done that. Do you really think that the Elders and the Gatekeepers have done nothing for the last twelve years? Respect and trust is something that is earned. The Elders and my fellow gatekeepers have earned my respect. I believe they have earned yours as well. In addition, the OpenAFS Elders and Gatekeepers have respect for the wishes of IBM when it comes to OpenAFS because without IBM OpenAFS would not be available for continued use. When IBM's representatives say to us that they want to ensure that future releases are backward compatible with IBM AFS 3.x, we take that very seriously. The Elders and Gatekeepers respect that IBM owns the trademarks and that IBM gets to determine the meaning of "AFS compatible" even if they haven't put it in writing. As a Gatekeeper and former Elder I ask that you respect the judgement of the Elders. Jeffrey Altman
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
