>Alain: OK, but what kind of decision-making process are
>you envisionning? A voting CGI in order to establish
>the opinion of the majority and act accordingly? This
>could lead to Majority-Rule. Bottom-line is that we are
>going to have to discuss the (political) issue of
>decision-making, as part of the Collaboration section
>of our group, before, during and after we decide which
>licencing terms to adopt.
Anthony: I'm afraid that if we vote, it'll be arbitrary. And if we make
arbitrary decisions, we will not be liked, to say the least.
Alain: For the record, I have always been for consensus rather than
voting. Voting can be quite divisive and sooner-or-later alienates
those that are not in the majority.
Anthony: And if we have enemies, we're more likely to answer in court.
Alain: I suppose you�re right, even if their claims are un-founded. We
have to go through the court process to determine this. Some larger
fish might even drag a competitor through one or more of these court
hassles, in order to immobilize or annihilate the smaller fish that,
despite its small size, were having an impact.
>Alain: Unless he decides that he wants to contribute it
>and we decide to integrate it into the Standard
>Distribution. From then on, it is the OC licence
>prevails. The author cannot change his mind afterwards
>and retract his contribution.
Anthony: We'd need a signed agreement from anyone who submits a patch.
That'd get tedious...
Alain: Not necessarily a SIGNED agreement. Software licences are
adhered to, more often than not, by clicking on the �agree� button of
the electronic version of the software�s licence agreement.
Anthony: ... and we'd need a way to make sure it was actually the
author who signed.
Alain: Anyone who contributes to OC must first read our licencing terms
and, if he agrees with them, then he clicks on the �agree� button, and
then he proceeds with his contribution. Not necessarily each time he
makes a contribution. Perhaps only once, when you become a member, or
when you make your first contribution.
Anthony: I know the FSF does it, but I'd like to get around such.
Alain: What is the FSF ?
>Alain: If you use his source, then you are infringing
>his copyright but, on the other hand, if you are merely
>engineering something similar, then that is perfectly
>legitimate. If it wasn�t, we would be in big trouble
>with Apple, eh!
Anthony: The reason we're not in trouble is because we've never seen
HyperCard source. If we had, and Apple cared, they could not doubt make
us answer in court.
Alain: They would have to prove that we derived ours from theirs,
whether we had seen their source or not. No access to their source
makes this determination a no-brainer. How could we have derived ours
from theirs if we NEVER got even a glimpse of their source? On the
other hand, if we had seen their source, then this determination of
non-infringement would have to be verified. But we are nonetheless
rightfully allowed to use the same idea because only the EXPRESSION of
an idea is protected by copyright.
Anthony: I don't know who'd win, but it'd be a fight.
Alain: I would NOT like to compete with such a large corporation in
this regard.
Anthony: But a short patch is so easy to remember. The author of the
patch, having become our enemy, if sufficiently made -- and if we then
patched it with
anything like his code -- might claim infrigement. And we would have to
defend ourselves. In court.
Alain: Experts would have a look at it before going to court to see if
there is some reasonable basis for winning their infringement claim.
Large corporations might want to pursue litigation despite the weakness
of their claim, in order to wear us down, but this nefarious strategy
is not likely to be adopted by a small developer of relatively moderate
means.
Anthony: You must understand that it's not like a novel. It's a small
snippet, maybe a few lines long. And once we read it, we would be
unable to implement it ourselves, because it would probably be
infringement.
Alain: Ideas are not copyright-able, as I stated above.
Anthony: We'd have to go through proper procedures -- writing up a
description of the idea in English, giving that description to someone
who has never seen the patch, and having him implement it. And that's
time consuming and, possibly, expensive. And that'd only be a defence
in court ...
Alain: If we had it done by some third-party that has not seen the
source, then it would undoubtedly be easier to persuade whomever that
this new expression of the idea is indeed original. Easier but not
obligatory.
Anthony: it would not stop a suit.
Alain: You�re right. Even if we delegate the re-ingineering of a
refused patch to a third-party who has not seen the original source
code, there is no guarantee that this third-party did not indirectly
benefit from our knowledge of the source, or so the litigators could
argue. Thus, if someone is determined to sue us, they will. There is no
use speculating endlessly on this. There is nothing we can do about it,
except : establish clear licencing terms, procedures, rules and so on.
Anthony: (...) Or if this happened to be someone trying to get voting
rights on licencing decisions, we're sued.
Alain: My first remark is that this is one of the reasons that voting
is a sub-optimal strategy for decision-making. Secondly, I don�t see
why someone could expect to have full voting rights once he has
contributed a handful of bytes.
Anthony: When people contribute, they will expect to get the right to
vote (as suggested above, by you).
Alain: That was not a suggestion. It was a question.
Anthony: And if they don't get it, they will be mad.
Alain: There is much more to participation than voting. I suggest that
we keep the latter only as a non-binding opinion-poll or, in extreme
cases, referendums.
Anthony: And if it was significant work -- and especially if we make
some money off of OC -- he may sue.
Alain: They would sue us because we didn�t give them voting rights? Is
there a precedent for this?
Anthony: I want as little possibility of lawsuits as possible.
Alain: Agreed!
Anthony: Hell, we've already got to deal with the people who have their
nice 20-year patents on algorithms. (...). These people claim they own
a mathematical algorithm, and have exclusive rights to its use,
regardless of independant discovery, for twenty years.
Alain: The shoe is on the other foot, so to speak, eh! Wouldn�t you do
exactly the same? Make as much profit as possible by charging for the
rights to use your invention? Let the inventor profit from his
invention for several years before some copy-cats come along?
Anthony: The patent office does not do its job, and instead expects the
courts to do it for them. Unfortunately, getting a frivolous patent
thrown out costs around $1.5 million.
Alain: The patenting of algorithms is indeed problematic and
controversial. And the patenting of new living organisms is also quite
controversial, but the latter is quite off-topic, so we won�t discuss
it on this list, save to say that I recently was told about some
research being done on biological computers no longer based on silicon
that will be 100,000 times faster than computers we know of today.
Anthony: Lastly, the voting itself is a problem. Is there someone to
tell me that I, having written Interpreter, accept a patch, I owe to
the patch-writer equal control over Interpreter?
Alain: Which is why I want to avoid voting as a binding decision-making
tool. voting should only be consultative.
Anthony: Or that I have to fight him for control, at all?
Alain: Is the interpreter that you are working on YOUR property or the
property of OC? Will you forever have the last word on its evolution
and its disposition? At what point will the contributions of members
other than yourself to the interpreter will be sufficient for it to be
considered a collective work instead of the work of one very-dedicated
individual?
Anthony: That is what the voting will turn into: Any person who writes
a function gets the same rights as the person who really wrote it. Or
do we attempt to give different voting weights? But what sillyness is
that?! Who decides? A vote?! By whom?
Alain: Democracy is not necessarily egalitarian, nor is it necessarily
based upon majority-vote.
Anthony: Can we reduce another person's share -- as splitting it with
another party would -- without his consent; is that not theft?
Alain: Minorities have rights. We cannot arbitrarily take anything away
from them that is rightfully theirs. What their rights are, how these
rights are protected, and what the group is entitled to do ... All of
this will have to be discussed much further, in the context of the
Collaboration section of OC.
Anthony: I think I must support one person being the copyright holder.
Maybe two or three, but even that's pushing it.
Alain: One person as the Copyright Holder for the whole OC
Distribution? That would be silly, unless the person is a corporation
or something. But I suspect that you are suggesting that EACH component
of the OC Distribution, your interpreter for example, would have 1 to 3
authors cited.
Anthony: I will not enter into any arrangement that may endanger my
right to and rights in Interpreter -- by democracy, dictatorship, or
otherwise.
Alain: Why have you chosen the Open Source strategy instead of forming
your own entreprise and copyrighting your software in the traditional
manner?
Anthony: If someone wishes to give me a patch, fine.
Alain: What if someone contributes something much more substantial than
a mere patch? What if someone wishes to improve the interpreter but in
a manner or style that you don�t particularly like?
Anthony: But all they get is the guarantee of the Artistic that they
may distribute the program and its sources, and the chance that I may
integrate and maintain their code for them. And if anyone does not like
what I do with Interpreter, and proves unable to convince me through
reason to act otherwise, I'll tell him one thing: "Fork!"
Alain: I am uncomfortable with the idea of collaborating on a huge
project, for several years (or indefinitely), investing time and money
and brain-power into it, if one of the key elements (the interpreter)
is forever controlled by one particular member that insists that he
invariably has the Last Word.
Anthony: All the authors sign an agreement with the publisher to allow
the publisher to have it published. And the publisher would be obliged,
no doubt, to track down an author were it contractually obligated to
pay him royalties.
Alain: There are no royalties to pay out because we are an Open Source
initiative, so locating authors should not be so imperative. They only
need to be contacted to negotiate licencing terms that are not already
provided for. This would be the case if each separate component had a
distinct set of authors, but would be avoided altogether if everything
is under one licence.
Anthony: But three authors (you seldom have more than that) is _far_
better than 300.
Alain: And one collective licence is far better than hundreds.
>Alain: No ... no ... The Open Source licencing does
>not require that the authors be contacted. You said so
>yourself. They would only needto be contacted when
>someone would like to negotiate licencing terms that
>are not already provided for ( e.g. an infrequent
>exception that the Perl Artistic Licence already
>provides for). Bottom-line is that there is very little
>need to contact the authors, so there will be very
>little mail received in this regard.
Anthony: I guarantee you this. Most people will _not_ want email
because they happened to contribute to OC. And if we require them to
allow us to send mail, many will not contribute.
Alain: Participation in this list would be voluntary. Those who do not
wish to participate can not-suscribe, those who no longer wish to
participate can un-suscribe, or those who move away without updating
their coordinates will be implicitly unsuscribed.
Anthony: I will say that I will have no part in the mailing, because if
I did, I would have to deal with my ISP, which has a tough policy on
SPAM (thankfully!). And presently, I'm on good grounds with Rosie [the
Erol's Abuse Guy], and don't intend to change that.
Alain: Your ISP prevents you from participating in a mailing list where
licencing terms of OC would be discussed??
>Alain: Incidentally, SPAM is unsollicited junk E-mail
>that wants you to part with some of your money.
Anthony: Not necesarily. Spam is _any_ unsolicited, mass-sent email.
Alain: The mail is not unsollicited because the author chose to
participate, wants to be consulted concerning the licencing of his
work, etc.
Anthony: I'm sure they did not ask for it.
Alain: Clearly it would have to be voluntary.
Anthony: And if we did make them ask for it, we'd be turning away
contributions.
Alain: Participation will be voluntary. If they don�t participate in
the deliberations, however, they will have to accept its conclusions.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
