[cgl_discussion] New draft of PoC restructuring proposal

Skip Ford skip.ford at verizon.net
Mon Oct 28 15:34:41 PST 2002


Mika Kukkonen wrote:
> On ma, 2002-10-28 at 13:20, Skip Ford wrote:
> 
> > Also, the CGL page defines the subgroup mailing lists as open to the
> > public.  I tried to join to learn about your project only to find that
> > they're really closed to the public.
> 
> No, the requirement is to sign the Participant Agreement 
> (http://www.osdl.org/pdf/cgl_twg_agreement.pdf) as an individual.
> 
> The sole purpose of that document is to guarantee, that no person or
> company can give us input that gets incorporated in our specs and then
> later claim IPR etc. rights over it. And believe me, that is a good
> thing ...

Well, where would the kernel be today if the community had to sign a
Participant Agreement?

I understand you're protecting the project with that arrangement, but I
have no intention of ever adding to a spec.  At some point when the
specs are finalized and all of the work is code writing, will that
requirement be dropped?

> I know legal text is not something anybody (outside laywyers) wants to
> read, but this is what OSDL lawyers told us we need to do. And we
> do have several individuals that have succesfully signed the agreement
> and gotten access to the internal mailing lists (feel free to speak up
> and say, that there is nothing secret and magical in those lists ...).

I've read the agreement.  The problem is I don't want to waste anyone's
time.  I don't know yet if I can even help.  I've been lurking here but
there really hasn't been much activity.

I don't see how preventing anyone from _reading_ those subgroup lists
does what you intend.  I can understand your legal arguments for not
allowing posting without an agreement, but I'm just trying to figure out
what the project is all about.  I only want to read at the moment.
If the reason is as you've said, to prevent a later claim of IPR, then
reading only would be allowed.

Along those same lines, I looked for your patch of what's been done and
I can't find that either.  I found your tinderbox site, so there must be
code but I haven't found it.  It could be that I missed it.

> This mailing list (cgl_discussion) is really the one where most of
> debating should happen, actually. It is just difficult to get:
>   a) Community to read this list
>   and
>   b) Convince people in companies that it is ok to post to such a list
>      without first clearing the mail through their boss and legal & PR
>      departments.
> 
> I think only solution to a) and b) is time and mutual understanding and
> support from the both sides, and my job is to try to facilitate that.

Well, I'll keep lurking.  If at some point I feel like I can help, I'll
sign the agreement.

I'm really still trying to learn how the various HA and CG projects are
related.  There seem to be many projects with similar goals.

-- 
Skip



More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list