[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.


More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list