[cgl_discussion] New draft of PoC restructuring proposal

Mika Kukkonen mika at osdl.org
Mon Oct 28 15:35:34 PST 2002

On ma, 2002-10-28 at 15:34, Skip Ford wrote:
> 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 think Andy already covered that one in his reply (thanks Andy!).

> 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 am unfortunately not in a position to give that kind of promises, it
is up to the CGL-WG members and OSDL management to make that kind of

> 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.

Well, October archive has now 132 messages (not including this one):
I am sorry if we are not as profilic as LKML, but we are trying to
improve ;-)

> 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.

I think this had to do something with how the mailman (our mailing list
software) handles restrictions, i.e. you can not have restricted mailing
list with open archives. I'll check this one though.

> 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.

If you want the code, it is on our developer-site:
List of projects included is also there:

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

Well, if you just want to work on the code, you really do not need to
sign the agreement, more so with this new shift into even more open
development environment coming up. So stay tuned ;-)

> 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.

Yup. More the merrier ;-)


More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list