Subject: Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:52:20 -0400

>>>>> "Brian" == Brian Rosen <[email-masked]> writes:

    Brian> You guys don't have a problem with the "defensive
    Brian> suspension"/"no first use" clauses, do you?

There is not consensus in the free software community on this issue.
I believe the Open Source Initiative (opensource.org) is OK with such
clauses.  Debian (debian.org) is not although there are some of us
within Debian who question this decision.  I don't know what the FSF's
stance is on this issue.

This is one of the many reasons why I think the free software
community needs to get together and decide what it wants *before*
coming to the IETF.  

Again, I'm not proposing that the free software community can change
the IETF's IPR policies We had that debate recently and it's clear
there is not consensus to change it.  

I do think that some patent holders want to make their technology
available to the free software community.  I believe that if the free
software community agreed on what it wanted, it would be reasonable
for the IETF to pass that along to IPR holders as information to
consider when drafting proposed licenses.

--Sam

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:25:02 -0400 (EDT)

> community needs to get together and decide what it wants *before*

The free/open source software communities and the IETF are not mutually
exclusive sets.

> consider when drafting proposed licenses.

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/

---

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:17:08 -0400 (EDT)

> consider when drafting proposed licenses.

I think that would be a Good Thing

Scott

---

From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:01:28 -0400

> community needs to get together and decide what it wants *before*

Your two people to go to on this would be RMS (representing the FSF)
or me (representing the OSI); between us I believe we can speak for
over 95% of the community.

I know FSF's position; if and when it differs substantially from OSI's
I'll tell you.  On IETF-relevant issues substantive differences are
quite unlikely -- the main difference between these organizations 
is of style and propaganda.

(Some FSF partisans deny this, insisting there are deep philosophical
issues dividing FSF from OSI.  OSI does not reciprocate this belief,
and in any case the imputed differences are not relevant to the IETF's
concerns.)
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:00:28 -0600 (MDT)

> From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[email-masked]>

> over 95% of the community.

I hate it when elected politicans presume to speak for me.  I will not
sit quietly and let self-appointed individuals try the same.  *DO NOT*
tell me to my face that you are negotiating on my behalf or even just
for 95% of the other people who write or have written software that
might be called "open" by virtue of being freely redistributable and
in use by lots of people until you can can point to the results of a
real plebiscite.  Even then, you won't be speaking for me until I
personally and explicitly say so.

If you and Mr. Stallman want to speak for your respective organizations,
then peachy.  If you want to speak based on what you consider your own
great experience and deep thoughts on the issues, then that's also
good.  If you want to pretend that you speak for me out of my earshot,
then I'll do my best to not hear.  Just don't stand in front of me
telling me that you have my best interests at heart and that I must
trust you.

It's been many years since I came to expect such behavior from the
FSF.  I had a better image of/delusions about the OSI.  I guess I
should know better.  Just as the self-named Internet Society attracts
people far more interested in politics and telling me how I should
view the Internet than designing, implementing, deploying, and maintaining
what I think of as network stuff, any self-described open software
organization will be run by people telling me whether I'm really writing
free code and where my best interests really lie.

The appareance of such stuff in proximity to the IETF administrative
reoganization...uh...negotiations is not really irony.  Such things
tend to attract each other.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:31:21 +0200

Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]> writes:

> sit quietly and let self-appointed individuals try the same.

I can sympathize with that.  I do believe it would be useful for the
IETF to speak with Eric Raymond or RMS, but it shouldn't be under the
pretext that they can speak for all, or nearly all, open source or
free software developers.  That may give a false expectation in the
IETF to resolve an issue "for good", that may not ever be solved.  I
believe the talks should serve the purpose of explaining things that
cannot be explained on mailing lists, but not be considered as
"negotiations".

As for the open source community coming together and deciding what it
wants, I don't think that will happen.  It is like asking all
companies to come together and decide what the enterprise community
wants.

Thanks.

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:18:31 +0200

Please remember that IETF adheres to a consensus process, which is not a 
democratic process. There is no representation by delegation but 
representation by competence. Because at the end of the day one does not 
count votes but serious opponents. The target is to present a solution non 
one will oppose. So, everyone with a significant position is to be 
discussed with.
jfc

---

From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:52:01 -0400

> personally and explicitly say so.

There's been no plebiscite, of course.  However, web content analyses
and surveys of the licenses used at sites like SourceForge and ibiblio
paint a pretty consistent picture of who developers consider the authorities
on licensing and IPR best practice.  Those authorities are FSF and OSI.

While I respect your desire that I not represent you (or claim to),
the reality is that people outside our community are generally going
to behave as if I do.  OSI as an organization, and I as an individual,
had to build that reputation in order to represent *anybody*
effectively, let alone the large number of developers that want us to.  
And this was a job that needed doing, so I won't apologize
for taking it on.

> telling me that you have my best interests at heart and that I must

I do in fact believe I have your best interests at heart; this is a
safe thing for me to believe, because I have no actual power over you.
I do not require that you trust me, though that would be nice.  Many
people do trust me and don't seem to have been harmed by it.
 
You're a typical member of the 5%, in that what bothers you is not 
policies or the effects of what we do, but our implied claim to represent
you.  I do not presume to criticize your position, but neither am I going
to abandon my duty to hackers who *do* want OSI to represent them on
any single refusenik's say-so.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:06:43 -0600 (MDT)

> on licensing and IPR best practice.  Those authorities are FSF and OSI.

SourceForge and so forth have nothing to say about any views but those
of their own users.  What SourceForge says cannot be honestly extrapolated
to others users for reasons that are obvious on http://sourceforge.net/
It cannot even be extrapolated to Sourceforge and similar (e.g. Freshmeat)
users, as I'm here to tell you.

Web content analyses obviously have nothing to do with counting authors
of open source.  You might compare the popularity of a very few open
source packages that way.  Of course package popularity is not the
same as numbers of programmers.

The popularities of various forms of open source licenses also have
nothing to do with your claims to represent open source programmers.
It would make as much sense to infer that since everyone breaths,
therefore someone who advocates (a notion of) clean air represesents
almost everyone.  That exactly such claims are common in the political
world does not make them convincing here.  Note also that when
professional politicians make such claims, they're usually not so
painfully transparent.

> And this was a job that needed doing, so I won't apologize

I do not understand that as anything but an excuse for misrepresenting
your position.  That major party professional politicians make the
same sorts of "I represent all oxygen breathers" claims is not an excuse.

It is interesting to consider the claims of others such as Jeff
Williams.  Mr. Williams claims to represent about as many people
as you do.  

Here in the IETF, what you have to say is supposed to rise or fail
purely on its intrinsic logic and validity, whether its advocate is
an isolated individual or represents IBM, Microsoft, the ITU, the U.S.
Dept of Comm., the United Nations, or even the Open Source Initiative.
You, Mr. Stallman, and Mr. Williams all have opinions on how the IETF
should handle patents, copyrights, trademarks and so forth, but there
is no a priori reason that makes your opinions compelling.  Your views
start on the same footing as anyone else's including Bill Gates',
except that Gates' might have better standing because he has not
recently gotten relevant IETF facts so egregiously wrong in public.
I'm referring to your claims in this mailing list about patent problems
being the sole or primary cause of the end of the MARID WG.

> you. 

There you go again, claiming to know and represent my views despite
nearly complete ignorance.

>       I do not presume to criticize your position, but neither am I going

"Refusenik"?  Are you ignorant of the political frieght carried by
that word?  Do you not know its history or not see the irony of putting
down my objections to your claims with that word?  Amazing!  See
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Refusenik%20(Soviet%20Union)
or more generally http://www.google.com/search?q=refusenik

I suspect the overwhelming majority of your community consists of users
and others who have will have written fewer than 10,000 lines of any
code when they die and fewer 1000 lines that might reasonably be called
open source by virtue of being not only in some sense free but actually
used by others.  There is nothing wrong with that, but there is a lot
wrong with your efforts to claim to represent more than 95% of open
source programmers.

I've been around for decades and know at least a few people who have
written more than 10,000 more or less freely redistributable and popular
lines.  Few of them are members of either your or Mr. Stallman's
organizations, although both of you frequently claim to speak for us.

Your statemnet that web content analyses supports your claims is an
aspect or admission of the fact that your organization, like but not
quite not as much as the FSF, is more about users of open source than
authors of open source.  There's nothing wrong with running or
representing an organzation whose members are more open source users
than authors, but there is plenty wrong with appointing yourself to
represent people outside your organization.

If you truly understood and supported the notion of open source, you
would not be doing as you are and have been doing.  What you are doing
is the political realm's equivalent to the theft that some corporations
commit or attempt with open source.  (e.g. AT&T and the BSD TCP/IP
code, except I think AT&T made an almost innocent mistake in that
case).  You are trying to "leverage" the reputations and work of open
source programmers for your personal gain and political power without
even deigning to give us credit.

And save the stuff and nonsense about being trustworthy and not having
power over me.  Don't insult my intelligence.  Your efforts here to
be named co-negotiator for open source authors are intended to exercise
power over me.

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:22:15 -0600 (MDT)

Someone wrote me privately:

]                                         For an open source guy he 
] has some pretty funny legal language:
] 
] http://www.catb.org/~esr/copying.html

That page includes this restriction:

}  You may not make or redistribute static copies (whether print or
}  online) without my express permission.

HTML and English are not C, C++, asm86, perl, or even php and I
don't expect anyone who writes some open source to write only open
source.  I would also like a way to stop my perpetual problems with
people using and redistributing ancient or distorted and preverted
versions of my epistles in C.  Still, someone who claims to represent
refuseniks like me in negotiations concerning open source with an
organization in which I've been particpating for decades ...

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 19 Oct 2004 18:05:27 +0000

> organizations, although both of you frequently claim to speak for us.

in particular, neither i personally nor isc as a company shares the views
expressed here by mr. raymond with respect to ietf's patent policies.  i
think of myself, and of isc and the various people who have written the
software isc publishes, as part of what mr. raymond calls "the 5%", and i
agree with mr. schryver that mr. raymond's claims of representation don't
help me and might, by creating misunderstanding amongst the consumers of
"open source" software, hurt me.

(of course, i'm hoping that i'm one of the "few people" mr. schryver is
thinking of in the above-quoted text; perhaps i'm overestimating myself.)
-- 
Paul Vixie

---

From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:34:09 -0400

Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>:
>                            mr. raymond's claims of representation don't

Let's put an end to these far-reaching interpretations of
"representation", which are a product of Mr. Schryer's fevered brain
overinterpreting my original statement.

Originally, somebody asked that the open-source community get its act together
about what acceptable patent-license terms would be.

I said this: if IETF wants to know what form of patent license will be
acceptable to the open-source community, the people to ask are Richard
Stallman (representing FSF) and myself (representing OSI).

Between us (and especially if we agree), I believe we can speak *with
regard to this question* for 95% of the open-source community.  This
does not make either of us power-mad dictators intent on domination,
just most peoples' recognized experts on what constitutes an
acceptable open-source license.

If either Mr. Schryer or yourself chooses not to be considered part
of that "most people", fine -- the fact remains there are an awful damn lot
of developers expecting RMS and myself to *do* *this* *job* so they don't
have to.

Cripes.  It'd be easier trying to serve a gang of baboons, sometimes...
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 07:36:43 -0700 (PDT)

Eric -

> of developers expecting RMS and myself to *do* *this* *job* so they don't

That works fine for the membership of your organization.  It is great
they have entrusted this job to you.  Congratulations.

You may be missing a fundamental thing, however.  The IETF has *no members*
and, despite an impressive org chart and lots of titles, *participants*
in the process tend to bristle when anybody presumes to speak on behalf
of *the IETF.*  We deliverately have a long, slow process based on
group consensus and working code.  By working code I mean every idea
gets implemented so we can see how they work.  That's the ideal anyway.

> Cripes.  It'd be easier trying to serve a gang of baboons, sometimes...

Well, yes, perhaps we are a gang of baboons.  You've got a church model
of open source with you as pope.  That's fine.  People are free to worship
anyway they'd like.  But, why don't you head over to the bazaar and
see how the rest of us live?  

Your baboon analogy is sort of on the mark, however (see [1]). It might not look 
like we know what we're doing, but if we all keep on typing, maybe somebody 
will get lucky.  Perhaps not as well structured as you'd like, but the results 
speak for themselves.

So, if you don't like the IPR policy, all you can really do is type
up an internet-draft with your ideas.  Maybe you'll get lucky.  But,
you're not going to get very far sending yourself or any other church
officials in to negotiate with a bunch of baboons.  To us, you're just
another monkey.

Carl

1: http://infinite.simians.net/

---

From: Ken Hornstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:05:25 -0400

>acceptable open-source license.

Just for the record, I don't think you and RMS are power-mad dictators.
But ... I'm not sure you represent nearly as many people as you think
you do.

Here's my problem: I personally know a lot of people who don't agree
with you and RMS when it comes to open-source licensing.  That's fine,
IMHO ...  everyone's entitled to their opinion.  But out of the people
that I know who have an interest in it, a _very large_ majority
disagree with you and RMS, and would be very indignant if you or RMS
claimed to be speaking for them (FWIW, I don't agree with you and RMS
either, but it doesn't bother me enough to make a huge deal out of
it).  So I have an issue with your 95% figure.

Now, there are some obvious problems with my "sampling".  I'm not
hugely active in the open-source community; you and RMS are, so it's
very likely y'all have a better idea what the "pulse" is of the
open-source developers.  Also, any such sampling I do has the
self-selection problem ... I probably hang out with people who think
like I do more than I hang out with people who don't think like I do,
so obviously I know plenty of people who think like me when it comes to
open-source licensing.  But ... I think the self-selection problem
applies equally to you and RMS.

In addition to the self-selection problem, I can't really see any way
you could accurately determine how many people agree with you out of
the open-source community.  In a previous email, you talked about some
SourceForge poll ... I'm a SourceForge user myself, and I've never
participated in such a poll (and I don't think that even if I did, it
would truely be represenative of the "open source community" ...  I'm
not sure we could even agree on who is an open source developer.  Sure
_you_ could tell me who think is an open-source developer, but again,
I'm not sure everyone would agree with you).

So, in summary, I guess my point can be summed up as follows:

- Have you and RMS thought a lot about open source licensing?  Absolutely.

- Should your opinions on IPR claims be considered by the IETF?  Absolutely.

- Do you speak for 95% of open source developers on this question?  I
  believe not.

- Do you speak for a majority of open source developers on this question?
  Probably.

But I can't back up the last two statements with any facts; I'm just
going with my gut on this one.

--Ken

---

From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:15:27 -0400

Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>:
> of open source with you as pope. 

Funny, I don't recall having excommunicated anyone or spoken ex cathedra
lately.  If you want blessings, apply to RMS in his "St. Ignucius" persona;
I don't do that stuff.

No pope here, just a monkey still trying to cope with having been shoved
in front of a parade.  I'm as anti-authoritarian as the next hacker.  But
when that reflex prevents us from recognizing the very expertise we're
explicitly asking for, it's a problem.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:27:05 -0600 (MDT)

> of developers expecting RMS and myself to *do* *this* *job* so they don't

If it existed, that job would conflict with the way the IETF works.
No contributor to an IETF WG or mailing list is supposed be presenting
anything but personal opinions.  When Mr. Raymond writes here about
acceptable patent-license terms, his views get careful reading, but
not because he represents anyone but himself.

If the IETF were to make an exception and count votes on this issue,
then it should weight votes based on relevant open source, since
concerns about patents on parsing C matter less to the IETF than patents
on address prefix lookups and compression.  However, any kind of voting
would be bad.  More and larger (including commercial) organizations
would declare themselves champions of open source and demand votes in
proportion to their programmers, customers, or market shares.

> Cripes.  It'd be easier trying to serve a gang of baboons, sometimes...

Many people besides baboons and refuseniks consider it unseemly to
demand gratitude for unwanted gifts, and not only because some political
activites are painfully obvious and familiar.  Being recognized as the
official spokesman for the open source community by the IETF would
help Mr. Raymond's efforts to get the world to believe the phrase "open
source community" is not silly nonsense like "netizen," that it has
spokesmen, and that he is one.

P.S. I don't entirely agree with Mr. Vixie's patent suggestion.
Requiring that WG participants make such disclosures would be very
nice in theory, but seems as realistic as the IETF simply declaring that
it has opted-out of the patent extortion game.  However, that's all
been said before more than once.

P.P.S. I think this started with concerns about quoting parts of RFCs.
Is there more fire than smoke there?

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:38:55 -0400

> acceptable open-source license.

This looks to me like an informal attempt at forming a "design team". 

I think it would be good for you (ESR) to review the text on design
teams in RFC2418 and the subsequent IESG note:

	http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/Design-Teams.txt

because it provides time-tested, sage advice on how to go about
producing something which stands a chance of being accepted by us
baboons in the peanut gallery.

						- Bill

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:38:58 -0400

- Bill

---

From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:09:30 -0400

> baboons in the peanut gallery.

Have done so.  Are you suggesting that RMS and I should form a design team?
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

---

From: [email-masked] (Kai Henningsen)
Date: 29 Oct 2004 21:00:00 +0200

> acceptable open-source license.

I think this is a serious overestimate, and that something like 60% would  
be significantly closer to the right figure.

MfG Kai

---

From: [email-masked] (Kai Henningsen)
Date: 29 Oct 2004 20:56:00 +0200

> over 95% of the community.

Well, quite obviously neither of you speaks for Debian. I believe that's  
not an insignificant part of the community, and there seem to be serious  
differences in legal opinion to either of you two.

(And note that the OSI ideas about what is free software started life as  
the DFSG, the Debian Free Software Guidelines; so it seems rather relevant  
if these two players have a difference of opinion.)

> and in any case the imputed differences are not relevant to the IETF's

Note that one such FSF partisan claiming deep differences is RMS himself.

MfG Kai

---

From: [email-masked] (Kai Henningsen)
Date: 29 Oct 2004 21:07:00 +0200

[email-masked] (Carl Malamud)  wrote on 20.10.04 in <[email-masked]>:

> > of that "most people", fine -- the fact remains there are an awful damn
> > lot of developers expecting RMS and myself to *do* *this* *job* so they
> > don't have to.
>

Uh, it seems you're misunderstanding what esr says. Of the people he  
claims to represent, I'd expect less than 1% to actually be members of  
either OSI or the FSF.

He is not talking about representing any organization. He is talking about  
representing the community.

> gets implemented so we can see how they work.  That's the ideal anyway.

And in that way, it is slightly *more* organized than the people esr  
claims to represent.

> of open source with you as pope.

*esr*?! The very guy who wrote "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"? You *must*  
be joking.

>   But, why don't you head over to the bazaar and

That is pretty much what he's made his life mission, you really ought to  
know.

I may disagree with him on various things, but your attack misses the  
point so far, where he is and where you hit don't even seem to be on the  
same planet.

MfG Kai

---

From: [email-masked] (Kai Henningsen)
Date: 29 Oct 2004 21:15:00 +0200

> }  online) without my express permission.

This is an interesting point in case.

He shares this idea with rms, who uses the GFDL for a similar goal.

*Huge* parts of the community do not share that idea. There's a reason  
Debian, for example, sees the GFDL as a non-free license. A number of more  
and less prominent *gcc developers* (people who assign their copyrights to  
rms' FSF) share this particular concern and think that text *should* be  
under the same kind of free licenses as software.

So be careful with statements about representing these people!

MfG Kai