18 Feb
2004
18 Feb
'04
5:48 p.m.
Hello all,
I believe we need to convene a meeting (on-line) of the linuxaudio.org
management board. The issue has come up that some companies and
organisations seem unable to join the consortium because of clause 6
in the policy document.
It reads:
"Members of the Linuxaudio.org consortium agree not to sue other
members, or otherwise instigate prosecutions of members, following a
dispute over reverse engineering."
http://linuxaudio.org/en/policy.html
I don't think it's that these companies want to sue developers - it's
just that they are unable to promise not to sue. I'd like to see the
management board address the question of whether this clause is worth
keeping, and if so whether it's more important than wider membership.
Two companies have explicitly stated that this clause is the reason
why they cannot join the consortium. One university department has
said that it cannot commit to agreements of this nature on behalf of
the entire institution, and therefore cannot join either. It seems
likely that other companies and organisations may also be prevented
from joining by this clause.
The current members of the management board are:
Dave Phillips (Chair)
Patrick Shirkey (Boost Hardware)
Christian Schaller (GStreamer)
Jan Depner (JAMin)
Ron Parker (Mirror Image)
Steve Harris (plugin.org.uk)
Linuxaudio.org participants who have not yet nominated a
representative:
AGNULA
ALSA
Ardour
Audacity
Core Sound
dyne:bolic
Fervent Software
4Front Technologies
JACK
Linux Audio Systems
Lionstracs
Mandrakesoft
Rosegarden
Naturally, we can only have one person representing each project or
company, otherwise there could be problems with multiple votes.
Management board discussions are intended to take place on a
dedicated mailing list:
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/management
The list has public archives but membership is open only to board
members. (As linuxaudio.org director, I am subscribed for information
purposes, but of course I have no vote in management decisions).
If those projects who have not yet nominated a representative would
like to do so, I can add those people to the management board mailing
list. They can also subscribe themselves, but the subscription will
still have to be approved by the list admins (myself and Andrea
Glorioso of the Agnula project).
Cheers
Daniel James
Director
http://linuxaudio.org
18 Feb
18 Feb
6:10 p.m.
"Members of the Linuxaudio.org consortium agree
not to sue other
members, or otherwise instigate prosecutions of members, following a
dispute over reverse engineering."
Two comments as input for your discussion:
1. Currently nothing prevents a member to leave the consortium to be able
sue a (former) member. If a significant amount of money is involved this
could happen. In practice this clause therefore does not seem to have a
binding effect.
2. It is very unlikely that any company lawyer (that is: big companies)
would agree to such a condition.
Cheers,
Andreas
6:28 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 05:23:41PM +0100, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
yes ok, but if we cannot even agree to not sue each other, why to be
part of a consortium anyway? :))
- --
jaromil, dyne.org rasta coder, http://rastasoft.org
"Members
of the Linuxaudio.org consortium agree not to sue other
members, or otherwise instigate prosecutions of members, following a
dispute over reverse engineering."
Two comments as input for your discussion:
1. Currently nothing prevents a member to leave the consortium to be
able sue a (former) member. If a significant amount of money is
involved this could happen. In practice this clause therefore does not
seem to have a binding effect.
2. It is very unlikely that any company lawyer (that is: big
companies) would agree to such a condition. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://gnupg.org
iD8DBQFAM5R/WLCC1ltubZcRAlV7AKCwdq8NyMAy3s05Z8w8PRZOQjC1NACgy+5C
IfCS7JppVloq3OT4IOHQXn8=
=DqKX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
19 Feb
19 Feb
12:26 a.m.
I agree that many organizations can't/won't sign up to that
restriction. I would think that we're probably only talking about
copyright infringement (including GPL issues), and patent infringement.
Copyright infringement shouldn't be an issue for a company using
proprietary code since we won't be seeing it anyway so we won't be
copying it. GPLed code could be used by a company that doesn't disclose
the source but, again, how would we know? The only real problem I can
see arising would be submarine patents. Those of us developing Open
Source code probably won't be filing patents ;-) Are these the only
issues or am I missing something?
Jan
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 10:36, jaromil wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 05:23:41PM +0100, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
yes ok, but if we cannot even agree to not sue each other, why to be
part of a consortium anyway? :))
- --
jaromil, dyne.org rasta coder, http://rastasoft.org
"Members of the Linuxaudio.org consortium agree not to sue other
members, or otherwise instigate prosecutions of members, following a
dispute over reverse engineering."
Two comments as input for your discussion:
1. Currently nothing prevents a member to leave the consortium to be
able sue a (former) member. If a significant amount of money is
involved this could happen. In practice this clause therefore does not
seem to have a binding effect.
2. It is very unlikely that any company lawyer (that is: big
companies) would agree to such a condition. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://gnupg.org
iD8DBQFAM5R/WLCC1ltubZcRAlV7AKCwdq8NyMAy3s05Z8w8PRZOQjC1NACgy+5C
IfCS7JppVloq3OT4IOHQXn8=
=DqKX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Consortium mailing list
Consortium(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.agnula.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium 
2:33 p.m.
yeah, actually Jan, you're right. i dont see the need for such a clause
either, because the law will cover you regardless of whether you use the
GPL or a regular copyright. the GPL was very cleverly built on top of
copyright law and is legally binding - i believe the MySQL case tested
it in court too.
patents are a different matter, i'm not sure we can preclude the
possibility that people might patent something, except that you'd have
to be on the lookout for a member with $25000 to spare. i believe thats
what it costs to register a patent?....
hth
m~
Jan Depner wrote:
I agree that many organizations can't/won't
sign up to that
restriction. I would think that we're probably only talking about
copyright infringement (including GPL issues), and patent infringement.
Copyright infringement shouldn't be an issue for a company using
proprietary code since we won't be seeing it anyway so we won't be
copying it. GPLed code could be used by a company that doesn't disclose
the source but, again, how would we know? The only real problem I can
see arising would be submarine patents. Those of us developing Open
Source code probably won't be filing patents ;-) Are these the only
issues or am I missing something?
Jan
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 10:36, jaromil wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 05:23:41PM +0100, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
yes ok, but if we cannot even agree to not sue each other, why to be
part of a consortium anyway? :))
- --
jaromil, dyne.org rasta coder, http://rastasoft.org
_______________________________________________
Consortium mailing list
Consortium(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.agnula.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium
"Members of the Linuxaudio.org consortium agree not to sue other
members, or otherwise instigate prosecutions of members, following a
dispute over reverse engineering."
Two comments as input for your discussion:
1. Currently nothing prevents a member to leave the consortium to be
able sue a (former) member. If a significant amount of money is
involved this could happen. In practice this clause therefore does not
seem to have a binding effect.
2. It is very unlikely that any company lawyer (that is: big
companies) would agree to such a condition.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://gnupg.org
iD8DBQFAM5R/WLCC1ltubZcRAlV7AKCwdq8NyMAy3s05Z8w8PRZOQjC1NACgy+5C
IfCS7JppVloq3OT4IOHQXn8=
=DqKX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Consortium mailing list
Consortium(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.agnula.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium
3:19 p.m.
For the US :
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2004jan01.htm
Best,
dp
iriXx wrote:
yeah, actually Jan, you're right. i dont see the
need for such a
clause either, because the law will cover you regardless of whether
you use the GPL or a regular copyright. the GPL was very cleverly
built on top of copyright law and is legally binding - i believe the
MySQL case tested it in court too.
patents are a different matter, i'm not sure we can preclude the
possibility that people might patent something, except that you'd have
to be on the lookout for a member with $25000 to spare. i believe
thats what it costs to register a patent?....
hth
m~
Jan Depner wrote:
I agree that many organizations
can't/won't sign up to that
restriction. I would think that we're probably only talking about
copyright infringement (including GPL issues), and patent
infringement. Copyright infringement shouldn't be an issue for a
company using
proprietary code since we won't be seeing it anyway so we won't be
copying it. GPLed code could be used by a company that doesn't disclose
the source but, again, how would we know? The only real problem I can
see arising would be submarine patents. Those of us developing Open
Source code probably won't be filing patents ;-) Are these the only
issues or am I missing something?
Jan
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 10:36, jaromil wrote:
_______________________________________________
Consortium mailing list
Consortium(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.agnula.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 05:23:41PM +0100, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
_______________________________________________
Consortium mailing list
Consortium(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.agnula.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium
> "Members of the Linuxaudio.org
consortium agree not to sue other
> members, or otherwise instigate prosecutions of members, following a
> dispute over reverse engineering."
>
Two comments as input for your discussion:
1. Currently nothing prevents a member to leave the consortium to be
able sue a (former) member. If a significant amount of money is
involved this could happen. In practice this clause therefore does not
seem to have a binding effect.
2. It is very unlikely that any company lawyer (that is: big
companies) would agree to such a condition.
yes ok, but if we cannot even agree to not sue each other, why to be
part of a consortium anyway? :))
- -- jaromil, dyne.org rasta coder, http://rastasoft.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://gnupg.org
iD8DBQFAM5R/WLCC1ltubZcRAlV7AKCwdq8NyMAy3s05Z8w8PRZOQjC1NACgy+5C
IfCS7JppVloq3OT4IOHQXn8=
=DqKX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Consortium mailing list
Consortium(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.agnula.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium
3:03 p.m.
>>>> "Jan" == Jan Depner
<eviltwin69(a)cableone.net> writes:
I agree that many organizations
can't/won't sign up to that
restriction. I would think that we're probably only talking
about copyright infringement (including GPL issues), and patent
infringement.
The original proposal (by me) simply covered the ability to reverse
engineer proprietary applications/formats, and having some sort of
guarantee that this wouldn't result in a member suing another one.
All of the objections that have been made seem quite reasonable to me
and I've got no problem in concluding that the proposal is simply not
feasible. But the original proposal was much more focused (because I
do know that it's simply impossible reaching any kind of consensus
otherwise).
P.S.: I'm keeping the Cc: list because I don't know how many of the
listed recipients are actually subscribed to the mailing list.
bye,
andrea
4:47 p.m.
Andrea Glorioso wrote:
this is all covered by the GPL... and by most Creative Commons licenses...
thats the purpose of the GPL, to ensure that these rights are preserved..
best
m~
(also preserving the CC: list... sorry Daniel!)
>>>>"Jan" == Jan Depner <eviltwin69(a)cableone.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
I agree that many organizations
can't/won't sign up to that
restriction. I would think that we're probably only talking
about copyright infringement (including GPL issues), and patent
infringement.
The original proposal (by me) simply covered the ability to reverse
engineer proprietary applications/formats, and having some sort of
guarantee that this wouldn't result in a member suing another one.
8:04 p.m.
>>>> "iriXx" == iriXx
<m(a)irixx.org> writes:
this is all covered by the GPL... and by most
Creative Commons
licenses... thats the purpose of the GPL, to ensure that these
rights are preserved..
Unless I missed something really important in the last years, I very
much doub the GNU GPL can say anything about works which are covered
by another license (usually a proprietary license, which was the basic
point why I made the original proposal).
bye,
andrea
6:40 p.m.
Andrea Glorioso wrote:
All of the objections that have been made seem quite
reasonable to me
and I've got no problem in concluding that the proposal is simply not
feasible.
To avoid a misunderstanding: I do not necessarily object to the clause. I
only wanted to point out potential problems. At issue here is the general
aim of the consortium, not simply the clause which raised concerns.
Cheers,
Andreas
6:58 p.m.
Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
Andrea Glorioso wrote:
Why not just change the wording?
Instead of:
"members agree not to sue each other"
it could say:
"in the event of a dispute members agree to attempt peaceful
negotiations via the official consortium communication medium before
litigation is necessary".
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://www.djcj.org/LAU/guide/ - The Linux Audio Users guide
Http://www.djcj.org/gigs/ - Gigs guide Korea
========================================
Apparently upon the beginning of the barrage, the donkey broke
discipline and panicked, toppling the cart. At that point, the rockets
disconnected from the timer, leaving them strewn around the street.
Tethered to the now toppled cart, the donkey was unable to escape before
the arrival of U.S. troops.
United Press International
Rockets on donkeys hit major Baghdad sites
By P. MITCHELL PROTHERO
Published 11/21/2003 11:13 AM
All of the objections that have been made seem
quite reasonable to me
and I've got no problem in concluding that the proposal is simply not
feasible.
To avoid a misunderstanding: I do not necessarily object to the clause. I
only wanted to point out potential problems. At issue here is the general
aim of the consortium, not simply the clause which raised concerns.
7:29 p.m.
Instead of:
"members agree not to sue each other"
it could say:
"in the event of a dispute members agree to attempt peaceful
negotiations via the official consortium communication medium
before litigation is necessary".
I think that's what clause 7 is trying to say:
"In the event of any dispute between members, those members agree to
enter a process of arbitration overseen by the Linuxaudio.org
Management Board."
Cheers
Daniel
10:25 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 05:41:52PM +0000, Daniel James wrote:
well, that makes sense indeed.
i'm fine with taking out clause 6.
the important thing is: keep in mind that free software is about LOVE!
:)
- --
jaromil, who needs fun out of code
Instead of:
"members agree not to sue each other"
it could say:
"in the event of a dispute members agree to attempt peaceful
negotiations via the official consortium communication medium
before litigation is necessary".
I think that's what clause 7 is trying to say:
"In the event of any dispute between members, those members agree to
enter a process of arbitration overseen by the Linuxaudio.org
Management Board." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://gnupg.org
iD8DBQFANR2xWLCC1ltubZcRAkcEAKDBQHyi/ozexwSFLCbIx/LuJJb4awCaA+la
09rYV3mY49eTSa7+WRjPig4=
=xzPn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
3:56 p.m.
if we cannot even agree to not sue each other, why to
be
part of a consortium anyway? :))
It's a fair point, but I think the problem with large companies is
that one person often cannot speak for the whole company or group
when they make such a promise (especially not for the legal
department).
Many IT companies are suing each other, on a regular basis - including
former industry partners. Personally, I think that once matters are
in the hands of lawyers, then lawyers will be the only party to
benefit.
In addition, these companies probably don't want to enter into an
agreement which means that should there be a dispute, their hands
would be tied. It could also be seen as a risk-free invitation to
reverse engineering of proprietary software, which may not be legal
in some countries of course.
I hope that we'll be able to work together on formats, so that reverse
engineering will not be required. I'd like Dave Phillips, as chair of
the linuxaudio.org Management Board, to find out if there is any
consensus on the management mailing list for removing clause 6 of the
policy document.
Cheers
Daniel James
Director
http://linuxaudio.org
18 Feb
18 Feb
6:20 p.m.
New subject: [Consortium] Re: Linuxaudio.org Management Board
>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel James
<daniel(a)linuxaudio.org> writes:
Linuxaudio.org participants who have not yet nominated
a
representative:
AGNULA
Sorry - I thought I had already given my name as the representative
person for the AGNULA project. In any case, here I am:
Andrea Glorioso <sama(a)agnula.org>
bye,
andrea
8006
days inactive
8007
days old
consortium@lists.linuxaudio.org
14 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Andrea Glorioso -
Andreas Kuckartz -
Daniel James -
Daniel James -
Dave Phillips -
iriXx -
Jan Depner -
jaromil -
Patrick Shirkey