lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1997]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: I2O, free software
At 12:09 PM 7/23/97 +0200, joost witteveen wrote:
>
>I just looked at the I2O pages, but I cannot find how they actually
>define a "member". So what if we set up an organisation that simply
>includes the whole world (or everybody who wants to join us), and
>let that organisation be a member? Then not being able to
>disclose the source-code to non-members isn't gonna be too much
>of a problem.
>
>But I'm sure somewhere in the fine print they define what the structure
>or whatever of each individual memeber is, and anyway, MS apparently
>can expell any member they want. Would be interesting though, MS
>publicly expelling the free software world from I2O.
>

I like the way you think... the only problem is that, even though we can
define all sentient beings (human, artificial, and other) to be members of
our org, we still have to come up with the money... Unfortunately, it
looks like this passage would rule out a good portion of the human race:

# 3.1 Membership. I2O SIG membership shall be open to any person or entity
# (whether a corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, firm or
# organization) whose interest or objective involves the design,
# development or application of hardware or software products which
will
# incorporate or be based on the I2O Specification. Membership in
the I2O
# SIG is a matter of public record; however, membership lists will
not be
# sold or otherwise used for commercial purposes.

Not all humans in the known world have an interest or objective involving
the design development, etc... Although it could be argued that anyone who
runs Linux does. Wait, it is implicit that it does. Anyone who wishes to
run Linux has an objective involving the application of sw which will be
based on the I2) Specification (will be as soon as we find a good way
around this NDA junk.

(Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anything against being in more
than one group; we can't define everyone who would be part of the I2O to be
part of our group, thereby reducing the i2o sig to one vote; so whatever
our group decided would be automatic approved)

Interestingly, the i2o initiative agreement uses the term "in good
standing" many times, but I can find no definition of it. Does this mean
that the steering committee could just define all of us as a member in bad
standing?

There is an interesting reference here:
# 6.2 Member Commitment. Each Contributing Member shall make available to
the
# I2O SIG one or more employees, on an as needed basis, competent to
# further the purposes and objectives of the I2O SIG.
# [...]

This assumes that all Contributing Members have employees, so could the
Administrator throw out a Contributing Member for simply having no
employees, thereby 1) making it look like they didn't do their fair share &
2) avoid a vote...

Has anybody pointed out this section to the steering committee?
# 9.2 Publication of the I2O Specification.
# a. Upon the adoption of the I2O Specification Version 1.0 as set
forth
# above, the I2O Specification will be made available for public use
# through the use of a reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing
# arrangement as established by the Steering Committee.

Is it just me, or is a NDA of this sort both un-reasonable and discriminatory?


This is way off-topic, so is not being posted to linux-kernel. Feel free
to fwd it.


-=- James Mastros

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:39    [W:0.290 / U:0.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site