Message ID: 190578
Posted By: PG_King
Posted On: 2004-10-10 05:13:00
Subject: Re: One way street
The normal IANAL stuff.
Don't know, think
you are possibly think you are reading too much into the "under no circumstances"
bit. She could have used the phrase for any number of reasons.
(1) Tired and
not really thinking how it would be read.
(2) To give you a fair clue it is an
outright no from her perspective, trying to put it "nicely" might lead you on....
> I remain in the dark as to how the comments can "belong to the poster", but
the Grok site somehow has a license to reproduce them to random people an unlimited
number of times.
I guess this is probably an untested grey area in the law,
however I doubt any poster trying to bring legal action against Groklaw for publishing
their comments would probably fail. The act of posting, like a letter to the editor,
is probably considered an implicit permission to publish.
> I wasn't actually
asking for her permission,
nor do I understand why it would be needed.
Well I'm pretty certain there have been cases where projects scrapeing information
have been shut down. A copyright issue ultimately. The comments are noted (at the
bottom) as being the individuals copyright. The reality in this case is probably
quite different, theoretically the poster could bring a case against an archiver,
but (a) How many would (b) What damages are they claiming. Since they've made it
freely available through groklaw and you aren't actually making any money, then
it's hard to see what they'd claim against you. So all they'd probably gain was
getting you to take their messages down.
Comparisons with slashdot archiving
systems etc are probably not thar relevant, they to quite possibly are against the
letter of the law. But for the reasons outlined above I doubt anybody would try
to bring legal action against them.
Maybe the heart of the matter is this
comment:
> The whole point is to preserve commenter's privacy, and they are
relying upon that.
Which I didn't really understand when I read it, how is
anyone preserving privacy by posting on what is (to all intents and purposes) a
public resource. But maybe the real issue is that maybe PJ is concerned that certain
individuals whilst happy to contribute to Groklaw may simply stop commenting if
the messages were being freely republished elsewhere.
On balance I think
this is the usual PJ being very cautious, but really without further input from
PJ it's impossible to tell what her real problem with the concept is.
Message ID: 190593
Posted By: nobbutl
Posted On: 2004-10-10 07:12:00
Subject: Re: One way street
<< But unlike you guys who are putting forward
good suggestions for potential problems or areas that might need compromise, PJ
simply says "under no circumstances" and will not discuss it,>>
I don't
have a problem with "it's PJ's blog".
But I do have a problem with "never
apologise, never explain", which seems to be PJ's current modus operandi. "Never
apologise" is incompatible with politeness, and "never explain" is incompatible
with openness.
Furthermore the lack of a community mechanism for constructive
feedback and suggestions for improvements is contrary to SOP for free collaborative
projects, and is frustrating for people like me who want to see GL and PJ prosper
and triumph. For example I don't recall seeing a call for volunteers for improving
the legal docs page or discussion about how the Mk II page should work. If this
was done amongst an unannounced inner core of GL minions then we are firmly in xfree86
territory. I really hope that's not what happened.
As for the privacy mallarky,
that, frankly, smells of wookie. AFAICT GL does not disclose mail addys (much like
Yahoo). Best practice is to have a privacy policy - there are W3C standards for
this http://www.w3.org/P3P/ - and it could and should notify posters that their
comments are deemed 'creative commons' licenced by dint of being submitted. But
GL does not have any posted privacy, copyright and TOS policies AFAICT. This is
a strange and disappointing omission.
PJ, if you ever read this, please
consider me hereby to be volunteering to help you set up a proper P3P policy. GL
is great, but I want to help GL be better.
Finally, how PJ can square "under
no circumstances" regarding her "master permission" (which is presumably a copyright
on the collection that is GL) with the proudly displayed Creative Commons licence
is beyond my IANAL little brain. Please explain...
This has been my first
ever full-on Grokwar post. It will also probably be my last. In any case I'll be
away for several weeks from now on, so, in advance, here's a big W00T! in case we
get what we want on CC10.
Message ID: 190597
Posted By: b29651
Posted On: 2004-10-10 08:04:00
Subject: Re: One way street
i cant remember the date i started at groklaw
on the radioweb but when we moved the first time she asked for volunteers on different
things
since moving ti ibiblio she has posted a few times asking for help.i must
be misunderstanding something here.
when we kept crashing the database there
were requests for help for mathfox as he was overworked,there were specific requests
for other things and as they came up PJ would post comments for people to email
her.a comment was made a few months ago about a condensed posting of what groklaw
was about and i suggested that the person do it and submit it.
and it seems to
me that people resent when PJ says it is her decision that is final.why?
she
listens to polite suggestions and frankly i doubt after reading some of the comments
people make if i could be as fair as she is in replying to them either. this is
not directed to the person on whose comments i replied,this is just a general comment
to all.PJ did not ask for this fame.she was learning as part of her job about blogs.and
the scox vs ibm case was fascinating as she had linux also.it amazed her that others
were even reading her articles.she does all this time for NO PAY except lots of
flames and criticisms.the alternative if PJ hadnt written about scox is that LOTS
of companies would now be paying the license fees?
a group of knowledgeable people
contributed valuable info to help those companies make informed decisions and made
the actual court papers easier to get and with a little guidance from PJ and others
on groklaw we can read for ourselves just how the case is going.
br3n
Message ID: 190602
Posted By: nobbutl
Posted On: 2004-10-10 08:41:00
Subject: Re: One way street
<< since moving ti ibiblio she has posted a few
times asking for help >>
Unfortunately it is hard to see PJ's requests for
help unless they are posted as full articles. It is very easy to miss them as comments.
Also PJ understandably does seem to miss suggestions when they are buried in all
the comments. That's why I think the current Geeklog comment system is a failure.
Lots of people have worked hard to ameliorate it; but it's about time Geeklog was
ditched. In part, PJ is getting the blame for Geeklog's failures.
<< when
we kept crashing the database there were requests for help for mathfox as he was
overworked, >>
I guess "Don't Use Geeklog, Don't Use MySQL" didn't count
as help, which is a pity.
<< it seems to me that people resent when PJ says
it is her decision that is final.why? >>
Because they sometimes don't get
an explanation. (In particular "I know things that you don't know" is not an explanation.)
I do understand that PJ is a very busy person, that's why clear posted policies
(with a nice link on the front page) would be helpful to both PJ and those who unjustly
hassle her.
Also at the end of the day people do really love PJ and what
she has achieved, which makes it hard for some people to accept it when she makes
an adverse decision [*] -- at that point some oversensitive obsessive people will
suddenly turn from love to hate. It isn't PJ's fault that they are oversensitive
and obsessive, but she might perhaps deploy a bit more gentle explanation as a workround
for others' faults.
[*] And PJ's decisions are *usually* damn right. However,
that may not be true for some of her moderator minions (if they exist, which they
*apparently* do), who don't have her finesse. Unfortunately the minions are currently
hidden behind 'PJ the brand', and so we have to send feedback to 'PJ the brand'
when we would otherwise want to send feedback to a particular fallible minion.
Right, no more from me as I'm off now for about four weeks. My father is
having a Whipple's Procedure for £0 courtesy of Britain's evil socialist freedom-destroying
healthcare system. Here's to Wells' and Kimball's smackdowns!
Message ID: 190626
Posted By: mitmosnar
Posted On: 2004-10-10 12:59:00
Subject: Re: One way street
Although I think airing your laundry in public
is not what friends do, I'd like to weigh into your latest tiff with PJ with a couple
of observations:
I can see why making the results a GPL project would conflict
with the cc license. The point is to not let anyone monetize it or use any part
of it without proper attribution.
Also, were someone to mine the comments (I
can't see what would stop them) and then license that under the GPL, they would
need permission of the posters. As stated, the poster owns their comment. Groklaw
is under no obligation to display it. Nor could they stop anyone from doing what
you suggest. When I post there, I am implicitly granting them the right to display
my post at their discretion.
Having the posts summarily co-opted into a project
under the GPL would definitely put a chill on posting. People there understand these
things.
Notice how Dan Lyons focused on this board in his Revenge of the Nerds
article? Easy pickins.
'Yes, "it's her blog". But yes, it is as closed as
a clam, she won't discuss it, and that is very strange given the way she talks up
FOSS.'
Try forcing a project leader to use your code with this argument.
Better yet, tell them how to run their project. All the time. Then cast aspersions
at them from afar. All the time. Note the futility.
Message ID: 190640
Posted By: mitmosnar
Posted On: 2004-10-10 14:15:00
Subject: Re: One way street
'You completely miss the point, Tim. Nobody is
talking about GPL-ing the content, I am talking about GPL-ing my work which processes
the content. I don't want to own the content, I want to cache it.'
Ermm,
yes, I apparently missed the point there. I was under the impression that the content
itself would presumably fall under your license. If you simply seek to cache the
comments, then that seems harmless enough, although I'm sure many would have a problem
with it, opening up a whole new can of distraction that, of course, PJ would have
to answer to.
I got my impression from reading your truncated exchange(s). Perhaps
I'm not the only one to make this mistake.
'What are you on about? I'm not
trying to force anyone to use my code.'
The analogy is an answer to your
'Groklaw talks up FOSS but doesn't act like it' statement(s).
I am sure you know
what I meant, but I'll clarify. Telling PJ how to run Groklaw is akin to telling
a project leader how to run their project. Demanding that your posts be displayed
is akin to demanding your code be used to conform to your take on what FOSS is.
You claim to have experienced futility with PJ, yet I imagine the dialog might
have continued. You sent a second email to which you have yet to receive a reply,
so you immediately report your private exchange to the very limit publicly. Did
it not occur to you that perhaps more pressing matters might have prevented PJ from
getting back to you immediately? Now that you have elected to air your laundry in
public here, do you expect the dialog to improve?
I have watched several people
here turn their private correspondence with PJ into whole damn websites. That this
board has become the Groklaw Complaint Dept is common knowledge. In light of all
this petulance, contrasted by the fawning treatment someone like biff gets here,
I can well imagine that futility is being experienced on both ends. You publicly
piss on someone's back, then approach them as a friend - I'd say you get the respect
you deserve.
Thanks again,
Message ID: 190644
Posted By: infosecgroupie
Posted On: 2004-10-10 14:30:00
Subject: Re: One way street
>>> she does all this time for NO PAY except
lots of flames and criticisms. <<<
Oh, puh-leeeze!
New depths of Grok-hyperbole,
round three.
Lots of flames and criticisms?
How about the reams and
reams (to use a dead-tree analogy) of fawning, obsequious, syncophantic drivel that
gets posted over and over?
"Oh, PJ, you're working sooo hard!"
"Oh,
PJ, you're just so, sooo wonderful!!!"
"Oh, PJ, I'm going to vote for you
for president!!!"
"Oh, PJ, I'll do just anything, anything for you, and *wink*
I do mean anythiiinnngg!!!"
Gag me with a spoon, already.
This is
the tripe that's gone to her head.
i_s_g
Message ID: 190673
Posted By: mitmosnar
Posted On: 2004-10-10 15:47:00
Subject: Re: One way street
O.K., so you neatly avoid answering my points
about whether you even gave your dialog a chance, airing your laundry in public,
pissing on PJ's back from afar, and creating yet another interminable Grokwar thread
by offering your subjective opinion on my posts with no quotes at all.
'I
don't agree with some of what infosec says and disagree with all of what deepdistrust
says, but if you think I should keep quiet about these serious issues in case someone
posts something you dislike... you're out of luck.'
I can only assume you
didn't actually read my comments. The reasons I feel you should 'keep quiet' about
the 'serious issues' you are on about are clear: You don't know whether you would
have heard back in time, but assumed you wouldn't because you didn't hear back in
some arbitrary amount of time decided by yourself (likely hours). This lead you
to air your laundry in public - a prevelant behaviour among malcontents here. Again
I will ask: did you think that this would improve the dialog? You spiced your report
with aspersions about FOSS, etc directed at PJ, effectively reducing the chances
for your idea.
That your 'serious issue' inspired a flood of crap was a foregone
conclusion - hence my thanks. I am not an irony free zone, so I appreciate that
I add to the noise.
A little persistent, quiet lobbying replete with patience
might have resulted in something good - having had you clarify your intent after
I misread it, I think it would be a very good thing. Instead, we have a stink. I
think that's a shame.
Thanks again,
Message ID: 190675
Posted By: b29651
Posted On: 2004-10-10 15:49:00
Subject: Re: One way street
< In this case, I can tell you why I resent getting
blown off like that, I don't think it is her decision. The comments are not PJ's:
she explicitly disclaims ownership of them. They are community input. I have some
things I can do with this community input that are likely to improve the quality
of the final result, or at least make cool ways to access it, eg, scoring, RSS feeding,
other yah stuff, before making that openly available to the community.>
i
dont know how long you have been with groklaw,but these issues were openly discussed
and input was asked for by PJ
she asked that we submit it thru email on the ratings
issue,the bots scrolling the comments and something else but cant remember now sorry(bad
day)ratings was discussed lots ,they talked about the slashdot system,kuroshin(sp)
system and another site.there was still the problem of controlling the language.language
that most of you dont pay any attention to and dont mind.i am in agreement with
PJ completely on this issue.i do not enjoy reading the offensive words and it is
nice to read groklaw with out them.
as for her blowing you off?
i guess i
dont understand why you feel you have to change her mind.why you feel she isnt allowed
to listen then make her own mind up?
she listened and then responded.that would
be called a fair hearing?i respect that each of you have different perspectives
on ways to do things.i guess i just wonder why everyone thinks PJ should have to
explain each step she takes?
she is her own person,adult and capable to make
up her own mind.not some child to be reasoned with.
br3n
Message ID: 190705
Posted By: spamsux99
Posted On: 2004-10-10 16:42:00
Subject: Re: One way street
Here I go again. I was trying to avoid commenting
on anything groklaw/PJ, but I guess I just can't resist.
I have come to suspect
that PJ and groklaw/grokline are not as appear. I enjoy what PJ writes, and value
what groklaw has done, but from her actions I have learned to be skeptical. Everything
is peachy as long as you stick to PJ's party line, contribute to her endeavors,
and as long as she retains total control over distribution of your contribution.
This woman came out of the blue (no pun intended), claiming to be a paralegal, later
claiming to be a journalist, and then proceeded to personally profit from the contributions
of others. Contributions of which are free to use only as she sees fit. I see the
appearance of a business model in PubPat/OSRM, and Grok*/OSRM that is far from resembling
the ideals of F/OSS. Before you go defending PJ to me, please stop to consider that
I don't give a
The comparisms to open source projects are
ludicrous. Open source projects allow you complete access to the source code, and
allow you to do whatever you wish with it, as long as you don't violate the licensing
terms. Linus does not arbitrarily tell people or companies that they cannot use
or share the source when he decides that he does not like them, what they have to
say, or what they choose to do with the source.
That being said, we can continue
to bicker about PJ/Groklaw, or we can do something about it. The information on
groklaw is not free for us to use. The information here on yahoo is not free for
us to use. Both places arbitrarily delete posts and become unavailable.
I
say we kill several birds with one stone. Andy, install phpbb, slash, whatever,
on yahouvre, and let's create our own community. Add a disclaimer that each and
every post is either gpl, ccl, whatever, and allow the free exchange of information.
Allow people to freely mirror the site and content. This would allow you to customize
the aggregation of information better, and it would allow those who desire to participate
in a community that respects the spirit of F/OSS a chance to do so, as opposed to
bitching about PJ. Let's show them how to do it right. The issues facing F/OSS are
not going to end with SCO, they are going to go on for a long time. It would be
nice to have a place to go to that aggregates information from various sco lawsuit
related sites, and allows unfettered discussion.
If it starts affecting your
pocketbook, I would be more than willing to donate.
Just my $0.02.
Message ID: 190721
Posted By: ColonelZen
Posted On: 2004-10-10 17:55:00
Subject: todays GrokWar recap.
Todays GrokWar has been spawned by the Andy
wanting to ouevre GL. Now I am not going to say anything about whether he should
or not, thats obviously completely up to him. If he does, I'll probably use it and
thank him for it, if not, I'll not think any less of him and continue to thank him
for what he's already done.
But the issues are:
1) Is there anything
legally preventing him from doing so? I can't see any so long as he frames rather
than reposts the comments.
2) Is there anything morally wrong with doing
so. Again, I see none as no one is hurt other than possibly PJ's blood pressure,
and it would be doing us on this side of the SCOX battle a service.
3) Is
threre anything ethically wrong. Ethics are morals in the real world; the real world
issue is that PJ evidently does not want him to do so but hasn't stated any kind
of discernably valid reason why not. The ethics then are dependent upon what weight
you put on PJ's desire. Me, given the potential value of I'd take her at her word
- cc means for non-commercial and playing fair about attribution do as you will;
if she doesn't like it she can change the license.
Are there any other
issues? Are there specific contrary opinions to the topic issues?
-- TWZ
Message ID: 190725
Posted By: mck9@swbell.net
Posted On: 2004-10-10 18:39:00
Subject: Let PJ be PJ
PJ has been variously perceived as secretive, paranoid,
arbitrarily dictatorial, and on and on. While broadly in agreement with Groklaw's
aims, some of us fear that its mission will be compromised by PJ's personal foibles.
And foibles she has. We may disagree over what they are, and how important they
are, but everyone has personal foibles, and there's no reason to expect or demand
that PJ be an exception.
People who achieve great things often have strong
and aberrant personalities. They may be obsessive-compulsive, or manic-depressive,
or self-righteous, or abrasive, or demanding, or sexually promiscuous. They may
be addicted to alcohol, or money, or fame. They are almost always workaholics, and
are likely to have huge egos, and to be hard to live with or work for.
I
am not suggesting that PJ shows any of these traits in particular. That's not the
point. I have mostly stayed out of the Grokwars so far, and I am not interested
in further itemizing and dissecting her faults, whether real or imagined.
The point is that you have to be a little bit nuts to do what PJ has done. Whatever
rough edges you may think she may have, they are part and parcel of who she is.
If she were anybody else, Groklaw would never have happened.
Let us first
of all be grateful that PJ is who she is, and that Groklaw did happen. Within reasonable
limits, cut her some slack. She deserves it.
Second, where constructive criticism
is in order, let it stay constructive and sympathetic. Bitterness may be satisfying
but is ultimately toxic to both parties.
Third, let us not impugn the motives
or loyalties of those who offer honest criticism of PJ or of Groklaw, even if the
criticism itself seems misguided.
It is customary to break up into squabbling
factions after victory is achieved, but we haven't seen victory yet. The factions
and the squabbling are premature.
Message ID: 191184
Posted By: boyle_m_owl
Posted On: 2004-10-11 23:23:00
Subject: Observations:
Just because it may be legal to do something doesn't
mean one should.
Honoring someone's wishes to keep the peace is sometimes
better than standing up for one's "rights". PJ has no legal leg to stand on, imnsho,
wrt linking/indexing, but to prevent further division of the community, it's a good
idea to let her fly in her own direction. It's her own board, fer crissakes.
KISS. Keep it Simple, Stupid. Yahoevre is fine as it is. If people want to go
get posts from Groklaw, they're free to go to Groklaw.
All this infighting
is annoying to me, and a whole lot of other people who mostly lurk here for real
information. Again, KISS. Keep It Simple, Stupid, this is a board about The Evil
That Lurks in Lindon. Let's try to keep it that way, mmmkay?
Two interesting
people have gone on "vacation" as a result of all this. Ask yourself if that is
a good thing.
Lastly, I appreciate most of the discussions here. Over the
last year and a half, I have learned much more than I would have ever imagined.
Let's not sink to the level of the other boards (e.g., MSFT).
Darl must be
laughing his ass off watching us devour each other.
--
BMO
Message ID: 192413
Posted By: phandsvrta
Posted On: 2004-10-14 14:09:00
Subject: PLEASE STOP THE GROKWARS
We can't solve it or change anything from
here. It's up to Andy and PJ to resolve their own differences, or agree to differ.
This is playing into biff's hands - he loves watching us infighting.
Let's
get back to what we're supposed to do - rubbish SCOX, their ridiculous claims and
their pathetic shills - biff, ledite et al.....
Paul
The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board users "PG_King", "nobbutl", "b29651", "mitmosnar", "infosecgroupie", "spamsux99", "ColonelZen", "mck9@swbell.net", "boyle_m_owl", "phandsvrta" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.
Copyright 2004 Yahoo! SCOX. Messages are owned by the individual posters.