SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments

[Christian Maletz]

Rick Moen schrieb:

> Quoting Ross Mayfield (ross.mayfield@...):
>
>  
>> Socialtext has been monitoring the conversation and we appreciate your
>> input.
>>    
>
> You're quite welcome.  
>
> I've recently noticed a significant and relevant factual error on your
> "Socialtext Open Source Wiki" licensing pages:
>
> The wiki front page is http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/ , which includes
> this text:
>
>   Socialtext Public License
>
>   All Socialtext Open Source projects are released under the Socialtext
>   Public License (MPL 1.1with an addendum, please see the Why the
>   Appendix page [link]).
>
> Following that hyperlink takes one to
> http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/index.cgi?why_the_appendix, which starts
> out like this:
>
>   Why the Appendix
>
>   Socialtext's Open Source (SPL) license contains two additonal Appendix
>   not found in the original MPL.
>
>   An attribution clause, which we are submitting for consideration as a
>   standard before OSI, see Attribution Memo.
>
>
> Er, one problem:  As I pointed out to you during our exchange on
> December 29 (and which observation you acknowledged true), Socialtext
> has NOT "submitted for consideration" to OSI Socialtext Public License's
> Exhibit B "attribution" and "network use" addenda (much less the entire
> modified-MPL licence, as would actually need to occur) -- no more than
> Mr. Asay has ever submitted Alfresco's, no more than Mr. Roberts has
> ever submitted SugarCRM's, etc.  You submitted to OSI, as discussed here,
> something entirely different, a licence fragment your firm doesn't
> (thus far) appear to actually use at all, anywhere -- let alone use for
> Socialtext Open.
>
> Please correct that fundamental misstatement, at your earliest
> opportunity.  Thank you.
>
>  

               
___________________________________________________________
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de

[Christian Maletz]

Ben Tilly schrieb:

> On 1/22/07, Ross Mayfield <ross.mayfield@...> wrote:
>> Socialtext has been monitoring the conversation and we appreciate your
>> input.  Based on our review of the discussion, it appears that beyond
>> the general concerns about attribution, the proposed provision raises
>> two issues for the group:
>>
>> 1)  What happens if the product does not have a UI?
>>
>> 2)  What happens if the location requirement is too specific?
>
> 3) What happens if the product has a UI that is too limited for your
> requirements?  For example if someone wants to deliver content to
> mobile telephones.
>
> 4) What happens if the product has an unexpected type of UI?  For
> instance a command line client.  Or if someone wants to create a
> specialized interface for blind people.
>
> 5) What happens if the UI has dramatically different rules?  For
> instance there is a 3-dimensional interface where it is very hard to
> interpret what it means to "display a logo" or to say what the size of
> a 2-dimensional logo should be.
>
> And so on and so forth.
>
> Cheers,
> Ben
>
>> We think that we can come up with acceptable answers to both of these
>> concerns, but we wanted to make sure that we have addressed all of the
>> major concerns. Please advise me if you have other issues.
>>
>> Ross Mayfield
>>
>

       
               
___________________________________________________________
Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de

[Andrew C. Oliver-2]

I get a kind of sick satisfaction that now whenever someone googles
"Christian Maletz" or "christian_maletz@..." and finds this thread
in the public archive and they'll see that he started spamming everyone
on the list over and over rather than spend the 30 seconds googling for
the list address and unsubscribing himself and think "what an ass".

-andy

Christian Maletz wrote:

> Rick Moen schrieb:
>> Quoting Ross Mayfield (ross.mayfield@...):
>>
>>  
>>> Socialtext has been monitoring the conversation and we appreciate your
>>> input.
>>>    
>>
>> You're quite welcome.
>> I've recently noticed a significant and relevant factual error on your
>> "Socialtext Open Source Wiki" licensing pages:
>>
>> The wiki front page is http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/ , which includes
>> this text:
>>
>>   Socialtext Public License
>>
>>   All Socialtext Open Source projects are released under the Socialtext
>>   Public License (MPL 1.1with an addendum, please see the Why the  
>> Appendix page [link]).
>>
>> Following that hyperlink takes one to
>> http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/index.cgi?why_the_appendix, which starts
>> out like this:
>>
>>   Why the Appendix
>>
>>   Socialtext's Open Source (SPL) license contains two additonal Appendix
>>   not found in the original MPL.
>>
>>   An attribution clause, which we are submitting for consideration as a
>>   standard before OSI, see Attribution Memo.
>>
>>
>> Er, one problem:  As I pointed out to you during our exchange on
>> December 29 (and which observation you acknowledged true), Socialtext
>> has NOT "submitted for consideration" to OSI Socialtext Public License's
>> Exhibit B "attribution" and "network use" addenda (much less the entire
>> modified-MPL licence, as would actually need to occur) -- no more than
>> Mr. Asay has ever submitted Alfresco's, no more than Mr. Roberts has
>> ever submitted SugarCRM's, etc.  You submitted to OSI, as discussed
>> here,
>> something entirely different, a licence fragment your firm doesn't
>> (thus far) appear to actually use at all, anywhere -- let alone use for
>> Socialtext Open.
>>
>> Please correct that fundamental misstatement, at your earliest
>> opportunity.  Thank you.
>>
>>  
>
>
>        
> ___________________________________________________________ Telefonate
> ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
>
>

--
No PST Files Ever Again
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
Email, Calendaring, ease of configuration/administration
http://buni.org

[Matthew Flaschen]

I know what you mean.  I was going to suggest we just revoke his posting
privileges and keep him subscribed.  Then I thought, too complicated,
maybe I should just forward him a few months worth of Full Disclosure.
That'll teach him about high traffic mailing lists...

But in the end I just sent a message to
license-discuss-unsubscribe-christian_maletz=yahoo.de@... and
he should be gone now.

Matthew Flaschen

Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> I get a kind of sick satisfaction that now whenever someone googles
> "Christian Maletz" or "christian_maletz@..." and finds this thread
> in the public archive and they'll see that he started spamming everyone
> on the list over and over rather than spend the 30 seconds googling for
> the list address and unsubscribing himself and think "what an ass".
>
> -andy

[Lawrence Rosen]

This whole experience concerns me on multiple levels. Why should we allow
people (other than me and my friends, of course) ever to post repeated spam
messages through some automatic script that they negligently invoke? And why
should it be so easy for malicious people (Matthew Flaschen explicitly
excepted) to unsubscribe third parties from this list? The whole thing
sounds like a massive security breach. Thank God we're not running the
Pentagon here.

Can't someone find a more sophisticated subscription and posting mechanism
than this email list?

This is getting to be less of a "delite" than it could be.

/Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Flaschen [mailto:matthew.flaschen@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:19 PM
> To: License Discuss
> Subject: Re: delite me from your mailing list
>
> I know what you mean.  I was going to suggest we just revoke his posting
> privileges and keep him subscribed.  Then I thought, too complicated,
> maybe I should just forward him a few months worth of Full Disclosure.
> That'll teach him about high traffic mailing lists...
>
> But in the end I just sent a message to
> license-discuss-unsubscribe-christian_maletz=yahoo.de@... and
> he should be gone now.
>
> Matthew Flaschen
>
> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> > I get a kind of sick satisfaction that now whenever someone googles
> > "Christian Maletz" or "christian_maletz@..." and finds this thread
> > in the public archive and they'll see that he started spamming everyone
> > on the list over and over rather than spend the 30 seconds googling for
> > the list address and unsubscribing himself and think "what an ass".
> >
> > -andy

[Matthew Flaschen]

Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> This whole experience concerns me on multiple levels. Why should we allow
> people (other than me and my friends, of course) ever to post repeated spam
> messages through some automatic script that they negligently invoke? And why
> should it be so easy for malicious people (Matthew Flaschen explicitly
> excepted) to unsubscribe third parties from this list? The whole thing
> sounds like a massive security breach. Thank God we're not running the
> Pentagon here.

I don't see how we could completely prevent scripting attacks.  I guess
we could set a minimum time between posts, but that would just be
annoying and ultimately solve nothing.

I do agree that other malicious people shouldn't have the same rights I
do. ;)  Seriously, that method still requires them to click a
confirmation link.  As a test, I requested unsubscribe for you (Larry)
and me.  Don't click any links, and we'll see if we hear from you again...;)

Matthew Flaschen

> Can't someone find a more sophisticated subscription and posting mechanism
> than this email list?

There must be some open source software...

Matthew Flaschen

[Chuck Swiger]

On Jan 24, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> This whole experience concerns me on multiple levels. Why should we  
> allow
> people (other than me and my friends, of course) ever to post  
> repeated spam
> messages through some automatic script that they negligently invoke?

Are you volunteering your time to moderate postings to this list?  
Switching to a moderated list would result in near-perfect removal of  
spam and excessive unsubscribe requests being posted to all members....

> And why should it be so easy for malicious people (Matthew Flaschen  
> explicitly
> excepted) to unsubscribe third parties from this list?

It's not.

When a mailing list program receives an unsubscribe request, it sends  
an email containing a "magic cookie" in the message in the Subject  
header, email body, and/or as part of an URL to the subscribed email  
address.  Only if the recipient replies to the message preserving the  
cookie, or clicks on the unsubscribe link, does that person actually  
become unsubscribed.

> Can't someone find a more sophisticated subscription and posting  
> mechanism than this email list?

EZMLM is mildly dated in terms of mailing list functionality,  
although people who like qmail find it integrates well with EZMLM.

I am of the opinion that Mailman, www.list.org, would be a  
significantly better solution as it by default ensures that an  
unsubscribe link appears in the footer of all list messages, has  
somewhat more secure handling of subscribe and unsubscribe cookies (I  
don't believe it is as vulnerable to forged subscription requests as  
EZMLM is), and it is smart enough to identify admin traffic like  
people sending an unsubscribe request to the list itself and hold it  
for moderator/list-admin action, rather than just blindly spamming  
everybody on the list with noise.

Mailman also supports an option for enabling temporary list  
moderation, so that a list which is under attack from spam,  
flamewars, or subscribe/unsubscribe issues can be filtered and  
moderated until things settle down, and then revert to unmoderated  
behavior once things quiet down.

Of course, this is up to Russ Nelson as postmaster@......

--
-Chuck

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Andrew C. Oliver (acoliver@...):

> I get a kind of sick satisfaction that now whenever someone googles
> "Christian Maletz" or "christian_maletz@..." and finds this thread
> in the public archive and they'll see that he started spamming everyone
> on the list over and over rather than spend the 30 seconds googling for
> the list address and unsubscribing himself and think "what an ass".

He now has his own Extra Special Entry in my MTA's reject rulesets.

--
Cheers,                   "Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm
Rick Moen                 for a day.  Set a man on fire, and he will be warm
rick@...       for the rest of his life."   -- John A. Hrastar