Comments on: Being Open is hard, as we have seen this week http://almaer.com/blog/being-open-is-hard-as-we-have-seen-this-week blogging about life, the universe, and everything tech Sat, 08 Sep 2012 07:06:53 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Brandon Weiss http://almaer.com/blog/being-open-is-hard-as-we-have-seen-this-week/comment-page-1#comment-38781 Brandon Weiss Mon, 09 Jun 2008 01:11:42 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog/being-open-is-hard-as-we-have-seen-this-week#comment-38781 Dion, James, and Andre... yeah a substitute would be amazingly helpful for that, and for all of us who still have problems with the stupid registry crap and cant download the official version and cant find a substitute Dion, James, and Andre…

yeah a substitute would be amazingly helpful for that, and for all of us who still have problems with the stupid registry crap and cant download the official version and cant find a substitute

]]> By: Andre Charland http://almaer.com/blog/being-open-is-hard-as-we-have-seen-this-week/comment-page-1#comment-38512 Andre Charland Thu, 08 May 2008 07:59:01 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog/being-open-is-hard-as-we-have-seen-this-week#comment-38512 Dion and James... What's the verdict here? If you build your own Flash Player substitute you could infringe on Adobe patents and be shut down / attacked at anytime?? I'm not a licensing expert by any means, but I'm very curious about this. Thanks! Dion and James…

What’s the verdict here? If you build your own Flash Player substitute you could infringe on Adobe patents and be shut down / attacked at anytime?? I’m not a licensing expert by any means, but I’m very curious about this.

Thanks!

]]> By: Will http://almaer.com/blog/being-open-is-hard-as-we-have-seen-this-week/comment-page-1#comment-38509 Will Wed, 07 May 2008 14:44:36 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog/being-open-is-hard-as-we-have-seen-this-week#comment-38509 There is an open-source flash player called <a href="http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/" rel="nofollow">gnash</a> that may benefit from Adobe opening the spec. I think one of the main reasons Adobe opened the flash spec was because flash on Linux is an absolute mess, and they didn't want to bother with it when an open source project can do a better job. Don't quote me on that though. There is an open-source flash player called gnash that may benefit from Adobe opening the spec.

I think one of the main reasons Adobe opened the flash spec was because flash on Linux is an absolute mess, and they didn’t want to bother with it when an open source project can do a better job. Don’t quote me on that though.

]]> By: James Ward http://almaer.com/blog/being-open-is-hard-as-we-have-seen-this-week/comment-page-1#comment-38504 James Ward Tue, 06 May 2008 13:23:24 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog/being-open-is-hard-as-we-have-seen-this-week#comment-38504 Thanks Dion. I totally get that. Makes sense. But in the case of that agreement, it is not a license on the spec. So what you are looking for might be covered in a license on the spec (as I think you have mentioned that the GDATA Spec has a license which also states this kind of thing) or could also be in just some public agreement like Microsoft's Open Specification Promise: http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx or like Open Social's Intent Agreement. Thanks for clarifying this. -James Thanks Dion. I totally get that. Makes sense. But in the case of that agreement, it is not a license on the spec. So what you are looking for might be covered in a license on the spec (as I think you have mentioned that the GDATA Spec has a license which also states this kind of thing) or could also be in just some public agreement like Microsoft’s Open Specification Promise:
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx

or like Open Social’s Intent Agreement.

Thanks for clarifying this.

-James

]]> By: dion http://almaer.com/blog/being-open-is-hard-as-we-have-seen-this-week/comment-page-1#comment-38503 dion Tue, 06 May 2008 05:18:21 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog/being-open-is-hard-as-we-have-seen-this-week#comment-38503 James, The key issue is having a non-assert for IP. Without an intent agreement, if I write anything to your spec right now, I may infringe on your patents which you could sue me over. If you look at exhibit B: http://sites.google.com/a/opensocial.org/opensocial/OpenSocial-Foundation-Proposal/Intent-Agreement You will see our intent agreement. You will also see a creative commons license for the spec itself, to be absolutely clear. D James,

The key issue is having a non-assert for IP. Without an intent agreement, if I write anything to your spec right now, I may infringe on your patents which you could sue me over.

If you look at exhibit B:

http://sites.google.com/a/opensocial.org/opensocial/OpenSocial-Foundation-Proposal/Intent-Agreement

You will see our intent agreement. You will also see a creative commons license for the spec itself, to be absolutely clear.

D

]]> By: James Ward http://almaer.com/blog/being-open-is-hard-as-we-have-seen-this-week/comment-page-1#comment-38502 James Ward Mon, 05 May 2008 20:16:41 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog/being-open-is-hard-as-we-have-seen-this-week#comment-38502 Dion, This is a great conversation to be having. A few questions in regard to this statement: "The problem was that there was no license to go along with this claim, which means that we can’t actually do much with it yet. Adobe isn’t more “Open” today than it was the day before the announcement. This will hopefully change very soon when we actually see the license, and hopefully see even more." I'm curious what other open spec's do for a license. I searched around at specs like HTML 5, XML 1.1, etc and couldn't find anything more than a copyright notice, information on trademarks, and a typical "no warranty" statement. The SWF specification also contains these. So can you provide more information on what kind of license you think is appropriate for an open specification? What does it really mean to put a license on a spec? Hopefully we can talk more about this while we are both at JavaOne. -James (Adobe) Dion,

This is a great conversation to be having. A few questions in regard to this statement:

“The problem was that there was no license to go along with this claim, which means that we can’t actually do much with it yet. Adobe isn’t more “Open” today than it was the day before the announcement. This will hopefully change very soon when we actually see the license, and hopefully see even more.”

I’m curious what other open spec’s do for a license. I searched around at specs like HTML 5, XML 1.1, etc and couldn’t find anything more than a copyright notice, information on trademarks, and a typical “no warranty” statement. The SWF specification also contains these. So can you provide more information on what kind of license you think is appropriate for an open specification? What does it really mean to put a license on a spec?

Hopefully we can talk more about this while we are both at JavaOne.

-James (Adobe)

]]>