[OpenAFS] Funding the formation of an OpenAFS Foundation

[Derrick Brashear]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 08:12:25AM -0400, Derrick Brashear wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org> wro=
te:
>> > Have the USENIX association lawyers been made aware they are accepting=
 funds in a manner which may expose them to trademark litigation from IBM? =
Either this trademark IS an issue, and blocks creation of a foundation, and=
 ANYONE that accepts funds for doing work on 'OpenAFS' is potentially liabl=
e, or it's not.
>>
>> You asserting that doesn't make it true.
>>
>
> Then what the hell *is* the deal with the AFS trademarks? Can I market a =
product as 'Compatible with OpenAFS'? If I submit code to Gerrit for an IPv=
6 implementation that afs3-std has not signed off on, is someone going to c=
laim I'm violating IBM's trademarks and/or the copyrights on the .xg files?

Compatible with OpenAFS is a statement of fact. I'm not a lawyer, so
this is not a legal opinion, but statements of fact should
not be able to be construed as a violation. Well. As long as it's a
true statement.

And you can submit whatever code you want. We won't necessarily
distribute it. But you can submit whatever you
wish.

> I would like to hear an opinion of the Usenix association lawyers, IBM's =
laywers, or Red Hat's lawers, as a public statement on this mailing list, r=
ather than all the uninformed speculation all of us are doing about it.

There are lots of things you would like that seems to involve
volunteering other people's time, money or resources.
Or did you plan on soliciting those opinions yourself?

>> > Is there a statement to what ends a donation to the Usenix openafs fun=
d would be used for?
>>
>> Any purpose the Elders believe will further the ends of OpenAFS. Given
>> the low amount of money involved it has been things like
>> - procuring a 64 bit intel machine for a Linux port when such things wer=
e rare
>> - subsidizing (or guaranteeing against) cost overruns for AFS workshops
>
> I think the Elders have done a wonderful job ensuring the AFS workshops c=
ontinue.
>
> Unfortunately, this appears to be all they are capable or willing to do, =
since there has been talk of a foundation for years, and the conclusion, as=
 far as I can tell, was 'its too hard, with all the trademark/IBM license n=
onsense'.
>
> What is the official documented process for me to apply to be an AFS Elde=
r and try to get some of this crap done?

Given that your contributions seem to mostly be volunteering other
people to satisfy your whims
or curiosities (like, those tests you wanted someone who wasn't you to
run with regards to overhead of debug versus
optimize) I can tell you I'd vote no on your application. Posting a
lot of ideas for other people to run with
isn't a contribution to the community. Pushing people because they're
not meeting your idea of how things
should be isn't necessarily either. It's fine right up to the point
where voluntary contributors get fed up
and stop contributing. No one's on the hook to be here unless it's
between them and their employer.

If you want to contribute, stop talking about all the things you want
other people to do for you,
give you, grant you, provide you, and just contribute. Infringing a
trademark to further what you
think should happen, as opposed to creating something on its own
merits? Also not contributing,
so if you're about to jump to "well, I'll set up a foundation for
you", let us know how the TFS Foundation
turns out. Tho if you're going to do that, I suggest the broader "Troy
Benjegerdes Foundation for Distributed
Filesystem Research and Development". You might also if you are
successful consider endowing
a college professor or department to do research to feed your project.

--=20
Derrick