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 - 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 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.

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.


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.

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 shit what you have to say, because you are not PJ. She is an adult and can choose to address these issues out in the open, and chooses not to. Instead she chooses to hide her identity and stifle the expression or discussion of any concerns, valid or not.

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:
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.


Message ID: 192413
Posted By: phandsvrta
Posted On: 2004-10-14 14:09:00

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.....


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", "", "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.