I had written Bruce Perens about the concerns that Colonel Zen had raised regarding the dangers of even browsing the GrokLine Patent Project as well as asking Bruce about the change in copyright to 2004.

I should point out that I've posted Len Newman's e-mail response to my earlier questions in another story.  None of my e-mail discussions with Len had mentioned the concerns regarding the required log-in to browse and what the weblogs could show regarding that.

Bruce responded rather quickly.  Regarding the licensing issue, he said that his understanding was that OSRM would not make commercial use of the work product.  He also said, "Both John and Len expressed that they were willing to convenant not to make use of the work in a way that an outside party would not be allowed to under the license. I think it's important that we message this clearly. We might have to ask our attorneys how to say this."

So, I do think it is clear that they are sincere.  Bruce also indicated that in his opinion the non-commercial clause would only apply to trying to sell the work product directly not to preventing anyone from using the material to produce a report that could be used to further a commercial agenda.  IMHO, this is correct.

He called my concern about the commercial usage asymmetrical usage.

He also mentioned that OSRM had to operate in a sincere manner, and talked about the non-commercial restriction being on a project they were building on.

Finally, in responding to the concerns about use of Grokline logs in patent suits, he responded that it was not something they had considered but that it was important to operate in a safe manner.

Overall, his e-mail was quite sincere and reassured me that he was working to address our concerns.

He closed by asking, "So, we have symmetrical, sincere, and safe as policy goals. Do you have any others to suggest?"

I responded that openness was also important and that I didn't currently see any public way to have a discussion like this on GrokLine itself.

Based on the e-mails from both Len and Bruce, I feel that each one of them is sincere and understands that GrokLine will work the way it has been publically presented.  However, I think that those involved in the project have not considered all of the issues involved.

Post a message to GL, I would suggest as Anonymous if you value your account, make a comment or ask a question that is at all pointed at GL policies, critical or questioning at all.

Save the contents of the comment and title, post them here so we can all see and lets see what happens.

If the post disappears point made, if not you may actually be responsible for meaningful discussion of GL policies on GL, good for you and GL.

Bonus points if you try anywhere near the tone of some of the negative posts we have seen here today.

Precious little of what comments have been made have been substantive and I think the constant negativity (of the trolling as well as some of the discussion itself) isn't exactly helping the community. If anything I find it amusing that this last complainant wouldn't think twice to delete the same kinds of comments that s/he's making here.

I can understand that you don't want to fall into a trap of being trolled into deleting  the comments, but I fail to see a need to address them all either.

Well, I never got an answer from Len, but it does seem that OSRM has answered.  The footer that contains the copyright notice at GrokLine has been updated.  It now reads, in part:

Copyright ©2004 OSRM.

That means that as the copyright owner, OSRM is not bound by any CCL license restrictions, but anyone else that wants to use it is.

This means that anyone who wants to contribute to OSRM is giving a commercial entity their work for free.

In a different ip-wars story, ColonelZen has pointed out that OSRM will have subpoenable information regarding who has seen what information on which patents.  And this information will be tied to a verifiable e-mail address and to an IP address.  This is because none of the Patent Project material is available without a login.

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20041111125109451&title=Down%20side& type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=237500#c23767

"With a title that begins with "Director"?"

Back on Groklaw when PJ first stated her title of 'Director of Legal Research', I posted (anoymously) asking whether the title of Director meant that she was an officer of the company.  (In my country that title would imply that she was, and that she would be on the board, instrumental in setting strategy and being legally liable).  A discussion ensued on GL about the meaning of the word 'Director' in job titles in the US.   PJ responded to my question by stating clearly that she was not an officer of the company.  I don't know if that discussion has been deleted but searching for 'company officer' might throw up the comments if they are still there (yes I'm paranoid, I haven't moseyed on over there to check).

You evidently think it horrible that there are people who don't bow down and worship before PJ.

Now as it happens I and a many here will and have acknolwedged that she has done a great deal of good for F/OSS in the past, but see signs of trouble.  By pointing them out we are giving her (directly if she wishes to come here or indirectly through her confidants who may come here) opportunity to address those issues.

So exactly what is it to which you object?  Please be plain.  Forget the sarcasm - you don't do it very well.  Just state your issue.

I noticed how you completely devestated her arguments by focusing on her use of the word "hasten". Anybody who uses the word "hasten" must obviously be completely unqualified to comment on Lauras claims.

I was also very impressed at how you destroyed all of her arguments based on her job title. Surely if somebody has the word "director" in their title they can not possibly make a cogent arguments when it comes to imdenification.

Keep up the good work. People like you are destroying all the arguments these linux hippies are posting. Your superior intelligence  is no match for the likes of PJ, Bruce Perens or even the IBM lawyers.

Thanks to the tireless efforts of brilliant people like you SCO will win in court, their stock will rise to $50.00 and capitalism will triumph above communism and open source.

PJ is evil becasue she works for OSRM. Anybody who works for OSRM is evil. Laura Didio never lies. How dare anybody question her conclusions and research.