►
From YouTube: Panel: Open Source, Standards, and Economics
Description
Panel: Open Source, Standards, and Economics - Jory Burson, Bocoup; James Bryce Clark, OASIS; Wendy Seltzer, W3C; Luis Villa, Tidelift
Speakers: Luis Villa, Jory Burson, James Bryce Clark, Wendy Seltzer
This panel will discuss the real policy and economic impact of open source and standards, with an emphasis on issues that affect developers. The panel hopes to help give the audience a more nuanced understanding of the business and policy mechanics that drive the JavaScript ecosystem, and how they can make more informed choices about their participation. We hope to help them understand common issues that often lead to FUD, such as patent vs. copyright concerns, and what they need to consider as individuals when participating in activities like crowdfunding open source development. We will also talk about how traditional models of open source and standards work are changing - where they are succeeding and where they are falling short.
A
We
have
just
about
an
hour
which
is
really
great,
because
we
are
accompanied
here
by
three
very
well
respected,
attorneys
and
who
are
known
for
their
intelligence
as
well
as
their
loquacious
Ness.
So
we
will
give
each
of
them
a
few
minutes
to
introduce
themselves
as
well
as
their
areas
of
expertise.
I
want
to
invite
you
all
we
have.
We
have
some
topics
we're
going
to
cover,
but
if
you
have
any
questions
for
the
panelists,
you
are
very
welcome
to
tweet
them
at
me.
A
At
Jory,
comm,
on
Twitter
and
I'd
be
happy
to
work
those
into
the
conversation
you
know
we
have
to
say,
as
as
Wendy
likes,
to
tell
me
that
these
lawyers
are
not
your
lawyers,
so
you
know
bear
that
in
mind.
Definitely
if
you
have
specific
questions
related
to
your
projects,
you
should
retain
your
own
counsel
and
friends.
Our
safe
word
today
is
amicus
brief.
So
if
we're
on
too
long,
we
can
that
use
that
to
just
give
to
the
next
question,
but
I
would
like
to
start
maybe
with
my
colleague
Jamie.
B
I'm
Jamie
Clark
I
grew
up
in
Minnesota,
I
live
in
LA
now,
I
am
from
and
currently
the
general
counsel
of
the
open
standards
and
open
source
group
oasis,
which
created
a
lot
of
stuff
over
the
last
20
years
or
so,
although
not
quite
as
much
as
Wendy's
group
who's
been
terribly
prolific.
We
probably
lived
mostly
in
the
e-commerce
and
structured
documents
area.
So
if
you've
heard
of
Oasis,
you
heard
about
either
because
of
security
stuff
like
sam'l
or
sticks
and
taxi
or
you've
heard
about
it
because
of
structured
eat.
B
Government
stuff,
like
open
document
format,
I
happen
into
this,
because
when
I
was
a
baby
lawyer
a
long
time
ago,
I
had
some
clients
come
to
me
and
say
so.
I
got
some
salesmen
from
a
large
company
to
want
to
sell
me
all
this
electronic
stuff
and
they
don't
have
to
use
paper
anymore.
I
can
introduce
it
all
to
records
and
have
it
all
be
electronic.
Only
I
just
don't
know
if
any
of
that'll
work.
B
B
Basically,
if
facilitators
and
lawyers
and
rules,
people
and
license
people
do
a
good
job
of
creating
your
community
and
helping
you
guide
through
stuff
and
figure
out
what
to
avoid,
then
you
can
just
go
off
and
be
Duff's
and
work
on
stuff
and
have
committees
and
cooperate
and
never
have
to
crack
a
rule
book
or
Robert's
Rules
or
a
procedure
thing
or
a
license.
We
really
ought
to
be
just
making
it
possible
for
people
to
collaborate
in
a
safe
space
without
running
into
you
know,
multiple
kinds
of
legal
problems.
C
C
Refer
to
us,
as
as
an
API
to
the
rest
of
the
legal
system
where,
hopefully
you
don't
have
to
worry
about
the
implement
each
implementation
details.
Sometimes
it
does
leak
through
so
so
hi
I'm
Liz
via
I,
am
an
attorney
former
programmer
I
got
involved
in
my
baby
lawyer
story
is
that
I
was
at
Simeon,
which
some
of
you
may
remember
as
a
Linux
desktop
startup.
C
In
the
very
distant
past
we
got
acquired
by
Novell
I
was
involved
in
the
I,
was
involved
in
the
diligence
there
and
dealing
with
niveles
lawyers
and
I
naively
arrogantly
thought.
Oh
I
can
do
better
than
this,
and
so
anyway,
since
then,
I've
been
slowly
learning
how
wrong
that
was
at
first
at
Mozilla,
then,
for
a
while
at
Greenberg
big
law,
firm
working
on
with
many
of
you
probably
work
for
companies
that
were
my
clients,
then
then
a
wikimedia
and
now
to
start
up
called
tide
lifts.
What
we
do
a
tide
lift
is.
C
We
are
building
a
platform
to
help
open-source
developers
get
paid
for
making
open-source
work
better
right.
We
believe
that
you
can
think
of
it
almost
as
a
red
hat.
For
the
rest
of
the
stack,
where
we
make
things
more
secure,
more
reliable,
we
make
the
legal
stuff
go
more
smoothly
and
exchange
enterprises
pay
us
for
that
and
we
pay
the
actual
developers
who
are
doing
the
work
right.
C
The
original
open-source
developers,
not
some
random
Schmo
in
the
cloud
or
a
contractor,
but
the
people
who
actually
created
the
value,
because
we
think
you
know
open-source-
has
created
literally
hundreds
of
billions
of
dollars
worth
of
value
and
it's
time
for
open-source
developers
to
capture
even
a
tiny
little
fragment
of
that.
If
that
can
be
done,
then
we
will
all
be
better
off
right,
both
the
developers
who
capture
some
of
that
value,
and
hopefully
the
companies
that
are
our
customers
by
making
it
a
little
more
robust.
C
D
Thank
you
and
I'm
Wendy
seltzer
I
am
strategy,
lead
and
counsel
at
the
World
Wide
Web
Consortium
w3c
I
got
there
through
a
winding
path
of
interests
in
law
and
open
source
and
in
the
early
days
of
fighting
the
the
copyright
term
extension
and
copyright
claim
overreach
founded
the
chilling
effects.
Clearing
House
project
now
known
as
lumen.
D
Tracking
notice
and
takedown
requests
and
giving
people
the
legal
information
to
help
them
fight
back
against
misguided
requests
and
like
Lewis
and
Jamie.
My
interest
has
been
in
the
ways
that
law
can
help.
Creative
people
do
the
things
that
they
want
to
do
without
the
law,
getting
in
the
way,
whether
that's
artists,
creating
works
that
build
upon
the
creative
works
of
others
and
add
new
things
to
our
cultural
discourse,
fighting
some
of
that.
The
copyright
restrictions
or
coders
trying
to
work
together
to
develop
interoperable
platforms
that
anyone
can
use
without
paying
patent
royalties.
D
To
someone
who
comes
in
you
know,
asserting
that
everything
you've
made
is
you
know
an
infringement
of
their
patent?
You
know
I.
Think
law
can
actually
help
in
creating
and
reinforcing
common
infrastructure,
so
the
best
uses
of
law,
I,
think
of
are
things
like
patent
commitments
and
copyleft
places
where
people
agree
not
to
assert
legal
claims
against
one
another,
but
to
pool
their
their
resources
and
create
opportunities
for
them
and
others
to
build
value
on
top
of
this
shared
infrastructure.
D
B
Me
say
one
thing:
Wendy's
wait
way
to
shot.
Wendy
is
on
the
boarded
records
of
tour.
She
was
one
of
the
early
staff
members
at
EF.
F
I
mean
I,
trying
to
get
cool
by
standing
around
her,
so
read
her
resume.
She's
got
an
incredible
background.
We're
both
basically
the
legal
people
at
two
large
standards
consortiums
but
she's
the
cool
one.
Well.
A
You've
also
set
us
up
really
nicely
to
talk
about
a
text
that
has
been
kind
of
making
the
rounds
quite
a
bit
in
the
open
source
world
and
also
among
your
community
as
well,
which
is
the
Elinor
Ostrom
work
on
governing
the
Commons,
and
we
have
talked
a
lot
about
sort
of
the
Commons
common
infrastructure
support.
But
then
there's
also
this
idea
of
the
tragedy
of
the
Commons
that
it's
doomed
to
fail,
and
we
we
started
with
a
really
lovely
conversation.
C
C
All
Commons
ultimately
are
overrun.
The
people
take
too
much
and
give
too
little
and
I
wanted
to
set
the
table
a
little
bit
for
today's
conversation
by
saying
that
actually
Elinor
Ostrom,
who
won
the
Nobel
Prize
for
economics
in
2009
I,
believe
devoted
her
career
to
studying
all
the
Commons
that
aren't
tragic
right
that
do
succeed
and
she
identified
over
900
Commons
in
her
research.
C
Often
they
were
water
Commons.
In
fact,
some
of
them
originally
in
LA
and
I
then
went
then
spent
a
career
and
the
careers
of
many
grad
students
identifying
common
themes
right.
What
are
things
that
actually
make
those
Commons
work
and
I'm
gonna
go
through
and
highlight
a
few
of
these,
and
they
are
all
gonna
sound,
very
familiar
to
you,
because
you're
going
to
have
seen
them
in
the
communities
that
you
are
part
of
that
work.
Well,
you're
gonna
have
seen
them.
C
They're
gonna
ring
a
bell
right,
so
one
thing
that
she
talked
about
is
clearly
defined
boundaries.
You
have
to
know
who's
in
and
who
out
right.
Modularity
is.
That
is
the
word
that
we
use
for
this
in
our
space
right.
We
know
who's
participating
and
how
they
participate
in
a
way,
that's
very
clear
for
everybody,
there's
proportional
equivalents
between
benefits
and
costs.
In
other
words,
you
don't
want
people
who
are
purely
free
riding.
You
want
to
have
hopefully
some
way
for
them
to
contribute.
C
We
talked
about
she
talks
about
monitoring.
You
have
to
know
how
it's
being
used.
This
is
something
frankly,
an
open
source,
maybe
doesn't
do
so
well
and
could
learn
from
right
where
we
have
a
sense
of
we
have
a
sense
of
our
stars.
Aren't
github
and
our
NPM
counts,
but
that's
maybe
about
it
right.
She
talks
about
a
fast
and
fair
conflict
resolution
right.
The
more
clear
things
are,
the
better
for
everybody.
C
This
is
one
of
the
things
that
we
try
to
bring
in,
and
our
work
is
making
sure
and
one
of
the
things
I'm
most
proud
of
in
my
career
is
the
Mozilla
public
license
version
2,
where
it's
a
copy
left
is
a
copy
left
with
very
clear
boundaries.
A
couple
others
that
I
think
I'll
skip
over
here.
But
the
point
that
I
wanted
to
drive
home
is
that
there
are
patterns
that
we
can
know
and
follow
in
making
healthy
communities.
This
is
not
magic.
It's
not!
C
B
Let
me
contextualise
that
a
little
bit
what's
the
point
of
that
list.
Well,
not
it
got
Lynn
Ostrom,
the
Nobel
and
that's
nice,
but
also
you'll,
find
a
bunch
of
public
policy
issues.
You'll
find
WTO
principles
about
standards
and
what's
a
real
standard.
What's
a
fake
standard,
you'll
find
accreditation
bodies
in
both
open
source
and
open
standards
that
test
bodies
to
say.
Okay,
are
we
gonna,
let
you
just
emit
yourself
to
other
places,
our
government's
going
to
include
your
stuff
and
their
procurement
requirements
and
they
test
a
lot
of
those
same
conditions.
B
Furthermore,
those
are
the
preconditions
to
fairness.
If
you're
putting
an
effort,
you
know,
are
you
likely
to
get
something
out
of
it?
Are
you
if
you
get
railroaded
by
you
good
likely
to
get
big-footed
the
simple
way
to
look
at
that
stuff
from
your
standpoint,
whether
it's
not
just
in
nodejs,
which
is
fairly
mature
now
and
has
a
pretty
good
governance
system
so
far,
but
in
any
open
source
or
open
development
shared
project?
A
B
We've
been
doing
some
interesting
engineering
lately,
because
the
traditional
sources
of
open
development
alike,
open
standards
groups
like
Wendy's
in
mind,
have
all
been
under.
We
think
good
market
pressure
to
adopt
open
source
methods
and
tools,
and
so
you
wouldn't
have
seen
any
you
wouldn't
have
seen
a
lot
of
SourceForge
material
in
the
mainstream
of
a
w3c
recommendation
or
ways
to
standard.
Ten
years
ago
there
was
some
because
we've
always
had
our
standards.
B
Sort
of
supported
by
and
starts
were
to
pre
github,
open
source
builds
as
kind
of
proofs
of
concept,
but
in
terms
of
where
the
actual
you
know
the
the
canonical
standard
lives.
Now
you
can
go
to
github
and
find
a
lot
of
them
for
w3c
or
Oasis,
and
increasingly
even
some
of
the
ISOs
and
the
fuddy-duddies
I'm.
Sorry
like
I,
Triple
E
are
trying
to
find
ways
to
put
their
stuff
there,
because
that's
where
people
want
to
find
it,
you
know
I
mean
you
have
an
SPD
X
tag
on
your
standard.
B
Well,
if
you
don't,
if
you're
taking,
you
know
your
comments
against
a
standard
and
you're
not
getting
them
as
PRS,
then
a
lot
of
people
won't
know
where
to
find
it
or
know
what
to
do
with
them
or
be
able
to.
You
know
communicate
that
in
a
modern
development
environment,
so
we
are
kind
of
fishing
in
the
same
streams.
Now
there
is
a
difference
which
I
think
is
worth
mentioning,
and
this
is
not
about
licensing
which
will
get
later.
B
Standards
have
the
benefit
of
having
20
or
30
years
of
experience
with
government
and
large
company
procurement,
people
kind
of
know,
institutional
adopters
kind
of
know
were
a
safe
place
to
borrow
material,
and
so,
if
something
is
created
as
a
standard,
you
know
you
don't
get
a
lot
of
flack
from
some
European
Commission
Department
that
wants
to
adopt
it
because
they're
comfortable
with
standards.
You
know
how
to
do
that.
B
The
whole
web
accessibility
movement,
which
was
just
practically
missing
from
some
of
the
early
parts
of
the
web,
got
started
as
a
consortium
project
at
w3c,
and
now
it
has
been
reared
on
and
picked
up
and
enacted.
It's
the
law
in
Europe,
it's
you
know,
and
everybody's
guidelines
and
every,
but
basically
the
thing
that
made
it
comfortable
for
large
agencies
and
large
governments
and
large
companies
to
provide
Lee
adopted
is
because
of
the
stability
of
having
an
infrastructure
like
w3c
s.
B
Approval
process
to
rely
on
so
a
benefit
we
get
from
open
standards
is
that
everybody
knows
what
they
are.
The
history
of
procurement
of
open-source
work
has
been
spotty
because
a
lot
of
lawyers
and
a
lot
of
companies
were
very
standoffish
about
it.
At
first,
it
was
seemed
as
a
more
chaotic
process.
Its
licensing
was
regarded
as
not
as
clear
and
not
as
reliable
and
so
open-source
as
it
matures
is
finding
a
better
kind
of
frame
within
procurement
as
a
safer
place
for
us
at
oasis.
B
But
the
what
I
want
to
convey
here
is
that
there's
a
sanctioning
aspect,
there's
a
operating
according
to
known
rules
and
procedures
and
licenses,
so
that
people
know
that,
as
is
safe
as
a
source
of
whether
it's
code,
specs
models
or
api's
that
you're
a
safe
place
from
which
users
can
widely
adopt.
You
saw
that
that
sense
of
how
to
run
things
safely
and
clearly
and
with
known
licensing
and
known
consequences
and
known
boundaries,
is
hugely
important.
B
When
the
people
who
we
talk
to
come
to
us
and
say,
hey
I,
heard,
there's
this
thing,
there's
this
module
from
something
called
the
node
foundation
that
does
this
yada-yada
thing,
which
I've
never
heard
of
can
I
use.
It
is
this
as
safe
as
if
I
went
used
an
ISO
standard.
You
know
bottom
line,
you
want
the
answer
to
be.
Yes,
you.
C
Know
let
me
I
mean
one
thing
that
may
make
that
really
concrete
lawyers
are
like
programmers
there's.
A
lot
of
you
could
do
a
whole
great
panel,
just
on
analogies
between
lawyers
and
programmers,
but
one
way
that
I
think
there's
this.
You
know
nobody
ever
got
fired
for
buying
IBM
and
in
the
same
way,
we
as
lawyers
seek
to
say
nobody
ever
got
fired
for
choosing
this
license
or
choosing
the
standards
body
right.
Where
it's
it's
a
well
accepted.
D
W3C
s
process
is
often
accused
of
being
too
long
and
unwieldy
and
too
detailed,
but
at
the
same
time
it
saves
people
from
reinventing
that
structure
every
time
they're
trying
to
make
a
new
decision.
Yes,
sometimes
you
may
need
to
reinvent
something
because
conditions
have
changed,
but
if
you're
doing
something
that's
been
done
before
the
patterns
that
worked
well
in
the
past
may
well
serve
you
and
so
that's
low
friction.
D
A
I
want
to
ask
about
the
importance
of
having
multiple
stakeholders,
but
you
actually
just
touched
on
something,
because
we
are
speaking
to
a
room
of
developers
and
programmers,
and
these
documents
are
written
for
lawyers.
What
does
a
developer
need
to
know
about
their
open
source?
License
like?
What's
the
like
thing?
That's
the
small
thing.
D
B
Also
they're
promising
that
they
won't
sue
you
if
you
use
the
other
guy's
contribution.
So
if
Louie,
joy
or
our
committee,
you
know
each
of
us
may
promise
that
we
will
let
you
use
our
contributions
duh,
but
also,
if
there's
a
final
product.
You
come
out
of
a
process
like
the
standards
process,
and
this
is
true
in
a
couple
of
open-source
projects,
but
not
most.
That
also
means
that
if
you
use
my
contributions,
we
won't
sue
you
and
you.
If
you
use
Joy's
contributions,
you
know
when
he
won't
see
you.
B
This
is
a
significant
improvement
in
terms
of
stability
and
so,
for
example,
ripped
out
of
the
news.
Yesterday,
anybody
watched
Twitter
see
Jack
Dorsey,
saying
oh
gosh.
You
know
I've
just
realized
that
maybe
there
should
be
a
stand:
Malti
company
standard
for
for
tweets
or,
for
you
know,
social
media
anyway,
and
the
Dirar
okay.
C
B
B
Like
what,
eight
years
ago
I
mean
evan,
perot
madhu
made
it
up
who's
up
by
the
way
I
made
up
status
net,
maybe
10
years
ago
now
and
worked
out
a
system
for
a
while,
and
it
became
an
it
can't
became
an
activities
at
w3c
and
they
went
through
all
the
a
may
see,
basically
that
whole
idea
got
laundered
through
a
process
of
multiple
stakeholders
and
multiple
contributors
and
find
licenses,
and
so
basically
yeah
Jack.
We
already
have
one
of
those
now
maybe
it'll
be
adapted.
B
Maybe
something
else
will
be
better,
but
my
point
is:
you
are
better
off
when
you
start
from
something
that's
been
established
through
a
process
with
multiple
stakeholders,
which
is
your
point
and
with
some
kind
of
stable
understanding
about
the
licenses,
which
is
your
point,
and
there
are
a
lot
of
good
things
out
there
that
have
come
from
that
process,
which
is
why
we're
all
advocates
have
reused,
not
reinventing
the
wheel.
Every
time
and
refighting
all
the
license
battles.
I
was.
C
Actually
gonna
say
you
know
Jory,
you
asked
like
what
should
we
know?
Yes,
there's
really
one
thing
you
should
know,
and
that
is
who
else
is
using
it
right
like
if
you,
if
you
only
know
one
thing
we
are
I
say
we
hear
both
about
programmers
and
about
lawyers.
We
are
herd
animals
and
so
the
idea
that
you
know
it's
actually
there
was
a
time
when
I
first
got
involved
in
all
this
stuff.
C
The
you
know,
everybody
knew
all
the
licenses
right,
like
literally,
to
become
a
Debian
developer,
which
was
sort
of
in
some
sense,
the
spiritual
forerunner
of
being
of
having
a
package
on
NPM.
You
literally
had
to
pass
a
test
to
show
that
you
knew
all
this
stuff
about
all
of
the
licenses
right
and
in
some
ways
that
was
good.
Everybody
was
an
expert.
C
You
know
what
the
entire
rest
of
the
industry
has
been
using
the
BSD
license
for
30
years
and
it
hasn't
melted
down
yet,
like
that's,
actually
a
pretty
good
point
for
like
actually,
maybe
we
can
probably
keep
using
it
for
the
next
30
years
and
it
probably
won't
now,
if
you
get,
if
you
buy
me
a
drink
tonight,
I
will
tell
you
all
the
ways
in
which
it
might
melt
down,
but
that's
for
another
conversation.
Doom.
A
And
gloom,
and
but
I
think
so
this
this
came
from
Twitter
but
I
think
there's
a
bit
of
a
tension
here
right
where
we
want
to
simplify
things
enough
and
just
say:
don't
worry
about
it
developer,
community.
Just
you
know
it's
it's
okay.
We
got
it
covered,
but
at
the
same
time
we
want
to
make
sure
that
these
communities
are
like
you
know.
Knowledge
is
empowering
like
we
want
them
to
feel
like
this
is
knowable
to
them,
and
so
you
know
what
what
is
the
right
sort
of
balance
for
that?
A
D
D
On
top
of
that
stack,
you
have
the
core
interoperable
web,
and
then
you
have
optimizations
that
people
can
patent
and
applications
that
people
can
sell.
On
top
of
that
and
over
time,
the
core
of
the
common
royalty-free
piece
grows,
and
there
are
new
opportunities
further
out
on
the
edge
to
you
know
to
develop
something
proprietary,
and
you
know
that
you
know
grow
the
interoperable
core
and
build
something
of
your
own.
D
C
Something
like
that,
so
that
everybody
else
just
uses
it
in
the
same
way,
they're
used
to
is
probably
gonna
achieve
your
goals,
because
your
your
goals
for
publishing
a
weekend,
hack
or
like
I
hope
it's
useful
to
somebody
and,
and
you
know,
and
if
it
is
great
and
if
it's
not
I'm,
not
gonna
worry
about
it
right.
But
if
you're
like
trying
to
start
a
business
or
you
are
already
part
of
a
business
and
you're
trying
to
work
with
other
businesses,
then
things
get
more
complicated
and
you
have
to
ask
deeper
questions.
C
You
know
I
will
say,
there's
a
spectrum
here
of
not
knowing
anything
on
one
side
actually
going
to
law
school
on
the
other
side.
Do
not
recommend
that
if
you're
thinking
of
that,
if
you're
thinking
of
that
I
will
buy
you
the
drink
and
we'll
discuss
tonight,
you
know,
and
somewhere
in
between,
there
are
a
lot
of
good
resources
in
particular,
I,
really
like
there's
a
board
member
of
the
Python
Software
Foundation
van
Lindberg,
for
also
a
former
engineer
turned
lawyer
has
written
a
really
excellent
book.
C
That
explains
a
lot
of
these
concepts,
and
that
explains
a
lot
of
these
concepts
in
like
engineer,
accessible
frameworks
and
I
highly
recommend
that
book,
because
it
is,
you
know,
unfortunately
like
the
optimal
level
of
understanding.
If
you're
asking
complex
questions
like
how
do
I
work
with
other
companies
is
probably
closer
to
book
length
than
paneling
aye
he's.
B
Gonna
look
up
the
name,
the
book
for
you,
so
if,
if
you're
in
that
space,
God
willing,
you
do
some
of
your
work
in
an
organization
where
they've
got
good
and
hardened
rules,
and
you
can
generally
conduct
yourself
without
worrying
about
it,
because
the
rules
take
care
of
it
for
you,
they
license
rules
but
also
disclosure
rules.
You
know
that
nodejs
just
adopted
it's
a
new
IPR
policy
as
I
understand
it,
so
that
I'm
not
an
expert
on
it,
but
one
of
the
questions
is
okay.
What
does
that
cover?
How
does
that
cover
me?
B
How
much
disclosure
is
required?
Am
I
in
a
competitive
position
where
I
am
trying
to
donate
some
things
but
keep
other
processes
outside
of
my
donation
so
that
they
can
be
my
competitive
advantage?
If
you
read
the
old
shapiro
and
Varion
book
information
rules,
it
talks
richly
about
how
the
way
to
play
the
open-source
game
from
a
enterprise
point
of
view
is
to
figure
out
what
to
give
away
to
enjoy
network
effects
and
what
to
keep
for
your
own
proprietary
processes.
Everybody
is
doing
that.
B
One
word,
Rambis
are
a.m.
B
us
look
it
up.
10,
20
years
ago,
whole
series
of
cases
about
a
standards
group
that
fell
on
each
other,
like
a
pack
of
wild
dogs,
because
there
were
disclosures,
the
disclosures
were
thought
to
be
not
very
clear.
There
was
an
allegation
that
you
lied
to
me
about
your
patent.
We
didn't
tell
you
what
we
never
said.
We
didn't
have
one
why
I'm
gonna
sue
you
suit,
dismissed,
run
to
a
regulator.
Regulator,
looks
at
and
says
yeah.
B
It
wasn't
against
the
rules
because
the
rules
are
crappy,
but
it
was
deceptive
anyway,
you're
on
arrests,
big
mess,
so
clear
rules,
good,
fair,
clear
disclosure,
good
working
in
places
where
they
have
clarity,
good
and
above
all,
knowing
what
you're
trying
to
protect
and
knowing
what
you
want
to
share.
So.
A
I
think
this
eggs
really
well
into
this
discussion
of
how
IP
and
patent
policies
of
different
organizations
sort
of
reinforced
Commons,
and
it
would
think
you
all
were
kind
of
touching
on
that.
So
I
wonder
you
know
you
were
talking
about
sort
of
like
if,
if
you
were
just
doing
your
weekend
project
and
you
select
MIT
because
you
know
everybody
else
is
like
that's
sort
of
reinforcing
that
that
system.
And
can
you
speak
to
other
ways
in
which
you
know
our
policies
here
can
help
reinforce
that
and
improve
the
Commons.
So
it's
not
so
tragic.
D
Those
who
are
in
and
who
are
willing
to
commit
to
of
sharing
the
the
the
work
of
keeping
this
open,
get
the
rights
to
your
work
as
well,
and
those
who
want
to
freeride
who
want
to
take
but
not
give
well,
they
face
the
the
risk
of
litigation
by
any
one
of
the
participants
who
is
otherwise
making
that
their
patents
available
royalty-free.
And
so
it's
it's
a
you
know.
Anyone
is
free
to
enter
so
long
as
they're
willing
to
to
make
that
commitment,
and
that's
a
little
lightweight
community
bow
Guri.
D
C
C
Have
a
file
called
copying
and
I'm
gonna
put
the
license
in
there
and
that's
gonna
be
good
enough
right
and
then
some
large
corporations
got
involved
or
like
that
still
makes
us
a
little
nervous
because
we
don't
have
we,
you
know,
say:
Joe
Schmoe
comes
along
and
gives
you
know,
submits
a
pull
request.
We
didn't
call
them
pull
requests,
but
you
know
I,
you
know,
submits
pull
requests.
Have
they
agreed
to
those
legal
terms
in
that
in
that
one
file?
How
do
we
know
that
they've?
C
C
Everybody
would
the
gears
would
grind
to
a
halt
and
everybody
would
say:
hey
that
looks
great.
Please
fax
me
this
this
da,
please
print
it
out
and
fax
it
to
me
or
certified
mail,
also
fine,
and
we
will
literally
put
it
in
a
filing
cabinet
at
the
Apache,
Software,
Foundation
and
and
we'll
keep
track
of
it
just
in
case
right
and
in
fact,
I'm
aware
of
a
situation.
This
is
this
is
semi-public.
C
Given
my
track
record,
you
can
probably
guess
who
it
is
here,
but
I've
been
aware
of
a
case
where
a
company
sued
over
a
piece
of
code
and
the
Apache
Software
Foundation
opened
up
their
file
cabinet
and
said,
but
you
gave
us
this
piece
of
code.
It
says
right
here
you
gave
it
to
us
and
the
company
backed
down
right,
and
so
it
wasn't
a
like
purely
hypothetical.
C
B
A
C
But
at
some
point
somebody
said
hey,
you
know
what,
in
most
of
these
cases,
the
original
things
were
written
such
that
you
could
literally
like
if
some
random
Schmo
off
the
internet
came
submitted
a
patch
and
it
turns
out
they
were
lying
about
the
source.
You
could
sue
them
about
it,
which
was
like
nice
in
theory.
But
in
fact,
as
a
practical
matter,
you
know,
none
of
us
are
what
we
would.
What
lawyers
call
deep
pockets
right,
we're.
C
If
Oracle
wants
to
like
hubzu
Joe
Schmoe
Oracle's
gonna
realize
like
the
cost,
is
not
worth
like
the
benefit
here
right
because
they
are
gonna,
spend
a
lot
more
lawyers
than
whatever
Joe
Schmo
has
in
his
pockets
to
give
to
Oracle
right
the
Oracle
vindictive
sons
of.
But
you
know,
they're,
not
Donna.
C
Former
client
but
I
still
have
thoughts,
so
we
so
a
lot
of
so
a
lot
of
communities
were
a
little
concerned
about
this
overhead
of
first
faxing.
You
know
now
it's
github
stuff,
but,
and
so
somebody
said
you
know
what
look
we're
not
gonna
go
ahead
and
sue
this
person.
Why
don't
we
optimize
that
out
and
we'll
focus
on
instead
simply
being
able
to
to
notify
people
hey?
C
You
should
really
Oh
and
own
this
before
you
give
it
to
us,
and
we
should
know
who
gave
it
to
us
right,
and
that
is
where
you
got
the
developer
certificate
of
origin,
the
key
point
being
there.
We
know
where
it
came
from
so
that
if
somebody
Sue's
us,
we
can
look
into
it
and
we
can
take
that
code
out
if
we
need
to
right
and
that's
where
a
DCO
comes
in,
which
is
the
default
I
believe
for.
A
B
This
is
a
great
illustration
that
the
point,
the
problems
that
joke
nodejs
people
have
when
designing
a
system
like
that
is
you
had
a
bunch
of
people
coming
in
with
a
much
different
licenses,
a
bunch
of
different
environments,
bunch
of
different
practice
in
terms
of
people
who,
like
signing
stuff
and
have
a
six
pack
of
lawyers,
people
who
don't
some
people
are
comfortable,
DCOs,
some
aren't,
and
so
you
have
to
construct
a
reasonably
safe
process.
But
let
me
try
and
abstract
that
into
an
action
item
for
non
lawyers.
B
If
you're
in
a
weasel,
free
or
a
highly
competitive
or
a
Dueling
licenses
pistols
at
dawn
environment,
then
all
this
stuff
is
gonna
matter
a
lot
more
and
you
got
a
lot
more
chance
of
contributing
a
whole
lot
of
things.
They
can
then
get
swiped
away
from
you
or
overridden,
or
your
projects
suddenly
been
deep-six
because
of
a
lawsuit
or
a
threat
of
a
lawsuit,
because
believe
me,
a
lot
of
the
people
dealing.
This
are
not
brave,
warriors
they're
craven.
B
B
That's
got
a
lot
of
output
and
has
a
lot
of
connections
into
other
systems
so
that
there's
gonna
be
people
running
interference
for
you,
because
I
can
assure
you
that
when
something
goes
to
hell
in
a
standards
or
open
source
project
at
my
shop
or
Wendy's,
we
get
calls
and
we
try
to
help
them,
navigate
it
in
some
appropriate
rate
without
taking
sides,
and
that
can
be
a
very
important
function.
So
the
maturity
of
an
organization
also
goes
to
you
know.
When
that
crazy
thing
happens,
can
you
get
help.
C
An
unfortunate
part
of
our
profession
is
that
we
are
all
professional
pessimists.
It
is
our
job
to
see
the
issues
coming
like
we
are.
We
have
finely
tuned
weasel
radar
and
we're.
We
see
those
weasels
from
a
lot
further
off
than
you
do
now.
Sometimes
they
are
imaginary,
weasels
right
and
so
the
the
unfortunate
the
balancing
thing
here
right
is
that
we
sometimes
have
to
be
the
ones
who
are
delivering
those
bad
news
of
like
because
circumstances,
change
right
like
you.
A
C
Help
but
think
when,
when
we
all
got
involved
patent
litigation
about
software
well,
actually
this
might
not
be
true
for
you
Jimmy,
but
the
software
litigation
of
a
patents
patent
litigation
about
software
rather
has
come
in
waves
right
where
it
didn't
for
a
long
time.
We
didn't
even
think
that
software
was
patentable
and
then
we
thought
software
was
very
patentable
and
now
we're
back
to
like.
C
Maybe
it's
not
very
patentable
again,
so
it
feels
like
a
little
bit
of
a
peaceful
time
right
now
there
are
no
weasels
on
the
horizon,
but
in
fact
the
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Federal
Circuit
I'm,
not
gonna,
call
them
weasels
on
we're
being
recorded
hi.
Yes,
there
there
wonderful,
except
when
they're,
not
and
then
one
day
you
wake
up
and
all
the
sudden
software's
patentable
again
and
all
the
lawyers
like
it's
so
depressing
to
me,
like
engineers,
come
to
be
full
of
all
this
energy.
C
D
Wanna,
add
that
you
know
a
lot
of
our
long-term
Wiesel
radar
is
looking
at
edge
cases
and
exception.
Handling
and
litigation
is
for
the
most
part
in
software
and
the
exception.
Most
of
what
we're
doing
is
you
know
not
suing
one
another
and
most
of
what
we're
doing
in
standards
and
open-source
is
trying
to
find
cooperative
solutions,
because
you
know
the
web
isn't
going
to
work.
The
node
software
isn't
going
to
work
if
it
doesn't
work
together,
and
you
know
saying
I'm
going
to
sue
you
for
not
interoperating
with
me.
D
It's
a
pretty
poor
way
of
getting
interoperability
much
better
to
say
what
can
you
live
with?
What
can
I
live
with
where's,
a
compromise
that
makes
each
of
us
enough
better
off
that
we've
got
a
package
that
works.
We've
got
a
standard
that
works.
We've
got
an
API
that
we
all
agree
to
import
enter
to
implement,
not
because
someone
comes
down
with
a
lawsuit,
saying,
thou
shalt,
but
because
you
know
that's:
what's
gonna
work
for
our
product
and
our
customer
teams,
and
or
you
know,
collaborators
I
mean
absolutely.
C
We're
all
we
all
have
this
radar
for
problems.
The
best
lawyers
are
the
ones
who
have
the
radar
for
problems
and
help
you
get
to
a
solution
anyway.
Right,
like
that's,
unfortunately,
I
think
what
separates
not
great
lawyers
from
great
lawyers
and
and
we're
all
spoken
for
so
but
like,
but
we
have
a
Rolodex.
So
if
you
ever
have
a
lawyer
saying
no
to
you,
you
know
come
find
us
and
we'll
hook
you
up
with
somebody
who
will
find
a
way
to
say
you
know,
find
a
way
to
give
you
answers.
B
All
the
stuff
that
we're
doing
that,
we
think
of
as
being
web
interface,
cool
screens
mobile.
All
that
the
things
you
hear
90%
of
the
work
here
talked
about
this.
You
know
that's
one
part
of
the
world,
and
perhaps
that
is
a
relatively
weasel
free
environment
as
Louis
suggests,
but
I
got
to
tell
you.
I
do
and
I
know.
Wendy
shop
is
doing
a
lot
of
work
in
automotive
in
IOT
in
security
and
those
are
not
at
5g,
good
god,
telecoms.
Those
are
not
a
weasel
free
or
patent
free
domains.
A
B
I
think
it
would
be
Mike,
I
should
say
you
know.
We
just
listened
to
the
technical
steering
committee
of
nodejs
earlier
today
and
hearing
the
guys
talk
about
all
their
ports
of
the
basic
core
offered
all
kinds
of
funky
devices
that
aren't
anything
like
a
laptop.
You
know
they
got
a
whole
bunch
of
satellites
and
Lord
knows
what
else
running
this
stuff
on
that
this
o
Taric
chips
that
haven't
been
invented
yet
so
we
are
up
in
that
patent
filled
space,
even
here,
I.
B
C
Yeah
I
got
right,
yeah,
no
I'm,
not
gonna,
read
it
now.
I
will
tell
you
that
the
sort
of
common
mythology
about
these
licenses
is
that
do
whatever
you
want,
and
that
is
mostly
true,
except
for
the
asterisk
of.
But
if
you
deliver
the
software
to
somebody,
you've
got
to
give
them
a
copy
of
this
license
right
now.
That
is
not
not
hard
to
do,
and
yet
virtually
nobody
does
it
right,
and
somebody
is
going
to
just
as
the
previous
talk
in
this
room
was
a
part
about
people
inserting
deliberate
security
vulnerabilities
into
people's
web.
C
Stacks
I
think
we
are
going
to
see
somebody
inserted
liber
legal
vulnerability,
they're
going
to
build
a
useful
library
or
buy
a
useful
library
from
the
copyright
holder,
and
then
they
are
going
to
they're
gonna
use.
You
know
one
of
the
scanning
tools
to
like
essentially
say:
hey
I
noticed
that
your
website
is
using.
My
library,
I
have
only
I
have
never
seen
public
record
of
it
happening
well,
I,
Isis,
there's
a
PICUs
brief,
safe.
A
A
You're
also
kind
of
moving
toward
that
last
question
that
I
was
gonna.
Ask
you
about
predictions,
but
before
we
before
we
get
to
that,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
we
talked
about
the
other
thing
that
I
know
that
this
room
is
cares
quite
a
bit
about
which
is
the
same
sustainability
of
the
Commons
and
sort
of
the
the
the
funding
piece
with
lawyers
play
a
big
role
and
sort
of
figuring
out
the
business
of
open
source
as
well.
I
think
everybody
here
cares
about
that
and
tide
lifts
has
something
to
say
about
it.
A
C
Sure
so
I
mean
so
you
know
we
have
observed
that
there's
a
lot
of
money
floating
around
for
really
high-profile
projects
right,
and
this
is
something
that
wc3
I
think
an
oasis
have
seen
as
well.
If
you
have
something
that's
way
up
at
the
top
of
the
stack,
it
is
there's
a
lot
of
money
floating
around
in
the
system
right
now.
It's
not
that
hard
to
get
funding
for
it
right.
It's
not
easy,
but
it's
doable.
C
But
then
you
do
a
scan
of
what
people
are
actually
using
and
there's
literally
hundreds
of
libraries
that
are
somebody's
part-time
project
and
that
plays
into
questions
like
the
security
vulnerabilities
that
we
were
seeing
earlier
and
the
general
just
cost
of
using
this
stack
right.
You
have
all
spent
time
discovering
that
some
library,
you
thought
you
you
know
that
you
were
relying
on
there's
like
oh,
this
actually
hasn't
been
updated
in
four
years,
and
now
it
doesn't
work
with
something
else,
and
you.
A
C
C
Job
switched
from
being
a
Java
shop
to
a
ruby
shop,
and
now
your
Java
projects
are
abandoned
right
or
you
know,
I
mean
this
is
obviously
a
JavaScript,
but
you
know
things
that
we're,
depending
on
jQuery,
now
everybody's
moving
to
view
or
pick
your
flavor
of
the
week
right
and
that's
that
leads
to
a
lot
of
costs
for
the
businesses
that
are
using
it.
So
we
think
that
at
least
part
of
the
solution
here
is
actually
treating
this
like
a
business
right,
not
just
a
charity
but
actually
going
out
and
saying
hey.
C
Your
business
depends
on
this.
We
can
make
it
more
reliable
if
we
pay
the
developers
who
are
doing
the
work,
and
that
is
one
approach.
There's
many
others
right,
open
collective
is
great.
They
are
doing
the
past
the
past.
The
hat
kind
of
thing.
There's
industry
consortium
I
mean
w3c
Oasis
Linux
Foundation
are
all
essentially
passing
the
Hat
at
the
industrial
scale
in
some
sense
right
and
and
that
in
in
certain
spaces
works
very
well.
You
know.
A
B
Let
me
have
some
fun
this
in
throw
a
rock
one
of
the
ways
that
the
balance
between
big
and
little
players,
patent
holders,
trolls
and
non-combatants
and
other
sort
of
asymmetrical
parties
are
going
to
be
disrupted.
Is
a
prediction
I'm
going
to
offer
you,
and
that
is
this
by
the
fact
that
everybody
makes
fun
of
it
and
it's,
but
if
the
fact
that
all
these
fat
old
cysts
white,
guys
like
me,
who
runs
some
of
the
older
organizations,
seem
to
not
take
it
seriously,
the
ethical
licensed
people
are
going
to
prevail
at
some
point.
B
Okay,
the
all
software
is
good,
no
matter
what
everybody
can
use
and
and
I
don't
care.
If
my
stuff
is
used
to
jail,
babies,
people
the
old
school,
open
source
approach
that
says
no
one
gets
to
withhold
their
labor
from
anything,
no
matter
how
evil?
That's
not
going
to
be
the
only
model
forever
read
ethical
license,
search
the
phrase
ethical
license.
B
If
you're
not
familiar
with
this,
there
is
a
growing
set
of
what
I
would
call
new
way
of
approaches
or
differences
or
twists
on
open
source
licensing
that
basically
create
exceptions
for
various
reasons,
and
some
of
those
are
going
to
exclude
some
larger
organizations
and
that's
going
to
mess
this
all
up
that
it's
coming.
I
can
see
it
from
here.
B
Yeah,
we
don't
know,
what's
gonna
happen
yet
I,
don't
know
how
fast
it's
gonna
happen,
but
there
will
people
be
people
who
are
willing
to
contribute
to
the
commons
for
some
purposes,
but
not
further
purposes,
and
that
will
also
cause
some
kind
of
regrouping
or
segregation
or
set
of
conditions.
It
will
have
to
be
cope
with
just
as
the
GPL
license
was
disruptive
15
20
years
ago,
and
it
basically
landed
in
a
field
of
other
licenses.
B
Nobody
look,
that's
it,
but
if
I
use
this
I
can't
use
anything
else,
and
oh
my
god,
stars
and
garters
I
mean
believe
me.
The
people
who
were
in
our
jobs
as
as
IPR
lawyers
for
software
20
years
ago,
almost
all
had
vapors
about
the
GPL,
because
they
couldn't
figure
out
how
to
use
it
with
anything
else,
I'm
not
having
the
world
break
and
it
took
a
while
for
people
to
figure
out
that
they're.
B
Oh
actually,
you
can
have
modules
next
to
other
modules
and
even
Moglen
wrote
some
things
to
make
it
clear
that
this
wasn't.
You
know
eating
the
entire
world.
It
was
just
for
certain
areas
and
there
are
ways
for
this
stuff
to
coexist.
Then
they
created
the
LGPL
and
they
made
it
easier,
but
there
will
be
more
perturbation
in
licensure
and
more
people,
insisting
that
other
values
be
supported
and
that
will
destabilize
the
mess
up.
Some
of
these
current
relationships
and
power
relationships,
which
I
think
is
going
to
be
really
interesting-
hopefully
I
retired,
before.
A
A
C
Hundred
percent
agree
that
that's
gonna,
be
you
know,
I
think
the
other
interesting
thing
is
going
to
be.
This
is
maybe
not
a
2020
thing,
but
in
the
next
say
three
to
five
years.
The
the
security
presentation
from
sneaked
guy
here
was
terrifying
right.
Nothing
new
would
put
a
lot
of
things
together
this.
This
idea
that
we
can
write
some
letters
in
all
caps
and
for
those
of
you
who
have
since
I
guess
none
of
your
other
BSC
license.
It
says
it's
got
this
all
cap
section
that
basically
says:
oh
yeah.
C
If
you
break
it,
if
it's
broken,
hey,
not
my
problem,
your
problem,
right,
yeah
and,
and
that's
I-
think
at
some
point:
that's
not
gonna
hold
right,
I!
Think
the
security
risk
to
the
literally
civilization
are
going
to
be
too
high
and
we're
all
gonna
have
to
clean
up.
You
know
and
I,
don't
know
how
lawyers
are
gonna
be
involved
in
that,
but
I
suspect
we
will.
D
Yeah
I,
think
in
in
in
the
the
doom
and
gloom
portion
of
predictions
I
think
we're
seeing
regulators
and
legislators
being
lots
more
interested
in
what
we
create
with
code,
whether
that's
round
three
of
the
encryption
wars
of
law
enforcement
need
backdoor.
Sorry,
you
can't
build
a
secure
backdoor,
build
us
one
anyhow,
or
you
know,
liability
for
platforms
and
for
what
users
post
on
them
you
may
see
da
230
is
the
the
protection
that
platforms
have
had
against
being
liable.
D
For
you
know
what
user
is
post
yet
we're
more
and
more
concerned
about
abuse
about
misinformation,
about
harassment,
online
and
finding
the
right
balance
between
you
know
who
takes
responsibility?
How
and
what
are
the
legal
hooks
for
that
responsibility?
You
know
how
do
we,
you
know
build
these.
You
know
other
kinds
of
communities
on
top
of
software
without
undermining
the
protections
that
we
have
for
building
good
software
as
I
think
going
to
be.
You
know
a
challenge
of
our
next
say
five
years,
any.
B
I
think
we're
going
to
find
that
all
of
the
current
hyper
categorized
beliefs,
that
a
standard
and
a
code
module
and
a
model
and
a
markup
and
an
API
are
all
different.
Things
is
going
to
fall
away
and
simplify,
because
you
know
what
yeah
we
are
in
a
world
now
where,
once
where
all
that
stuff
is
one
transform
away
from
another
and
and
some
of
the
transforms
are
canonical
and
bilateral
and
actually
freaking
work,
which
is
not
where
we
were
at
four
years
ago.
B
So
I
think
we're
gonna
find
that
the
output
you
create,
in
whatever
form
or
serialization
happens,
to
exist
in
whether
it's
a
code
or
a
spec
or
an
API
whatever
it
is,
we're
going
to
discover
that
there's
a
much
more
uniform
set
of
safe
principles
and
methods
for
procuring
finding
these
things,
I
mean.
Why
do
we
find
code
or
or
score
people's?
You
know
PR
points
on
github
using
code,
but
we
don't
do
that
with
standards.
B
B
C
I
think
that's
the
you
know
the
the
idea
that
open-source
would
literally
take
over
the
world
in
the
way
it
has
would
have
sounded
ludicrous
twenty
years
ago,
even
Ted
and
I.
You
know
all
this
all
the
griping
that
we've
got
here
at
the
table.
That's
all!
That's
all
at
the
edges
of
the
thing
right,
like
the
core
model
works
and
we're
gonna,
keep
winning
and
that's
still
sometimes
I
way.
You
know,
there's
like
a
legal
conference.
All
the
lawyers
get
together.
Microsoft
has
started
attending
all
of
these
with
their
lawyers.
Right
like
like
that.
D
Think
we're
getting
better
at
building
communities
around
these
around
the
code
and
communities
that
have
values
and
ethics
and
privacy
practices
and
other
things
that
we
value,
as
well
as
the
quality
of
the
code
and
it's
Interop,
so
I
think
we're
getting
better
at
building.
You
know
code
for
good
Society.
A
D
B
Actually
your
answer
was:
don't
care
any
one
of
those
works,
which
is
my
point
yeah
right.
If
we
can
get
two
agreed
structures,
then
you
have,
you,
don't
think
sit
up
all
night
with
the
teams
of
lawyers
worrying
about
the
little
rokoko
technical
details
of
how
you
license
this
little
piece
of
that
and
whether
it's
really
the
API
or
not,
whether
it's
really
copyright
of
all
or
not
or
how
the
patent
board
should
approach
it.
You
know
you
make
this
stuff
simple:
it
works
and,
as
Louis
says,
we're
open
development
is
winning
thank
heaven.
Well,.