Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Robert Scott Horning
<robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote:
In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation put up a new
policy regarding how
to start a new project, and so far there has not even been a single
project that has been approved through this new process (based largely
on how the Wikinews project was put together, and to avoid the pitfalls
of projects like Wikispecies). If there is some momentum here, I'd like
to see if we can get Wikistandards to be approved by this process, but
it isn't going to happen any time very soon. At a minimum two to three
months, perhaps even longer if just to see if we can get some community
support.
I think Wikistandards is a neat idea for a project and its general (meaning all
inclusive in terms of what standards are allowed) scope along with its inherent
importance will make for a viable project. Neat name too, btw. :)
However, I still don't know if this is a good fit for the foundation (just
because it is a good idea, does not necessarily mean we should host it), so
some reasoning in that regard is needed.
I'm also *very* worried by copyright and especially business practice patents
that may be easily infringed in such a project. So I'd like to hear from a
patent lawyer about that or at least somebody who knows a lot about this type
of thing and how patents and copyright apply to standards.
So, yes, a good deal more groundwork is needed. But I think we are on the right
track.
-- mav
As I indicated earlier, I don't think copyright is that big of an issue.
If it doesn't fit with the GFDL, it should be removed just like
anything that is posted on Wikipedia. I think there is going to be far
more problems of copyright violation with Wikipedia then we will ever
have with something like Wikistandards. I'm pushing for already
open/free standards to be hosted here, not existing copyrighted
standards. If people want to use those copyrighted standards documents,
they should pay for them from the sources that already are dealing with
them.
Business practice patents and software patents are huge legal grey areas
anyway and are causing legal grief elsewhere. I would have to agree
that the Wikimedia Foundation does need to consider the potential legal
consequences of hosting a project like this one, and the potential for
legal restraining orders and arrest of participants. On the whole, I
hope I havn't been scaring too many people with these legal threats, and
I believe that the potential for legal issues is roughly identical as
with other projects hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. The reverse
engineering documents are a bit of an issue, and an acceptable policy in
the beginning would (IMHO) be to simply not allow these documents for
roughly a year, then bring the issue up in the community and get some
input if they are ever allowed, when, and how. There are far too many
good things that can be developed and are being developed that can be
hosted to let this issue be the setback.
A standards document that is being developed as a totally new concept
should in theory be free of these issues. As far as the Wikimedia
Foundation is concerned, they are simply hosting content where the
information is stored. There are increased legal problems for people
who attempt to implement the information in the standards (create their
own Ogg Vorbis player, as an example), but it could be demonstrated that
the Wikimedia Foundation is innocent of violating the patents as all
that was done is publishing documentation that has copyright clearance
(either public domain or released under the GFDL). In short, I see a
much bigger problem with libel issues arising from Wikinews than
anything Wikistandards would come up with. And this is just as big of a
deal with Wikibooks if somebody describes how to implement a patented
process in one of the book modules.
As an example, CompuServ created the GIF image standard years ago and
published the specification, even granting the right to republish the
document freely. This would even be a document that we could put into
Wikistandards as an acceptable document. When Unisys came forward
claiming patent violation due to the LZW algorithm patent, all that it
did was affect anybody that used GIF images for content. Anybody that
wanted to was still free to publish the specification document itself.
The patent enforcement essentially killed the specification standard as
far as anybody using it, but that didn't stop people from talking about
how it worked and trying to re-implement a new version that avoided the
patent issues, as was done when the PNG specification was created.
In comparison, the DVD CSS lawsuits were done due to a group reverse
engineering an existing specification. With a lot of hard work by some
very intelligent people, the specific algorithm that was used to encrypt
DVD-Video discs was discovered and an implementation of it in the form
of the deCSS program was published. The legal issues involved with this
are still unsettled, although the copyright and EULA issues were all
dropped because the copyright status of deCSS was quite clear. All that
remains now is to decide if it is legal to reverse engineer something
that is a trade secret, and if that trade secret status remains after
the information has been widely published from a reverse engineering
effort. This is more of why I think reverse engineering specs should be
kept off for now. As a citizen I think it is incredibly stupid that the
courts should rule against specification of these sort, but it isn't my
money or reputation on the line if the Wikimedia Foundation gets pulled in.
--
Robert Scott Horning
218 Sunstone Circle
Logan, UT 84321
(435) 753-3330
robert_horning(a)netzero.net