[Foundation-l] Wikistandards

[Robert Scott Horning]

Daniel Mayer wrote:

>--- Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at 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 at netzero.net