Re: Architecture Working Group License


duncan@sfractal
 

Both work for me. CC for docs, Apache for software. I’ll confess I didn’t understand the Apache patent aspect.

I do think arch wg will be docs, not software.

 

Duncan Sparrell

sFractal Consulting LLC

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/

 

 

From: <oca-pgb@...> on behalf of "Jason Keirstead via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org" <Jason.Keirstead=ca.ibm.com@...>
Reply-To: "oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Date: Friday, March 27, 2020 at 9:00 AM
To: "oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Cc: "oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] Architecture Working Group License

 

Agree Adam - if this folder only contains documentation we should be using a CC license.

 

 

-
Jason Keirstead
Chief Architect - IBM Security Threat Management
www.ibm.com/security

"Would you like me to give you a formula for success? It's quite simple, really. Double your rate of failure."

- Thomas J. Watson

 

 

----- Original message -----
From: "Adam Montville" <adam.montville.sdo@...>
Sent by: oca-pgb@...
To: oca-pgb@...
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [oca-pgb] Architecture Working Group License
Date: Fri, Mar 27, 2020 9:31 AM
 
Are we producing written works (i.e. documentation) or running software or both? If we’re only producing written works, do software licenses apply or would using Creative Commons be a reasonable approach? I am certainly not a lawyer. I’ve just seen written works protected with CC and software with Apache (and others).

 

On Mar 27, 2020, at 7:10 AM, sfractal <duncan@...> wrote:

 

To be clear – is it protect ‘from patents better’ or it ‘protects patents better’?

If the former, I’m all for it. If the latter, I would like to understand the groundrules on us considering architectures protected by patents. I’m especially concerned if the planned standards path includes OASIS Standards which I believe do not allow anything to be protected by patents (vs for example the ITU patent policy with does allow standards to contain work protected by patents as long as you agree non-exclusionary and reasonable rates and fees. I’ll actually take credit for that ITU policy due to my work back in the 80’s).

 

Duncan Sparrell

sFractal Consulting LLC

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/

 

 

From: <oca-pgb@...> on behalf of "Jason Keirstead via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org" <Jason.Keirstead=ca.ibm.com@...>
Reply-To: "oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 7:33 PM
To: "oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] Architecture Working Group License

 

Let's stick with Apache 2, it protects from patents better.

sfractal --- [EXTERNAL] [oca-pgb] Architecture Working Group License ---

 

From:

"sfractal" <duncan@...>

To:

Date:

Thu, Mar 26, 2020 6:54 PM

Subject:

[EXTERNAL] [oca-pgb] Architecture Working Group License


 

The documentation repo was set up entirely empty. What license should be used, especially for the architecture work?

Is the documentation repo just for documentation? If so, I propose CC0 (https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/).

If we think it might contain more than just documentation (ie software), I propose MIT license (https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT).

I propose both of these in the spirit of ‘integrate once, reuse everywhere’, ‘open cybersecurity ecosystem where products can freely exchange information, insights, analytics, and orchestrated response’, ‘open source code freely available to the security community’, etc.

I recognize others might have started at the other end of the licensing spectrum but I thought I’d start at the ‘most open’ and let everyone else justify adding restrictions.

 

Duncan Sparrell

sFractal Consulting LLC

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/

 

 

From: <oca-pgb@...> on behalf of "sfractal via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org" <duncan=sfractal.com@...>
Reply-To: "oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 5:44 PM
To: "oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Subject: [oca-pgb] Architecture Working Group email list

 

Assuming the “Architecture Working Group” is a team (per previous email), shouldn’t it have it’s own mailing list so I won’t be spamming all of you that don’t care about making the sausage?

 

Duncan Sparrell

sFractal Consulting LLC

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/

 

 

From: <oca-pgb@...> on behalf of "sfractal via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org" <duncan=sfractal.com@...>
Reply-To: "oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 4:24 PM
To: "oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] Documentation Website

 

Thank you. Should the “Architecture Working Group” (I think that was what we got called) also be a ‘team’ and would you please add me (and whoever else volunteered to be a member) to that as well.

 

Duncan Sparrell

sFractal Consulting LLC

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/

 

 

From: <oca-pgb@...> on behalf of "Jory Burson via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org" <jory.burson=oasis-open.org@...>
Reply-To: "oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 3:12 PM
To: "oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] Documentation Website

 

Duncan, I've invited you to the PGB team on GitHub.  

 

We're still missing GitHub usernames for most of our PGB and TSC reps. I would like to populate the TSC and PGB teams on github as that makes permission and member management a lot easier.

 

The documentation repo doesn't have any content in it so far as I can tell, so that's why you can't fork it. When you join the PGB team you will have write access (as will all other PGB reps) and then you can add a readme and make edits.

 

Please send along your GitHub Usernames at your convenience.

Jory

 

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 1:26 PM sfractal <duncan@...> wrote:

If I understood the conversation correctly on the PGB call, the “architecture” work will take place on the new “documentation” repository at https://github.com/opencybersecurityalliance/documentation.

I tried to fork the repo (1) just to see if I could and (2) to make a pull request to at least have a home page saying ‘under construction’ (and maybe a snide remark), but I couldn’t even do that.

Who will have what permissions to do stuff here. I presume I’ll get some sort of permission as (1) a PGM member and (2) an architecture Working Group member.

What are next steps and who should do them? Based on the conversations, there seemed to be some urgency to get this work going.

 

Duncan Sparrell

sFractal Consulting LLC

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/

 


 

-- 

OASIS Open Projects Program Manager

Pronouns: She / Her

 

 

 

 

 

 

Join oca-pgb@lists.oasis-open-projects.org to automatically receive all group messages.