News of OpenMicroBlogging

[Evan Prodromou]

Hi, everyone. As you may remember, I started a microblogging site
called Identi.ca in July of 2008. It's Open Source; people can
download the software and set up their own mublog sites. They're tied
together using a protocol called OpenMicroBlogging -- http://openmicroblogging.org/

Sadly, the effort around the protocol itself has waned as me and my
team have concentrated on the software itself. I'm glad to say that
we're resuscitating the project. We've got a blog, a mailing list, and
plans to update the protocol from 0.1 to 0.2.

I'd love to have the involvement of OWF folks in the project -- at
least on the mailing list -- to help us move forward. We need your
experience and support.

Thanks a lot,

-Evan

[Chris Messina]

Hey Evan,

I'm curious -- how do you see the OWF best able to help you? What did
you have in mind?

Chris

--
Chris Messina
Citizen-Participant &
Open Web Advocate-at-Large

factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private

[Steve Repetti]

Evan,

It's great that you are revisiting the project and maintaining its
status as open source. To maximize your efforts with the rest of the
open source (and open web) community it's probably best that you
specifically identify those areas where you think we could provide
assistance.

-- Steve Repetti
Open Web Member
Data Portability Board Member
www.radwebtech.com

On Jan 18, 10:37 am, Evan Prodromou <evan.prodro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, everyone. As you may remember, I started a microblogging site
> called Identi.ca in July of 2008. It's Open Source; people can
> download the software and set up their own mublog sites. They're tied

> together using a protocol called OpenMicroBlogging --http://openmicroblogging.org/

[Evan Prodromou]

On Jan 19, 12:32 am, "Chris Messina" <chris.mess...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm curious -- how do you see the OWF best able to help you? What did
> you have in mind?

In a nutshell, it would do the job of the OpenMicroBlogging Foundation
that I don't want to have to start.

As we build up intellectual property around the spec (logos,
specification text, trademarks), it would be great to have an
organization that owns and defends those.

If there's a need to put money into the specification (say,
sponsorship for meetings or hosting or other costs), it'd be great to
use the OWF for collecting those funds.

And, most of all, I'd hope for some advice and guidance in all the
work it takes to make an open standard, from people with experience:
organizing the spec itself (text-wise, protocol-wise), coordinating
community effort, and explaining our work to the public.

-Evan

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

> As we build up intellectual property around the spec (logos,
> specification text, trademarks), it would be great to have an
> organization that owns and defends those.

There is no need for any organization to own IP as long as you plan on making it all freely available. All you need to do is properly license it. Copyrights are easy and there are plenty of existing options for you to consider. You can start with Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported. This also applies to your logo.

You only need to deal with trademarks if you intent of enforcing something. For example, if you plan to certify implementations and allow them to use the logo, you need to deal with trademarks. Otherwise, if there is no enforcement, there is little value to complicate your life with trademarks. Just make sure that the name and logo you pick are not already used.

As for patent rights, you can start with the OAuth license until we have the OWF license ready. But you don't need a foundation for that. Just make sure everything going into the spec is licensed.

> If there's a need to put money into the specification (say,
> sponsorship for meetings or hosting or other costs), it'd be great to
> use the OWF for collecting those funds.

It is much better for you to get funds directly into event costs, so instead of a company donating money to a foundation and the foundation paying for hosting an event, just have the company pay for event costs. We did OAuth with ZERO cash flow.

> And, most of all, I'd hope for some advice and guidance in all the
> work it takes to make an open standard, from people with experience:
> organizing the spec itself (text-wise, protocol-wise), coordinating
> community effort, and explaining our work to the public.

It will take a while before the OWF can help you with "mentoring services". For now, just try to find experienced spec authors, editors, implementers, and community builders who are interested in your work.

EHL

[Evan Prodromou]

So, let me get this straight: the Open Web Foundation doesn't provide
collaboration tools (like mailing lists, files or version control);
you don't think it should own or help with IP issues; it won't do
funds collection; and isn't a good source for mentorship or guidance.

Can you guys fill me in on what the foundation *will* do? And what
other specifications you're planning on providing a home for?

-Evan

[Gabe Wachob]

Evan -

--
Gabe Wachob / gwa...@wachob.com \ http://blog.wachob.com

[Gabe Wachob]

Evan-
What I hoped the OWF to do, if nothing else, was to provide an IPR
framework and process for community groups to develop specs which are
open (from an IPR point of view) and yet have the IPR hygiene to allow
large organizations to feel comfortable in adopting/using (and even
contributing to) these specs. There were a couple of efforts (openid
and oauth) which started out without any IPR policy, and a group of us
have been working for a long time to clean up the IPR situation around
these specs. The community didn't want to work within the context of a
heftier spec organization like OASIS, or W3C, and yet there was a need
for IPR hygiene that the contributors really had no expertise in
ensuring.
So, the major win, from my point of view, for OWF would be to come
up with a patent license/non-assert and a reusable lightweight
"process" (think lightweight, not standards-body size) that produces
truly open specs. Other folks would like to see the OWF do some of the
things that you mention, but I think those are not the first
priorities at this point. Getting the IPR hygiene around these specs
correct is highest priority (esp w/r/t patent).

-Gabe

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Evan Prodromou
<evan.pr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

1. The foundation should help with IP issues, but it is not clear if it should own it. Can you explain your IP needs and what kind of help the foundation should offer with regard to IP? What legal services do you need?

2. At this point the foundation doesn't offer infrastructure. My vote is not to offer it directly in the future. Recordon is on record as someone who wants to offer some tools. Either way, we are not there yet. You don't need a foundation to build quality spec infrastructure. How about helping building it?

3. The foundation isn't a fundraising tool. There are plenty of those. But what do you need money for? Have you tried to raise money and was rejected because of lack of a foundation?

4. The foundation itself it not likely to offer mentorship but the people on this list will. If you have specific areas you need help with, please ask. There are plenty of very experienced people here to help. I don't know where you got the idea that this isn't a good source for help.

We do not plan to provide a home for specifications. This is not what this foundation is about. We plan to create a legal framework others can use and an incubation program that will help guide communities through the process of creating an open spec. At this point we are focused on the legal framework and less on the incubation. David Recordon started putting effort into the incubation and very few people offered to help.

In other words, you seems to want the "foundation" to do stuff for you. This is not how this works. The foundation is *us* and if you think something is needed, you should do it. Right now we are focused on the legal framework but you have ignored my previous email and did not offer any information as to your legal needs.

EHL

[Evan Prodromou]

On Jan 21, 12:19 am, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com> wrote:

> We do not plan to provide a home for specifications. This is not what this foundation is about.

OK! I got confused by the first line on the home page: "The Open Web
Foundation is an attempt to create a home for community-driven
specifications."

I guess I was picturing a cheaper and lighter-weight OASIS; an
umbrella organization for little lost Web protocols that don't really
merit a dedicated foundation all their own (as opposed to, say, the
OpenID Foundation or the XMPP Foundation). Software in the Public
Interest (SPI) provides this kind of service to a number of Open
Source projects.

> In other words, you seems to want the "foundation" to do stuff for you. This is not how this works. The foundation is *us* and if you think something is needed, you should do it.

No, I grok that. I was not being clear; I realize that when one says,
"have the foundation collect funds," it means "have volunteer human
beings do the legwork of collecting funds and put them in a bank
account owned by a legal fiction called 'the foundation.'"

But we do create these legal entities for a reason -- to give everyone
involved some arm's-length legal distance, to provide neutral ground
that makes it easier for competitors to work together, and to give a
project longevity beyond the involvement of any one person or
organization.

Whether it's worthwhile to make a foundation obviously depends on the
project.

> Right now we are focused on the legal framework but you have ignored my previous email and did not offer any information as to your legal needs.

I don't have specific legal needs right now; I have a small
specification that I want to grow up big and strong.

Sorry for the confusion! It sounds like you're going to have some
useful work for projects like mine to adapt, and I'll look forward to
seeing what you produce.

-Evan

[Evan Prodromou]

On Jan 21, 12:14 am, Gabe Wachob <gwac...@wachob.com> wrote:

>     So, the major win, from my point of view, for OWF would be to come
> up with a patent license/non-assert and a reusable lightweight
> "process" (think lightweight, not standards-body size) that produces
> truly open specs. Other folks would like to see the OWF do some of the
> things that you mention, but I think those are not the first
> priorities at this point. Getting the IPR hygiene around these specs
> correct is highest priority (esp w/r/t patent).

Thanks a lot for the clarification.

-Evan