[ntp:hackers] Cool new stuff
tglassey at earthlink.net
Mon Jul 24 14:38:54 UTC 2006
>From: "David L. Mills" <mills at udel.edu>
>Sent: Jul 23, 2006 7:36 PM
>To: hackers at ntp.org
>Subject: Re: [ntp:hackers] Cool new stuff
>Who owns the Internet?
Uh do you mean the ISOC Root - what we refer to as the top-level DNS mapping or to the transport itself? - the peering agreements outside of the FTS agreements that setup the initial peering through NTIA and the Federal Telecommunications Contracts?
> That question was posed in the ICCB 25 years ago
>and we decided the Internet has no owner, no laws, no lawyers and no
Right - "We decided" - this is the problem with the Internet - Some bunch of early-adapters decided ... not the court - the technology people working for the Government to create and support this limited networking model which was later opened up to be what we refer to as the global internt.
>As a practical matter, the NTP code base starts from here and is not
>":checked in" the ISC.
Then you and UDel OWN it... and that is the issue or at least partially. The problem is that the code published by the US Government is the property of the people of the US including the work done on the algorithems (outside of my personal claims against it). So who really owns it? my feeling is that the NTP code that is to be used by people either must belong to NO ONE or it needs to belong to the entities that either certify or provide that code. Not you, not UDel, and this is something that you are really famillar with from me - since you personally served on my Technologies Board at CertifiedTime.
> The developer corps at the ISC and elsewhere
>fixes it up, hands it out and keeps it running.
yeah - and has other issues too with that including their not having either a
1) Hold Harmless agreement for sourcing/housing the project
2) Fitness of Use Agreements - as part of the Hold Harmless Agreement
3) Code of Conduct for the participants of the WG
4) DMCA Take Down Policy and Process including the requirements of the Copyright and Use Licenses being adapted to support the DMCA Take Down requirements.
> Beyond that, I like the
You mean the "Go away and leave me alone" models?
> especially the lawyers part.
The problem is Dave that the rest of the world doesnt - and you are putting them in a siutuation where they will at some point make the decision to fund a replacement effort for NTP and then where will you be? Certainly not sitting on the throne that I and others have created for you as the founder of the best-practice time distribution process and method.
Dave - this wasnt a slam and it wasnt disrespect for you or your desires. Its about process and IP management requirements in what are now referred to as "Transparant companies" i.e. ones that have survived SOXification and other regulatory reporting requirements to put in place time-based audit practices. Bluntly the world has changed and its something that NO ON gets to ignore anymore. Sorry...
NTP right now is the answer and its this code-body that a large percentage of the world is using - but it could just as easily use NIST's code base and well - then where would the ISC and this WG be since Judah's team is not directly tracking these enhancements for the official NIST Code Releases and that also is an issue that this group MUST deal with at some point - or the Audit Community will deal with it for you and that will mean that this groups code will be recommended against use - since the Audit Community will have NO CHOICE BUT TO GO WITH THE FEDERAL CODE to meet Federal Audit Requirements.
Further Judah's code ***is*** owned by the people of the US with the possible exception of my claims against it as well so... there is another issue. By the way Judah - if You and Mike Rubin want to draft a release for NIST from me that washes my claims to the Code Base for the additions that were made to support the CommonView Operations in Exodus Tokyo then lets go ahead and do that...
By the way - its much safer to be able to say to a Court that one relied on Judah's code and it screwed up... rather than this WG's. In fact one would have to be an idiot to put code from this WG into production in any form as its never been audited. No one has certified it, and well, no one here has the ability to do that except possibly me and several others (Wyatt Starnes people at SignaSure etc)... as certified auditors.
Sorry - the reality is the reality and you folks need to wake up and smell the coffee... or you need to let the rest of us run this to produce a formalized certified codebase footprint for NTP, and build an Ivory Tower for you if that's what you want. Personally I dont see any problem with that as I did in CertifiedTime Inc...
>todd glassey wrote:
>> Unfortunately Dave its not quite that easy its not just the republication
>> rights that are at play here especially for the commercial players. The
>> Copyright/Use License also pertains to derivative implementations as well
>> one would think including the code-base that is checked into the ISC. So
>> the question is - who actually owns the code the ISC and this
>> collective are
>> working on? - You - UDel? those collective Sponsor's
>> Sorry to be the IP guy but...
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David L. Mills" <mills at udel.edu>
>> To: <hackers at ntp.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 12:23 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ntp:hackers] Cool new stuff
>>> Read my lips very carefully. I have said nothing about licensing. I
>>> don't care about licensing. All I care about is the IBM lawyer who
>>> showed up in my office demanding I sign a release specific to IBM and I
>>> would not do that. If Sun and HP and IBM and everybody else on the
>>> planet can guarantee hassle-free use of any code, then I and UDel have
>>> no problem with that.
>>> There is no question about ownership here and I really would like to
>>> spare further discussion on that issue. You will note the copyright page
>>> says nogthing about licensing, only copyright. How about the IBM lawyer?
>>> How about the embedded products like my Xerox printer and Symmetricom
>>> GPS servers? If none of these guys has any problem, then I and UDel
>>> don't either. Finally, note I and UDel don't own anything, just the
>>> copyright notice asserting authorship of various parties.
>>> Paul Vixie wrote:
>>>>> If not, this makes vendors such as Sun and HP and
>>>>> Symmetricom mighty nervous.
>>>> sun and hp have already imported isc/lib/log.c (and eventlib) and vetted
>>>> the license. but if that's a problem, feel free to fork the code, and
>>>> will send UDel a letter donating a copy of the source without its
>>>> so that UDel can own its own copy.
>>>> let's be done, for once and for all time, with any concern about
>>>> of ISC code for use in NTP. we're wasting time and missing
>>>> i am particularly upset since my use of and work on NTP predates my use
>>>> and work on BIND, and my inspiration to use a BSD-derived license on all
>>>> of my work (and later, all of ISC's work) came from my appreciation of
>>>> and the license it used. dr. mills, every time you complain about ISC's
>>>> license, it feels like i somehow missed the point of your work, and i do
>>>> not think that i have. i am one of your followers. stop yelling at me
>>>> for trying to follow in your footsteps.
>>> hackers mailing list
>>> hackers at support.ntp.org
>hackers mailing list
>hackers at support.ntp.org
More information about the hackers