Re: Task open for takers: review Debian status wrt OIN
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Task open for takers: review Debian status wrt OIN"):
> (2) it has been recommended by third party organizations that we join
Please name names. The weight we should attach to such a
recommendation, and indeed, our reaction more generally, will depend
on who made these recommendations. And an idea of the basis of the
recommendation would be good too.
> The tasks involved are:
> - review and summarize the past discussions on this topic (I'm quite
> sure that such a summary already exists somewhere)
This sounds quite a dull task, but I read Stefano's links. The
discussion in 2008 seemed to conclude that OIN were patent advocates
and reject collaboration/membership for that reason. There was also a
concern about a conversial company called "Ketchum Inc" which was
linked to OIN, perhaps as its PR firm.
> - review the current status of OIN wrt past concerns, maybe discuss with
> our contacts at OIN
I've presented an analysis of OIN on the basis of its website in my
other mail. My reasons for disliking OIN are not necessarily ones
which I expect everyone to share, although I expect that at least some
of them will find broad support.
If the project disagrees with my reasons for disliking OIN, and thinks
they might be a good thing in principle, then we should go on to
should ask OIN who its current PR agency is and what if any
relationship they have/had with Ketchum.
I doubt that OIN will be receptive to a change to their use of the
phrases "intellectual property" and "Linux".
As for the substantive problem of the cross-licence being tied to
Linux, I think it unlikely that OIN would want to change, because some
important members are patentholders who want to be shielded from the
patent minefield when they do embedded Linux-based systems, but don't
want to lose the ability to abuse their patents more generally.
> - present conclusions and a recommendation to the Project.
> This task is low urgency, but quite important.
> If someone is interested in working on that, please let me know, so I
> can share more details in private.
I don't see why this discussion, or at least most of it, can't be held