Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/12/09/oracle-v-google.html

Back in the summer, there was
a widely
covered
story
about Judge
Alsup’s decision regarding copyrightablity in
the Oracle
v. Google case. Oracle
has appealed
the verdict so presumably this will enter the news again at some
point. I’d been meaning to write a blog post about it since it
happened, and also Karen Sandler and I
had been planning an audcast to talk about it.

Karen and I finally released last
week our audcast on it,
episode 0x35 of FaiF on the subject. Fact of the matter is, as
Karen has been pointing out, there actually isn’t much to say.

Meanwhile, the upside in delay in commenting means that I can respond to
some of the comments that I’ve seen in the wake of decision’s publication.
The most common confusion about Alsup’s decision, in my view, comes from
the imprecision of programmers’ use of the term “API”. The API
and the implementation of that API are different. Frankly, in the Free
Software community, everyone always assumed APIs themselves weren’t
copyrightable. The whole idea of a clean-room implementation of something
centers around the idea that the APIs aren’t copyrighted. GNU itself
depends on the fact that Unix’s APIs weren’t copyrighted; just the code
that AT&T wrote to implement Unix was.

Those who oppose copyleft keep saying this decision
eviscerates copyleft. I don’t really see how it does. For all this
time, Free Software advocates have always reimplemented proprietary APIs
from scratch. Even copylefted projects
like Wine depend on this, after
all.

But, be careful here. Many developers use the phrase API to mean
different things. Implementations of an API are still copyrightable,
just like they always have been. Distribution of other people’s code
that implement APIs still requires their permission. What isn’t
copyrightable is general concepts like “to make things work, you need
a function that returns an int and takes a string as an argument and
that function must called Foo”.

Note: This post has been about the copyright issues in the case.
I previously
wrote a blog post when Oracle v. Google started, which was
mostly about the software patent issues. I think the advice in
there for Free Software developers is still pretty useful.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/12/09/oracle-v-google.html

Back in the summer, there was
a widely
covered
story
about Judge
Alsup’s decision regarding copyrightablity in
the Oracle
v. Google case. Oracle
has appealed
the verdict so presumably this will enter the news again at some
point. I’d been meaning to write a blog post about it since it
happened, and also Karen Sandler and I
had been planning an audcast to talk about it.

Karen and I finally released last
week our audcast on it,
episode 0x35 of FaiF on the subject. Fact of the matter is, as
Karen has been pointing out, there actually isn’t much to say.

Meanwhile, the upside in delay in commenting means that I can respond to
some of the comments that I’ve seen in the wake of decision’s publication.
The most common confusion about Alsup’s decision, in my view, comes from
the imprecision of programmers’ use of the term “API”. The API
and the implementation of that API are different. Frankly, in the Free
Software community, everyone always assumed APIs themselves weren’t
copyrightable. The whole idea of a clean-room implementation of something
centers around the idea that the APIs aren’t copyrighted. GNU itself
depends on the fact that Unix’s APIs weren’t copyrighted; just the code
that AT&T wrote to implement Unix was.

Those who oppose copyleft keep saying this decision
eviscerates copyleft. I don’t really see how it does. For all this
time, Free Software advocates have always reimplemented proprietary APIs
from scratch. Even copylefted projects
like Wine depend on this, after
all.

But, be careful here. Many developers use the phrase API to mean
different things. Implementations of an API are still copyrightable,
just like they always have been. Distribution of other people’s code
that implement APIs still requires their permission. What isn’t
copyrightable is general concepts like “to make things work, you need
a function that returns an int and takes a string as an argument and
that function must called Foo”.

Note: This post has been about the copyright issues in the case.
I previously
wrote a blog post when Oracle v. Google started, which was
mostly about the software patent issues. I think the advice in
there for Free Software developers is still pretty useful.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/12/09/oracle-v-google.html

Back in the summer, there was
a widely
covered
story
about Judge
Alsup’s decision regarding copyrightablity in
the Oracle
v. Google case. Oracle
has appealed
the verdict so presumably this will enter the news again at some
point. I’d been meaning to write a blog post about it since it
happened, and also Karen Sandler and I
had been planning an audcast to talk about it.

Karen and I finally released last
week our audcast on it,
episode 0x35 of FaiF on the subject. Fact of the matter is, as
Karen has been pointing out, there actually isn’t much to say.

Meanwhile, the upside in delay in commenting means that I can respond to
some of the comments that I’ve seen in the wake of decision’s publication.
The most common confusion about Alsup’s decision, in my view, comes from
the imprecision of programmers’ use of the term “API”. The API
and the implementation of that API are different. Frankly, in the Free
Software community, everyone always assumed APIs themselves weren’t
copyrightable. The whole idea of a clean-room implementation of something
centers around the idea that the APIs aren’t copyrighted. GNU itself
depends on the fact that Unix’s APIs weren’t copyrighted; just the code
that AT&T wrote to implement Unix was.

Those who oppose copyleft keep saying this decision
eviscerates copyleft. I don’t really see how it does. For all this
time, Free Software advocates have always reimplemented proprietary APIs
from scratch. Even copylefted projects
like Wine depend on this, after
all.

But, be careful here. Many developers use the phrase API to mean
different things. Implementations of an API are still copyrightable,
just like they always have been. Distribution of other people’s code
that implement APIs still requires their permission. What isn’t
copyrightable is general concepts like “to make things work, you need
a function that returns an int and takes a string as an argument and
that function must called Foo”.

Note: This post has been about the copyright issues in the case.
I previously
wrote a blog post when Oracle v. Google started, which was
mostly about the software patent issues. I think the advice in
there for Free Software developers is still pretty useful.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/12/09/oracle-v-google.html

Back in the summer, there was
a widely
covered
story
about Judge
Alsup’s decision regarding copyrightablity in
the Oracle
v. Google case. Oracle
has appealed
the verdict so presumably this will enter the news again at some
point. I’d been meaning to write a blog post about it since it
happened, and also Karen Sandler and I
had been planning an audcast to talk about it.

Karen and I finally released last
week our audcast on it,
episode 0x35 of FaiF on the subject. Fact of the matter is, as
Karen has been pointing out, there actually isn’t much to say.

Meanwhile, the upside in delay in commenting means that I can respond to
some of the comments that I’ve seen in the wake of decision’s publication.
The most common confusion about Alsup’s decision, in my view, comes from
the imprecision of programmers’ use of the term “API”. The API
and the implementation of that API are different. Frankly, in the Free
Software community, everyone always assumed APIs themselves weren’t
copyrightable. The whole idea of a clean-room implementation of something
centers around the idea that the APIs aren’t copyrighted. GNU itself
depends on the fact that Unix’s APIs weren’t copyrighted; just the code
that AT&T wrote to implement Unix was.

Those who oppose copyleft keep saying this decision
eviscerates copyleft. I don’t really see how it does. For all this
time, Free Software advocates have always reimplemented proprietary APIs
from scratch. Even copylefted projects
like Wine depend on this, after
all.

But, be careful here. Many developers use the phrase API to mean
different things. Implementations of an API are still copyrightable,
just like they always have been. Distribution of other people’s code
that implement APIs still requires their permission. What isn’t
copyrightable is general concepts like “to make things work, you need
a function that returns an int and takes a string as an argument and
that function must called Foo”.

Note: This post has been about the copyright issues in the case.
I previously
wrote a blog post when Oracle v. Google started, which was
mostly about the software patent issues. I think the advice in
there for Free Software developers is still pretty useful.

Post Syndicated from Oglaf! -- Comics. Often dirty. original https://www.oglaf.com/punching/

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/12/03/fosdem-legal-policy.html

Richard Fontana, Tom Marble, Karen Sandler, and I will reprise our
roles as co-coordinators of
the Legal and
Policy Issues DevRoom for FOSDEM
2013.
The CFP
for the FOSDEM 2013 Legal & Policy Issues DevRoom is now
available, and the deadline for submission is 21 December
2012, about 18 days from now.

I want to put a very specific call out to a group of people who may not
have considered submitting a talk to a track like this before. In
particular, if you are a Free Software developer who has ideas about the
policy/licensing decisions for your project, then you should consider
submitting a proposal.

The problem we have is that we often hear from lawyers, or licensing
pundits like me on these types of tracks. We all have a lot to say
about issue of policy or licensing. But, it’s the developers who lead
these projects who know best what policy issues you face, and what is
needed to address those issues.

I also want to add something my graduate adviser once said to me: At
the Master’s level, it’s sufficient for your thesis just to ask an
important and complex question well. Only a PhD-level thesis has to
propose answers to such questions. In my view, our track is at
the Master’s level: talks that ask complex licensing policy questions
well, but don’t necessarily have all the answers are just the kind of
proposals we’re seeking.

Please share this CFP widely. We’ve got a two-day dev room so there
are plenty of slots, and while we can’t guarantee acceptance of any
specific talk, your job as submitters is to make the job of the
co-chairs difficult by having to choose between many excellent talks.
We look forward to your submissions!

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/12/03/fosdem-legal-policy.html

Richard Fontana, Tom Marble, Karen Sandler, and I will reprise our
roles as co-coordinators of
the Legal and
Policy Issues DevRoom for FOSDEM
2013.
The CFP
for the FOSDEM 2013 Legal & Policy Issues DevRoom is now
available, and the deadline for submission is 21 December
2012, about 18 days from now.

I want to put a very specific call out to a group of people who may not
have considered submitting a talk to a track like this before. In
particular, if you are a Free Software developer who has ideas about the
policy/licensing decisions for your project, then you should consider
submitting a proposal.

The problem we have is that we often hear from lawyers, or licensing
pundits like me on these types of tracks. We all have a lot to say
about issue of policy or licensing. But, it’s the developers who lead
these projects who know best what policy issues you face, and what is
needed to address those issues.

I also want to add something my graduate adviser once said to me: At
the Master’s level, it’s sufficient for your thesis just to ask an
important and complex question well. Only a PhD-level thesis has to
propose answers to such questions. In my view, our track is at
the Master’s level: talks that ask complex licensing policy questions
well, but don’t necessarily have all the answers are just the kind of
proposals we’re seeking.

Please share this CFP widely. We’ve got a two-day dev room so there
are plenty of slots, and while we can’t guarantee acceptance of any
specific talk, your job as submitters is to make the job of the
co-chairs difficult by having to choose between many excellent talks.
We look forward to your submissions!

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/12/03/fosdem-legal-policy.html

Richard Fontana, Tom Marble, Karen Sandler, and I will reprise our
roles as co-coordinators of
the Legal and
Policy Issues DevRoom for FOSDEM
2013.
The CFP
for the FOSDEM 2013 Legal & Policy Issues DevRoom is now
available, and the deadline for submission is 21 December
2012, about 18 days from now.

I want to put a very specific call out to a group of people who may not
have considered submitting a talk to a track like this before. In
particular, if you are a Free Software developer who has ideas about the
policy/licensing decisions for your project, then you should consider
submitting a proposal.

The problem we have is that we often hear from lawyers, or licensing
pundits like me on these types of tracks. We all have a lot to say
about issue of policy or licensing. But, it’s the developers who lead
these projects who know best what policy issues you face, and what is
needed to address those issues.

I also want to add something my graduate adviser once said to me: At
the Master’s level, it’s sufficient for your thesis just to ask an
important and complex question well. Only a PhD-level thesis has to
propose answers to such questions. In my view, our track is at
the Master’s level: talks that ask complex licensing policy questions
well, but don’t necessarily have all the answers are just the kind of
proposals we’re seeking.

Please share this CFP widely. We’ve got a two-day dev room so there
are plenty of slots, and while we can’t guarantee acceptance of any
specific talk, your job as submitters is to make the job of the
co-chairs difficult by having to choose between many excellent talks.
We look forward to your submissions!

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/12/03/fosdem-legal-policy.html

Richard Fontana, Tom Marble, Karen Sandler, and I will reprise our
roles as co-coordinators of
the Legal and
Policy Issues DevRoom for FOSDEM
2013.
The CFP
for the FOSDEM 2013 Legal & Policy Issues DevRoom is now
available, and the deadline for submission is 21 December
2012, about 18 days from now.

I want to put a very specific call out to a group of people who may not
have considered submitting a talk to a track like this before. In
particular, if you are a Free Software developer who has ideas about the
policy/licensing decisions for your project, then you should consider
submitting a proposal.

The problem we have is that we often hear from lawyers, or licensing
pundits like me on these types of tracks. We all have a lot to say
about issue of policy or licensing. But, it’s the developers who lead
these projects who know best what policy issues you face, and what is
needed to address those issues.

I also want to add something my graduate adviser once said to me: At
the Master’s level, it’s sufficient for your thesis just to ask an
important and complex question well. Only a PhD-level thesis has to
propose answers to such questions. In my view, our track is at
the Master’s level: talks that ask complex licensing policy questions
well, but don’t necessarily have all the answers are just the kind of
proposals we’re seeking.

Please share this CFP widely. We’ve got a two-day dev room so there
are plenty of slots, and while we can’t guarantee acceptance of any
specific talk, your job as submitters is to make the job of the
co-chairs difficult by having to choose between many excellent talks.
We look forward to your submissions!

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/12/03/fosdem-legal-policy.html

Richard Fontana, Tom Marble, Karen Sandler, and I will reprise our
roles as co-coordinators of
the Legal and
Policy Issues DevRoom for FOSDEM
2013.
The CFP
for the FOSDEM 2013 Legal & Policy Issues DevRoom is now
available, and the deadline for submission is 21 December
2012, about 18 days from now.

I want to put a very specific call out to a group of people who may not
have considered submitting a talk to a track like this before. In
particular, if you are a Free Software developer who has ideas about the
policy/licensing decisions for your project, then you should consider
submitting a proposal.

The problem we have is that we often hear from lawyers, or licensing
pundits like me on these types of tracks. We all have a lot to say
about issue of policy or licensing. But, it’s the developers who lead
these projects who know best what policy issues you face, and what is
needed to address those issues.

I also want to add something my graduate adviser once said to me: At
the Master’s level, it’s sufficient for your thesis just to ask an
important and complex question well. Only a PhD-level thesis has to
propose answers to such questions. In my view, our track is at
the Master’s level: talks that ask complex licensing policy questions
well, but don’t necessarily have all the answers are just the kind of
proposals we’re seeking.

Please share this CFP widely. We’ve got a two-day dev room so there
are plenty of slots, and while we can’t guarantee acceptance of any
specific talk, your job as submitters is to make the job of the
co-chairs difficult by having to choose between many excellent talks.
We look forward to your submissions!

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/12/03/fosdem-legal-policy.html

Richard Fontana, Tom Marble, Karen Sandler, and I will reprise our
roles as co-coordinators of
the Legal and
Policy Issues DevRoom for FOSDEM
2013.
The CFP
for the FOSDEM 2013 Legal & Policy Issues DevRoom is now
available, and the deadline for submission is 21 December
2012, about 18 days from now.

I want to put a very specific call out to a group of people who may not
have considered submitting a talk to a track like this before. In
particular, if you are a Free Software developer who has ideas about the
policy/licensing decisions for your project, then you should consider
submitting a proposal.

The problem we have is that we often hear from lawyers, or licensing
pundits like me on these types of tracks. We all have a lot to say
about issue of policy or licensing. But, it’s the developers who lead
these projects who know best what policy issues you face, and what is
needed to address those issues.

I also want to add something my graduate adviser once said to me: At
the Master’s level, it’s sufficient for your thesis just to ask an
important and complex question well. Only a PhD-level thesis has to
propose answers to such questions. In my view, our track is at
the Master’s level: talks that ask complex licensing policy questions
well, but don’t necessarily have all the answers are just the kind of
proposals we’re seeking.

Please share this CFP widely. We’ve got a two-day dev room so there
are plenty of slots, and while we can’t guarantee acceptance of any
specific talk, your job as submitters is to make the job of the
co-chairs difficult by having to choose between many excellent talks.
We look forward to your submissions!

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/12/03/fosdem-legal-policy.html

Richard Fontana, Tom Marble, Karen Sandler, and I will reprise our
roles as co-coordinators of
the Legal and
Policy Issues DevRoom for FOSDEM
2013.
The CFP
for the FOSDEM 2013 Legal & Policy Issues DevRoom is now
available, and the deadline for submission is 21 December
2012, about 18 days from now.

I want to put a very specific call out to a group of people who may not
have considered submitting a talk to a track like this before. In
particular, if you are a Free Software developer who has ideas about the
policy/licensing decisions for your project, then you should consider
submitting a proposal.

The problem we have is that we often hear from lawyers, or licensing
pundits like me on these types of tracks. We all have a lot to say
about issue of policy or licensing. But, it’s the developers who lead
these projects who know best what policy issues you face, and what is
needed to address those issues.

I also want to add something my graduate adviser once said to me: At
the Master’s level, it’s sufficient for your thesis just to ask an
important and complex question well. Only a PhD-level thesis has to
propose answers to such questions. In my view, our track is at
the Master’s level: talks that ask complex licensing policy questions
well, but don’t necessarily have all the answers are just the kind of
proposals we’re seeking.

Please share this CFP widely. We’ve got a two-day dev room so there
are plenty of slots, and while we can’t guarantee acceptance of any
specific talk, your job as submitters is to make the job of the
co-chairs difficult by having to choose between many excellent talks.
We look forward to your submissions!

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/12/03/fosdem-legal-policy.html

Richard Fontana, Tom Marble, Karen Sandler, and I will reprise our
roles as co-coordinators of
the Legal and
Policy Issues DevRoom for FOSDEM
2013.
The CFP
for the FOSDEM 2013 Legal & Policy Issues DevRoom is now
available, and the deadline for submission is 21 December
2012, about 18 days from now.

I want to put a very specific call out to a group of people who may not
have considered submitting a talk to a track like this before. In
particular, if you are a Free Software developer who has ideas about the
policy/licensing decisions for your project, then you should consider
submitting a proposal.

The problem we have is that we often hear from lawyers, or licensing
pundits like me on these types of tracks. We all have a lot to say
about issue of policy or licensing. But, it’s the developers who lead
these projects who know best what policy issues you face, and what is
needed to address those issues.

I also want to add something my graduate adviser once said to me: At
the Master’s level, it’s sufficient for your thesis just to ask an
important and complex question well. Only a PhD-level thesis has to
propose answers to such questions. In my view, our track is at
the Master’s level: talks that ask complex licensing policy questions
well, but don’t necessarily have all the answers are just the kind of
proposals we’re seeking.

Please share this CFP widely. We’ve got a two-day dev room so there
are plenty of slots, and while we can’t guarantee acceptance of any
specific talk, your job as submitters is to make the job of the
co-chairs difficult by having to choose between many excellent talks.
We look forward to your submissions!

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/12/03/fosdem-legal-policy.html

Richard Fontana, Tom Marble, Karen Sandler, and I will reprise our
roles as co-coordinators of
the Legal and
Policy Issues DevRoom for FOSDEM
2013.
The CFP
for the FOSDEM 2013 Legal & Policy Issues DevRoom is now
available, and the deadline for submission is 21 December
2012, about 18 days from now.

I want to put a very specific call out to a group of people who may not
have considered submitting a talk to a track like this before. In
particular, if you are a Free Software developer who has ideas about the
policy/licensing decisions for your project, then you should consider
submitting a proposal.

The problem we have is that we often hear from lawyers, or licensing
pundits like me on these types of tracks. We all have a lot to say
about issue of policy or licensing. But, it’s the developers who lead
these projects who know best what policy issues you face, and what is
needed to address those issues.

I also want to add something my graduate adviser once said to me: At
the Master’s level, it’s sufficient for your thesis just to ask an
important and complex question well. Only a PhD-level thesis has to
propose answers to such questions. In my view, our track is at
the Master’s level: talks that ask complex licensing policy questions
well, but don’t necessarily have all the answers are just the kind of
proposals we’re seeking.

Please share this CFP widely. We’ve got a two-day dev room so there
are plenty of slots, and while we can’t guarantee acceptance of any
specific talk, your job as submitters is to make the job of the
co-chairs difficult by having to choose between many excellent talks.
We look forward to your submissions!

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/12/03/fosdem-legal-policy.html

Richard Fontana, Tom Marble, Karen Sandler, and I will reprise our
roles as co-coordinators of
the Legal and
Policy Issues DevRoom for FOSDEM
2013.
The CFP
for the FOSDEM 2013 Legal & Policy Issues DevRoom is now
available, and the deadline for submission is 21 December
2012, about 18 days from now.

I want to put a very specific call out to a group of people who may not
have considered submitting a talk to a track like this before. In
particular, if you are a Free Software developer who has ideas about the
policy/licensing decisions for your project, then you should consider
submitting a proposal.

The problem we have is that we often hear from lawyers, or licensing
pundits like me on these types of tracks. We all have a lot to say
about issue of policy or licensing. But, it’s the developers who lead
these projects who know best what policy issues you face, and what is
needed to address those issues.

I also want to add something my graduate adviser once said to me: At
the Master’s level, it’s sufficient for your thesis just to ask an
important and complex question well. Only a PhD-level thesis has to
propose answers to such questions. In my view, our track is at
the Master’s level: talks that ask complex licensing policy questions
well, but don’t necessarily have all the answers are just the kind of
proposals we’re seeking.

Please share this CFP widely. We’ve got a two-day dev room so there
are plenty of slots, and while we can’t guarantee acceptance of any
specific talk, your job as submitters is to make the job of the
co-chairs difficult by having to choose between many excellent talks.
We look forward to your submissions!

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/12/03/fosdem-legal-policy.html

Richard Fontana, Tom Marble, Karen Sandler, and I will reprise our
roles as co-coordinators of
the Legal and
Policy Issues DevRoom for FOSDEM
2013.
The CFP
for the FOSDEM 2013 Legal & Policy Issues DevRoom is now
available, and the deadline for submission is 21 December
2012, about 18 days from now.

I want to put a very specific call out to a group of people who may not
have considered submitting a talk to a track like this before. In
particular, if you are a Free Software developer who has ideas about the
policy/licensing decisions for your project, then you should consider
submitting a proposal.

The problem we have is that we often hear from lawyers, or licensing
pundits like me on these types of tracks. We all have a lot to say
about issue of policy or licensing. But, it’s the developers who lead
these projects who know best what policy issues you face, and what is
needed to address those issues.

I also want to add something my graduate adviser once said to me: At
the Master’s level, it’s sufficient for your thesis just to ask an
important and complex question well. Only a PhD-level thesis has to
propose answers to such questions. In my view, our track is at
the Master’s level: talks that ask complex licensing policy questions
well, but don’t necessarily have all the answers are just the kind of
proposals we’re seeking.

Please share this CFP widely. We’ve got a two-day dev room so there
are plenty of slots, and while we can’t guarantee acceptance of any
specific talk, your job as submitters is to make the job of the
co-chairs difficult by having to choose between many excellent talks.
We look forward to your submissions!

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/12/03/fosdem-legal-policy.html

Richard Fontana, Tom Marble, Karen Sandler, and I will reprise our
roles as co-coordinators of
the Legal and
Policy Issues DevRoom for FOSDEM
2013.
The CFP
for the FOSDEM 2013 Legal & Policy Issues DevRoom is now
available, and the deadline for submission is 21 December
2012, about 18 days from now.

I want to put a very specific call out to a group of people who may not
have considered submitting a talk to a track like this before. In
particular, if you are a Free Software developer who has ideas about the
policy/licensing decisions for your project, then you should consider
submitting a proposal.

The problem we have is that we often hear from lawyers, or licensing
pundits like me on these types of tracks. We all have a lot to say
about issue of policy or licensing. But, it’s the developers who lead
these projects who know best what policy issues you face, and what is
needed to address those issues.

I also want to add something my graduate adviser once said to me: At
the Master’s level, it’s sufficient for your thesis just to ask an
important and complex question well. Only a PhD-level thesis has to
propose answers to such questions. In my view, our track is at
the Master’s level: talks that ask complex licensing policy questions
well, but don’t necessarily have all the answers are just the kind of
proposals we’re seeking.

Please share this CFP widely. We’ve got a two-day dev room so there
are plenty of slots, and while we can’t guarantee acceptance of any
specific talk, your job as submitters is to make the job of the
co-chairs difficult by having to choose between many excellent talks.
We look forward to your submissions!

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/12/03/fosdem-legal-policy.html

Richard Fontana, Tom Marble, Karen Sandler, and I will reprise our
roles as co-coordinators of
the Legal and
Policy Issues DevRoom for FOSDEM
2013.
The CFP
for the FOSDEM 2013 Legal & Policy Issues DevRoom is now
available, and the deadline for submission is 21 December
2012, about 18 days from now.

I want to put a very specific call out to a group of people who may not
have considered submitting a talk to a track like this before. In
particular, if you are a Free Software developer who has ideas about the
policy/licensing decisions for your project, then you should consider
submitting a proposal.

The problem we have is that we often hear from lawyers, or licensing
pundits like me on these types of tracks. We all have a lot to say
about issue of policy or licensing. But, it’s the developers who lead
these projects who know best what policy issues you face, and what is
needed to address those issues.

I also want to add something my graduate adviser once said to me: At
the Master’s level, it’s sufficient for your thesis just to ask an
important and complex question well. Only a PhD-level thesis has to
propose answers to such questions. In my view, our track is at
the Master’s level: talks that ask complex licensing policy questions
well, but don’t necessarily have all the answers are just the kind of
proposals we’re seeking.

Please share this CFP widely. We’ve got a two-day dev room so there
are plenty of slots, and while we can’t guarantee acceptance of any
specific talk, your job as submitters is to make the job of the
co-chairs difficult by having to choose between many excellent talks.
We look forward to your submissions!