[ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ

[Dean Anderson]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Well, Randy and Dean, I'm going to address both of you since you seem
> to be on the same side here.
> 
> See here.  The non-legacy community doesen't have infinite patience
> in dealing with you.  The legacy RSA that is coming up for discussion is
> the paying communities attempt to accomodate your desires.  You don't
> like it, well frankly not all of us like it either.  You can choose to
> participate in the discussion to try to make the legacy RSA proposal
> more to your liking or not.

The legacy community doesn't have infinite patience in dealing with the
ungrateful non-legacy community that doesn't have respect for the
obligations it undertook to obtain the privilege of operating a registry
service.

This is why we legacies need to work together to fight ARIN in Court if
necessary, and form a separate Legacy Registry.  This is in both our
interests, it turns out.  A number of legacies have already contacted me
offlist. But we need to get the word out to other legacies. Unfairly,
ARIN has this list of legacies, but hasn't shared it. ARIN hasn't even
acknowledged that there are other points of view in its FAQ. ARIN hasn't
given any notice to legacies that they may have any other options at
all.  ARIN continues to create fear and has failed to repudiate reports
from individuals that serve to induce fear. ARIN has accomplished
inducement through action and inaction with the sole purpose of
obtaining, unlawfully, the property and contract rights of legacy IP
Address Registration holders.


Letter to Demand Documents

ARIN has also not yet provided the documents and correspondence relevant
to its formation that establish the agreements and the terms it
understood and undertook.  I am preparing a written letter to demand
this information. If you want to sign the letter, please contact me
offlist.  Both legacies and non-legacies have an interest in these
documents and both may want to sign the letter.


Mutual Interest in Legacy Registry

Through some offlist discussion, it was pointed out that IPv4
registration services will eventually transition to a 'low volume of
changes' mode, suitable for nearly automated operation.  Legacies
already have a 'low volume of changes' mode, and so the ultimate goals
of ARIN and the Legacies in further automating registry operations is
consistent and beneficial.  By the time non-legacies get to a low volume
of change mode, a Legacy Registry will have a great deal of operational
experience on the subject.

So, assuming your intention is not merely to steal Legacy space from
Legacies, and that you just want to rid yourself of the burden (small
though it is) of maintaining legacy registrations, you should have no
objection to establishing a Legacy Registry. You should look forward to
our results and, once again, benefiting from our experience.




There is one thing that has been nagging me just a little. Ted said the
other day that BSD code was imported into the GPL. There are a few
points about that claim:

1). With few, if any exceptions, the GPL unix-replacement programs are
complete rewrites and are not copies of BSD code. The rewrites are often
better than the originals. It was necessary to undertake rewrites
because at the time these efforts began, BSD unix was not freely
available. It was encumbered by the ATT copyright. You needed to
purchase a Unix source license from ATT before you could get the BSD
code.  This was one of the reasons for the formation of the OSF by major
computer vendors.

2). The problem with the free BSD copyright is that it doesn't prevent
anyone from taking it private, or subjecting it to new terms. All that
one has to do is acknowlege Berkeley as the author. Without getting into
a this/that copyright discussion, this is basically the reason that FSF
created the GPL.  The point here is this: It would have been perfectly
legal for FSF to take the BSD code with the appropriate notice, had the
code been free. But this didn't happen because BSD wasn't free at the
time.

3). The reason that you have free BSD copyright programs for *bsd
unix-like operating system is because the OSF funded the completion of
the free BSD 4.4 release. If OSF hadn't funded that, the Berkeley CSRG
would have shut down several years before 4.4 could be completed,
leaving only the tiny BSD net2 release.  BSD 4.3 _still_ requires a
source license, from SCO or Novell or both. [I forget who owns Unix
Source code these days. The Open Group (formerly OSF) owns the Unix
trademark and does the certification.]

4). It so happens, ironically, that I am the contact for the OSF legacy
space.  So, we see now that Ted and others are quite happy to reap the
benefit of millions spent by OSF so they can run *BSD for free, but they
begrudge the legacy registration services. I can tell you that OSF
supported CSRG because it was realized that it was the right thing to
do, and someone had to step up and complete this valuable research
project.

Perhaps if Ted can change the agreements that led to free legacy IP
Address registrations, we can change the agreements that led to free BSD
software. Maybe we can charge Ted and others $100,000 for source
licenses. Wouldn't that be great?  I don't think so. I think we should
stick by the past agreements.


		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000