I'm talking, of course, about SCO/Caldera.  In fact, later in Caldera's history
they did things that made the F/OSS community really like them:  They brought
successful suit against MS for Dr DOS.  (I don't think anyone at the time
realized that was not the same Caldera that had the Linux business.)  They even
purchased Unix and said they were going to try to GPL it.  Later, when Ransom
Love said they couldn't because of the tangle of property rights, no one was
really upset.  It was clear that Caldera, while not being terribly successful,
was beginning to embrace the F/OSS concepts.

Unfortunately, they were not successful.  This means that later when they were
on the ropes, they began to look for a way to make money and started making
accusations against Linux.  Ransom Love wasn't there anymore.  In fact, McBride
is quoted as saying that Love told him not to because the F/OSS crowd would
crucify him.  So, in some ways, the SCO problem came into being because the true
believers were gone and because SCO was desparate for money.

I mention this at the start because I think that some of the distrust of OSRM is
influenced by our experience with SCO.  For some of us, there seem to be
indications that OSRM doesn't quite get it.  After my e-mails with you and
Bruce, I am sure that you two do.  However, with copyright resting with OSRM,
with the servers holding the database and the webserver owned and controlled by
OSRM, with some confusion regarding copyright, with questions about the openess
of the project, you have to understand that given the SCO experience some are
leery.  Because no matter how much you, Bruce or others at OSRM believe in the
goals of this project, OSRM is a private corporation responsible to its
shareholders to produce a return on their investment.  A management change can
occur, and the servers and copyright owned by OSRM can be used against F/OSS
just as easily as it can be used for it by true believers.  Ultimately, I think
that nearly all of the concerns boil down to this:  No matter how sincere all
involved are now, the structure we see being created can quite easily and
quickly be turned into a weapon to use against us and there is not even the
legal protection of anything like the GPL to prevent that happening.

So, with that introduction, I will try to address some of the issues I have seen
raised.  These are in no particular order, and I do not agree with some of them,
but I want to try and make you aware of some of the issues including those
others have raised that I do not agree with.

First is the issue of openess.  Currently the robots.txt file at Grokline is set
thus:

User-Agent: *
Disallow: /private/
Disallow: /login.php
Disallow: /newuser.php
Disallow: /detail_feature.php
Disallow: /detail_product.php
Disallow: /detail_release.php
Disallow: /detail_vendor.php
Disallow: /grokline_old/
Disallow: /usage/

As far as the timeline project goes, all of the data is in the detail_*.php
links.  Grokline is specifically blocking the dissemination of this information
into search engines.  This means that if someone is doing research on issues
that intersect with Grokline's work, they will not be able to hit any links on
Google or other search engines.  I see no reason for this, and it does not seem
open.  Moreover, when it comes to the patent project, there are other concerns
as discussed below.

The patent project is even more closed.  There is no specific block in the
robots.txt file, but you can't even view any of the work product (or user's
comments) without a log-in.  I fully support and understand the desire not to
allow posts by purely anonymous users, but the only reasons I see for not
allowing anonymous browsing or indexing by search engines raises a ton of
red-flags in my mind.

Specifically tied to the patent project, one of those red flags relates to
potential liability.  To get a valid log-in at Grokline, a user must give an
e-mail address that they can receive e-mail at.  This means that any future hit
from that logged in user can be tied to both an IP address and an e-mail
address.  The userid can be gleaned from every apache log entry in the apache
logs.  This means that no viewing of any page on the Patent Project cannot be
done anonymously.  Presumably, many of those comments and articles are going to
discuss specific patents.  So, this means that the logs can be used to prove
prior awareness of a patent.  To the tin-foil hat crowd, the prevention of
Google caches means that Grokline wants to see who is looking at what.  Thus,
because looking at the Patent Project requires a valid e-mail address, the
tin-foil hat crowd can get the impression that Grokline wants to be able to
identify who is looking at what.  I do not believe this is the intention, but I
do believe it is a side effect of the way things are set up--and I fail to see
the reason for setting things up as they are.

Can you explain why you don't want your information available on search engines?
  What is the reason for only allowing logged in users to *view* information?

Looking back at the SCO/Caldera example I opened with, while some had misgivings
about whether Caldera understood things when it started, the fact was that the
GPL prevented them from really going against the community standards.  There was
legal backing in the GPL.  The FSF already had a known history and they owned
much of the copyright on material Caldera was distributing.  As for the kernel
itself, the complete lack of any central copyright owndership made it even more
impossible for Caldera to try anything and even more likely that they'd see a
lawsuit from some unknown element that had copyrights in the kernel they were
distributing.  With the Grokline projects, even that reassurance is lacking.  
There is no check and balance.  No external entity to enforce things if OSRM
does change hands and start acting against the community.  The only reassurance
is a non-binding promise from you and Bruce as representatives of OSRM that they
are doing it the right thing.  Given the history of SCO/Caldera, this is not
reassuring.

Thus, another concern is the copyright issue.  Currently, the copyright rests
with OSRM.  You have explained your reasoning to me in e-mail, and while I
understand it, the reassurances don't address any of the concerns raised above.  
And the changed copyright notice on Grokline is less than a week old, implying
that things are still in flux.  Others have noticed it and are asking questions.
  Beyond the notice at the bottom of Grokline, the primary PUBLIC statements
regarding ownership of the projects have been by PJ on Groklaw and are at odds
with that coyright notice.  That is disconcerting.  I have reassurances from
you, Bruce and (via Groklaw) from PJ that OSRM will not commercially use the
work product.  But legally, there is nothing preventing it or any future owners
from doing so.  Passing this all off to a separate non-profit would be some
reassurance.  What about PubPat or EFF?  Both would seem to share some interest
in the issues involved.

Another issue is the machiavellian capitalist perspective.  This is not an issue
I agree with, but the argument goes something like, "OSRM is making money by
indemnifying against patent attacks.  Daniel Egger himself owns software
patents.  OSRM claims they are fighting against patents in Europe.  Why?  If
Europe gets software patents then Daniel can make more money licensing his
patents.  OSRM can make even more money with a larger pool to sell indemnity to,
so why would OSRM possibly fund an attack on patents with nothing to gain and
something to lose?  Perhaps, what they actually want to know is which of the
patents they own do not have prior art?  Or what are some future directions for
patents?  Or what is the most successful way to attack F/OSS via patents?"

Another issue is the searching.  Currently the search interface, particularly if
you are looking for specific comments on specific patents, is lacking.  Whether
it is improved or not, the fact that Grokline prevents Google caching of
anything combined with the fact that the patent project specifically denies
anonymous browsing means that Grokline and thus OSRM can see all searches.  
Because all searches are tied to e-mail and IP addresses, that means that
Grokline/OSRM has the ability to see who is searching for what at which
companies.  If the patent project becomes a success, it means that you are in
the unique position of seeing what MS's lawyers are looking at, or IBM's or
Oracle's or the SEC's.  By preventing Google caching, you are not allowing
someone to find your work without you knowing about it, and even if the entire
site were public domain, I think it would still be clear that the person owning
the server has the legal ability to mine the data in the web logs.  By setting
the site up the way you have, you are making sure that you are the only entity
that can mine that valuable data, and because of the SCO/Caldera issue I started
with, this too is disturbing.

Another minor issue, which was raised by your comment that I was preaching to
the choir, are your bona fides.  Bruce is a known persona to the community.  PJ
is too through her Groklaw work.  Many of the issues above devolve into trust
issues--because as structured there is no legal or contractual impediment to the
misuse of the information aggregated at Grokline.  I think that more detail
about yourself in your bio could help to increase that trust issue.

Another issue related to the openess is the forkability of the project.  As I
said earlier, the more easily a project is forked, the less likely an attempt is
to be made because everyone has the reassurance that it can be forked if things
get really, really bad.  When I mentioned this in the past, you mentioned
possibly turning Grokline over to a non-profit in the future.  This is not what
I mean by forkability.  I mean the ability for a competitor to take all of your
work and create their own competing copy.  This is another big element of the
strength of F/OSS.  I think that is also what Andy Green is ultimately trying to
get at.

Finally, we come to the issues that are related to experience at GrokLaw.  I
think you are taking the correct tack when you refuse to comment on these
issues.  However, you do need to be aware of them because it influences the
community perception of Grokline.  I can say from my e-mail conversations with
you and Bruce that I see a willingness to discuss policy issues.  I can say from
e-mail conversations with PJ that the same willingness is not there.  Currently,
the Grokline site itself does not show any appearance of welcoming these
discussions.  (It doesn't show any outward appearance of discouraging them, but
neither does Groklaw and such conversations are certainly discouraged there.)  
There is also the perception, an accurate one IMHO, that posters on Groklaw can
suffer for opinions expressed on other sites.  This has a very chilling effect
on participation.  Again, I do not get the impression that such will be the case
on Grokline, and I am not suggesting that you address this issue with me or even
on Grokline itself.  But, I do think that it is a perception that you need to be
aware of as you consider potential community relations issues.

I'm sure that I have left out numerous issues that others have raised, but I
think that I've hit most of the high points, and I've certainly given you more
text to read that you probably would like.  :-)  (When I was in college, I'd use
the tricks of playing with margins, fonts and leading to get my papers under the
maximum page limit instead of stretching short text to meet the minimum.)

I forgot two items in this initial e-mail and sent off a followup

Len,

I had planned to add these two thoughts at the end and I completey forgot.

1)  Be prepared for flames and nasty posts if you do open up comments on these
issues on Grokline.  Have some reasonable people ready to respond, calmly with
facts instead of getting all riled up and responding in kind.

2)  This is the single most important point I'd like to get across:  When
deciding policy and how things are going to be set up at Grokline, set them up
so that if MS offered OSRM $5 billion to buy OSRM out, you could feel confident
that the Grokline project would continue unharmed.  If there are legal and
structural impediments in place to prevent the potential for abuse or derailment
by whomever controls OSRM, then I will feel much more comfortable.