Ken Harrenstien wrote:
> There is a way, but it's not as simple as you might like. You'd have
> to run DUMPER and give it a selected list of directories; you can then
> take the resulting virtual tape file and "mount" it on another system
> for restoration. The pain comes from having to decide which dirs to
> save. There are enough of them that what I suggest is to start with
> full disk images and delete what you don't want to keep -- the
> clone/prune approach. Then, to increase portability and eliminate the
> problem of disk blocks that were part of deleted files but still
> present in the image, I suggest running DUMPER with a full wild-card
> specification (<*>*.*.*) for each structure. The resulting "tape"
> will be clean and the contents can then be restored to different
> structures, or into a Unix filesystem for easier perusal. (01)
Yes, that does sound like it will be quite a bit of work and require
someone who is intimately familiar with the filesystem. It would also
require someone that Doug is comfortable with to carefully prune any
personal data without invading his privacy. (02)
> I don't know about the "public domain" part. Why not use something
> like the GPL to guarantee that any derivatives remain free? This
> could also reassure the license owners that you aren't secretly
> planning to make a bundle of money off something they overlooked. (03)
I am a fan of GPL, and it is my license of choice for my own software
projects. However, I think that public domain is the right choice for
NLS for the following reasons: (04)
* Simplest path for Boeing. No license is needed. They only need issue
an official statement saying that they agree to release NLS/Augment into
the public domain. Alternatively, organizations such as the
CreativeCommons make it easy to do as well.
http://creativecommons.org/license/publicdomain-2?lang=en (05)
* Avoid the Free Software vs. Open Source debates that will inevitably
ensue. There are people on both sides who actively refuse to use
software that is licensed with the "other" kind of license. I'd like to
see people from both camps showing interest in NLS if it were to become
available for the public at large someday. Political and philosophical
differences hurt collaboration, and they have a way of rearing their
ugly head despite one's best intentions. I'd just prefer that the
license debate will not be one of the reasons that stops people from
using NLS and developing new systems based on it. (06)
* Distract the Boeing Legal department from thinking about licenses at
all. Once they start thinking of licenses, they are more likely to
devise a hand-crafted license that gives us some kind of "hobbyist" or
"historical" license that only allows read-only access to the code.
While that is fine from a purely historical point of view, it would be a
complete disaster from a collaborative point of view, if NLS were kept
locked up as a copyrighted system. (07)
* Public domain gives widest possible future for the ideas and code
contained within NLS. I believe that this to be in the spirit of what
Doug would want (we can ask him to find out if he agrees with me :-),
and is also in the spirit of open collaboration. NLS is an important
enough work that it should be "owned" and cared for by society. (08)
That said, those are my own personal views on the licensing issue. We
should definitely continue the discussion on this, with all involved in
the project. We should come to an agreement within the team on which
approach we will go with on this project. However, regardless of what
end up agreeing on, it is ultimately up to Boeing to do the right thing.
All we can do is make a team decision on what should be done, and then
try to lead Boeing to come to the same conclusion. (09)
I believe that Doug doesn't feel that NLS is even close to being
"finished", and part of my goal in this project is help to make NLS
available to society for a) historical, b) educational, and c)
inspirational reasons. Doug's papers over the years have been very
interesting, but some people (i.e. software people) learn best by
reading actual code, playing around with real working systems, modifying
that system with their own code, and iterating the process. If enough
people can understand what has already been done (by using the existing
system), then maybe more people will be able to help Doug get to where
he really would like the system to be. (010)
If we can get that to happen, then IMO this will have been a successful
project. (011)
Jonathan (012)
|